The non-combat vs. combat divide

[mutonizer]

You're describing a false dichotomy between knowingly devious "exploiters" and righteous "non-exploiters". In reality, there are many players who just want to play by the rules of the game and don't really think of themselves "exploiters" for clicking that rest button. Those players deserve to be treated more honestly.

Devious? Righteous? It's a single player game...who cares how anyone play it?

As for normal players, that's my entire point, they are the ones being punished by such artificial limitation. People who did spam-rest constantly won't give a damn, just abuse another system.

 

But forget it really, the discussion is turning into a "convince me/convince you" battle. Let's agree to disagree.

Edited September 1, 2014 by mutonizer

[Elerond]

 

So they should had design such exploit in their new game which they make in every way from scratch?

Hmm?

No, just design a system where it's either a non-issue or (and I'd prefer that), where it's an issue that matters, and not just a tacked on arbitrary game limitation.

Instead they designed, from scratch, a system were this might be an issue, THEN added something to limit it. I mean, you remove one element, a single element that is the completely artificial notion of "restricted camping supplies" and you're EXACTLY where IE games stood.

 

And I can assure you, that one of the FIRST thing a lot of people will immediately remove if possible via mods/hacking/save editing, is just that...

 

 

So they shouldn't design things that people might change with mods so that they can exploit systems in single player game?

 

And if they know that their previous games had design flaws that people exploited and they design, or at least tried to design, new system that would not have similar flaws, but they may have failed partially, is that reason to just copy flawed system from their old game and not even try to solve issue?