Respawn Point: And it is not the same. So have the higher powers implement the respawn point there; 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 power of resurrection but not elsewhere? Oo
Or is it there because of convention? Ofc it is; it would be frustrating digging your occupation stuffs and having to port back there again. And it makes sense; game play first.
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; and gameplay first.
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? Or to mention...Why does Dyron have a respawn point at the Kami tp? How/why?
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. As I highlighted the connecting argument doesn't work as it was highlighted with my WoM and EI example, neither does the "Rangers have no powers of Res. argument which I guess is somewhat Lore related...In almati; the rangers there, clearly must have resurrection powers or something. Or just admit that it was there because of convention. I understand why you wouldn't wanna go down that road; but let's face the facts here.
It seems to me the placements or some of them; are completely arbitrary. If so; then; make arbitrary placements for the rest. Symmetry and consistency should dictate game play fundamentals; or to put it another way: game play mechanics and fundamentals make or break games; lore comes second.
Also to the "deal with it police": This place is meant to have ideas added to better the game, and also I assume, to highlight it's flaws. To make it better for everyone. I fail to see how something that I have very reasonable arguments to argue for/against, should merit such a response, especially since I got to the trouble to actually present my case with arguments that make sense and incorporate various elements while at the same time highlighting inconsistencies.
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 power of resurrection but not elsewhere? Oo
Or is it there because of convention? Ofc it is; it would be frustrating digging your occupation stuffs and having to port back there again. And it makes sense; game play first.
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; and gameplay first.
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? Or to mention...Why does Dyron have a respawn point at the Kami tp? How/why?
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. As I highlighted the connecting argument doesn't work as it was highlighted with my WoM and EI example, neither does the "Rangers have no powers of Res. argument which I guess is somewhat Lore related...In almati; the rangers there, clearly must have resurrection powers or something. Or just admit that it was there because of convention. I understand why you wouldn't wanna go down that road; but let's face the facts here.
It seems to me the placements or some of them; are completely arbitrary. If so; then; make arbitrary placements for the rest. Symmetry and consistency should dictate game play fundamentals; or to put it another way: game play mechanics and fundamentals make or break games; lore comes second.
Also to the "deal with it police": This place is meant to have ideas added to better the game, and also I assume, to highlight it's flaws. To make it better for everyone. I fail to see how something that I have very reasonable arguments to argue for/against, should merit such a response, especially since I got to the trouble to actually present my case with arguments that make sense and incorporate various elements while at the same time highlighting inconsistencies.
---