>>This statement is false, so I stopped reading here.
>Ganging
>>has always been a part of CF. Will it always be a part in
>the
>>future, who knows, but I guarantee it will never be limited
>to
>>the one-on-one battle you seem to want.
>
>More than likely just the way new people play the game. You
>don't do anything without a group..as you become better at the
>game you want to do more stuff alone I guess.

Probably true to a point. Even people who have been around since the beginning still gang.

>>We've tossed this around a few times, but revamping the
>entire
>>fighting system has fallen very low on the list.
>
>I don't think an overhaul is in order, just a modifier that
>would make 8 on 1's a little more than just a 1 rounder?

Because 8 on 1's happen alot? 3 on 1's happen alot yes. 4 on 1's sometimes. 5 on 1's I rarely see. 6 on 1, are you kidding me...getting six people together in one group to do the same thing, that's like getting a group to go through hell without bickering.

>>Leave autoassist off, and do it yourself?
>
>Yes and no. The reason most people use autoassist is so they
>don't have to waste a command to assist, mistype the targets
>name, hit the wrong target, murder instead of halt person ya
>know? Also when you are blind you really can't assist
>yourself, and would rely on autoassisting to bash them down.
>You could leave autoassist without args the same and just add
>an optional arg at the end that would let you specify someone
>else in the group to assist instead?

And in this case...you still need whoever you are autoassisting to have autoassist off so they can direct their attack somewhere else. I don't see this really adding anything that isn't already there (leave autoassist off and do it yourself).

>>Yup, this too would entirely change the way combat works,
>even
>>more drastically than above. Not high on the list.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>So what is your solution to not having hate cabals? I don't
>>really see this changing.
>
>I really didn't want to target the cabal system in this post,
>but I did indirectly. I mainly just used it to talk about
>people having an easy out to be asshole and unsportsmanlike.

Fair enough.

>>Multi-killing is stupid...but a buddy of mine has a great
>>quote. "Any idiot can type quit". To get multi-killed you
>>have to be around. Some times it's better for you as a
>player
>>to step back, take a break, get away, come back and try
>again
>>later.
>
>That's a pretty weak answer, Zulg. I mean, yes it is
>effective, but it doesn't fix the problem of assholes ruining
>the game for others?

I don't hear any solutions coming from you.

>>Usually when I get killed to a stupid mistake I made,
>>or just completely outnumbered, I quit and stop playing my
>>mortal for a few days. For you guys, take a break, play a
>>different mortal, roll up a newbie and screw around with a
>>class you haven't tried etc.
>
>I thought the IMM stance was to play one character at a time?
>To lessen the swing of cabals? I know a few people including
>myself, only play one character at a time. Atleast I can't
>log off my scarab when i get trounced then go log on my maran
>huh?

In a perfect world, sure. Will we ever get there, no. My personal belief is one hero (or one caballed) that you focus playing, and a handful of low-level (pre 25). It's how I've almost always played the game. That's what I meant by playing someone else. Not switching sides of the hero battle. At that point, just quit and walk away for a day or two.

>>Adding lag to get all corpse probably isn't going
>>to change anything other than making the guy who might still
>>be fighting not get anything from the corpse, and allowing
>the
>>low-level guy out of range full loot and wait off the lag.
>>And in the end what has changed...right...nothing...you
>still
>>have no gear.
>
>There is a good post by Jake on qhcf about this, which I'll
>snip for ya.

I read it, while it would probably shut you up and make you happy about it in theory. In practice I still don't see it changing the fact that you die and you are going to be naked with nothing in your corpse.

>He basically says and elaborates on my point. Each piece of
>gear would have lag, maybe weight or wear position based. Get
>all would still work, but it would take a chunk of time to get
>each piece, you would get a piece, lag, get a piece, lag,
>etc...

And the out of range character can still totally loot you before you get back to your corpse.

>I would argue that this would only be something on player
>corpses. Similar to how you can autoloot mobs but you can't,
>players. Just a game balance.

Sure that would be a limitation if this were ever implemented.

>What would be the cons of something like this, obviously we
>think it's a good idea and I know you got some thoughts
>lurking around?

Again, I still don't see this changing anything. Unless the lag you are tossing out is immense, you will still be naked when you get back to your corpse if someone wishes you to be. I could honestly care less whether or not this went in.

>>See my GTA Vice City rant above
>
>Vice City owns..

I wish I could own those damn RC planes...stupid controls.

>Gabe

Zulg (71% complete on Vice City)

So long, and thanks for all the fish!