Originally Posted by I SandRock
You're losing the focus on the overall discussion and are only giving arguments to my individual replies which basically means we're now talking about semantics while the point is gameplay.
|
I said that as far as gameplay is concerned, there would be a seamless world. The difference would be purely technical.
|
I don't care if continents are connected by molten lava, water or melted cheese, it's the implications it has for gameplay that I find important.
|
Explained this already.
|
You said your seamless world idea wouldn't function as a fully seamless world
|
Actually, I said that is exactly how it would function. The point is that it would not technically be seamless, just appear that way.
|
but it would give the idea of being seamless by all being on the same planet and having invisible loading times (travelling through the sea) but still functioning as individual zones like we are used to.
|
Right, which is where I lose you...
|
I don't see the point to that.
|
I don't see the point to having multiple continents, primary color armies, and sanctuaries. But that doesn't mean there isn't a point for someone else.
|
Which basically said I'm not sure whether I'm opposed to the idea or not but I don't really see it offer that much more benefit than the current system and probably an even amount of negative gameplay effects, combined with the risk of trying this new method out and failing I'd have to (personally) say no.
|
And I said that it would change the game in awesome ways, but I never said any of them would be important or relevant to you.
Not everyone is the same, but declining to improve something when improving it does nothing to you negatively is the pinnacle of passive aggressive selfishness.