|
|
Mekantos | Sun 13-Dec-09 02:18 PM |
Member since 06th Dec 2003
796 posts
| |
|
#758, "Small change to enigma of the thirteen"
|
I propose that a one-round lag be setup whenever a player tries to quaff a potion or eat a pill in combat, and that this be made visible to the room. It's a great legacy, but I think it's a little too good. Let's take Hunsobo, or any giant warrior with this legacy. With no delay at all they can enlarge or reduce, mid-fight, to counter any tactic you've taken to guard against a bash-death. If you had some indication that they were about to grow/shrink, you could take steps to counter it. Likewise, if you have them hurt and they are about to quaff a recall, you could try to stop them, or kill them before they do.
Anyway, I can think of lots of other reasons why it would be useful, more tactically interesting (for the opposing player), and fair, but so can you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulghinlour | Mon 14-Dec-09 08:41 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
9792 posts
| |
|
#759, "Santa Zulg brings you coal."
In response to Reply #0
|
>I propose that a one-round lag be setup whenever a player >tries to quaff a potion or eat a pill in combat, and that this >be made visible to the room.
I think you're asking for a pre-delay (similar to retreat), and I really don't think that's necessary.
>It's a great legacy, but I think >it's a little too good. Let's take Hunsobo, or any giant >warrior with this legacy. With no delay at all they can >enlarge or reduce, mid-fight, to counter any tactic you've >taken to guard against a bash-death. If you had some >indication that they were about to grow/shrink, you could take >steps to counter it. Likewise, if you have them hurt and they >are about to quaff a recall, you could try to stop them, or >kill them before they do.
There is lag anytime they eat a pill or quaff a potion, but it comes after, just like everyone else. Even the guys who don't have this can do it (flee/eat, flee/quaff). This allows you to remove the flee part of the equation.
>Anyway, I can think of lots of other reasons why it would be >useful, more tactically interesting (for the opposing player), >and fair, but so can you.
I disagree. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
|
|
|
|
|