>I know that, but what people are asking would essentially make
>one of the largest perks of explorer redundant. Where
>wanderlust is concerned running at 80% capacity* and being
>able to spend as much time as you like in any terrain isn't
>really a crap deal. It's just not the 100% in any terrain that
>some people would lobby for.

Seems more like a minor, unimportant perk to me. Perspective I guess.


>RE: selectively wilderness timer-ing subclasses, I just don't
>see the return on investment to code something like that? We
>want to avoid any more complexity in subclasses, ideally.
>Explaining wilderness time to new players gets complicated if
>you need a chart pointing out which subclasses need to adhere
>to it and which don't, in addition to skewing class balance,
>invalidating explorer etc. I'm personally for not turning the
>game into a complex simulator, although occasionally the
>burden of pointing out some of my ideas are overly complex
>falls on other people too.

ROI is the only good answer so far, to not ripping out the whole mechanic. Unless it's flipping a switch, it's not worth the time and effort.

I have to continue the argument though, of course. You know how I love the "new player" point so much. I've yet to meet a newbie ranger that gets how it works currently, so if it's an argument against subclass breakdown, it's an argument against current system too.