Suggestion:20130514 Free running out of ruined buildings

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.

20130514 Free running out of ruined buildings

PayneTrain^(NWO/FU) 13:23, 14 May 2013 (BST)

Suggestion type
mechanic change

Suggestion scope
everyone

Suggestion description
so i'm sure most of you have seen how even when a building is ruined the survivors can free run out of it,but not come back in.This seems to be a very crappy mechanic in the game because i can't see how you can't come into a heavily damaged building but can pretty easily free run out....so my suggestion aims to fix this problem in the game by giving the survivor the same chance(or percentage) for failing when free running out of a ruined building as when free running into a ruined building.i'm doing this because i have seen that even when buildings are ruined,people can use it as entry points and thus ruin the point of ruining.

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 Logical mechanic that would improve the game. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:29, 14 May 2013 (BST)
2. Keep - I could be convinced differently, but the way I see it, this is a bigger nerf than you realize, since it's quite a bit different from failing to free ruin to ruins. With free running to ruins, you always land exactly where you expected. The only question is whether or not you take damage in doing so; the AP cost remains the same either way. With your suggestion, free running from ruins would sometimes land you successfully inside the building just fine, while other times landing you outside of the building with damage, which would force you to go back to the ruined building, enter it, and try again. As a result, what should have taken 1AP has now taken 4AP. Put differently, 50% of the time, the survivor would spend 4AP instead of 1AP. 25% of the time, they'd spend 7AP. 12.5% of the time they'd spend 10AP. And so on. Just to travel one block. Actually, I think I've just convinced myself that I like this idea... —Aichon— 14:23, 14 May 2013 (BST)

   ReI have no idea what you just said,but it sounded great. lol. thanks for the keep vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paynetrain (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 May 2013.

   I realize I never really explained why I thought it was a good idea. The reason is pretty simple: every good zombie movie has that moment of tension where a survivor is trying, perhaps in vain, to get away from the zombies that are after them, and that sort of panic-inducing uncertainty coupled with the moments of "phew!" would be a welcome mechanic in a game that largely feels too safe and routine. It's a smart way to make survivors more vulnerable, without nerfing the barricades that are the foundation of their defense. Plus, if more survivors are sleeping in ruined buildings after failing to make it inside, it may make hiding in plain sight a less effective strategy, which I actually think would be for the best, even though I enjoy using it regularly. —Aichon— 17:38, 14 May 2013 (BST)

3. Keep-keep,keep,keepPayneTrain^(NWO/FU) 17:49, 14 May 2013 (BST)
4. Keep - Touche! Ayu Milady ^{NWO member} 17:58, 21 May 2013 (BST)
5. Keep Fuck those breathers.--RadicalWhig 20:08, 22 May 2013 (BST)
6. Keep Seems only fair PB&J 20:29, 22 May 2013 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - For the reasons Aichon said. It doesn't do anything to actually balance the game or really change that much - the effects are pretty minimal. It just makes the game less fun and more repetitive where you have to walk back in to a building and try again because an RNG told you to. Not what the game needs in my opinion. We should be trying to add interesting new content, not making the content that does exist more boring and repetitive.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:25, 14 May 2013 (BST)
2. Kill - While there is some merit to it, it destroys some interesting and unorthodox tactics such as the usage of dark ruins as guaranteed entry points, without providing any new tactical angles. -- Spiderzed█ 18:49, 14 May 2013 (BST)
3. Kill - A ruined building still exists, still has a roof that a person could get to and free run from, even if it has too many holes to land on. Supereviloverlord ^{Talk Contrib NWO} 01:23, 15 May 2013 (BST)
4. Kill - Interesting idea, but way too big a nerf. I don't think movement and reaching safety should be left to the whims of the RNG. Someone could potentially set aside a decent chunk of AP and still fail to enter a safe building. If you're going to get stranded on the street or in a ruined building it should be because of your own carelessness, not because of bad luck. That said, the idea of penalizing survivors for free running from ruined buildings is interesting. This isn't the way to go about it though. --A Big F'ing Dog 08:52, 27 May 2013 (BST)

   re-i think you have failed to understand the concept....Someone who would set aside a chunk of AP to get to safety would obviously look to get inside a building using an entry point rather than "risk it" by using a ruined building just as in the case of free running into a ruined building in a free running lane.You should also understand that this is just adding the same mechanic that already exists with it's partner(free running into buildings)--PayneTrain^(NWO/FU) 08:55, 29 May 2013 (BST)

5. Kill - I think it would actually be easier to free run out of a ruined building than into it. I might accept this if the chances were lower (maybe a fourth or less), since Aichon is right about that feeling of inescapable doom fitting right in the UD setting. -- †  talk ? f.u. 15:29, 27 May 2013 (BST)
6. kill no it's fine as it is.--User:Sexualharrison05:59, 28 May 2013

Spam/Dupe Votes