IDÉES POUR RYZOM

...they are higher powers after all; and the rangers ofc fall beneath them.

Also I didn't read the memo were it was stated that we have to thank the rangers for opening the passage to silan; where is that stated?

And by the same token; why do we have a respawn point in Almati; at the ranger camp? Because it has "an entrance"? It doesn't connect to anything either. And there are rangers there too...Or there the rangers have a magical powers of resurrection but not elsewhere? Oo

b) I wasn't talking about silan; I was talking about Yrk/Pyr/Zora/FH. The respawn points there are put simply for convention. Convention again.

c) Which q250 area has no respawn point? Again: Game play importance first.

And also this argument bears no merit; just because other areas don't have respawn points; that doesn't mean they shouldn't have. By all tokens and criteria: WoM and EI should have respawn points if we abide by the "connecting criterion". (Examples at the top of my head) Yet they do not? So where is the consistency in that?

And it's this crappy "deal with it mentality" just to argue for the sake of arguing in favor of a dogmatism that doesn't allow for changes to occur is the point of all the posts.

If by highlighting the inconsistencies and by employing solid argumentation and counter-examples is not welcomed here; or is only met by "The rangers x" then I do not even want to argue anymore.

Who are the Rangers to dictate game play fundamentals; who are kamis; maros; and karas for that matter?

Game mechanics first; the lore can always be justified with whatever u want it to.

Especially given the inconsistencies I just pointed out in my examples.

So I ask again: Give GoC a respawn point; unless the Dev Team or those responsible provide with an argument that makes sense why it shouldnt have one. (And the connecting argument doesn;t work as It was highlighted with my WoM and EI example). It seems to me the placements or some of them; are completely arbitrary. If so; then; make arbitrary placements there as well.

...This proves that there is no consistency. Also the Dyron example.

Well then; if you want Lore to come first and our game to rot abiding by an arbitrary Lore that you people chop up and try to make it fit to your interests while prohibiting actual change; I have nothing else to say. (The bible has said enough about the Lore and how many interest groups here have chopped the game lore to make it fit their "idealized" scenarios)

Finally; just because you don't see any reason not to; that doesn't actually mean that there is no reason.

The reasons are there plain as day. Some areas have Respawn Points that shouldn't have by any criterion u can imagine, and some others do not. That's a fact. Your personal belief in the matter doesn't have anything to do with the facticity of the situation.

As such I am asking, and super reasonably, to make everything harmonious, or provide an argument, why that's not the case, aside from excuses. And since respawn points are Game-Play related; mechanics related; stick to that.

And since you dared to bring this point to me: "most of ideas around sounds only like "i am lazy" to me. No offense, but it really looks like most of you only look for advantages for no reason."

We are not lazy; on the contrary; me and everyone who started and promoted actual disussions on various issues that bug us; are the contrary of lazy. Game play wise we have dugged the most sups; so much so we have lost the will to hunt them; the best gear; so much so that we promoted ideas to actual use it instead of letting it rot;participated and finished the top of the top-end content. We just want change to occur so we are not bored. And we want justifications and transparency

So respectfully, do me a favor and reserve your "lazy" and "advantages for no reason" discussion someplace else. Let those who actually have not been lazy have the last word on game play issues; and put your lazy talk on the lore thread.

K thanks

If by highlighting the inconsistencies and by employing solid argumentation and counter-examples is not welcomed here; or is only met by "The rangers x" then I do not even want to argue anymore.

Northstar

If by highlighting the inconsistencies and by employing solid argumentation and counter-examples is not welcomed here; or is only met by "The rangers x" then I do not even want to argue anymore.

Inconsistencies you say. Well then let's just take every respawn point one by one. I numbered them and there's exactly 3 cases in which there is a respawn point.




1) Portals to other ecosystems got a respawn point too.
2) Higher Powers put respawn points at the cities in "their" land for their followers, and also for neutrals in capital cities (Desert and Jungle -> Kami respawns at Kami teleports in cities, Forest and Lakes -> Kara respawns at Kara teleports in cities)
3) Higher Powers put respawn points in the capitals of the other lands too, for their followers..
Respawn points missing on the map are the one in Almati and the one Kitin's Lair, both situated at a portal to the other ecosystem (so case 1)


If you want the respawn point at GoC for convenience, fine. I don't really care, it doesn't hurt me to have a respawn point there. But i just don't like "false" arguments.


PS: If we get a respawn point at GoC, we should get one on Silan side of Tunnel too, for "convention".

Oflovak's road where high powers do not provide any help and rangers have to care about ressurection themselves.

(subs down 13% this quarter, people)

especially considering that at The Great Outback you can only use Desert Specilaization to dig the mis mat...So according to what criterion does it have a portal?

There is vortex there to Loria tho, I used it myself =P

still High Powers do not provide ressurection in that area