No, I'm just saying tonnes of iron ingots should stay tonnes of iron ingots and not a peace of paper. I fucking don't care about where and to whom he'll sell it to.
No, I'm just saying tonnes of iron ingots should stay tonnes of iron ingots and not a peace of paper. I fucking don't care about where and to whom he'll sell it to.
Again, it was pointed out to you that Ashes is not a simulation, it is a game.
No, I'm just saying tonnes of iron ingots should stay tonnes of iron ingots and not a peace of paper. I fucking don't care about where and to whom he'll sell it to.
So many post for someone so pointless!!!
Why do you keep on replying on forum posts when a wiki would just be fine for you?
Talking/debating on subjects of aoc is precisely because what is made/planned so far isn't suitting the people creating the post. Then people can talk/debade on what to do and why in order get something that could work, ideas which can be then concidered by the devs. But loop answer what is in wiki has no interest what so ever.
So many post for someone so pointless!!!
Why do you keep on replying on forum posts when a wiki would just be fine for you?
Talking/debating on subjects of aoc is precisely because what is made/planned so far isn't suitting the people creating the post. Then people can talk/debade on what to do and why in order get something that could work, ideas which can be then concidered by the devs. But loop answer what is in wiki has no interest what so ever.
If you want to discuss a better alternative to what Intrepid have planned, you first of all need to articulate that you have fully understood their plans, and then present a reason as to why they may not work.
Your only reasoning in this thread seems to be that you don't like it. Not once have you talked about any issues with what Intrepid have planned in terms of gameplay loops.
Yes, but I think that to prevent abuse on moving half way and selling an easy way they cameup with that system. I'm saying that having a leaving the goods has they are but, maybe, having the caravan's ownership being "lootable" (after a long channel for exemple) or just free for anyone to grabbs the reins after the driver was kicked away from the seat and leave wit the caravan (same way, a long cast/channel in order to grabb the reins/set the hitch ready).
If you want to discuss a better alternative to what Intrepid have planned, you first of all need to articulate that you have fully understood their plans, and then present a reason as to why they may not work.
Your only reasoning in this thread seems to be that you don't like it. Not once have you talked about any issues with what Intrepid have planned in terms of gameplay loops.
Because you "don't like" things you never checked/read about?
Yes, but I think that to prevent abuse on moving half way and selling an easy way they cameup with that system. I'm saying that having a leaving the goods has they are but, maybe, having the caravan's ownership being "lootable" (after a long channel for exemple) or just free for anyone to grabbs the reins after the driver was kicked away from the seat and leave wit the caravan (same way, a long cast/channel in order to grabb the reins/set the hitch ready).
The two options with the long channel sound really unsatisfying. Any activity that ends in a channel is just dull. Intrepids plan for caravans is specifically that a successful attack on a caravan ends in destruction of said caravan - an event much more enjoyable than a channel.
Also, both of the suggestions you gave that end in a channel are open for massive abuse. If I am able to simply take over your caravan, I will do so right at the end of your trip, thus you did all the work and I get all the benefit.
At least with Intrepids plan, if I kill you and destroy your caravan just before you finish your run, I still have to head all the way back to where you started to get the resources I got from your caravan, and then need to move those materials to where I want them (or where I can sell them).
This was an issue that was accounted for even before the one on the wiki, and was so basic and obvious that mention of it never even made it to said wiki.
The channel thing would be done in order to get onto the car seat by anyone else than the driver who would had been trown away from the seat (during the attack or after him running away). A channel can be cut casted so no one would grabb the caravan in one clic and run away, and would be part of the event (mecanics being used stop the caravan or just kicking away the driver).
Taking my caravan isn't an abuse, it's the gameplay that goes with it, that's why the caravan owner can hire NPCs and players in order to protect it. If you wait for my caravan at the end of the trip and are able to drive away the defenders, you would be able to drive away the diffenders from the beginning as well. I see more abuse with destroying a caravan in order to get the certificates and deliver them rather than the whole stock. Would be better to have, if broken, a pile of goods in a broken caravan openned to llot for so many minutes rather than some papers.
The channel thing would be done in order to get onto the car seat by anyone else than the driver who would had been trown away from the seat (during the attack or after him running away). A channel can be cut casted so no one would grabb the caravan in one clic and run away, and would be part of the event (mecanics being used stop the caravan or just kicking away the driver).
Anything to do with a channel is just boring
Taking my caravan isn't an abuse, it's the gameplay that goes with it, that's why the caravan owner can hire NPCs and players in order to protect it. If you wait for my caravan at the end of the trip and are able to drive away the defenders, you would be able to drive away the diffenders from the beginning as well. I see more abuse with destroying a caravan in order to get the certificates and deliver them rather than the whole stock. Would be better to have, if broken, a pile of goods in a broken caravan openned to llot for so many minutes rather than some papers.
I never said the abuse was against you, I said quite specifically that the abuse would be against the system you put forward.
yes, if I am able to destroy your caravan at the end of your trip I could probably do the same at the end. The difference is, with your suggestion I am able to work the system so that I only destroy caravans near my home node, meaning I can take over many caravans with no need to transport anything for more than 45 seconds or so.
With Intrepids plan, if I wait around my node and kill a caravan nearby, I then have to travel back to where that caravan started - potentially many nodes away - and do all that transporting myself.
Any suggestion made where by the possession of goods transfer happens at the site of the caravans destruction simply won't work.
Better than stopping people to do something, better give a better avantage to someone doing something risky and, about the caravan system, better give an commercial exchange between the two nodes where just selling the the goods benefits to the seller. If you stop all caravans coming to your node, then you will slow down the economic boom of your node to your own benefits, which couldn't be much appreciated from your node maire and citizens.
Better than stopping people to do something, better give a better avantage to someone doing something risky and, about the caravan system, better give an commercial exchange between the two nodes where just selling the the goods benefits to the seller. If you stop all caravans coming to your node, then you will slow down the economic boom of your node to your own benefits, which couldn't be much appreciated from your node maire and citizens.
While I feel I have been doing an ok job at following what it is you have been trying to say, this post has me stumped.
I have literally no idea what it is you are talking about here.
Comments
Again, it was pointed out to you that Ashes is not a simulation, it is a game.
true but it was changed to prevent abuse
Why do you keep on replying on forum posts when a wiki would just be fine for you?
Talking/debating on subjects of aoc is precisely because what is made/planned so far isn't suitting the people creating the post. Then people can talk/debade on what to do and why in order get something that could work, ideas which can be then concidered by the devs. But loop answer what is in wiki has no interest what so ever.
If you want to discuss a better alternative to what Intrepid have planned, you first of all need to articulate that you have fully understood their plans, and then present a reason as to why they may not work.
Your only reasoning in this thread seems to be that you don't like it. Not once have you talked about any issues with what Intrepid have planned in terms of gameplay loops.
Yes, but I think that to prevent abuse on moving half way and selling an easy way they cameup with that system. I'm saying that having a leaving the goods has they are but, maybe, having the caravan's ownership being "lootable" (after a long channel for exemple) or just free for anyone to grabbs the reins after the driver was kicked away from the seat and leave wit the caravan (same way, a long cast/channel in order to grabb the reins/set the hitch ready).
Because you "don't like" things you never checked/read about?
The two options with the long channel sound really unsatisfying. Any activity that ends in a channel is just dull. Intrepids plan for caravans is specifically that a successful attack on a caravan ends in destruction of said caravan - an event much more enjoyable than a channel.
Also, both of the suggestions you gave that end in a channel are open for massive abuse. If I am able to simply take over your caravan, I will do so right at the end of your trip, thus you did all the work and I get all the benefit.
At least with Intrepids plan, if I kill you and destroy your caravan just before you finish your run, I still have to head all the way back to where you started to get the resources I got from your caravan, and then need to move those materials to where I want them (or where I can sell them).
This was an issue that was accounted for even before the one on the wiki, and was so basic and obvious that mention of it never even made it to said wiki.
Taking my caravan isn't an abuse, it's the gameplay that goes with it, that's why the caravan owner can hire NPCs and players in order to protect it. If you wait for my caravan at the end of the trip and are able to drive away the defenders, you would be able to drive away the diffenders from the beginning as well. I see more abuse with destroying a caravan in order to get the certificates and deliver them rather than the whole stock. Would be better to have, if broken, a pile of goods in a broken caravan openned to llot for so many minutes rather than some papers.
I never said the abuse was against you, I said quite specifically that the abuse would be against the system you put forward.
yes, if I am able to destroy your caravan at the end of your trip I could probably do the same at the end. The difference is, with your suggestion I am able to work the system so that I only destroy caravans near my home node, meaning I can take over many caravans with no need to transport anything for more than 45 seconds or so.
With Intrepids plan, if I wait around my node and kill a caravan nearby, I then have to travel back to where that caravan started - potentially many nodes away - and do all that transporting myself.
Any suggestion made where by the possession of goods transfer happens at the site of the caravans destruction simply won't work.
While I feel I have been doing an ok job at following what it is you have been trying to say, this post has me stumped.
I have literally no idea what it is you are talking about here.