Suggestion:20090324 Change to Free Running

	Removed
	This suggestion has been removed from voting Decided to withdraw in favor of a different, but related suggestion.

20090324 Change to Free Running

ScaredPlayer 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion type Game Mechanics Change

Suggestion scope Players with Free Running

Suggestion description

We all know that the skill Free Running allows survivors to run freely between the insides of buildings without having to touch the street. This skill allows people to bypass barricades, thus making surviving in Malton much easier. However, I recently discovered what seems to be problem for people with free running that can occur when moving from the interior of a building to an adjacent, ruined building.

A player with free running who wishes to move to an adjacent building simply clicks on that building, and they are instantly moved to the inside of that building (providing it is not ruined), regardless of the barricade level of the building you came from or the one you are now in. A player without free running cannot do this, as barricades above VSB prevent entry to that building; clicking it will simply move you to the street outside the building.

With the recent change to free running however, a problem presents itself for people trying to move into ruined buildings. We all know that it is impossible to free-run into a ruined building. If you have free running and you click on a ruined building, you will be moved to the street outside that building and at the same time have a chance to fall and injure yourself (presumably while trying to jump from the building into the ruined building). From there, you can enter the building as normal. However, if you do not want to take the risk of falling and injuring yourself, you must first a) exit your current building, b) click the adjacent square, and then c) enter the building. This costs 3 AP. As I have just explained, a player with free running has two choices when entering a ruined building: either they spend 3 AP to do so with no risk of injury, or they spend 2 AP, with no chance of injury.

Now let us take a look at a survivor without free running. If this player is inside a building and they wish to enter a ruined building, they simply a) click on the building (exiting their current building and moving to the adjacent square in 1 AP), and b) enter the building. Thus it takes 2 AP for a survivor without free running to safely move from a building to a ruined one.

Once I really wrapped my head around this I sort of was like "whhaaaa????" How is it that a person with free running - that is, the ability to move from building to building with ease and speed, bypassing all impediments - must spend more AP to safely move into a ruined building than someone without free running?

People have stated that the change to free running - that is, that you cannot ruin into a ruined building - was meant to balance the game and balance free running in itself (it being a somewhat "overpowered" skill). I totally agree with this decision. However, I do not believe that a player with free running should have to spend more AP than a player without free running to enter a ruined building!

Thus, I must present to you my suggestion. I believe that in order to fix this sort of ironic situation, the chance of falling and injuring onself when clicking a ruined building be removed. Would this unbalance the game? No, I believe not. In fact, this would simply allow players with free running to enter ruined buildings in the exact same way players without free running do - that is, clicking the building (thus moving outside of it), and then entering it - this costs just 2 AP.

My reasoning behind this is because as I and some others can see it, purchasing free running alters the game in that from that point on, your character will try to free run from all buildings, even if that is impossible. What I mean by this is that obviously, your character will "try" to jump from a building into a ruined building, even when that is impossible. In reality, would someone willingly put themselves in that sort of danger, even when they know that what they are trying to do is impossible? The answer, I believe, is no. Either people be given the choice to "turn" free running "on" or "off", thereby removing the unecessary risk that free-runners currently undertake when clicking a ruined building, or remove the chance of injury.

Some have argued that moving cautiously should come at a price - that is, at the cost of consuming more AP. I would agree with this if it weren't for the fact that a player without running has that risk removed, without having to spend the extra AP that a player with free running would have to spend to remove that same risk.

A last thing I should mention is that if a player in an EHB building has free running, the only way they can move to a ruined building is by taking the chance of injury - they cannot choose to 1) exit the building, 2) move one block and 3) enter the ruined building (as you cannot exit a building that is EHB). They must click on the ruined building directly, thus taking the chance of injuring themselves. If you do not have free running however, you can move into that building without the risk that a free runner must take.

Therefore I would suggest that the possibility of injuring oneself be removed, as it is both unrealistic (would you jump from a building into a ruined one, knowing that you may injure yourself?) and unfair to players with free running. To summarize for all those who may not have read the above, lengthy, portion, my point is this: That a player with free running must either take a risk of injury or spend an additional AP to enter a ruined building, while a player without free running suffers neither the risk nor the additonal AP loss.

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. Keep - I wouldn't have written it if I didn't approve of it. --ScaredPlayer 01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Keep - "Either people be given the choice to "turn" free running "on" or "off", thereby removing the unecessary risk that free-runners currently undertake when clicking a ruined building, or remove the chance of injury." I'm voting for the first one... That and to counter at least one spam vote because some people don't understand what a spam vote is. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill It's simple. Make them fall when they free run OUT of the ruined building. --Vissarion Belinski 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kill As per my reasoning in DevSug. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   Re Thank you for not reading or responding to my response to your reasoning in DevSug, and voting kill anyways. --ScaredPlayer 01:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   I am entitled to disagree with you. I think moving carefully should cost more. Whether or not non-Free Runners don't have the risk is irrelevant - they can't free run anyway. They don't get FR's benefits. And again, toggling FR would be a suggestion I would consider instead of this one. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   Point taken. --ScaredPlayer 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Kill - While the ruined building thing is annoying and slightly contradictory, the AP savings over the life of the character by having Free Running more than makes up for the 3AP expenditure every now and then. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Kill - While there is a problem, it's not nearly as dramatic as you make it out to be, and this is not the solution. Also, you used 1000 words to say "no damage from free running into a ruin". You'd make a fine politician. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Kill All of this to save the occasional 5HP? Free Running saves the survivor plenty of AP in other circumstances so I fail to see why this is required. --Roorgh 16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Kill - Not that big of a hassle. --ZsL 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Kill - Suck it up, survivors. This is the apocalypse. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   Re This isn't a buff to survivors in any way, simply an equalization between people with free running and those without. --ScaredPlayer 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Kill - Nah. Free running should not be a free lunch. -- Cheese 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Kill/Change - I agree it's silly that we are essentially forced to run into a ruined building. However a better route would be giving survivors a choice between free running to the outside or inside of an adjacent building. That seems to make more sense. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

   Re Thanks for explanation, I really appreciate it =) --ScaredPlayer 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

10. Kill - I've read your entire suggestion, and it makes perfect sense, but my justification is as Extropymine above: the occasional 5hp damage or 3AP over 2AP expenditure is not too much of a factor against survivors with free running, though it appears to be. Also, I disagree with the logic that survivors would not willingly take a route that they know they have a chance of getting hurt in, because when zombies and/or pkers are on the prowl and you're heavily outnumbered/outgunned, a fleshwound is a small price to pay for keeping your head. --Private Mark 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Kill - I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the 5 HP loss from injuring yourself is enough of a detriment to condone getting rid of it altogether, and I think turning the Free Running skill on and off is simply too much of a hassle to make it worth implementing. Fujiko Mine 01:59, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam So, after all that long winded talk, it boils down to your suggestion being get rid of the chance of falling. There are still a lot of factors that needed to be discussed on the discussion page, but since you gave it barely a day there, it wasn't finished. You seem to ignore the fact that Free Running IS overpowered when not using ruined buildings. Sure, the non-runner only has to spend 2 AP to get into a ruined building, but they also have to spend to AP to get into ANY building (from another building) where as the runner doesn't (and lets not forget the barricades cost to get down to VS to get in also). It could also be considered an incentive to FIX the ruin.--Pesatyel 02:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   Re Why are you putting this in spam vote? I understand what you're saying - that free-running already gives players a big advantage over players who don't have free running. But my suggestion isn't so much about that, but the actual mechanics that happens when you purchase this skill. When you purchase free running, you are in effect, forcing your player to try to free run from building to building from that point on - even when it's impossible. Your character is forced into trying to jump from a building into a ruined building, when you know it's not possible. To me that's a bit strange, right? And again, why are you putting your vote in spam, is my suggestion really that ludicrous or ridiculous even for consideration? And, you seem to totally misunderstand my point - I'm not trying to UNDO what the previous change did. If people could free-run into ruined buildings it would in fact be really overpowered, but I'm not saying that you should be able to do that - you shouldn't. Sorry for that misunderstanding.--ScaredPlayer 02:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   Your suggestion is this: get rid of hte chance of falling. I think that's spam worthy when there are better ways to fix free running. I'm also voting spam because their was STILL discussion going on on the discussion page but you barely gave this a day, if that, on the discussion page before posting it for voting. And one last thing, don't respond to every negative vote. That is considered vandalism.--Pesatyel 04:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

   You don't think getting rid of fall damage is the right way to fix the problems with free running. That's your opinion, and as such you should have voted kill, not spam. Additionally, why are you using the fact that my suggestion was in DevSug as a reason for spam? There are hordes of other suggestions that never even go to DevSug, and I'm sure you don't use that as a reason to spam them. Also, I'm clearing not responding to every negative vote - I've responded to 4 out of more than ten negative votes. And the only reason I Re-ed your vote is because you clearly misunderstand my suggestion. You think I'm trying to buff an already-overpowered skill, which I'm not. --ScaredPlayer 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Spam - Shit idea. --Papa Moloch 03:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   LOL "You are inside a factory. The floor is flecked with dried blood. The building has been heavily barricaded. Also here is Moloch Sucks Balls." LMAO --ScaredPlayer 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Note: Trolling struck -- Cheese 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Spam - I have a few issues with this suggestion. First, the 'freerun on ruin' nerf is not "recent". Also, you can't actually get killed from injuring yourself, fall-related injuries can't take that last AP off your HP count, so its not like the injury is totally lethal even in the extreme circumstances. Also, you're destroying the prioritisation that survivors need to make between whether to lose AP, or to risk losing HP due to injury. Under your suggestion, there would never be such a choice or ultimatum for survivors, which I personally like. Also, your copying of Blake Firedancer's quote confuses me. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

   Re As an experienced UD player and a potential sysop, I would have expected someone like you to understand the meaning of a spam vote - That is, something utterly ridiculous that would clog up the system. You clearly do not like my suggestion, which is fine. However, as my suggestion "is not not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM". Additionally, I do not understand your point concerning fall injuries removing AP. I said nothing to that effect in my suggestion, so your bringing up of that point confuses me. --ScaredPlayer 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Spam - Reasoning is the suggestion itself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Spam - KISS. Nuff sed. 3R 22:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---