[BUG] I didn't know the Black Rock was a Sea Raider ship.....

[Sheriff-murder]

You seem to be missing a very basic point behind a landing, the position of the ship is irrelevant.
It's simply where they unload their goods/men. There is nothing stopping them from carrying it inland.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

You seem to be missing a very basic point behind a landing, the position of the ship is irrelevant.
It's simply where they unload their goods/men. There is nothing stopping them from carrying it inland.

.....except that when you assault that landing, the battle takes place on the shore.

Also, since you're so keen on definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landing

 

[Sheriff-murder]

You seem to be missing a very basic point behind a landing, the position of the ship is irrelevant.
It's simply where they unload their goods/men. There is nothing stopping them from carrying it inland.

.....except that when you assault that landing, the battle takes place on the shore.

They simply didn't make scenes to cover that specific position of a landing.

The function does work as intended, it's just a matter of foreseeing all outcomes.

Also, since you're so keen on definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landing

http://www.answers.com/topic/landing

This isn't going anywhere, until you stop claiming others are incoherent, when you are pulling everything you say out of your ass, there's no point in continuing this.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

You seem to be missing a very basic point behind a landing, the position of the ship is irrelevant.
It's simply where they unload their goods/men. There is nothing stopping them from carrying it inland.

.....except that when you assault that landing, the battle takes place on the shore.

They simply didn't make scenes to cover that specific position of a landing.

The function does work as intended, it's just a matter of foreseeing all outcomes.

In other words it does not work as intended.

Also, since you're so keen on definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landing

http://www.answers.com/topic/landing

Yes, that says pretty much the same as my link, namely this: "A site for loading and unloading passengers and cargo." What you seem unable to comprehend is that this definition supports my position, not yours. I shall explain. When talking about ships, as we are, such a site by necessity needs to be on the shore. That is because ships, as I'm sure you're well aware, cannot actually go on land. They have to remain in the water, while cargo and passengers are transferred onto them from land, or vice versa.

This isn't going anywhere, once you stop trying to put your own arguments onto others, there's no point in continuing this.

Now what did I say about being coherent?

 

[Sheriff-murder]

You seem to be missing a very basic point behind a landing, the position of the ship is irrelevant.
It's simply where they unload their goods/men. There is nothing stopping them from carrying it inland.

.....except that when you assault that landing, the battle takes place on the shore.

They simply didn't make scenes to cover that specific position of a landing.

The function does work as intended, it's just a matter of foreseeing all outcomes.

In other words it does not work as intended.

It is simply intended to generate a location along the shores, which it does.
The scenes available is a completely different function.

Also, since you're so keen on definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landing

http://www.answers.com/topic/landing

Yes, that says pretty much the same as my link, namely this: "A site for loading and unloading passengers and cargo." What you seem unable to comprehend is that this definition supports my position, not yours. I shall explain. When talking about ships, as we are, such a site by necessity needs to be on the shore. That is because ships, as I'm sure you're well aware, cannot actually go on land. They have to remain in the water, while cargo and passengers are transferred onto them from land, or vice versa.

Because it is impossible to actually, oh I don't know, carry the cargo further inland.

This isn't going anywhere, once you stop trying to put your own arguments onto others, there's no point in continuing this.

Now what did I say about being coherent?

Just because you can't comprehend the simplest of things doesn't mean the others are incoherent.

 

[Askorti]

G(r)aylord, I've got to ask you something. You know that it is bug, but why you still try to argue about it?

 

[Sheriff-murder]

G(r)aylord,

Oh look! We got a genious!

I've got to ask you something. You know that it is bug, but why you still try to argue about it?

Have you even read anything, all I have been trying to explain is why this isn't actually a bug.

Look, you guys seem to be instantly assuming what I am saying before even reading.
I do not disagree that the game showing a shore when you enter the location is silly, I just simply disagree what is the actual issue here.
I believe it's the scene, not the position. Besides, look at the screen, it's a matter of inches, who cares?

This will be my last reply, I have stated my point and repeating it has no purpose.
If you attack me again while I won't even be here, now that's a low blow.

 

[Bitey]

OK here is the thing, I don't think this is a bug as much as it is a preference, but I also don't think it isn't worth either one of you getting all butt-hurt about it.  According to one a Landing can be near the shore and maybe a bit inland doesn't really matter, and according to the other it must be on the shore because it makes sense and the scene you play in is of the shore.

Point is, why does this matter?

Graylord, you made your point, stop being troll.

Ringwraith #5, you made your point in your preference of this situation, stop feeding the troll.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

It is simply intended to generate a location along the shores, which it does.

Except that the landing isn't, which is the point.

The scenes available is a completely different function.

Who gives a ****? They're supposed to match. They don't. Hence, bug. The technical side of it is irrelevant to the discussion, the whys and hows the devs' problem.

Because it is impossible to actually, oh I don't know, carry the cargo further inland.

Not if you want to still refer to that location as a landing. According to your definition, a landing is the place where cargo is transferred on and off ships, not the place where it is then carried and stored.

Just because you can't comprehend the simplest of things doesn't mean the others are incoherent.

Now you're just being defensive. But hey, it was your point. If you can't be bothered to rephrase it in an intelligible manner, I see no reason why I should give a ****.

 

[socks]

I agree with Ringwraith here. In the landing scene, you're right on the shore of an ocean. It doesn't make sense when the landing is several miles inland.

 

[Grunar]

I agree with Ringwraith here. In the landing scene, you're right on the shore of an ocean. It doesn't make sense when the landing is several miles inland.

the Icon is a rock cave... yet you fight near a shore is that a bug also?..

 

[Ringwraith #5]

I agree with Ringwraith here. In the landing scene, you're right on the shore of an ocean. It doesn't make sense when the landing is several miles inland.

the Icon is a rock cave... yet you fight near a shore is that a bug also?..

It's a shore with some cliffs and there are two caves.

 

[vlad_flyzzz]

Ringwraith and Graylord, you are both right.

If I rember correctly from my history classess, it was a common practice during naval operations to unload the troops at a certain point along the coast and have them march inland to a more easily defendable position and set up camp there. And techinically, that first camp they set up would still be called  a landing. So I find that the actual position of the icon on the map is more than OK for it to be called a landing.

However, the scene where the fighting takes place suggests a coastal landing - with the ships in the background and all, which is definitely wrong.

However, calling this a bug seems a bit far- fetched to me. An oversight - yes, a silly little thing that makes you smile when you first stumble upon it.

It's just a few clicks away from the shore, not in the middle of the continent. 

 

[Dryvus]

A few *miles* inland? I figured the scale of Calradia was much smaller, at least going by travel times. Seems like it could be considered the beach on that part of the map, although it is pushing it. You never see the little brooks and streams in the battle maps, or the rivers that actually are on the world map.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

However, calling this a bug seems a bit far- fetched to me. An oversight - yes, a silly little thing that makes you smile when you first stumble upon it.

All the other landings I've seen were right on the shore. This one isn't. Clearly something malfunctioned, ergo a bug it is.

 

[Bitey]

Honestly I don't think we'll know the answer to this until we know what the intentions of the developers were for these particular settings, it may be that they gave range from and to the shore that these could appear and it reaches as far as the one you saw.  Or it could be that they are only supposed to be on the shore line and this one is not which would mean bug.  So this all kind of hangs on how the developers coded it in and intended for it to work.  I could see it either way, but if it was the intention for it to be there then it is not a bug but a preference on your part.