Subject: "On Golems, mummies, zombies and ghouls" Previous topic | Next topic
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend CF Website
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #24209
Show all folders

AbernyteMon 30-Mar-09 09:56 AM
Member since 04th Mar 2003
975 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
#24209, "On Golems, mummies, zombies and ghouls"


          

Do these brainless being ever fail to rescue the necromancer or the person the necromancer commands them to rescue? I ask because warriors and paladins often fail in their attempts but I have never seen one of these brainless undead ever fail.

If they don't ever fail to rescue, why not? Shouldn't there always be a chance of failure in skills that involve people meleeing about?

It kind of detracts from the warrior's skills set if a brainless pile of embalmed flesh can rescue people better than he can.

-----Abernyte

P.S. If you cannot make it fail sometimes, at least have them accidently pass on plague to the rescued by virtue of the close proximity they are under.

  

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

Reply Try this., Scrimbul, 31-Mar-09 03:05 AM, #5
Reply RE: Try this., Daevryn, 31-Mar-09 07:43 AM, #6
Reply To be fair I'm not that far along in my C., Scrimbul, 31-Mar-09 03:02 PM, #8
Reply This is such a great idea., Guilo, 01-Apr-09 10:29 AM, #9
Reply I agree. Remove 'order all rescue'. Or change it so onl..., Marcus_, 31-Mar-09 01:53 AM, #2
Reply I don't think necromancers need their charmie's strengt..., Mekantos, 31-Mar-09 02:06 AM, #3
     Reply I agree with this., Scrimbul, 31-Mar-09 02:59 AM, #4
          Reply Then remove the failure rate., Marcus_, 31-Mar-09 02:51 PM, #7
Reply They can fail, Mekantos, 30-Mar-09 10:16 AM, #1

ScrimbulTue 31-Mar-09 03:04 AM
Member since 22nd Apr 2003
884 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 Click to send message via AOL IM Click to send message via ICQ
#24218, "Try this."
In response to Reply #0
Edited on Tue 31-Mar-09 03:05 AM

  

          

I'm pretty sure something like this already exists but I'll give it a go.

Create a new skill and give this skill to the inners. Call it 'stalker's focus' or something.

What this skill does is duck around the guard of the rescuer and keep the attacker on his intended target. I.e. it adds a second fail-success check to rescue in a fight. When I say 'duck around the guard' this implies a dexterity check to dart past the rescuer the moment he makes his move and change the angle of attack so the rescuer is facing the attacker where the attacker no longer is. If you want it to be a strength/size check, just make an emote about clotheslining the rescuer out of the way and onto his ass.

If this skill check succeeds, then the rescue fails and combat continues as normal with the attendant lag on rescue for both the rescued and the rescuer, with a free melee strike on the rescuer from the attacker.

What this does is add risk to using the rescue command for both warriors and necros in raids, and it's also a nifty skill that the imms can give as a quest reward to people like Executioner's Grace is or any number of old skills that are in the game code but no longer exist in any class/cabal skillset.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

  

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

    
DaevrynTue 31-Mar-09 07:43 AM
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 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
#24219, "RE: Try this."
In response to Reply #5


          

There's a warrior edge sort of like that, but I don't think any skills or anything that can be set on a mob. That's an interesting idea.

  

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

        
ScrimbulTue 31-Mar-09 03:02 PM
Member since 22nd Apr 2003
884 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 Click to send message via AOL IM Click to send message via ICQ
#24223, "To be fair I'm not that far along in my C."
In response to Reply #6
Edited on Tue 31-Mar-09 03:02 PM

  

          

I've only taken baby steps recently and started a class.

But based on what I've seen of general C and deduced from the skills in CF, it sounds like the code for this skill wouldn't be all that different from entwine or flee-blocking in STSF. Parting block, etc. you just check rescue (and fallback) instead of flee.

The difference is you're skipping making this an edge and creating a whole new skill with a percentage. Then applying it to all inners in the game.

This leaves it as a tactic but also keeps it from being a complete shutdown of rescuing out at inners. It also is a generic use questskill that can be given out as a reward that has a niche' use.

When you make this skill of course you'll have to remove this check entirely versus a Vanguard warrior. It's a very specific case but if you intend to make use of rescue on a tanky character with high HP, it would give a reason to take that legacy. Still not a very popular one, but negating Stalker's Focus would be a nice niche bonus for a niche legacy.

  

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

    
GuiloWed 01-Apr-09 10:29 AM
Member since 09th May 2008
367 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 Click to send message via AOL IM
#24225, "This is such a great idea."
In response to Reply #5


          

As far as new unique skills go that should be implemented into CF, this idea is superb. It would also give a bump to a very undertaken legacy if it disregarded the skill.

  

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

Marcus_Tue 31-Mar-09 01:53 AM
Member since 04th Mar 2003
681 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
#24215, "I agree. Remove 'order all rescue'. Or change it so onl..."
In response to Reply #0


          

nt

  

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

    
MekantosTue 31-Mar-09 02:06 AM
Member since 06th Dec 2003
796 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list
#24216, "I don't think necromancers need their charmie's strengt..."
In response to Reply #2


          

...diminished. You are probably fighting a lich, or both of them, and so it seems a lot tougher. This change would probably hurt the class, on the whole, too much.

  

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

        
ScrimbulTue 31-Mar-09 02:59 AM
Member since 22nd Apr 2003
884 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 Click to send message via AOL IM Click to send message via ICQ
#24217, "I agree with this."
In response to Reply #3


  

          

If you've ever played a class that you have to have multiple mobs follow you around, they don't fly and their only perk is breathing underwater, while they don't ignore currents?

Oh and any idiot paladin/shaman can summon them away in their spare time provided you're not in the same room as them (which is 98% of the time if they're doing this at all) and wrath them down with a minimum of effort before you can summon them back? Which will generally cost you more mana than it did them because you might have a crappy lowbie area mob zombie spawn in on a given continent after yours was risen/re-entered the game?

Frankly the damage they do, the mob HP they keep and the fact that they are only a couple of levels lower than when they were living is understandable once you try to play around all those limits. You can't exactly take the zombies exploring when they are too large to enter every other door, etc. and if you're dealing with a hero level tanky character at all with a modicum of saves, and if it's a goodie, the headdress of galadriel or helm of brilliance, they're nigh useless but as cannon fodder...

They don't need to be nerfed on rescue, the imms already implemented a failure rate on them which gets lowbie necros killed regularly.

  

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

            
Marcus_Tue 31-Mar-09 02:51 PM
Member since 04th Mar 2003
681 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
#24222, "Then remove the failure rate."
In response to Reply #4


          

It wasn't directed towards necros, my general idea was that skills that require atleast some thought is more fun to use than just having a "rescueme" button that works for all pets, no matter what. The failure rate pretty much comes into effect for lowbie necros anyway... Pumping them up a little would just be a good thing. Doing that would actually make the skill better, but also add a possibility for screwup on the player's part which is a good thing in my book.

  

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

MekantosMon 30-Mar-09 10:16 AM
Member since 06th Dec 2003
796 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list
#24211, "They can fail"
In response to Reply #0


          

...But I think what you are seeing is "order all rescue (necro)," and so the whole gang tries to do it. If the first fails, the second might succeed, and so on.

  

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

Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #24209 Previous topic | Next topic