Passed Bartbot: Hideouts [updated]

Would you like to see this in game?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 55.9%

  • No

    Votes: 64 44.1%
  • Total voters
    145
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

I like the updated one better than my own idea, sadly...
Now hideouts don't really have much of an importance.
 

DeletedUser

Can someone who voted no give a reasonable explanation about why? Does the idea not appeal, etc. etc.
 

DeletedUser

Even though I've said repeatedly that I think it's too complicated, I didn't vote no.

I didn't vote yes, either. :p
 

DeletedUser

Diggo11 said:
It isn't complicated, perhaps the old version but the new version is not that complex!
Click to expand...
Still looks overly complex to me. Sorry. I compare this to things like making queued jobs clickable, or my bank deposit idea, or even the seasons idea, and what stands out is that this entire hideout concept is outside of anything in the game now, other than the dueling aspect of it, and even that isn't handled like a normal duel. By comparison, the other ideas I listed basically just modify the existing game in a fairly minor way.

I'm still not entirely opposed, I just haven't been struck by any sense that this concept, as presented, belongs in the game -- and, again, it's too complex for my taste. Too many game changes in 1 proposal IMO.

BTW, what does "-50% energy required for job" mean? You can only do the job if you have a negative amount of energy, and your energy becomes 0 after doing the job? :huh:
 

DeletedUser

A job takes 10 energy (is that right?) so therefore -50% means it only takes 5 energy. Thats what I thought.
 

DeletedUser363

BartBot said:
Can someone who voted no give a reasonable explanation about why? Does the idea not appeal, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll admit it, I voted NO.

My reasons:
1)It seems very complicated
2)Seems like it is bad for duelers because it limits their targets.
3)Its complex.
4)In my opinion it changes the concept of the game too much.
5)Its too complicated.
 

DeletedUser

I voted no for the reasons I'd put earlier in the thread. I like the basic concept of different events/modes at the workplace but I'm afraid I don't like the convoluted duelling-orientated implementation.
 

DeletedUser

Actually, to prevent abuse, these are only allowed once per 24 hours... so it won't necessarily limit your targets.
 

DeletedUser

votes are even..just thought id state the obvious, even though thats john rose's job.
 
Diggo11

Diggo11

Well-Known Member
Lol how is it complicated?

Also I said the duelling part was optional, consider it a sidenote for the developers!
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Diggo11 said:
Who said ADDITION meant COMPULSORY?
Click to expand...

I guess that's the price paid for that part having been part of the original proposal: it's still floating around in my brain within this hideouts idea. :laugh:

As I look at it now, in light of your comment, yes, the current core proposal is fairly simple. The dueling part (the ADDITION ;)) I believe to be a minefield on the implementation side of things. The core hideout part seems pretty doable (although I still don't quite follow the semantics of "-50% energy required for job").
 
Diggo11

Diggo11

Well-Known Member
Yeah I guess I should have pointed that out, but generally when you write addition you mean it.

But the second bit isn't complicated for the user, only the developers. That is there as a note for them should they like the idea and wish to take it further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top