Would it be such a crazy idea to remove the order all commander?

I primarily see it in use for rescue and for O all get all corpse.

Now making people have to use a couple of different order commands to achieve a big loot does not seem like such a bad thing (especially considering tribs have that safeguard/confiscate commands now).

I also think that in the rather rare chance that a pet fails a rescue it should in fact be a wasted command (otherwise whats the point of their being a fail when in the majority of situations that people have pets they have at least 2, tribs, druids, necros, shawtabbies)

At the end of the day its not really a game changer but it could be cool to see someone with a full army actually fail an order all rescue once and anything to make heavy looting more difficult is ok with me.

Means people could make better use of norescue command and makes necros et all a little more careful.

You just aren't tanking after the first one succeeds.

It won't save you from the looting by pets.

#alias olg {#10 order 1. get 1.corpse;#10 order 2. get 1.corpse;#10 order 3. get 1.corpse;#10 order 4. get 1.corpse}

Either pets won't loot at all (cannot carry), either you will just make it more annoying. Annoyed pet-owners are much worse than not annoyed, because they are more likely to fullsac you.

About rescue - they are failing quite often. When you have a big army, it's a bonus for your 2-3 hours effort gathering them and keeping them alive that they can rescue you. Play a necro, and you won't offer thing like that, knowing pain of making a decent army.

There are lots of ways of increasing your chances of success, and a few ways of getting tough mobs to die for you without you having to put much effort in.

If you play a necro in more of an "rp" fashion, you'll probably start to see the difference. For example, when I played an assassin that wore light armor (purely because I figured that an assassin would wear light armor), I tanked better (because whoever wrote the tanking code thought similarly). Necro plays in a similar way. There are things you might associate with necromancy and they do indeed seem to have an impact on it.

>There are lots of ways of increasing your chances of success,
>and a few ways of getting tough mobs to die for you without
>you having to put much effort in.

It still takes a pretty long time to get a full army, with the cooldown, even if you don't fail once. I think the mechnic would be much better if armies persisted through logouts and just had a very long timer of say 5 realtime hours or so.

>probably start to see the difference. For example, when I
>played an assassin that wore light armor (purely because I
>figured that an assassin would wear light armor), I tanked
>better (because whoever wrote the tanking code thought
>similarly).

Can we get any official word on this? This seems like one of those superstitions that comes out of humans being bad at intuitively analyzing random events.

That is what the light armor use/heavy armor use/etc. skills are for. They factor in the bonuses from using gear appropriate to your class. Necros wearing bone armor, for example, should naturally tank better over equivalent armor that is made of steel.

It's also a factor in damage, too. Particularly, aim and precise aim characters benefit a TON from hitroll.

armor skills affect rate of armor deflection. not dodge and parry.

being low on weight would affect dodge and light armor types tend to actually be low weight.

For example, the assassin thing is because you defend better when your weight is low.

To give one example of necro things... doing stuff in the middle of the night helps, unless I'm mistaken. There are other things similar to that.

Also, if you are raising an army, there's nothing that says you have to sit still while doing it. Kill something, raise something, move to do something else useful (e.g. gather a wand), come back, kill and raise again, etc.

And THAT assumes you really want to keep raising the same mobs. If you don't need to, you can save extra time like that.

>For example, the assassin thing is because you defend better
>when your weight is low.

Okay, that makes more sense. The dodge/low-weight mechanic was never in question. I thought you were saying that specifically wearing the category "light armor" as in light armor use was a factor in one of dodge/parry/shield block.

As for your necro examples, whether they're true or not it's the timer between castings that is the irreduceible time sink. Unless you're saying that doing it at midnight helps with that aspect.

>Also, if you are raising an army, there's nothing that says
>you have to sit still while doing it. Kill something, raise
>something, move to do something else useful (e.g. gather a
>wand), come back, kill and raise again, etc.

Of course. That doesn't change the fact it still takes a long time, which matters only because it has to happen per-login. So if you have daily logins of around two hours you'll not often have a full army, at spectre. Which would be fine, except that someone who logs the same number of weekly hours, but all at once on saturdays will get to spend most of his time with a full army. Anyway, this has been rehashed many times before.

Would be nice if there was some halfway position. Maybe zombies having a long timer (dunno -- 600 game hours maybe?) so that you might have to raise more if you are on a long time, but equally a chance to survive a quit if they are with you when you quit.

>To give one example of necro things... doing stuff in the
>middle of the night helps, unless I'm mistaken. There are
>other things similar to that.

Uhm...no. Animate Dead has 4 components: skill in animate dead, skill in spellcraft, whether or not you have the zombie lord edge, whether or not you are a lich or mummy. That's it. There is no extra secret magical sauce (unless it's the purple crack you're huffin)

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Does nightcaster edge come into play?

Not really, no.

In a sense the edge does function, but it doesn't do anything that's useful in this particular case.

nt

.

NT