by Jackwolf » Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:48 pm Mr_Bober wrote:If it's cheap, it doesn't, because everyone would do it.
I disagree, as there are plenty of cheap things to be done in the game that most people don't do. Even beyond that, a constructive compromise is making it require active village claims.
But such a suggestion should involve ALL roads, of any length, or none at all. Otherwise who decides what's fair and what's not?
Your 3 tiles road is ok but mine at 4 is not? And so on, if 4 is ok, why not 5 or 6 or 7 or 20. I believe such a thing would not just be unfair, but also a pain to implement.
Also, there is already something similar. Village claims. If you want your "short road" to be safe, claim it with banners.
No, a suggestion does not need to involve all roads. You even said yourself that you hate massive roads, so why should those be as simple to maintain as a smaller road? A small road obviously gets more benefits from any change than larger ones do, especially if they're more frequently traversed.
As much as I enjoy scavenging abandoned places, such a spam of it is bad for the game. It makes ANY action you make useless, because you are surrounded by abandoned places which most likely have better stuff than you had.
And even once they switched decay, up until the last day of the server, I could still find plenty of abandoned places to take stuff from, including RoB, troll parts, dungeon loot, and so on...
There's literally no problem with being able to get better stuff for new players? If anything it makes it easier and faster for them to catch up. Without the foundation of past groups newer groups have a hard time being any sort of relevant to the longer standing groups.
Jackwolf wrote:This world? I missed a nearby claims walls decaying by two days and the entire place was almost devoid of anything, with all but 1/5th of the pavement remaining and a single building. Before you claim someone else got there first, the building was still heavily populated with useful things.
Make up your mind, was it "devoid of anything" or "heavily populated with useful things"?
Also yes, probably someone got there first and only took an inventory worth (or container) of stuff. Could have been someone that didn't NEED that stuff, just had the option to take something while on his way back home.
Read more closely if you're going to nitpick everything. "almost" devoid of everything, except the building. The outside was completely decayed, no pavement whatsoever, all the kilns, carts, crates, all of it was gone. Someone else didn't get there first to take it all either, which is evident by the fact that the building still had things inside. That means in a matter of 2 days a 30x30 area of pavement was gone.
I've seen plenty, and it's actually one of the main ways I could find so many large abandoned villages, because they were connected by roads going over 10 or more map tiles, barely beginning to decay.
Not to talk about the amount of random paved areas that never completely decayed because of how large they were and how slow decay was.
Early last world I would've believed this, but given that you seem to just like to argue you point for the sake of simply doing so i doubt this was the case in the last 4 months of the world.
We clearly have different ideas, and while you like crappy paving and trashed ruins everywhere, I don't. I won't change my mind over it, and neither will you, so it's pointless to go on with this discussion.
Just like you felt like giving your opinion on this by suggesting a change, I did the same by pointing out why I think it shouldn't be done. As always, devs will consider it and make up their own mind about it.
The fact that you preface an opposing opinion with insults and derogatory adjectives shows that you have no desire to be constructive in this suggestion beyond simple refusal. In the end its up to the devs.
