Talk:Suggestions/21st-Feb-2007

Build Safe Passage

Timestamp:	S.Wiers X:00 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Skill (subskill of Construction)
Scope:	Survivors, Buildings, Movement, Helping Newbs
Description:	"Build Safe Passage" would be a survivor skill. It would only be avaialble to those survivors who already have the "construction" skill, and would be priced as a standard Civilian skill, as with Construction. With this skill, survivors could build protected connections (bridges, cable transits, maybe a trailer or bus that you walk on the roof of) between two buildings. The effect of the "Safe Passage" would be to allow any survivor to move between the two buildings as if they had the "Free Running" skill. To build the "Safe Passage", the skill user would select a "build safe passage" action (usable only when OUTSIDE a building) that would have a drop-down menu allowing the connection to be built from the building the survivor was outside to any neighboring building. This would cost 20 AP, although failed attempts (due to lack of materials or invalid targets) would cancel the action, with no AP spent. For "Build Safe Passage" to succeed, the following circumstances must be met: Both buildings must at least have "loose" barricades The user must have a set of wire cutters, a crowbar, and a length of pipe. All three items are used up in the construction, representing materials gathering efforts more than actual items that go into the construction. Obviously, the skill user must be outside one building, and must "target" a neighboring building, but also both buildings must be ones that normally allow free-running; you can't build a safe passage in or out of the forts, for example. Once built, the "Safe Passage" would remain in place (and be described as "a safe passage between X and Y" in the buildings interior and exterior descriptions) as long as both of the connected buildings were barricaded. If the barricades fell at either end, the "safe passage" would be destroyed along with the barricades.

Discussion

First of all, this nerfs Free Running, doesn't it? Why not just buy THAT skill? The only people that whine about that are people who choose scientist as a starting class. I think this idea has a bit of potential...allow zombies to use it. Basically it allows a survivor without Free Running to "use" the skill at the cost of possibly allowing zombies to do the same. Thing is though since Free Running only costs 1 AP (and is still relative cheap), this idea is still quite useless. If Free Running cost, say 2 AP to use, and this only cost 1 after being built (but with the possibility of zombie use), I think it would work (which means it won't since don't nerf mah' Free Runnin'!)--Pesatyel 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But if zombies could use it, you just got yourself a great way to "death cult"! Er...that's not exactly going to go very well. Besides, if any barricades fall on either side, the Safe Passage is destroyed, so, zombies can't use it as it currently is...unless they Parachute, which defeats the whole purpose of the Safe Passage.--ShadowScope 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC) EDIT: How about turn it into a Large Building? That way, you can both coordinate the defense of the building together? Still won't work, since Large Buildings make buildings weaker and basically turn Safe Passages into Unsafe Death Cultist Activities.--ShadowScope 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it nerfs free running. First, the safe passages would not be ubiquitous- any building that looses its baricades would jam up the "passage network" (assuming one got built to begin with) but have no effect on the "freerun network". Most signifigantly, you would NEVER be able to use a safe passage to leave a building zombies broke into, but CAN use free-run in that fashion.

It nerfs Free Running because it gives ANYONE the skill. It might not if the connections were visible from the street, but it doesn't appear that is the case. For example, building A and B are connected and anyone entering either square would see something like "you see a makeshift bridge connecting this building to building A (or B)." And, obviously, the passage would have to be destroyed some other way if zombies are to use it.--Pesatyel 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The connections would be visible from the street, yes. Once built, the "Safe Passage" would remain in place (and be described as "a safe passage between X and Y" in the buildings interior and exterior descriptions). And I think that free-run would still be hugely more RELIABLE, and hence not nerfed. --S.Wiers ^X:00 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

CNR. Guess I missed that part the first time. And giving ANYONE a "free" version of a skill (one they don't have to pay for), regardless of "reliability" is a nerf. As a newbie, I have to make the "tough" choices as to what skills to take when, this makes that choice easier. And don't you think these would be popping up EVERYWHERE?--Pesatyel 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They would pop up a lot, but also fall down easily. Sure, there would be tons of them in green / yellow suburbs, but who cares? You can safely go outside in those places! Half the map is currently orange; orange (according to the legend) means "zombies inside many resource buildings, or hostile mobs of 50+." If zombies have attacked (let alone are inside) many buildings, you are not going to be able to use "secured passages" to get around much, and if you try it, you'll never know if you'll be able to get back the way you came. And those are exactly the neighborhoods where you do NOT want to go outside. --S.Wiers ^X:00 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think allowing zombie use would be a really bad idea. Given the mechanics I suggested, the only way zombie use would happen is 1) Zombies enter "building A" 2) Deathcultists barricade "building A" 3) Deathcultists build "safe passage" from :building A" to "Building B" 4)Zombies in "Building A" use safe passage to move to "Building B" and kill those inside. That's stupid, I'm not gonna write a suggestion that allow it.

Well, I wasn't thinking of the mechanics you used (as far as zombies). I was thinking more along the lines that the bridge itself would be destroyable similar to generators or something (rather than by destroying the barricade.).--Pesatyel 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a pretty good alternate mechanic for destruction. Still, if zombies can use them, you'd get death cultists building them, people destroying them for safety, people wanting to see who is building them... to complex for something that will already be hard to code, and is basically just intended as a newb-boost. --S.Wiers ^X:00 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea of increasing all free-running to 2 AP, and having this skill decrease it to 1, is not bad, but would never pass- that certainly WOULD nerf free-run. But I could see changing this suggestion so that using a safe passage (without the free run skill) costs 2 AP. That seems reasonable, though it would make the safe passages pretty unpopular for anything but very, very short moves. Which isn't bad- clusters of buildings connected by safe passages would become forts for newbies, and there wouldn't be city wide networks of safe passages, which seems more realistic. I think I will edit the suggestion to include that.

--S.Wiers ^X:00 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe Free Running is overpowered anyway, but that's another issue. Something I was thinking, would 1 building be "connectable" to ALL the buildings around them?--Pesatyel 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should be able to build passages to any and all buildings that can be free-runned to. Though I didn't make clear whether the connection worked both ways; a one-way connection might be possible, as in a Zip Line or a bridge that has a drop jump that can only be made in one direction (at least by non-free-runners). Either way is OK- the target building will always be barricaded, so its not gonna be a deathtrap. Well, not a bad one. Two way connections may be easier to code / result in less record keeping, I dunno. --S.Wiers ^X:00 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That might make it interesting if it was BOTH. Some buildings are two way, some are only one. I was thinking, more specifically, that TALL buildings could be one way (that zip line idea you mentioned) as an example.--Pesatyel 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This idea has a lot of potential but will never get past the "don't nerf my free-running" mob. I personally would love to see free-runnings power nerfed but... --Honestmistake 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I still can't see how allowing others to do something similar under specific circumstances nerfs Free Run. Is "Radio Operation" nerfed because there are public channels (28-29MgHz)? Is "Advanced Shotgun Training" nerfed because you can use a shotgun without it? Hell, most people would LOVE IT if Memories of Life was nerfed by just plain removing doors from the game... --S.Wiers ^X:00 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

surely you mean most (all?) zombies and some survivors;-)--Honestmistake 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I mean almost all zombies would like that- BUT, they are the ones who have the skill that would be nerfed by door removal. So why would survivors complain about this survivor skill Freerun being "nerfed" in a similar (but much much much) less drastic manner? All survivors would benefit from this, not just those without free run, because survivors depend (like it or not) on other survivors. Yes, I know- logic doesn't apply, this is democratic voting we are talking about... --S.Wiers ^X:00 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the idea of reversal. I can use a radio or fire a shotgun with the hopes of getting enough XP to acquire the better shotgun skill or radio operation. But with this idea, it would be like I spent the XP to buy radio operation of advanced shotgun when I didn't need to because now anyone can "do it". As for the "don't nerf my free-running" as we both mentioned, as long as you have a "good" suggestion (in Kevan's eyes) it doesn't really matter if WE like it. Take a look at Ankle Grab and radios in the first place, among other Peer Rejected ideas that are now in the game.--Pesatyel 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---