DurNominator | Tue 20-Mar-07 12:58 AM |
Member since 08th Nov 2004
2018 posts
| |
|
#17172, "Nice idea, however it needs one more additional command to work"
Edited on Tue 20-Mar-07 01:31 AM
|
nosepick - Stops the game for 30 seconds so that you can pick your nose and think about what the correct command for your purpose what the right command syntax was again.
On more serious note, much of it sucks.
>Wield metacommands: >primary <one-handed weapon or >two-handed weapon>- Wield an object in the primary hand or >two-handed weapon in both hands for non-giants. >offhand <one-handed item> - >Wield an object in offhand.
We already have 'wield' that always wields weapon in mainhand and 'dual' that always wields weapon in offhand. Thus, these options are redundant.
>both <two-handed weapon> - >Wield two-handed weapon. This command works with both slots. >For everybody except giants it will be equivalent of using >primary command on a two-handed weapon. For giants: >primary two-handed wields the weapon into the primary >slot while this command force-wields this weapon as >two-handed.
Weapons that require two hands automatically removes offhand item. Personally, I think that's fine as is.
>remprimary - Remove your >primary weapon. No parameters. Perhaps should work even if you >are blind. >remoffhand - Remove offhand. >remboth - Remove all wielded >items. Similar to "throwdown".
In short, you want throwdown to inventory. However, an additional remove command for emptying a slot could work. The syntax could be something like empty <bodypart>
The multiple same bodypart slots could be something like finger1, finger2, neck1, neck2.
|
|
|
How do you want wield to react?
[View all] , Zulghinlour, Wed 14-Mar-07 10:41 PM
Dual wield helpfile looks outdated,
DurNominator,
21-Mar-07 06:46 AM, #31
Has this gone live?,
Tac,
20-Mar-07 08:13 AM, #24
No, it has not.,
Zulghinlour,
20-Mar-07 10:39 AM, #25
FNCR,
Zulghinlour,
20-Mar-07 08:43 PM, #26
Cool thanks! nt,
Tac,
20-Mar-07 09:01 PM, #27
RE: FNCR,
Isildur,
20-Mar-07 11:52 PM, #29
Wield command ANSI standard,
Dwoggurd,
17-Mar-07 02:59 PM, #11
RE: Wield command ANSI standard,
Gabe,
19-Mar-07 10:13 AM, #12
Heh,
Dwoggurd,
19-Mar-07 12:15 PM, #13
RE: Heh,
Gabe,
19-Mar-07 12:20 PM, #14
Problem is,
Dwoggurd,
19-Mar-07 03:30 PM, #17
RE: Problem is,
Gabe,
19-Mar-07 08:43 PM, #19
You may notice,
Dwoggurd,
20-Mar-07 03:35 AM, #22
RE: Heh,
Valguarnera,
19-Mar-07 01:07 PM, #15
Actually,
Dwoggurd,
19-Mar-07 03:21 PM, #16
Some implementaion notes,
Dwoggurd,
19-Mar-07 03:39 PM, #18
Nice idea, however it needs one more additional command...,
DurNominator,
20-Mar-07 01:31 AM #20
Answers,
Dwoggurd,
20-Mar-07 03:33 AM, #21
Clarification,
Dwoggurd,
20-Mar-07 04:26 AM, #23
RE: Clarification,
Zulghinlour,
20-Mar-07 09:35 PM, #28
Re,
Dwoggurd,
21-Mar-07 05:05 AM, #30
I would prefer,
Dwoggurd,
15-Mar-07 11:30 AM, #3
RE: I would prefer,
Zulghinlour,
15-Mar-07 05:08 PM, #4
Re,
Dwoggurd,
16-Mar-07 05:34 AM, #5
While a stochastic dual wield function would be fun,,
Marcus_,
16-Mar-07 07:19 AM, #6
RE: Re,
Isildur,
16-Mar-07 10:34 AM, #7
Say no to AI,
Dwoggurd,
16-Mar-07 11:51 AM, #8
RE: Say no to AI,
Isildur,
16-Mar-07 01:17 PM, #9
yes,
Dwoggurd,
16-Mar-07 01:42 PM, #10
RE: How do you want wield to react?,
Isildur,
14-Mar-07 11:56 PM, #1
I don't care either way,
Zulghinlour,
15-Mar-07 10:27 AM, #2
| |
|