This is the final response to this thread. I'm locking it now. An hour and a half I've wasted (yes I can say that, since it's my time that I volunteered to research the codebase and answer this) and in the end, my post really could have been summed up just as Nepenthe did.


9:54 p.m.
>SUMATION:
>Well where do I start. I think that a serious review &
>publication of all the skills/spells/songs &prayers in the
>game(this does not include legacies and other questy type
>aspects) would be a massive step forward in appeasing many of
>the players.

I read that as "appeasing me".

>I've heard wizzards/immortals say many times that
>players simply wouldnt understand some aspects, or that to do
>so would be to difficult. Personaly I know that is 100%
>horse####.

Oh I think we could write it so they'd have a chance to understand it, but it'd be a mathematical formula, and honestly...some of the 12 year olds probably haven't taken algebra yet and wouldn't have a clue.

> Even something as simple as saying, skill x uses str/dex/con
>for check. Check is made with level + saves. Save for half is
>made purely on wisdom check. Perhaps having help files have
>something along the lines of:
>
>SKILL XYZ:
>AFFECTING ATTRIBUTES: Size (smaller better), Str(higher
>better), weight(lower better)
>Syntax: OpenCanWhoopAss
>Desc: Opening this can, lays down some serious whoopass on
>whoever your fighting.

This won't be happening. Plain and simple. If we wanted you to know the formula, we would publish it. You don't see this in Diablo, you don't see this in Quake, you don't see this in Warcraft. It's not necessary to play the game.

>Assumeing that the affecting attributes was accurate, it would
>save alot of frustration, anger, confuse, misinformation...

Misinformation created by people like you who waste hours trying to reverse architect something.

>MORE importantly if they were kept up to date the players
>could rely on it.

And we can't even keep the help files we have updated, the religions on the web page. We do not have infinite time.

>I would not have wasted 1400 hours on
>"testing" a ####load of skills only to discover that some
>finger happy immortal changed a bunch of skills mid test.

And we did it only to annoy you obviously. Based on what I've read from you so far. Your interpretation of "changed a bunch of skills" is usually, I got screwed by the random number generator OR I honestly don't know how this skill works.

>I think that An across the board alteration to "learning"
>rates be made to addapt them to other stats relevant to the
>skill/spell/prayer or song.

And yet...it's still learning. (Intelligence...Wisdom)

>Warriors of high constitution
>should be able to train endlessly, thus imrpoving their
>learning rates.

On what? Just standing there swinging a sword...yup...learning a lot here.

>Smart yet weak and frail warriors might have
>more insight (learn from mistakes and gain 3% instead of 1)
>but they still cannot train as much or constitant as their
>more hearty counterparts)

This already exists...your constitution...determines your hit points which determines how long you can stay in combat which determines how long you can train.

>A stat attunement in reguards to str would be a good step
>forward to making max 25 str as good as 25 con/dex/int/wis.

There is stat attunement for strength. If you think wielding a 15 pound weapon with 25 strength, and not having it drop even with -10 strength on, vs the guy with a 17 strength and the same -10 strenth, then I guess we're playing two different games.

>The display of luck stat perhaps at level 30.

No.

>Removal or training hp/mv/sps at your local trainer.

Maybe, but I don't see a compelling reason.

>A review/tweak of race vulns-perks-inherents-xp pen.

I don't think they're broken.

>PS:
>I know that the immstaff donate their free time,

And I've spent an hour and a half of it, responding to this.

>I know that
>you have a arsenal of players all suggesting what they think
>is good and what is needed for the game.

Alot of them think they speak for the entire playerbase when they do, which is more annoying than just making suggestions.

>I also know that
>there are dozens of players out there who put forward valid
>points time and time again in hope that CF will pay attention
>and the game will become immensly more enjoyable without the
>continued trend of it soaking up more and more time, providing
>more and more frustration.

We look at every idea that comes across our boards. Some of them get discussed, some of them get tweaked, some of them get implemented. A lot of them don't.

>Shooting down a suggestion with a simple fact/reason/example
>as to why it would not work is all that is required.

And as can be seen by this post...a waste of time. I could have written up a couple of skills/spells, some progs, an automated quest, fixed 20 bugs, etc in the time it took me to respond to this. Not everything is going to get an answer, pure and simple. Remember...we don't have infinite time, and we work on what we like to work on.

>Many immstaff allready do this. But I hope that many of the rants
>that I have posted in this rant are taken into consideration.

Based on my responses, it doesn't look like it.

>Take ten steps backwards and Have a look at the whole problem.

Okay.

>If im totaly wrong, ask yourself how I could be, what could be
>done to solve my errors.

I could give you the codebase so you could see that what I've told you is correct. I could make this post, and say that lots of your assumptions are wrong.

>Could releasing game information
>relevant to players characters actually help not only them but
>you.

It stops being a game when you have all that information. Trust me.

>If they have the information avaliable to themselves.
>They have no leg to stand on when commenting or complaining
>about a aspect relevant to that, especially if you say simply
>"We want it that way, and it shall remain that way".

They have no leg to stand on if we say that now.

>With
>information avaliable you might actually get players polls
>that ask that a certain aspect be changed in reguards to a
>specific skill/spell.

Yeah...that's what I want. Instead of "What's the best spec/legacy combo for an arial warrior" we'll get posts of "I think flurry needs to work better for me"

>I know its hard to let go of something
>you have created, but do remember that players are here to
>play it, if you please the masses, more will come :)

It's also easy to defend, especially with someone who makes assumptions that just aren't true.

10:07 p.m.