cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: Miley on November 24, 2012, 07:13:10 pm

Title: Why Is This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Miley on November 24, 2012, 07:13:10 pm
How come I can't move from step one to step 2, and so on without having to check back once I arrive at the destination, then choosing next destination, and so on?

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Why can't I pick like points to go to once I arrive at the first one?
Like right now I'm stuck on that stupid black thing, so I have to check back in .75 hours so that I can move out of there.
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Dach on November 24, 2012, 07:59:51 pm
+1 we need WAYPOINT!!! at least 1 maybe 2 max.
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Butan on November 24, 2012, 08:29:46 pm
WAYPÖINT !!!
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Latvian on November 24, 2012, 08:55:06 pm
WĀYPÕĪŅT
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Cepeshi on November 24, 2012, 08:57:30 pm
you should never use no double negatives
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: MURDERTRON on November 25, 2012, 02:49:54 am
Way points are useless because you wouldn't really alleviate any of the "work"load.  It wouldn't buy or sell for you.  I guess it would make avoiding low movement areas (forests, hills) easier, but why would you illustrate that with fiefs?
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Gristle on November 25, 2012, 02:53:59 am
I guess it would make avoiding low movement areas (forests, hills) easier...

This is what I want.
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: GOBBLINKINGREATLEADER on November 25, 2012, 03:37:37 am
I think waypoints should be enabled because it fits the only three qualities it needs to fit to be implemented:

1.) It's easy to script and implement.
2.) It would be incredibly convenient for the user.
3.) It is not far-fetched or unrealistic; a commander could tell his troops "we are going around this mountain, then heading north." He does not have to wait until they are around the mountain to tell them where he plans to take them.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. There is no reason to not implement it.
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Kelugarn on November 25, 2012, 07:31:16 am
I think waypoints should be enabled because it fits the only three qualities it needs to fit to be implemented:

1.) It's easy to script and implement.
2.) It would be incredibly convenient for the user.
3.) It is not far-fetched or unrealistic; a commander could tell his troops "we are going around this mountain, then heading north." He does not have to wait until they are around the mountain to tell them where he plans to take them.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. There is no reason to not implement it.

Obviously it makes entirely too much sense for this game.
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Miley on November 25, 2012, 08:08:47 am
you should never use no double negatives

It was originally "Why Isn't This Implemented," but I read it and saw "Why Is This Implemented." So that made me put the NOT--I didn't realize I had Isn't there.
Title: Re: Why Isn't This NOT Implemented?
Post by: dodnet on November 25, 2012, 10:18:08 am
Way points are useless because you wouldn't really alleviate any of the "work"load.  It wouldn't buy or sell for you.  I guess it would make avoiding low movement areas (forests, hills) easier, but why would you illustrate that with fiefs?

The example picture is useless, waypoints not. We really need them to avoid stuckable areas or slow movement areas.
Title: Re: Why Is This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Arathian on November 25, 2012, 09:56:08 pm
+1(00)

chadz, get to work, damnit!
Title: Re: Why Is This NOT Implemented?
Post by: Knitler on December 01, 2012, 01:27:53 am
Maybe one, and if you gonna reach it you will set down a tent and camp for lets say .... 1hr?

Or maybe seconds/per troop?