>Also any chance to change "HOLD/WIELD <object>" (e.g. lock
>picks) to replace your current wielded item, instead of first
>having to "REMOVE <current>" (would go to dual wield-slot when
>applicable).

I did make some changes to the current wear command however...

- Dual wield changes
--- mainhand can only be used for weapons
--- offhand can be used for weapon (dual wield), light, held, shield
--- swapping to and from a two-handed weapon should work in a single 'wear command'
--- swapping offhands shoudl work in a single 'wear' command

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

- Dual Wield changes
--- mainhand can only be used for weapons
--- offhand can be used for weapon, light, held, shield
--- Swapping to and from a two-handed weapon should work in a single 'wield' command
--- Swapping offhands should work in a single 'wear' or 'wield' command
--- Split up the wear and wield commands. Wear is only for armors. Wield is only for weapons
--- Syntax for Wield: wield <weapon>, wield mainhand <weapon>, wield offhand <weapon>

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Added a dualwield command.

--- Syntax for Wield: wield <weapon>, dualwield <weapon>
--- Optional Syntax for wield: wield mainhand <weapon>, wield offhand <weapon>

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Does "wear <weapon>" still work? Or is it strictly "wield <weapon> ; dualwield <weapon>"?

I habitually use wear. But I also see a lot of people use wield (in logs).

I'm at work right now, so I can't put to test my question. Thanks.

>Does "wear <weapon>" still work? Or is it strictly "wield
><weapon> ; dualwield <weapon>"?
>
>I habitually use wear. But I also see a lot of people use
>wield (in logs).
>
>I'm at work right now, so I can't put to test my question.
>Thanks.

Wield & dualwield only. Wear no longer works with weapons at all.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Wow. Does it have to be that way? Surely I'm not the only habitual user of wear, which was the general command for any item.

I see the wield/dualwield thing confusing newbies, regulars and veteran's alike, now that I think about it.

Is there any foreseeable love in the "wear" department?

>Wow. Does it have to be that way? Surely I'm not the only
>habitual user of wear, which was the general command for any
>item.
>
>I see the wield/dualwield thing confusing newbies, regulars
>and veteran's alike, now that I think about it.

Actually, I think it's a wash. There are a bunch of folks who used wear for everything, and a bunch of people who used wield that it really doesn't affect much. I think there will be some getting used to it, but it's far more intelligent than the old command.

>Is there any foreseeable love in the "wear" department?

At the moment, no. Since I had to blow up the old dual-wield code embedded in the wear code, I yanked it into a new function that I could more easily comprehend.

As far as more dual-wield improvements, I'll probably be looking into the mage/bard stuff before trying to smash the new wield code into the old wear code.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

nt

when there is no Mainwield.

As in, don't have a Primary Wield, but I try to dualwield. It doesn't go to my mainhand as a default, and no echo to tell you, just a carriage return.

-Cassman-

just let us wield in the offhand even if there isn't a main hand weapon.

Make it right hand/left hand instead of the main/off thing and then have 90% or whatever create with right handedness and 10% create with left handedness and then have some right-hand-only and left-hand-only stuff.

"--- swapping offhands shoudl work in a single 'wear' command"

It does- nice! Thanks.

First off...I'm posting here, because that's what this board is for. Polluting the spirit of Christmas is not cool

From Java:
This seems like it causes more harm than good. What about bards who want to use a shield and an instrument? Or mages who would rather have a shield and a held item? Or bards/shield pally's who want to hold an instrument/shield instead of a weapon if they get kot'd.

Bottom line is, every class doesn't want to use a weapon 100% of the time. Seems kind of silly to force them to. I thought CF was about variety and all that. Not to mention fun.


It seems like it causes more harm than good to two classes. To the rest of the classes who can actually dual wield, it's the beginning of a big improvement.

As for the rest of your statement...If you think this change has ruined all the fun of the game for you, I'd argue you've been looking for an excuse for far to long.

From DurNominator:The offhand circulation was good idea. As for main hand, I think it should allow for held and weapon both to allow held+shield. Shield can still be always worn in offhand.

I think it could work a bit like this:

-If main hand=weapon
Wear held item in offhand(the circulation of offhand items with wear command Zulg mentioned), autoremove offhand item.

-If main hand=empty
Wear held in main hand.
Wear weapon in main hand.

-If main hand=held item
Wear weapon in main hand, autoremove held item(or move it to offhand if offhand is empty).
Wear held item in main hand, autoremove other held item.

As for the dual wield problem, I haven't come up with a perfect tactic that would anticipate all situations well(being able to move item from one hand to another would give it some extra flexibility, though. Enough to be able to wield a weapon every time when one hand is empty(by moving the other weapon to offhand slot if it is lighter than the new one. No more wearing the axes in wrong order that way)). But this should get the held item in main hand as possibility but also in check should the player want to use a weapon.


I do understand what you are saying, and I'll say once again. The code that revolves around dual-wield is a ####ing nightmare. I know bards and mages want to have the best of both worlds. It's on my list, the problem is, it's way down at the bottom. I need to work out all the rest of the crap dealing with dual-wield before I even think about shield + instrument for bards, or shield + held for mages. And at that point...do you not get any attacks, because you're not even using a weapon and don't have a free hand? Why can't I just use two helds...or two shields...or two lights...

From TheFrog:
Perhaps it could be made part of an "auto" command ? That you could turn on/off ?


No. Just...No.

From BardicPlayer
As a bard, it either makes owning a shield not worth the weight, or making songs a lot less effective.

Shield/instrument = dodge + shieldblock + reduced-damage parry, but I lose a lot of melee power I could do with a weapon.

This seemed like a good trade-off. Also, what if I wanted to fight gnomes from here on out? Punching was a good alternative to using a mace, but it would be useless to now because I'd only be able to use a shield and forego using an instrument.

From the bard perspective, its annoying and still workable, but otherwise, why?


I wouldn't say "a lot less effective", but yes...less effective.

As for why? The code for dual wield sucks, and making it work for the 90% case (people with the dual wield skill) is more important to me than the 10% case (bards and mages) As I said above, I have it on the list, but it's below the rest of the dual wield stuff.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

It's often sufficient to replace "X is fun." with "X made me more powerful.", and "Y is not fun." with "Y made me less powerful." when parsing feedback.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

When a change goes in that reduces the ability of any single race/class/cabal/whatever type of character to fight, do you expect people who play habitually/are currently playing these types of characters to say "Oh, my character just got made weaker. Hooray for more hurdles!"?

I'm not trying to be a ####, but you make it sound like all anyone wants is to be able to steamroll over anyone else and thats their idea of fun. I just don't see this as a realistic picture of how the majority of the playerbase actually feels (A certain smaller cross section of the playerbase, sure), and I think you know this. If it was, do you think you would see as many healers, muters, and thieves as we do? These classes aren't typically known for their power so much as their survivability because of the abilities each possess/can possess. I don't think you really feel that way either, or you wouldn't put the kind of work into CF that you do. If we really felt that way, we'd all be playing doom in god mode and CF could piss off.

While I realize your remark was probably at least half tongue in cheek, it still came across as very much a snide crack at what has been, at least from everything I have read(Admittedly you all have probably gotten a ton of whiny emails that nobody here has seen but you), constructive criticism of a new change. Nobody is saying "WAH! YOU FUXXOED MY CHAR!" like after haste preps were removed and the other recent changes to ABS. I don't think anyone could possibly think this change will completely incapacitate their ability to play a character affected by it. But I also don't think the attitude you expressed in your post, basically blowing off valid (and constructively written) posts just because they aren't all tickled pink about their character being weakened, is doing anyone any favors.

Not all criticism is bad, and I really wish there wouldn't be so much defensiveness over people giving you negative feedback about changes that are made.

In general, the playerbase overreacts positively to changes that make PCs more powerful, and overreacts negatively to changes that make their character less powerful, all irrespective of how the change impacts game balance. This isn't unique to CF, or this issue, but it's definitely there.

I think Java's "I thought CF was supposed to be fun" quip got all the respect it deserves. Yeah, Zulgh doesn't know that. Thanks for the tip.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

FYI, I don't have a character right now. I very rarely play mages or bards. This isn't about making me specifically stronger. This is about an obvious oversight that you guys seem content to just ignore.

And I had hoped that that little quip of mine would actually make you think a little bit. CF is a game. It's purpose is to entertain. The way to make it entertaining is for it to be fun. Not realistic. Not tedious. Not hard. Fun. And sometimes, that simple fact seems to escape some of you guys.

>CF is a game. It's purpose is to
>entertain. The way to make it entertaining is for it to be
>fun. Not realistic. Not tedious. Not hard. Fun. And sometimes,
>that simple fact seems to escape some of you guys.

It really doesn't. That's why when you demand a bunch of unfun work, sometimes we say '#### it' and do something we find fun instead. Where's Zulg been for the last year? Odds are, doing something more fun than making dual wield work the way you think it should. And that just is what it is. It goes both ways.

But that aside, I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think the difficulty etc. of the game is part of the appeal of the game. If everyone could explore every area, have every great piece of gear, be a cabal leader, have a tattoo, rack up 1000 solo PKs, etc. on their first character, what would be left to do?

Don't get me wrong. I don't know how many times I've said thanks in this thread, but I'll do it again. I genuinely appreciate all the work you guys do. But I also think it's the job of the playerbase to offer criticism of the game where warranted. And I've tried pretty hard to do so without being an ass like so many others.

That said, I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I understand CF is supposed to be a challenge, and I like that. I've never wanted things to be easy and spoon-y, and have been pretty vocal about that on the other board in the past.
But I don't like to see changes that severely hampers (and this does, in many situations) the options available to a given character. I like that CF is diverse, with many options available to many players. I like that many classes can fight and win a PK without a weapon. But with this change, it seems like all the Imms are telling us if we don't wield a weapon 100% of the time, we're wrong. And I don't think it's that simple, for about half the classes in the game.

The way to make it entertaining is for it to be fun. Not realistic. Not tedious. Not hard. Fun. And sometimes, that simple fact seems to escape some of you guys.

Tic-tac-Toe isn't hard, realistic, or tedious. How much fun is it?

Tedium is bad. This change reduces tedium by streamlining getting things in and out of your hands. I don't get how you'd call this tedious when it simplifies the interface and provides fewer configurations.

Difficulty and internal logic (different from realism... we have magic and orcs) are absolutely crucial to our game, and we wouldn't exist if we ignored that. They create replay value, reward skill, assist immersion, and allow the existence of things like roleplaying, rewarded quests, meaningful exploration, etc. Game balance isn't just making the hard parts easy.

So maybe your "simple fact" does escape us. Or maybe you're oversimplifying things to try to rationalize a flippant cheap shot.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Tic-tac-Toe isn't hard, realistic, or tedious. How much fun is it?

Tedium is bad. This change reduces tedium by streamlining getting things in and out of your hands. I don't get how you'd call this tedious when it simplifies the interface and provides fewer configurations.

Difficulty and internal logic (different from realism... we have magic and orcs) are absolutely crucial to our game, and we wouldn't exist if we ignored that. They create replay value, reward skill, assist immersion, and allow the existence of things like roleplaying, rewarded quests, meaningful exploration, etc. Game balance isn't just making the hard parts easy.

Some people like tedious.. Just ask the people who are into endurance sports (running, swimming, triathlon, cycling). Or possibly, if they don't like tedious, they are too stupid to figure out that a simple, repetitive task eventually becomes tedious. I think alot of people's complaints indicate that they do infact like tedious.

About game balance, I've always thought it interesting that CF apparently doesn't strive for the kind of balance where all race/class combinations are equally matched 1 vs 1.. Instead there's a huge amount of imbalances that eventually kinda evens out... Still, there's one issue that's slightly irks me - the game favors defense over offense.. Comparing how easy it is to get away from a fight to how much effort is often required to find one, let alone to finish the kill. But I guess that goes under the old poker saying that you can shave a sheep many times, but only skin it once.

I'm being serious when I say I made a study of how to escape at the last moment. Escape isn't easy, it's an art.

Granted, hunting can on some levels take a bit of work, but there are plenty of tricks.

Hardly an art. A little game theory and psychology maybe, but that's in the rare case when you cannot simply use a potion/spell/skill to get safe instantly and easily.

But anyway if you made a "study" of how to escape, how about you present your methodology, data and conclusions? Your cf-academic credibility isn't good enough that i'll take your word for it, actually nobody's is :>. Of course escape can be hard in some situations, just like you'll occasionally get easy kills. But staying alive = easy, killing = hard is the norm.

Of course it might seem like I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this seeing as I usually die quite alot. But that's almost exclusively (95%+) because I attack people and get my ass kicked. I went through the logs from my last two non-rager chars (rager berzerkers are forced to die at certain intervals because of cabal requirements), and out of 31 pk deaths I found, 30 deaths were because I chose to stay and fight when I could've declined the fight with zero effort. The last one, I got jacked and ganked on eastern...

.

Not for nothing, but whatever "studies" you've completed and theories you have produced, Marcus is obviously more effective in practice. He's a poster boy for winning a lot of fights with a high-aggression, low-self-preservation tactic. (I'd prefer if he made characters with a little more depth, which he's proven capable of, but that's another thread.)

I agree with him that defense tends to trump offense. It's relatively easy to avoid PK combat if you prioritize doing so. The reason for this is that if you tip the scales in the other direction too much (which I do think is the case at lower levels, exaggerated by some remaining class imbalances there), a few skilled players can make it nigh-impossible for other people to achieve any kind of success.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

We've also established that he doesn't score kills soley on his own merrit.

We've also established that he doesn't score kills soley on his own merrit.

Are you saying you understand the PK aspects of the game better than Marcus does? I'm claiming the opposite, and I'm curious if you hold this belief.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I've beaten his characters handily. I had a hard time escaping a certain mace spec when I needed to, and the Imm's took care of that.

Trigger's are the performance enhancing drugs of CF.

You can say you're a bad ass all you want, but when it's not entirely you that's doing it, you have no credibility.

Step back from your dislike of me and be honest with yourself about that.

Hey champ.

Barry Bonds without steroids is still a great baseball hitter.

Marcus without triggers is still a great warrior player.

They know it, they recognize it. To think that you are their equal (or even close) is delusion. To think that they have no ground to stand on is also delusion.

FYI, _your_ credibility in anything regarding PK was shot when you posted about necro sleep and assassins being overpowered.

So saying, triggers is bad on principle isn't going to phase an ethicly challenged individual.

You can't convince me Marcus is a good PK'er until he shows he is able to seal the deal with out triggers.

I cite as evidence that his effectiveness was reduced when his dash/trip was nerfed.

For the record, I never said Assassins are over powered. Sleep however is in my opinion. Making that statement doesn't have anything to do with Marcus and the tacit approval of his use of them by of some of the Immortal Staff.

>I cite as evidence that his effectiveness was reduced when his
>dash/trip was nerfed.

And he just posted what PK record? Pro, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

With that, please excuse my posting. For some strange reason, I thought that trying to crack that state of denial you live in was worth my time.

I assure you, it won't happen again. My sincerest apologies.

Regards,

Nivek

*I thought that trying to crack that state of denial you live in*

What do you think this state of denial is? Please explain.

The man uses triggers. He admitted it, we've seen it. There is no denying it.

It doesn't matter how good a PK'er he is, because on some level he's not the one doing the PK.

>I cite as evidence that his effectiveness was reduced when his
>dash/trip was nerfed.

It was reduced, but it remained still quite effective.

Going by the numbers, it seems quite unchanged... I'm too lazy to dig up the actual numbers, but going by memory I'd say my kills per hour are unchanged or has risen slightly since I played cathoria (I used them for about half of eyzy's life too). Bear in mind that chanya went through a rough patch when i was distended into hero range at level 40 for the last 20 hours or so...

So that doesn't change the fact that your kills are not based soley on your own skill.

Peoples feelings of whether or not I have a leg to stand on are rooted in their opinions of me and don't change that no matter how skillful you may be, you use triggers and thus lessen yourself.

Want to prove you are right? Play one of your warriors and get Marcus to send you his triggers. Watch as you get your ass pounded into the ground repeatedly.

How does "solely on your own skill" not count the ability to program and use triggers? Is typing speed a skill? Should I have an advantage over anyone who can't type as fast? What about aliases? You want to play a game without clients, go for it. Telnet is highly available. You do not, however, get to whine about how you can't type in c 'mass metabolic slow' Fixliptinic in a fast situation. If you had even the slightest clue about using triggers you would know that they at least as likely to get you killed as to land a kill.

Seriously Pro, people don't discount what you say because they hate you. People discount what you say because you are wrong. People hate you because you are a bigot. They are unconnected.

Want to prove you are right? Play one of your warriors and get Marcus to send you his triggers. Watch as you get your ass pounded into the ground repeatedly.<<<<<

What does this have to do with the fact that he uses triggers? Nothing other than that you aknowledge that he does. What's more, you don't know that I would get pounded into the ground. I've got enough pride in myself that I don't use them save for a few utilitarian things.

How does "solely on your own skill" not count the ability to program and use triggers? Is typing speed a skill? Should I have an advantage over anyone who can't type as fast? What about aliases? You want to play a game without clients, go for it. Telnet is highly available. You do not, however, get to whine about how you can't type in c 'mass metabolic slow' Fixliptinic in a fast situation. If you had even the slightest clue about using triggers you would know that they at least as likely to get you killed as to land a kill.<<<<

Tying speed is a skill and is a key factor in determining who is the better text based fighter. Yes, you should have the advantage over them. Aliases still require input and can be typoed. Whine is an attack word, try to disassociate yourself from it. Triggers are not just as likely to get you killed as save you or people wouldn't use them, what's more, they can be disabled with a simple toggle when they are not needed or would be detrimental.

Seriously Pro, people don't discount what you say because they hate you. People discount what you say because you are wrong. People hate you because you are a bigot. They are unconnected.<<<<

I'm not wrong that he uses triggers. I'm not wrong that they do things for a player without error when ever their conditions are met. Bigot is another attack word, you should disassociate yourself from it's usage as it disuades people from discussion.

Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience. Of course, you're nowhere close to winning, but that was his signum... I don't hate you, I think you're hilarious in a retarded kind of way. I'd probably hate you if I knew you IRL though.

Edit: Oops, that was supposed to go beneath prothero's post, not yours...

>If you had even the
>slightest clue about using triggers you would know that they
>at least as likely to get you killed as to land a kill.

This really isn't true, especially for a guy like Marcus who is savvy enough to turn a chase trigger off if the fight starts going south. Judging from the sheer number of pray complaints about Chanya using chase triggers (from a variety of geographically different IPs, etc. -- if it's just one guy complaining about someone I sort of assume they're Pro) I assume that's still happening at least part time.

Probably one of these days I'll end up coding something that dramatically reduces the edge granted by chase triggers at the price of making the game more of a pain for everyone and endure hate mail for a week.

All that being said, in a straight-telnet steel cage match I would still bet on Marcus to whoop Pro 10 times out of 10.

This really isn't true, especially for a guy like Marcus who is savvy enough to turn a chase trigger off if the fight starts going south. Judging from the sheer number of pray complaints about Chanya using chase triggers (from a variety of geographically different IPs, etc. -- if it's just one guy complaining about someone I sort of assume they're Pro) I assume that's still happening at least part time.

Agreed. I'm also convinced he doesn't use them as often as his detractors claim. Once the rumors got swirling, I watched him fight a few times and didn't see anything which suggested a trigger. I also know I wasn't the only person to check in on this issue, and the staff had a blanket green light to drop the slay on him if they did see obvious trigger-whoredom after his warning.

That's very difficult to diagnose as a player, but to an experienced staff member with snoop, triggers/botting stands out fairly readily, especially when watched in real time.

All that being said, in a straight-telnet steel cage match I would still bet on Marcus to whoop Pro 10 times out of 10.

I don't think this is an unpopular opinion, though I think we'd get some votes for Marcus winning 11 out of 10 of those.

If all the triggers were his one trick, someone else would have duplicated the trick and replicated his effectiveness by now. I think they're a blot on his record, but it's not like he'd be getting beat down by the Academy monsters without them.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>>If you had even the
>>slightest clue about using triggers you would know that they
>>at least as likely to get you killed as to land a kill.
>
>This really isn't true, especially for a guy like Marcus who
>is savvy enough to turn a chase trigger off if the fight
>starts going south. Judging from the sheer number of pray
>complaints about Chanya using chase triggers (from a variety
>of geographically different IPs, etc. -- if it's just one guy
>complaining about someone I sort of assume they're Pro) I
>assume that's still happening at least part time.

Ok, it isn't true for Marcus, but it is true for most people, which is why most people don't use them. Does Marcus 100% need these triggers? No his tracking skills are superb. Is the benefit gained worth the risk for him? Obviously yes. Why is this not considered an asset like typing faster than the next person?

I had a bunch more after this, but it would have come off as disrepect toward you, the rules, and immstaff in general, when in reality I was pointing out the same sort of problems computer security has. (IE: If you make it 2x harder for the hacker, and 2x harder for the user, one of them is going to make the effort, and one is just going to get frustrated.)

I'll just sum up my stance: People can escape non-dashing chase triggers if their opponent doesn't have a pathfinding advantage, in which case the ability is designed to give a chasing advantage. You've already fixed dashing triggers (I believe dash fails at a much higher rate now) so I don't see what is left to fix.

>Probably one of these days I'll end up coding something that
>dramatically reduces the edge granted by chase triggers at the
>price of making the game more of a pain for everyone and
>endure hate mail for a week.

There ought to be a way to nullify the advantage afforded by chase triggers w/o nerfing general game-play. Not that I've thought something out already, but my hunch is that there's a reasonable solution.

My solutions thus far nerf gameplay, or (probably a better solution) require singling out a specific player. For example, I could easily take an hour and make sure Marcus can never tell which direction someone flees. That's a better solution than removing that information for everyone, but it's not a great one because it also hinders his ability to play straight-up.

That talks about what computers do well (in regards to games) and what humans do well. I can't imagine a situation where a computer couldn't do instantaneous chasing better (since it's all about reaction times) but there is alot of CF that a computer couldn't do well...

>> There ought to be a way to nullify the advantage afforded by chase triggers w/o nerfing general game-play. Not that I've thought something out already, but my hunch is that there's a reasonable solution.

I've thought some about this. It's very difficult to remove the advantage of chase triggers (in a way that I couldn't easily work around) without doing very, very annoying stuff... I don't think I neither play enough or use triggers enough to warrant messing up the game over it

Better and easier to code would be a dectection system. With not too much work, a pretty reliable indicator could be achievd.. Then just add 'no chase triggers' to the rules and let the slays fly!

I don't generally post logs.

Yup! (Without necessarily knowing it was you until later, generally.)

I've also shared a cabal, etc. with you a time or twelve over the years.

Aside: You have a way of self-promoting through prays that, to some degree, a lot of the players here could learn from.

I tend to pray on rules violations and what I consider questionable activity. (I think everyone should.)

Is that what you mean?

With some characters at least, often you'll pray in a cool IC way when you're about to do something cool, or have just done something cool.

I mean, I hesitate to encourage that because it can be taken way too far, and god knows I don't want to see 913 prays a minute because everyone thinks they're Rambo, but done in moderation and well it really highlights a character's roleplay and calls attention to some of their better moments.

Because I was letting her know I was about to kill her followers.

I was also thrown into the Sands of Sorrow another time by someone.

*Shrug*

Pro doesn't respond to "research" or "facts". He will continue to think you are less effective changes to dash. He will continue to think triggers somehow magically win you fights that you would have otherwise lost. He will also continue to suck... at life.

It has been showed that a tweek to the conditions of his triggers had an effect.

This really isn't even about Marcus, so much as it is about the use of triggers themselves.

Could you point to your single most successful character in terms of PK? Cherry-pick any of the ones you've played in your 10 or so years here, so long as some numbers are available.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

His using Triggers?

Red herring fallacy = Let's look at something similar to, but ultimately unrelated to the topic to divert attention away from what the discussion is about.

He uses triggers to seal kills. That means on some level he is not sealing kills, his computer is. How does that make him worthy of praise when it comes to PK?

When you start decoding the signal coming through to your modem/ethernet cable by hand with pencil and paper and then sending your signals similarly you can claim your computer isn't (at some level) playing for you.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

It's a very rare thing when you and I have something even remotely in common, but on this topic we have some similarity. I also have some negativity to real trigger users. And I also think it does, to some extent, cheapen some kills or lessen someone's pk respect. So please understand that I am on your side in this area.

Having said that, the problem here is that you are placing so much value on those triggers that you ignore the ability of the player entirely. And that's not fair either. Many trigger happy players, Marcus among them, are still very good pk'ers even with triggers not enabled. I obviously have no way to make a true mathematical equation here, but for me, I'd say those triggers give someone a 15-25% boost. Meaningful? Yes. Absolutely. Respecting-stripping? I don't think so. And really, in the end, there is no right or wrong here, it's a judgment call on how you personally feel. People are just going to have a gut reaction as to how much they think it really helps or hurts and how much they will let that affect their judgment of the player.

Bottom line, as I'm wont to do in these posts: even without triggers many of them, like Marcus, get a lot of kills. They have demonstrated the skill. It annoys me that they feel they need to do even better, and so use the triggers so they can get machinespeed. But that doesn't mean I think they totally lose their own inherent pk power. They don't. Hate the enhancement, not the player.

Hope that makes sense.

I don't hate the player, but I'm not going to clap him on the back for a job well done, when it's been show other's have done as much by their own merrits. Thank's for the well reasoned responce.

I thought I would illustrate my point with a fictitional competition.

Let’s say there was a competition to see who got the most PK’s out of a hundred. All the players save for one play without the use of triggers. There are going to be a rewards for the top 10 PK’ers passed out based on the order of there placing.

Let’s for the sake of this example say that the person who uses triggers only sees a 10% gain from the use of the triggers. In other words, his triggers kill 1 out of every 10 opponents without his input.

At 91 kills he would place for a prize even though he only sealed 83 kills himself. Not only hasn’t earned a place at 91, he’s got a B- for PK on his report Card. What’s more he’s artificially displaced an A student from his rightful prized.

Should he do better than 91 he further relegates more and more hard earned A’s a step further down the ladder denying them their rightful prizes.

Even if he scores a perfect 100 kills, he’s still only responsible for 90 of them, again short of the 91 minimum required for a prize. While he has himself the prize for first place, he still only carries a A- to the next four contenders A +.

Whether or not if I have a passing grade of not is irrelevant to the fact that no matter how good a PK’er he is, he’ll never be above an A -.

My fan club should feel free to deflect to the extent that they want to defend the indefensible.

Whatever game you're illustrating might make sense if CF worked like that in any way, shape, or form, but it just doesn't.

This sub-conversation is more about how why Marcus has a great deal more credibility than you do when assessing the relative merits of offense and defense in CF. Given past performance, people are going to pay a lot more attention to someone like Marcus, than they are for you, especially when you post such.... unusual opinions on what abilities are overpowered so often.

The whole trigger thing is the red herring. You've been here... how long? You've started on many occasions that you put a ton of effort into PK, and you start a lot of threads on game balance topics, so it's not like you don't care about that side of the game. Given all the hours you've put in, you should be absolutely wiping the floor with 9/10 of the playerbase.

Something is holding you back, because you aren't close to that level of proficiency. I'm positing that it's self-overestimation.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I'm obsesive compulsive about number crunching.

For instance on another mud I spent a solid week creating/deleteing/recreating characters until I had an optimum balance, then I would delete because I was wrong.

If you recall for the first 6 or so years here I would delete on a single death. I've only recently been able to get over that and only partially.

But I do win most of my fights or at least survive them.

I've only stated Necromancers are over powered, though I think Shamans are right there with them.

They have mastered look the other way tactics and dancing around answering a simple question with truth, and if that doesn't work.. hell, lets just change or delete the post all together.

Cheeky bastards

Most of us got this #### out of our system in junior high.

Thing is, it's not dancing around the issue.

If Pro's going to present his opinion on how the game works out as being more valid than Marcus' without backing it up, you better believe which of them is the stronger PK-part-of-the-game player is relevant.

I was the kid who got hung up by his whitey tighteys from the light pole.. Hahah, but no, serious. I am not calling you out, and I won't say names, but I have noticed that happening A rather large amount. The postie will either be made to look like a fool in certain ways to detract from their credability or the reply will merely turn things around and point the finger the other way. You havn't noticed that yourself?!? If so, that kind of surprises me. Anyway, I won't post any more about this cause thats not what this discussion was about... but just kind of keep an eye open, truth really does go a long way.

>You havn't noticed that yourself?!? If
>so, that kind of surprises me.

Nope! At least, not as much as you seem to think.

In talking about CF, in a lot of cases the credibility of the poster really is relevant. For example, how many times have you seen a CF newbie on their first character post that assassins (or whatever) are terrible and can never win and how they're broken and need a special version of double spin kick that kicks someone in the head 39 times to be balanced? There, you could take the time to point out all the reasons they're wrong, and sometimes we will, but isn't it equally correct and more succinct to point out that they're on their first character and as they learn more about the game they'll achieve some perspective?

Similarly, if someone makes up crazy #### 9 posts in a row... post 10 is probably not getting a detailed explaination. They're probably getting, "Look, it's that crazy ####er again!"

In some cases, I think you have the chicken and the egg phenomena on the case. A lot of the times I'll see someone do something ####ty and/or lie about it and I'll be polite enough not to immediately call them on it, when maybe I shouldn't be. Maybe they post a big thread on Dio's about how they're quitting CF forever, and I really know they're still playing another character 5 hours a day. I'll keep that to myself, but then if a week later that guy is here running his mouth about something I'll stop holding back and punch for the gonads.

I was basing it off of a warrior with out recal, as that is what I most often play.

As well that I tend to stick it out to the bottom % in any fight I can get away with.

I think alot of people's complaints indicate that they do infact like tedious.

Yup. People complained when we made it impossible to improve skills from 1%, because practicing it once and going from there meant 1 fewer hp later. People routinely pick 5/5/5/5/5/5/5 affinity distributions. People spam-practice all sorts of garbage despite incentives to do otherwise. The bulk of the changes we've made to the practice system were aimed at making tedious strategies less optimal. There is generally a greater preference for tedium than I would have predicted.

I've always thought it interesting that CF apparently doesn't strive for the kind of balance where all race/class combinations are equally matched 1 vs 1.. Instead there's a huge amount of imbalances that eventually kinda evens out...

I agree the problem exists, though I do think the class gap is smaller at low levels than it used to be. The issue is complex, and we've always approached it iteratively-- tone down low-level Bash/Trip, see how it shakes out.... give mages a few more combat utilities at low levels... see how it shakes out...

I think we're conscious of that issue, and at least I believe that the typical RPG imbalances (where high-level magi dominate high-level warriors, and low-level warriors dominate low-level magi) are a terrible idea. Why create two lopsided fights instead of two even ones? I think we've done a great job of evening out the higher ranks, but we have a ways to go before the "king of the 11-25 hill" could really be any class.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>People routinely pick 5/5/5/5/5/5/5 affinity distributions.

And the staff appears to recommend it. From the helpfile:

"IMPORTANT: If you are a new player, we recommend using "affinity
default" instead of allotting points. This will give you average
ability in all 7 elements, which will help you explore the class."

I've got nothing against it, it just felt funny in the context of your remark. But on same note, if you think that 7-pather is up for tedium(as we know is the case), why not mention in help affinity and mention that spells going up by leveling was measured for 5-pather or something like that in the helpfile. You could also advice people to distribute the points evenly between all paths of your choosing for fastest overall learning(if that is the case).

>I think we're conscious of that issue, and at least I believe
>that the typical RPG imbalances (where high-level magi
>dominate high-level warriors, and low-level warriors dominate
>low-level magi) are a terrible idea. Why create two lopsided
>fights instead of two even ones? I think we've done a great
>job of evening out the higher ranks, but we have a ways to go
>before the "king of the 11-25 hill" could really be any
>class.
>
>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Looking at the list of classes King of the 1-25 heap is (in my opinion which may not be the popular one) pretty balanced with a couple exceptions. I would view shapies near the bottom, along with conjie (to be fair I haven't played one recently), and trannies (low level haste doesn't seem to do much compared to a massive deficit in damage output). However, were I wanted to create a sub-25 mass killer, invoker isn't a bad option at all, and necro is obviously a viable option. I'd say you're doing a pretty decent job. Compared to when giants got bash at level 1 and you hit pk ranger at 5, low level pk is so balanced it's overpowered.

Conjurer actually doesn't do terribly. I can't really see viably (i.e., anything other than extremely opportunistically) with a conjurer in the very first levels of PK, but once that parry, shield block, and that third missile come out they're surprisingly deadly even with just an invoker-style strategy. Elemental coming out at 20-23 (depending on how gutsy you are) cements that a bit further.

Transmuter I think stacks up better than you think.

Neither of those handle quite as well as necromancer or invoker in those ranges, IMHO, and shapeshifter I can't really see PKing with before first form without something pretty gimmicky. Deadly wands/staves and a clever rotation of partial shifts (e.g. hooves to cover terrain for cheap move, paws vs. opponents where dodging is important, horns or fangs for extra damage vs. opponents that aren't scary in melee, maybe?) could probably get the job done but I can't honestly say a lot of other things wouldn't be better. At least you have detect invis and fly built in.

Told you shapeshifters sucked. I win. You said it. It counts. I'm going to go LALALLALALALALA so I can't hear any rebuttal.

Thinking it over again, I've died to low level conjies a lot more than I care to admit to myself... Last trannie I played I tried low level pk, and failed miserably... but I'm not exactly a trannie (or mage in general) expert.

They're so overwhelmingly overpowered at that rank its scary. I used to just invis as an evil conjie, walk up and follow people. Demon comes bouncing along, whacks him in like a round and a half, exa corpse.

Just...mean.

And I think the question remains. Will the current changes stay the way they are, or is there an intention to change it to where bards, shield paladins, mages, etc. aren't so heavily affected by this change?

Personally, I didn't think anything in this department was broken to begin with.

I'm still a little baffled by this.

>to where bards, shield paladins, mages, etc. aren't so heavily
>affected by this change?

What shield paladin is out there fighting with shield + held?

What non-invoker mage is fighting with light + held?

From my understanding, only a weapon can be in the primary hand, leaving held items, lights, shields, etc. in the offhand only. If as assassin gets off kotegaeshi on a shield dedicated paladin, and they lose their off hand, that means no shield. They are stuck using a weapon, which happens not to be their strong point (because the shield is their strong point).

Since you like to put a lot of obscure scenario's out there when people start asking questions, I'll throw one your way: A shapeshifter wearing the shield from the Ancient white dragon and the Truncheon of power who reverts to cast faerie fire.

And another: Not being able to have a held item in the primary item limits any sort of options of using wands for mages. Maybe a necromancer is fighting an assassin, and they are tiger clawed and kotegaeshi(ed) and the assassin happens to be convulsing. Well, the necromancer probably won't outfight the assassin with a sword, but they could use a nifty wand to finish him off. But not after these changes, not in this scenario.

I think the staff is making a valiant effort to look the other way on this. Or it's beginning to seem that way.

And please don't get the idea that I'm some unappreciative asshole. I appreciate everything you guys do for the game. And if I could contribute (beyond playing), I would. But I don't know how to code, and you do. So I'm just sharing with you what I feel is right, and what I think was a bad decision.





"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion; you must set yourself on fire."

>From my understanding, only a weapon can be in the primary
>hand, leaving held items, lights, shields, etc. in the offhand
>only. If as assassin gets off kotegaeshi on a shield dedicated
>paladin, and they lose their off hand, that means no shield.
>They are stuck using a weapon, which happens not to be their
>strong point (because the shield is their strong point).

90% sure they would've been last week, too.

>Since you like to put a lot of obscure scenario's out there
>when people start asking questions, I'll throw one your way: A
>shapeshifter wearing the shield from the Ancient white dragon
>and the Truncheon of power who reverts to cast faerie fire.

That guy should be wearing a weapon instead if he's smart.

>And another: Not being able to have a held item in the primary
>item limits any sort of options of using wands for mages.
>Maybe a necromancer is fighting an assassin, and they are
>tiger clawed and kotegaeshi(ed) and the assassin happens to be
>convulsing. Well, the necromancer probably won't outfight the
>assassin with a sword, but they could use a nifty wand to
>finish him off. But not after these changes, not in this
>scenario.

See: Shield paladin thing above.

>I think the staff is making a valiant effort to look the other
>way on this. Or it's beginning to seem that way.

It's more that I just don't understand the upset about it, and as the thread goes on and on it's clear to me that most of the upset is based on a flawed understanding of how things used to work.

>And please don't get the idea that I'm some unappreciative
>asshole. I appreciate everything you guys do for the game. And
>if I could contribute (beyond playing), I would. But I don't
>know how to code, and you do. So I'm just sharing with you
>what I feel is right, and what I think was a bad decision.

Go nuts. I'll just also argue about it because I'm like that.

I mean, I've been using dual wield for quite some time. Maybe not as long as you have, but I like to think I had a good grasp and understanding of its mechanics.

Before, you used to be able to use a held item in your primary hand and a shield in your offhand (or vice versa, I don't know which one was really which in this scenario). Now, weapon only in primary, and everything else is automatically directed to offhand. I should be allowed to choose what goes where, not some code that forces me to have it a certain way.

Am I missing something?




"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion; you must set yourself on fire."

The last time I did a shield paladin (and, maybe it changed along the way, who knows), kotegaeshi ALWAYS broke your shieldhand. Even if you dumped your weapon a shield wasn't going back in there.

Similar deal with wands, etc.

"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion; you must set yourself on fire."

I can point you to logs where I as a rager warrior was fighting an assassin. The assassin got the Kot off. I was then able to fight with one weapon, or with a shield, but not both. I fought both ways, eventually winning by wielding the weapon and not the shield. But I could swap them around.

Ditto for my shield paladin a year ago.

Up to now, when kot went through, you became a one handed person, but you could hold anything in that hand.

This seems to be one of the issues causing concern here. The option has been removed, because the kot will always get the "offhand" and you cannot wear a shield or anything else in the "primary" hand anymore. Or so it seems.

.

I distinctly remember being able to remove weapon/wear shield after getting kot'd. I only remember it because I probably duel'd with Nydeikon (I forget his name offhand, Nexus Assassin), 10 or so times with the character and he had a penchant for nailing kot on me and as a shield spec, I'd take shield over weapon any day.

I'm not at my main PC or I'd post logs, but just think of when a bard was wearing a shield and an instrument and had his wrist broken. He didn't lose both the shield and the instrument. He only lost the shield.

(Disclaimer: The following paragraphs could be completely wrong since it's just based on the assumption that no held items can be used with a broken wrist now.)
I haven't had much time to experience these new changes, but it seems to me that a broken wrist always means nothing in the offhand slot. If this is the case, then a bard is severely disadvantaged by kotegaishi + this change and not just because of him not being able to use both a shield and an instrument. Now a bard can't remove his weapon then hold an instrument.

And as others have pointed out, that limitation isn't limited to bards. There are many circumstances with just about non-melee oriented char would want to use a held item over a weapon. For example, any char with massive damage redux who doesn't deal much damage with their weapon might opt to hold their cube of power or similar held progging item or wand if they're in a position where they're out of mana or can't cast (but not in a no-magic room). Even a mid to low level AP without excision or without reliable excision might opt to remove his weapon, hold a wand of return and zap himself if he's in a no-win situation with a broken wrist. The same is true for a staff of return as any mage if you want to save a groupmate while you have a broken wrist.

This isn't limited to combat either. There are many times when a mage could flee, remove their weapon and use a barrier wand, avoiding any messy combat rounds without parry.

nt

I held the scepter of domination, which is a light, and the cube of force, which is a held item. Couldn't do that now.

If as assassin gets off kotegaeshi on a shield
>dedicated
>>paladin, and they lose their off hand, that means no shield.
>>They are stuck using a weapon, which happens not to be their
>>strong point (because the shield is their strong point).
>
>90% sure they would've been last week, too.


Unless things have changed between about 2 months ago and last week, you're wrong.

The assassin would kot and break wrist, and immediately the paladin would lose his shield. But if he removed his weapon, and re-wore his shield, he'd be punching and using a shield. I have logs to prove it, if you really want them.

The same scenario works with wands, and every other held item.

nt

>And I think the question remains. Will the current changes
>stay the way they are, or is there an intention to change it
>to where bards, shield paladins, mages, etc. aren't so heavily
>affected by this change?
>
>Personally, I didn't think anything in this department was
>broken to begin with.

If you actually read my initial response you would have seen this:

I know bards and mages want to have the best of both worlds. It's on my list, the problem is, it's way down at the bottom. I need to work out all the rest of the crap dealing with dual-wield before I even think about shield + instrument for bards, or shield + held for mages.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

If that's the case, then why not change it back until you're able to fix it the way you think it needs to be fixed? In general (or this may just be my opinion), everyone got along with how the whole dual wield thing worked before. It sounds like it will take quite a bit of time to get around to, so hopefully the thought of reverting it to the way it was (the broken way?) isn't out of the question either.




"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion; you must set yourself on fire."

>If that's the case, then why not change it back until you're
>able to fix it the way you think it needs to be fixed?

I'll guess an answer for you:

Because the idea of how the code is implemented in clear fashion needs the code to work in a simple way that is not messy. Now, Zulg changed something that didn't work in a very user-friendly fashion. Apparently, he needed to restrict the main hand for weapon in order to keep it together. 'Change it back' isn't going to help anything. The development is supposed to go forward, not backwards. I'd prefer Zulg taking these issues into account if and when it is possible when the code is ready for it.

In
>general (or this may just be my opinion), everyone got along
>with how the whole dual wield thing worked before.

I never liked it. It was a phucking mess. Everyone got along with it because they had to. I hope that Zulg can manage something more user-friendly and logical out of it.

It sounds
>like it will take quite a bit of time to get around to, so
>hopefully the thought of reverting it to the way it was (the
>broken way?) isn't out of the question either.

Why make something that is broken? The reduced options for a while is not that big a deal. It appears that Zulg has been working on it at quite diligently. I think that Zulg shouldn't waste his time making a temporary solution to accomodate to your needs.

Its days like these I bet you wish that CF was written in C#, or even C++.

nt

When some years ago I realized that the whole wield-issues is not going to be fixed I wrote a mighty wear script that simplifies the thing for me. It is also a phucking nightmare script as is the original "wear" command and it is not 100% proof but still it does "ok" remembering my current wield ( including disarmed, broken or lost due to entwininig weapons ), it tries to choose the fastest way to swap weapons, for example, he knows that you have to remove shield but don't have to remove offhand weapon before wielding another one, it tracks two-handed or cursed wields and so on.

And now you know what?
When you play with wear command I have to change it accordingly
Screw you lazy programmers. Phuck granular changes, take guts and rewrite the whole thing.

>From BardicPlayer
>As a bard, it either makes owning a shield not worth the
>weight, or making songs a lot less effective.
>
>I wouldn't say "a lot less effective", but yes...less
>effective.

So an instrument is only somewhat more effective than a capella? I strongly disagree. A mid-level instrument on a hero bard makes healing songs about 33-50% better, or at least it used to. I think that's a huge amount of effectiveness.

>As for why? The code for dual wield sucks, and making it work
>for the 90% case (people with the dual wield skill) is more
>important to me than the 10% case (bards and mages) As I said
>above, I have it on the list, but it's below the rest of the
>dual wield stuff.

How is people with dual wield the 90% case? That's warriors, assassins, most rangers, APs, Berserkers and thieves. Non dual-wielders are transmuters, conjurers, shapeshifters, necromancers, invokers, bards, healers, shaman and paladins. Warriors are the most numerous class, but even so, there are a lot of non-dual wielders.

I don't think this this change makes a huge difference in anybody's power. Not being able to wear a shield and a held item isn't a backbreaking setback for mages, bards, communers, etc. But what I don't get is that this change seems to be reducing gear options for everyone, while only gaining some superficial convenience for dual wielders in return.

Why not just let people wield whatever they want in either hand? Is it really unbalanced that way?

edit: Stupid unclosed italics tags

>How is people with dual wield the 90% case? That's warriors,
>assassins, most rangers, APs, Berserkers and thieves. Non
>dual-wielders are transmuters, conjurers, shapeshifters,
>necromancers, invokers, bards, healers, shaman and paladins.
>Warriors are the most numerous class, but even so, there are a
>lot of non-dual wielders.

Right. Here's the catch: how many of those people realistically want to not use a weapon?

>Why not just let people wield whatever they want in either
>hand? Is it really unbalanced that way?

It's a lot more pain in the ass to code.

I'll be straight with you... I've fixed a lot of CF #### over the years, and I've coded up a lot of CF stuff over the years, and most of it seemed fun or at least tolerable to me... but I have to give Zulg props because I would NEVER have gotten to touching or trying to improve the dual wield code. I don't think anyone who hasn't seen it has any conception of how convoluted and ugly it is.