Dwoggurd | Tue 20-Mar-07 04:26 AM |
Member since 20th Jan 2004
668 posts
| |
|
#17176, "Clarification"
|
In my previous post I tried to give detail explanations how wield command are supposed to work. At first glance it may look complicated (though actually it is simplier than the current system). So now I feel that is also useful to give overview and some clarification to my proposal.
First of all, metacommands described in my proposal are virtual commands. They can be mapped on real commands the way implementator is choosing. For example, "primary" command may be implemented as "wield" and "offhand" command may be implemented as "dual".
Below I will give some quick comparison for my proposal vs. the current system so you would see that proposed syntax is not more complicated.
My proposal What is does Current system primary <weapon> wields primary wield <weapon> offhand <item> wields offhand dual <weapon> or wear <item> remprimary removes primary remove <weapon> remoffhand removes offhand remove <weapon/item>
So you may see that in 99% of cases 99% of characters will work with four commands. Right now they are already working with similar four commands which are less clear because of many possible outcomes.
My proposal has two additinal commands which are not mandatory. both - this command address two-handed vs. giant problem, so it will be used very rarey. In general, people wouldn't want to wield a two-handed weapon when they can use it as one-handed. But in some cases they may have a such wish for whatever purpose (damage bonus, or edge). I don't think it is now possible for a giant to force-wield a weapon as two-handed except a hack for a two-hander paladin. You many choose to leave that problem unsolved as it is now, in this case additional command is not required.
remboth - removes both weapons or items at once. This is simply for convenience. You can live without this command and remove items one by one as you do in the current system.
|
|
|
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Dual wield helpfile looks outdated,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
| |
|