Posted July 06, 2015
GrayBlondie: I certainly should've asked your gaming pedigree before engaging in conversation. There's always some suspension of reality in games, and a reminder of that isn't an insult. No need to puff yourself up.
Hickory: Are you for real? You repeatedly accuse me of attacking you, patronise me regarding game play/role playing, and you certainly like to judge people you know nothing about. You now accuse me of "puffing myself up". Astonishing. Must be that American thing. No, I never said there was a take it or leave it option. Feel free to try to find that.
You are locked into the dialog UNTIL you offer a price that the person agrees to. To say you are not locked in is to say you have a leave option. It does not exist.
Every time I've said you can leave after the conclusion of bartering. And you've said you just want that option moved up to the bartering screen as a take it or leave it option. Great.
What I don't get is why you're so adamant about this sytem being broken.
It's made to be an extremely simple way to get a few extra coins out of a contract. You're not giving bad ideas. I just think you're irritated over something that doesn't even have to be there.
Money is not an issue in this game.
The reason I posted in the first place was because your OP stated the count was not offering enough money. I just wanted to point out you don't have to take the contract. That's all.
I also have continually said it's not an elegant system. There's no need to be contrary at every point;
I'm not saying that you're wrong or that imrovements can't be made. You can post ideas to improve the actual system all you'd like, and that's awesome, but your original complaint has a solution. Don't work for what you consider insufficient money. That's what I was addressing, and that's all I was addressing.
You've taken me out of context, or maybe you misunderstood. You quoted me as saying "but you're not locked in at that point" where "that point" is referring to the conlusion of bartering. As in, after you're finished. In the context on my post "locked in" refers to accepting the contract. Which is consistent with everything I've said.
You're conveniently ignoring the parts where I'm saying you have good ideas. I'm not contrary to everything you're saying, unlike you. You're just trying to beat me into the ground at this point, which is totally couterproductive. I addressed your first point, and that's all. You can continue to get into other nuances of a completely superfluous, simple system, but that's not what I posted for.