Subject: "RE: Couple changes to backstab." Previous topic | Next topic
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend CF Website
Top General Discussions Announcements Topic #1441
Show all folders

TacSun 13-Apr-08 08:19 PM
Member since 15th Nov 2005
2050 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#1446, "RE: Couple changes to backstab."


          


>1) The 'suspicious' threshold has been loosened for PCs with
>unusually large numbers of hit points. Someone who has, say,
>1400/2000 hp is more worried than someone with 700/1000.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here correctly. The way I read it, you are saying it would be harder to backstab someone with 1400/2000 hp than 700/1000, but judging from the previous sentence, I would have expected the reverse. Clarification please?

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote

HOT TopicCouple changes to backstab. [View all] , Valguarnera, Sun 13-Apr-08 01:38 PM
Reply Question, Abernyte, 08-Aug-08 01:28 PM, #12
Reply Having checked the code:, Valguarnera, 12-Aug-08 02:19 PM, #14
Reply Made some similar changes to Charge., Valguarnera, 04-May-08 04:01 PM, #11
Reply RE: Couple changes to backstab., Narissa, 20-Apr-08 11:45 AM, #10
Reply While we're at it..., Marcus_, 17-Apr-08 06:36 PM, #9
Reply I would have to agree, Abernyte, 13-Aug-08 06:03 AM, #13
Reply RE: Couple changes to backstab., Tac, 13-Apr-08 08:27 PM #4
Reply Whoops. I'll fix that post ., Valguarnera, 13-Apr-08 09:17 PM, #5
     Reply Valg makes a typo. Rumors begin., Mekantos, 13-Apr-08 09:48 PM, #6
     Reply RE: Whoops. I'll fix that post ., Pargtorix, 15-Apr-08 12:32 AM, #7
          Reply Not opposed to it., Valguarnera, 15-Apr-08 12:46 AM, #8
Reply Do I read this right?, Quixotic, 13-Apr-08 08:27 PM, #2
Reply Awesome., GinGa, 13-Apr-08 05:55 PM, #1
     Reply Don't forget, Mekantos, 13-Apr-08 08:27 PM, #3
Top General Discussions Announcements Topic #1441 Previous topic | Next topic