Nuking homes in Providence

[Eivind]

Destructible houses in Boston... really?

The question is why you should enter a someone else's house in the first place? Such a malicious intent must be punished in the name of Justice. Destroyed house is just collateral damage.

[Heffernan]

Yes, I am fully aware that some people like to use the term 'bugs' for things they don't think should be possible. Unfortunately, as has been addressed several times. I reserve the term bug for something that happens that is 100% unintended AND a mechanic that I feel necessary to permanently remove. In this case, neither of those apply. Players who don't want to KO to things that they didn't realize could KO them, are playing the wrong game.

[JohnCarver]

The question is why you should enter a someone else's house in the first place? Such a malicious intent must be punished in the name of Justice. Destroyed house is just collateral damage.

<3 you.

[Sunari]

Being in providence should be just as safe as being offline.
Summonable scents respect this.

[JohnCarver]

Being in providence should be just as safe as being offline.
Summonable scents respect this.

Nope. Being offline is just as safe as being offline.

[Heffernan]

still doesnt mean we need more ways to give imbecile assclowns like Darwoth more ways to abuse a broken system fyi.

[JohnCarver]

still doesnt mean we need more ways to give imbecile assclowns like Darwoth more ways to abuse a broken system fyi.

When a house collapses, and you are inside, it is reasonable that you would be knocked unconscious. I see no broken system here, I would remind people that I have a special hat for people who lack the wisdom to realize there is little point to argue with a developer about what 'their' intentions are. As you cannot possibly know the intentions of another human any better than they do.

[Heffernan]

still doesnt mean we need more ways to give imbecile assclowns like Darwoth more ways to abuse a broken system fyi.

When a house collapses, and you are inside, it is reasonable that you would be knocked unconscious. I see no broken system here, I would remind people that I have a special hat for people who lack the wisdom to realize there is little point to argue with a developer about what 'their' intentions are. As you cannot possibly know the intentions of another human any better than they do.

depends on the slots and difficulty relly <3

[JohnCarver]

depends on the slots and difficulty relly <3

You'll have to trust me when I say you probably don't want it

That being said, I'm all fine with the community coming up with a more 'intuitive' approach to houses that can and cannot be destroyed. I suppose if we made them 're spawn' it wouldn't be an issue if I had them all destroyable all the time. As it stands, the only thing that keeps me from doing that is I would have to come in and re spawn the houses every time they were ripped down.

[Procne]

Players who don't want to KO to things that they didn't realize could KO them, are playing the wrong game.

I strongly doubt anyone wants that. It's just some people want others to KO to things that they didn't realize could KO them stronger than they don't want to get KOed themselves. The rest simply hopes it doesn't happen to them and accepts the risk as the necessary evil to play the game.

Yes, I am fully aware that some people like to use the term 'bugs' for things they don't think should be possible. Unfortunately, as has been addressed several times. I reserve the term bug for something that happens that is 100% unintended AND a mechanic that I feel necessary to permanently remove. In this case, neither of those apply.

Sorry, but somehow I still don't believe it was intended, and it more sounds like "I reserve the term 'intended' for something that was unintended but has already happened and was funny". But yeah... Your circus, your monkeys