Vehicle Change: Road Accesibility

Threads moved from the Suggestions forum after rejection

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department, Programming Department, Game Mechanics (RD)

User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:01 am

I'll do what I like with my pert lttle arse
Whoever you vote for.

The government wins.
User avatar
Mykey
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Berne, IN

Postby Mykey » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:50 pm

The Sociologist wrote:
Mykey wrote:I think the best motivation to build roads, would be as this thread suggest, along with a believeable decay system, and "encouraging" warfare a little more couldn`t hurt. I think everytime Prog D wants to slow the game down, we should just De-nerf the combat system a little more, better than amneisha imo.
I don't consider this at all off-topic or beside the point. Mykey is simply pointing out where ProgD and RD resources and thought should be employed. I agree absolutely. Like the word "de-nerf" too. :twisted:

Anyhow, this proposed vehicle change most likely won't happen. The "Powers That Be" will intervene and what we'll get instead is a whole bunch of things to make life slower and more boring for the peasants. After all, we can't let the peasants achieve anything, can we? They might get ideas. Can't have that.


Thank you for the support Sociologist, I couldn`t ask for someone better :wink: And I, completely agree with the intended sarcasm in your post.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Phalynx
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Middle England
Contact:

Postby Phalynx » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:54 am

So was there a conclusion to all this?
R.I.P:
Blake Stone, Jizz Bucket, Patterson Queasley, Billy Sherwood, Chavlet D'Arcy, Johnson.
User avatar
MakeBeliever
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: ENGLAND

Postby MakeBeliever » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:56 am

Yes, i hope someone puts it in an envelope and puts it far away from Cantr.
Are you kidding me on these proposed changes. :twisted: :twisted:
I've got chars building Cars all over, and for them not to be usuable would be very damaging to their trade not the other way. And trust me mine trade like you wouldn't believe :lol:
My god ...do you know how much time taking it is to get a group together just to improve a sand road??????How the hell are they going to get stone roads improved with oil and stone as well when the cars won't be useful. Can't you just leave it as it is.Please please please... The roads are being worked on by people and it's hard work already. I mean can you honestly say you have a Char that could possibly build a Jeep. If your a player you know how hard it is to get Aluminium together.
Now i like changes that help but i can't see how this will help.
It will plunge Cantr back in the dark ages and all those Cantr charries of mine finally seeing Fifty will Die of goddam frustration of all their hard work and effort of that i'm sure.
Travelling takes so long as it is. And most of the Characters who have transport are busy using that to improve things in their own towns and others close, are also snowed under by organising people, resourses, repairs.
To not to be able to use the roads now with certain cars will just take a little more fun out of Cantr. When will they have time for roleplay thats what i want to know.
Errmm perhaps i should have placed this on the RANTING thread maybe.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent and Being happy doesn't mean everything is perfect. It means you have decided to look beyond the imperfections.
User avatar
radrobert
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:17 am

So?

Postby radrobert » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:57 am

Can someone tell me if its going to be implemented or not? Now that we have all been angered over it, will we see this change and suffer or has it been swept under the rug?
User avatar
Agar
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby Agar » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:10 am

We're still talking it over.

We've implemented steps to keep things from being swept under the rug, so more things will be decided, rather than forgotten.
Reality was never my strong point.
User avatar
wichita
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 4427
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:46 pm
Location: Suomessa!

Postby wichita » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:23 pm

I have rejected the step up to the minimum road requirements. We are discussing the ancillary cobblestone road idea that popped up in the thread though.

Discuss amongst yourselves...
"Y-O-U! It's just two extra letters! Come on, people! This is the internet, not a barn!" --Kid President
User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:00 pm

YAY!

Me got an idea go through to RD
Whoever you vote for.



The government wins.

Return to “Rejected Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest