Forager

A bit of a non sequitur there... but answering in good faith: I'm participating in the conversation because I started it and I want to.

I asked the guy... then I... what? And even if I was "still trying" whatever that means... so? You actually outlined reasons to try... you said I think it's stupid, you said the dev avoided answering, and you said I know that a dev's stated stance will affect discourse... yeah... what? Lol. Yeah. You've got it. I think people should quit using that argument. I think if a dev said people should stop using that argument, that some of them would stop. Right. You got it. Right on. Nailed it. That's my position. And to try and avoid going around again, YOU CAN STILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT IF YOU DESIRE. I fully support your free speech and right to make... any... kind of argument.

I accepted it. I accepted it over and over. I never didn't accept it. You are allowed to do it. You've always been allowed. You'll always be allowed. Nobody ever thought you weren't allowed. Nobody thinks you shouldn't be allowed. Everybody agrees you're allowed to do it. I've maintained this. I've repeated it. This reply might even seem familiar. And yet... the argument persists... it's practically supernatural at this point. I'm very surprised that people would still type something like that and hit send. You're allowed. You're allowed times a million. I just think it's stupid.

A summary thus far. I said something was dumb and counterproductive. Everyone argued that they were allowed to do it... over and over... with nobody. A dev said they were allowed to do it. People celebrated. You really can move the goalposts if you have enough help.

Well thats obviously not true lol.

Lol... what do y'all think happened? He said you were free to discuss it. You were always free to discuss it. You will always be free to discuss it. Point #1 was that it is stupid. That point still stands tall. I don't think anyone ever even addressed it. You all just argued with the censorship ghost. Y'all gonna latch onto that first sentence like the second one isn't there lol.

The most control you have is picking front, middle or back as spawn points. Some maps have a lot of possibilities for those, some maps have less, some maps have one or even none. Outdoor maps you have no control over. I actually have the most luck walking around in test mode and looking at the spawn points on the mini map to help me figure out where to put them. Green is front, white is middle, red is back (blue in the editor). If you really want things to happen in a certain order AND be placed predictably or easy to find, you have to select the map to match your mechanics, or match your mechanics to the map. For instance, some places have multiple spawn points marked as "back" in one room, close together. This would let you have things happen back there in a certain order without making the player search by marking them all to spawn in "back." Otherwise, the typical solution would be to put your ally in the front, the boss in the back and hope the player finds the ally. Some places have only one spawn point marked "front" for an ally, so finding him is easy and straightforward. Some have a bunch and they're easier to pass. P.S. And yeah some of the maps in the editor do show the floors out of order.

Alphabetic always seemed weird to me. I group city and hazard together. 1. The cab is Low level blue + Pocket D 2. The hot rod is High level blue 3. The 4x4 is Red zones 4. Praetoria is of course the coolest looking, least practical teleporter and I never use it. 5. Shadow Shard is at the complete other end of the room. 6. The flyer is Terra Volta, Kallisti Wharf and RWZ because those 3 just seem weird to me and are separate. I have another one elsewhere in the base with Atlas Park, Talos Island, Peregrine Island, Grandville, Pocket D and RWZ as a little fast travel station. I end up using that one a lot if I'm over there and see something on LFG.

What? You don't like your huge model, war-god themed characters with wings breakdancing?

What do you think?

Yeah... that. That's who I'm talking about. Did all these folks just assume I meant them?

What do you think about posters arguing that an idea would be too difficult to implement? How valuable is that sort of discussion to you?

Because OP suggested it and it sounded fun and cool? That also sounds fun and cool.

^ That's pretty fair. About point 1, I think my original explanation is fine as it stands. I think it's a full stop, irrelevant topic that is at best nothing and most likely counterproductive. I think the problem with 2 might be terminology based. When I say people are "voting" I meant that's their mindset. Basically they might not think they're voting, but they're thinking like their voting. It's a pretty abstract and subjective idea. I get why it doesn't resonate. The problem with 3... that's just like... my opinion man. I think if you're not part of the solution, you're not part of the conversation. People can disagree with that just like they can disagree with other suggestions. People can post "I don't like it!" and give no reason. They can be ignored. They're not part of the conversation to me. I have no quarrel with posts that just say "I don't like it." I don't consider them at all. They're nothing. I think people confused me personally thinking something is pointless with "it shouldn't be allowed." I'm not a mod. You're allowed to do things that I don't like. I'm allowed to dislike them. You're even allowed to dislike me disliking them. Theres a chance that things that are allowed are not good.

Umm... lol. I'll indulge this. Quote me on that.