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)

---