Suggestion:20130622 Ruined Buildings Not Visible From Inside Other Buildings

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20130622 Ruined Buildings Not Visible From Inside Other Buildings

 Swiers 18:08, 22 June 2013 (BST)

Suggestion type
map display change

Suggestion scope
ruined buildings

Suggestion description
Currently ruined buildings show as being dark on the map, which immediately alerts survivors holed up in neighboring EHB's to come over and administer some headshots. It conveys information about local zombie activity much more effectively than a radio, sparypaint, or talking does, and makes it easy to sweep an area for zombie threats using free-running, without ever going outside, making entry points a non-issue.

My suggestion is that when you are inside a building, you would not be able to see the ruined / intact status of other buildings. You would either need to be outside (on the streets) in the same or an adjacent block, or inside the building (including the same large building, so its possible to detect if one part of a mall is ruined from inside another part of the mall) to see if a building is ruined.

And yes, this would have the effect that free-running would carry the risk that you could un-knowingly free-run into a ruined building. If the tiny amount of damage this might cause as a risk you can't take, you could go outside to the street before moving. To reflect this fact, when inside, neighboring buildings would be given a new styling that was different from both ruined and intact buildings, to visually indicate that the status is unknown.

Also worth noting is that it could still be seen if a neighboring building is powered, which is a good indicator that it is likely intact; this could provide a new purpose to powering buildings that otherwise don't benefit much from having a generator.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. author vote. Been a long time since I made a suggestion... and probably nearly as long since any changes were implemented, but I think this would be a good one, especially given the current low population of the city.  Swiers 18:11, 22 June 2013 (BST)
2. I read the suggestion, and in my head I said, "Yeah, Okay." So here's a keep vote. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:16, 22 June 2013 (BST)

   I think I like the unpredictability. Perhaps ruined buildings would only be "invisible" for some number of hours after ruin, rather than for as long as they are ruined. (I'll add that knowing or not knowing a building is ruined depends on what ruining a building means, and how this relates to freerunning into a building or looking at the building from the outside. Surely after many APs worth of decay it would be noticeable, but how soon?) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:01, 26 June 2013 (BST)

3. Harder is better.. grow a pair --User:Sexualharrison05:16, 27 June 2013

Kill Votes

1. This would likely ruin free running as a person could easily end up at street level unexpectedly and without enough AP to get to an entry point. Might be salvageable if a skill were added under Free Running that warns of attempts to run into ruins. Aside: Claim that it provides incentive to power buildings that shouldn't be powered neglects fact that ruined buildings can have generators. Supereviloverlord ^{Talk Contrib NWO} 08:28, 26 June 2013 (BST)

   Very few ruined buildings have barricades. You can free run out of a ruined building. Hence, you would NEVER "end up at street level unexpectedly and without enough AP to get to an entry point", because a ruined building IS an entry point. Bro, do you even play?  Swiers 03:29, 27 June 2013 (BST)

2. I simply think that it would be fairer, if ruins didn't show up from inside adjacent buildings (at least for a few hours 6 or 12 would probably be sufficent), but if a survivor tries to freerun into a ruined building they would fail to move, and get a message saying "xxxxxx building is ruined, are you sure you want to attempt to jump there?", and get the option to move anyway (risking a fall, which may be necessary from a building surrounded by ruins) -- boxy 12:42, 26 June 2013 (BST)

   That just makes them not visible to people using unpaid accounts. With unlimited scree refreshes, you'd still know where they were, you'd just have to do a lot of annoying clicking (or run some bot to do it for you) to find out. The whole point of this is unpredictabliity / a requirement to leave buildings, not just creating an interface annoyance.  Swiers 03:29, 27 June 2013 (BST)

   Eh? If you're going to constantly check buildings to see if they're ruined, you're soon going to run out of APs, because most of the time they wont be ruined, and you'll automatically jump into the building, using an AP to get there, and another one to get back. I don't see anyone doing that regularly -- boxy 06:23, 27 June 2013 (BST)

   Additional comments moved to talk page.

3. I'm a big fan of increasing survivor risk of getting stranded outside, but I don't think this is the way to do it, since it feels too random and unfair. I'd liken it to zombies having a random chance of getting headshot by an "Army sniper" every time they take a step outdoors. Players should be able to make an informed decision before engaging in dangerous actions, and it makes in-game sense that a free-runner could tell the difference between a ruined and intact building before they jumped to it, so this idea seems to me like it's introducing an invisible danger that will feel arbitrary and frustrating to players. A recent suggestion that added a chance to fail to free run from a ruined building seems like a better way to approach this problem, since then the survivor understands the risk they're taking. —Aichon— 14:38, 26 June 2013 (BST)
4. The only real thing this achieves is upping the annoyance factor for survivors. Terrible idea. --Jerk 17:33, 27 June 2013 (BST)
5. Adds a negligible disadvantage to survivors for the price of a major annoyance. Make the game more fun, not less. -- Spiderzed█ 22:07, 27 June 2013 (BST)
6. kill - I'm going to say no because the suggestion actively decreases fun. While barricades are horrible random movement downside isn't really a good fix for that. I'd rather just see the removal of free running and the capping of barricades at VSB which would serve the purpose of this suggestion more effectively and force more interaction. That and visible ruins have a psychological factor that's actually good for the whole impending doom thing. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:02, 29 June 2013 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes