Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Remove bridges in water hazard
Arturo Sanchez:
--- Quote from: ShadedExalt on January 01, 2015, 08:05:15 pm ---Practicality? How is an invincible bridge NOT practical?
--- End quote ---
lore wise sure. invincible ROPE bridges are god like marvels.
But in terms of gameplay... do I gotta repeat the reasons?
DJ Logicalia:
I'm not sure why we're complaining about realism as far those bridges go. You do remember that the most prevalent game mechanic involves fixing parts by whacking them with various tools, right?
Arturo Sanchez:
I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.
Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.
1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.
2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.
DJ Logicalia:
--- Quote from: Ceresbane on January 01, 2015, 08:46:05 pm ---I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.
Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.
1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.
2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.
--- End quote ---
1: I disagree. They're totally as effective cover as anything else. You can say "There's different cover" about anything on any map. I don't really think the mountains are totally superior either.
2: I'm holding to the idea that there is no way those tiny bridges are delaying your loadtime by that much. There's plenty of maps with more assets in them.
I wish we could get a programming dev in on this
Arturo Sanchez:
--- Quote from: DJ Logicalia on January 01, 2015, 08:54:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: Ceresbane on January 01, 2015, 08:46:05 pm ---I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.
Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.
1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.
2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.
--- End quote ---
1: I disagree. They're totally as effective cover as anything else. You can say "There's different cover" about anything on any map. I don't really think the mountains are totally superior either.
2: I'm holding to the idea that there is no way those tiny bridges are delaying your loadtime by that much. There's plenty of maps with more assets in them.
I wish we could get a programming dev in on this
--- End quote ---
Yeah queso should clear this up nicely.
On point 1 though, I wouldn't make it if alternatives were so close by. If it were an a series of isolated assets I would agree on your point. But frankly, a quick kero and you've jumped behind the next dike. I really don't see you thinking to yourself that you are much safer hiding behind the bridges than the solid mountain nearby.
I completely see you flying straight for that mountain as quick as possible.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version