Suggestion:20090324 Change to Free Running

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)

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)

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)

2. Spam - Shit idea. --Papa Moloch 03:52, 26 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)
4. Spam - Reasoning is the suggestion itself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Voting Rules

Current Suggestions Advice to Suggesters Adding options to your suggestion is not good practice. Others will not vote on the options, only the main body; please don't ask them to do so. Once you have posted your suggestion, it is considered complete. Altering the suggestion mechanics after voting has begun nullifies existing votes, and is considered an abuse of the suggestions system. Doing so will result in your suggestion being removed from the voting system to removed suggestions, where you can work out the details and resubmit later if you desire. It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed. "Notes" added for clarification purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted. When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes. Advice to Voters You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated. Before voting please read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested Ideas Page to read about concepts that have been generally considered unworkable in the past. You do not need to follow the guidelines on these pages but they are worth consideration before casting a vote. One vote per user. No exceptions. You cannot use multiple wiki accounts to vote on a suggestion. To Vote, use the [edit] button at the top of the voting section, then enter your vote in the the proper format to the end of the relevant section (keep/kill/spam). It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion. Votes must include a signature in order to be considered valid votes. To sign a vote, use --~~~~. Please remember to sign your votes! Unsigned votes will be deleted after 30 minutes or when found. Each Suggestion will be open to voting for two (2) weeks, measured from the suggestion's Timestamp, unless it is a Dupe or Spam. If, at the end of that time, there are two thirds (2/3) more Keep votes than Kill votes, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Otherwise, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.

Rules for Discussions Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss the suggestion or vote here, please use this page's Talk page (Suggestion talk:20090324 Change to Free Running). Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. Developing Suggestions can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

Valid Votes Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit. Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page. Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions. Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks. Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied. Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion. Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described on the cycling suggestions page. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied. Humourous, for suggestions that are obviously intended to be satirical, or of comedic value only.}} Suggestions can be removed with Humourous votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.

Invalid Votes Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide. X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others. Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.

Comments Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting. Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

All Caps Try to avoid YELLING, writing in bold, or using italics, except when emphasizing a point which has escaped other voters.

VOTING EXAMPLES Keep Votes Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT) Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT) Keep - Good sugestion. no signature --FakeSuggester 07:39, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT) Kill Votes Kill - This is a terrible idea, but you can totally fix it up. --NegativeGal 06:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Re - Please be more specific about how to fix it on the discussion page. --MrSuggester 14:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Re - Sure, I have detailed my proposed fixes here. --NegativeGal 23:38, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Kill - You will eat my poopie and love it! --PooEater 11:12, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT) Note - Inane vote removed. Defend in discussion. --DaModerator 11:13, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT) Spam/Dupe Votes Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Dupe - Duplicate Suggestion --AnotherSuggester 05:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)