Adjust Advy Travel

[Shizzle]

Basically, I think the way adventures travel right now, is in conflict with the idea everyone should be able to play BM at their own pace. Hear me out.

Advy travel is great. The time-pool, the instant travelling, ... But there's one thing that bothers me: having to wait for your timepool to fill up to a certain level before you are able to make your move. I can imagine, for people who only log-in once a day, how it's annoying to see many of your hours go to waste.

E.g.: Let's say you're in Keplerville and want to go to Kepler. The voyage takes 12 hours to complete. When you log in, you only have 10 hours in your time-pool. If you can only manageto log-in again 12 hours later, you will find your advy sitting in Keplerville with 16 hours (and 8 hours have gone to waste).

But what if you would allow non-instant travelling for adventurers as well? This would mean you invest your 10 hours in the trajectory, and for 2 hours your status changes to 'travelling'. If you log in 12 hours later, you will have completed the journey with 10 hours in your time-pool.

Basically, this system is already in place for long-distance travels, like when a route takes more than 16 hours to complete. All I propose is to lift that restriction, and always allow it.

Priority: rather low. In fact I might be the only person bothered by this? But then again, it seems this only needs a minor adjustment to work, with the benefit of making the game more light-weight, accessible and fun.

[vonGenf]

You're not alone. I am also slightly bothered by this.

[Velax]

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Annoys me to have so many hours wasted.

[Tom]

No.

Reason: The same is true for non-advy characters. If you miss a turn, you have at most 12 hours and you may have lost some (say you had 8 - that's 4 hours "lost").

The "hours don't add up indefinitely" is an important game-balance decision that I'm not throwing away without a massive amount of thinking about it.

[vonGenf]

No.

Reason: The same is true for non-advy characters. If you miss a turn, you have at most 12 hours and you may have lost some (say you had 8 - that's 4 hours "lost").

The "hours don't add up indefinitely" is an important game-balance decision that I'm not throwing away without a massive amount of thinking about it.

Ah, but that's not what is asked. The maximum 16 hours in the time pool is fine with me.

The problem is when you log in, find out you have 14 hours left, but that trip takes 15 hours. Why can't you start already? After all you can do that for trips of more than 16 hours.

Priests and advies are the only classes for which it matters at which point during the turn you log in.

[Indirik]

The problem is when you log in, find out you have 14 hours left, but that trip takes 15 hours. Why can't you start already? After all you can do that for trips of more than 16 hours.

Priests and advies are the only classes for which it matters at which point during the turn you log in.

So... use your hours gathering. Travel tomorrow.

[vonGenf]

So... use your hours gathering. Travel tomorrow.

I'll readily admit that this is in the "nice-to-have" category, and not the "game-breaking bug" category.

[Shizzle]

I'll readily admit that this is in the "nice-to-have" category, and not the "game-breaking bug" category.

Yes totally. And no, I certainly don't want to expand the time-pool. I just think that people who log in less frequently are handicapped at the moment when playing an adventurer. Not that it's such a big deal, but still.

[Tom]

You aren't solving the problem, only shifting it.

There will always be advantages to logging in more often, or at certain times, whatever. I am trying a balance, and I think it is working fairly well. It does pay off to play steadily, but not so much that it would matter much. I largely run the entire invasion NPCs by logging in twice a day. Don't tell me you can't run an adventurer the same way (I have 3 priests in there, same time management).

[Charles]

I would say it would be nice for some of the longer but still less than 16 hour trips.  I would say for any trip over 10 hours, so long as you have half the time plus five hours in your time pool.  So for a ten hour trip it makes no difference (5+10/2=10) but the 16 hour trip would allow you three hours (5+16/2=13).  Different numbers could be used for the minimum length, but I think the idea should be a decent compromise. I would not want adventurers to save one hour and be able to make a 16 hour trip.