Talk:Suggestions/7th-Feb-2007

Free Running tweak

Timestamp:	Honestmistake 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Balance change.
Scope:	Surivors.
Description:	Basicaly i want to know what people would think of the following modification to freerunning. Freerunning between buildins upto VS as normal, 2AP for those above this to represent accesss dificulty, If you only have 1 AP you get the message "someone has baricaded the building and you were unable to find a safe passage!" A small and simple change that should encourage people to go outside occasionaly. Optionaly if a building is EHB then it could cost more AP or even be impossible to get in and out! This i think will not be popular though.

Discussion

I put it in formatting. As for my comments:

No. As I've said elsewhere, where are the barricades? The bottom and second floor windows and doors. Where do you free-run? The roof. How do pieces of furniture on the bottom affect the roof? I rest my case. -Mark 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1st, thanks for fixing it. Now; I personally see free-running as a combination of roof-top exploits, sewer crawling, fire escape shinannigans and good old fashioned running like buggery and diving through windows! Basically the skill allows you to take a more direct route than mucking about with doors, barricades and looking at more than is absolutely necissary ! Now its all very well assuming we fly from roof to roof but lets face it streets are too wide and even a 10' alleyways a fair leap if carrying anything at all! trapdoors will get barricaded and any door leading to a fire escape will too, Infact given that UD's zeds are not shambling and slow (at least for long!) i think i would cade everything just to be sure! This then is just a very minor tone down of a vastly overpowered skill and completely in genre!--Honestmistake 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats not even an internally consistant justification for your case. The game clearly has roofs of different height (hence you can only suicide jump / use binocs in "tall buildings") but does not limit free-running between buildings of different height.

From a pure game balance perspective, this suggestion makes sense, and would probably bad a good thing. With any rules change, people can as easily make up other justifications that fit the new rules as the old rules. --Swiers ^X:00 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... This requires more explanation of how free running works; ideas range from a network of ropes and bridges to jumping. It might be a good idea, and make sense, but it would increase the amount of AP expended while moving - and forcing people out onto the streets is not a valid reason; in some areas, there is no way to get back inside once you go to the streets. Provide a skill that negates the penalty, or an item that does (grappling hooks?), and you'll have my vote when this gets to voting. --Saluton 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this; posession of a crowbar for prying, a rope (new item) for climbing and not wearing a flak jacket or being under half full on inventory automatically negate the penalty?--Honestmistake 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All of those to negate the penalty? I would say that, while making the game more realistic, it makes the game a lot less fun. The entire point of free running is to allow survivors to safely move between buildings without penalties. And how would a Flak jacket make it harder? Nerfing Flak Jackets for survivors is not the way to go. As I said, a grappling hook (and possibly a skill) would prevent it from applying a penalty to something that has been part of the game for a while, and is clearly intended to work the way it does, since it hasn't been changed. --Saluton 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the inherent problem with Free Running. There are NO penalties. There are survivor players that have NEVER seen a zombie! And there are survivor groups that spend more time PKing each other than dealing with zombies. Why? Because, with Free Running, they don't have to. Now, the inventory and flak limitations are bad, but the reasoning behind them isn't.--Pesatyel

sorry I meant to add that a new civillian skill "catburglar" could automatically negate the penalty too! As for why the flak jacket; they are very bulky and make fast movement difficult and yes i know that generators are not exactly small but thats why i included the option of travelling light!--Honestmistake 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Players who've never seen zombies? Well, show me a survivors who has never seen a zombie, and I'll show you someone who doesn't log on often, has just created an account, or spends all their time in a relatively safe suburb, simply because that's where they were put when they joined. As for a skill to negate it ... that's a perfect addition, and removes all of my problems with this, because players who have played for a while should be used to free running (practice makes perfect).

On the claimed absence of penalties with free running: Right. There are not penalties for free running. That's because there are penalties for not free running. Play a survivor in a survivor-controlled area, and you will see that it is impossible to play the game without free running. Going outside often means that you can't get back in. If you don't like free running, suggest that barricades be capped at VS+2, and that free running be removed, since there's no reason for it without barricades that prevent survivors from entering buildings. --Saluton 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no point suggesting capping 'cades because that is spam! Limiting free running is not the same thing and lets face it these are pretty forgiving limits!--Honestmistake 01:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of sarcasm, or jokes? Right. That's what my suggestion to cap barricades was. So, are you going to respond to what I've said, or just comment on the fact that my joke would be considered spam if ever submitted? If you had paid attention to more than the last paragraph, you would have noticed that, with the addition of a skill to negate the penalties, I agree with the idea. --Saluton 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as you can see from the timestamp it was late (i was drunk) and given that i am sure someone once seriously suggested just that very thing (capping cades at VSB) I think i just jumped to the wrong conclusion!--Honestmistake 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this suggestion. It is simple enough.--Pesatyel 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Collapse Barricades

Timestamp:	-- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Balance change
Scope:	Anyone attacking barricades.
Description:	If a building is unoccupied by survivors, there is a 65% chance that any successful attack upon the barricades, once they reach VS, will make the whole pile collapse, leaving only the doors secured (if that building has them). This in no way weaken barricades that people are hiding behind, only those that are abandoned.

Discussion

Makes zombie territory harder to reclaim. The percentage chance, of course, can be changed to suit the vulnerability you want to set -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, sounds alright. Actually makes a lot of sense really. After all, barricades are only a temporary measure, and do not have longevity in mind. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this, I think, works a little better (it doubles the hit chance against unoccupied buildings). 15% doesn't sound like much, but it is potentially overpowering. Your talking ten hits going out in one swing. Also, a lot of people will argue this is "x-ray vision". If the barricade is at VS and instantly goes down...no need to go in, right? It is empty.--Pesatyel 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the % can be upped, and yeah, I was thinking of 15% chance to collapse the barricades with any hit... so it should probably be up to like 65% chance of a collapse on a successful hit (determined by the chances you already have to knock a single level down), I've changed that.

As to your dupe, it's a bit out of date isn't it? Was that before ransacking? And what do they mean by "chance to collapse the barricades for everybody doubles"? You don't have any chance of a collapse, except of a single level. X-ray vision... well that can be applied to heaps of stuff already implemented and in peer reviewed... and what are you going to save, like 1ap, by not having to go inside to look? Not a major problem, surely? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 05:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

UPPED?!? Hell, 15% is too high! It wasn't a "dupe". I just thought it was better (less overpowered) and Ransack is irrelevant. Did you read THAT suggestion? That's where the "chance to collapse is doubled" came from. (Oh and what other stuff in Peer Review can we apply X-ray vision to? Not an attack, just curious). And you save a minimum of ELEVEN AP with this, not 1. If this is at VS and I knock it down from there, I save 11 AP (probably quite a bit more) not having to batter the barricade down to nothing and walk inside to find out the building is empty. You also forgot the "multiply it by a billion" rule. With your "change" why bother stopping at VS? Sheesh. I guarantee this is way overpowered.--Pesatyel 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of points there Pesatyel, I'll try to cover them. Here's a peer reviewed X-ray vision suggestion, being able to see exactly how many people inside each corner of a mall? Come on, can you see through internal walls? And in-game, do you think you could see every zombie and survivor in the next block outside? Both are more X-ray vision than this. At least here you've got to expend some AP to find out if the place is empty, and you don't know until you've already opened the place up. The 1 AP was referring to just opening the door once the cades suddenly collapse, btw. Yes, you would save heaps of AP by having it collapse early, that's the point. If there's no one in there to maintain them, then they fall easily. Zombies should be able to do this in areas where there's no one to defend the barricades -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what X-Ray vision is. Simply put, it is seeeing THROUGH barricades. Your linked suggestion does NOT count as there are NO internal barricades. You also did't cover any of my other points.--Pesatyel 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't see through the barricades in this suggestion, until you expend the AP, and they fall down... exactly like you can't see through them now, until you knock the barricades down. It just takes less AP to knock them down on an empty building, but you'll never know it's empty, 'til you've actually done it -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And that counters my argument...how? You were comparing THIS idea to this when they are clearly NOT the same. Also, X-Ray suggestions don't always HAVE to require AP to use them. I've seen some that do, like this one, and some that do not. I just don't see how you can't see this is overpowered (ignoring completely the X-Ray factor). You STILL haven't countered any of my arguments (though the link was a nice...attempt).--Pesatyel 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to where this x-ray law is written down. Buggered if I know how this suggestion qualifies for any logical interpretation of x-ray vision -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As of 2nd February 2007, attacking barricades and successfully reducing them by one level grants 1xp. So I do not think that the percentages for this suggestion should be so high, perhaps not even necessary with this latest update. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Who does this suggestion hurt the most? New players in VS+2 entry point buildings. --Funt Solo 09:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Oops - CNR. Unoccupied. Right. D'oh. --Funt Solo 09:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. There is NO "X-ray rule". The definition of X-Ray is allowing a player to see through/past a barricade with little or no AP spent. Simply put, if you can't get through the barricade under normal means, you don't get to know what is inside.

That is what this suggestion does. It allows a zombie to know, for 1 AP, there are NO survivors inside. "Normal Means" would require the zombie to spend at least 10 AP bashing down the barricades and then another AP to go inside. And since you ignored the rest of what I said, I'll just cut and paste it: I just don't see how you can't see this is overpowered (ignoring completely the X-Ray factor). You STILL haven't countered any of my arguments (though the link was a nice...attempt).--Pesatyel 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)--Pesatyel 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just stop it already with the X-ray bullshite, it lets zombies destroy the barricades for fewer AP (unlikely to be 1AP, but it's possible I guess), not see through them. I'll accept that it could be view it as overpowered though. But zombies need some help out there, they're getting pounded. Something needs to be done to limit barricade strafing -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 03:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying but YOU keep bringing it up! This is the third time! Making it easier for zombies? What about making it harder for survivors? Besides, that's why I linked you to the barricade suggestions in Peer Review.--Pesatyel 07:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

X-rays in PR - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I kinda figured there WAS something. But regardless, this idea is still overpowered.--Pesatyel 09:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should zombies get a free ride? Barricade strafing is a legitimate tactic. It allows people to hide. That's the advantage of not sleeping in a resource building. I mean, if zombies can knock down barricades in one hit when survivors aren't there should survivors be able to fully barricade a building with 1AP if there are no zombies outside? --Jon Pyre 08:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not one hit at all. First you've got to get a successful hit on the barricaded (what's that? 1 in 4 chance?), then you've only got a < 1 in 3 chance of knocking the 'cade pile down. I'm no maths genius, but I figure, on average, it'll take, like 12 AP... and that's only if the building starts at VS... this doesn't even apply above that -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As to it being a legitimate tactic, yes, I know that (I wrote the barricade strafing article a while ago, saying just that. This does not nerf strafing, or decoy barricades, it just evens up the AP spent putting up, and knocking down barricades, unless the survivors actually protect those 'cades -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And sleeping next door and checking up on the barricades in the decoy doesn't count as defending them? Why should a survivor have to sleep (possibly by themselves) in what's essentially a deathtrap to keep their barricades effective? Also if a player rebuilds barricades to protect say a newbie in a breached building before moving on and then that newbie leaves the barricades somehow become weaker now that a single player without construction isn't there? I don't like the idea of spent AP becoming less effective after the fact because of the actions of other players. --Jon Pyre 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, what about zerging?--Pesatyel 06:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should a survivor have to sleep in a deathtrap? No reason at all... unless they want to defend it... want to put themselves on the line. But you voted kill, Jon, and that's fair enough, I just totally disagree, alright, abandoned barricades should be weakened -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---