-
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how could you get attacked and die with cloak of guile on? And as Syn said, some of those bigger mobs are meant for groups.
-
Some mobs can detect cloak of guile and attack you.
-
Wow, that's retarded.. I thought the entire purpose of the spell was that NO mob could see through it.
-
It's not retarded. What would be retarded is a single spell that doesn't cost a moonstone making it so that mobs twice your level cannot attack you or cast on you making them rediculously easy to kill as if it isn't already easy enough using the kill/flee tactics and archery. Granted sometimes these tactics are needed because of the way mobs are at the moment that will hopefully be changing soon.
-
Maybe it would be a bit more balanced not letting any mob see through it if the flee-killing was abolished. And on the sidenote of moonstones, are those even made anymore? I can't remember the last time I saw one.
-
They can still be bought with quest points I believe.
-
Oh yeah.. bah, I don't care for forcing players to quest a lot if they want to cast higher-up spells.. but that's another topic for another time.
-
~~@Darigaaz:~~
> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how could you get attacked and die with cloak of guile on? And as Syn said, some of those bigger mobs are meant for groups.
Not all mobs are affected by the COG Daktos is one.
-
Well another at least temporary fix could be to just make it illegal to do this specifically for "speed killing" purposes.
Some mobs are buff and u need to flee almost every round to wear them down, but areas like mount, and poa this is not meant or necessary, 'cept for speed or botting purposes. So specifically make it illegal for speed/botting purposes and if there are any disagreements as to if it was for this purpose imms judgement prevails. Imms are hired for their judgement ability and 99.99% of the time I would say I agree with it if even begrudgingly. This would allow for consideration on how to make it 1) not able to do it. or 2) not effective.
-
Oh gawd, questing. Please don't force me do any more Fedex quests..
-
But Xavis questing is FUN! *cackles*
but i agree shouldnt be needed to buy an overpriced Moonstone for a spell that only works once..thank goodness I'm Far too lazy for such things
:faint:
-
~~@RedRaven:~~
> 'cept for speed or botting purposes. So specifically make it illegal for speed/botting purposes and if there are any disagreements as to if it was for this purpose imms judgement prevails. .
The problem with many muds in general is the over abundace of RULES, if the code allows it then it should ba a legal thing to do. Stock rom penalizes you some experience if you flee or die, surely any coder who has removed such functionality would relize what would happen, players being what they are, are going to explioit (use) the code as it is designed. There are many ways to overcome this, but adding yet another rule to stop you doing something that the code allow is just plane DUMB.
Rules are bullshit, are always going to be bullshit, rules are excuses coders make for sections of code that they cannot think outside the box to fix.Now i know you Redraven have used some skills for your own benifit befor reporting them as a posible expliots(xtrasp going crusader as one, mounts casting spells and such was changed well after you got some use and benifit from it).
Adding a delay to anyone issuing a save call is just lazy, when you can catch a sigsev when the mud crashes, go through all the descriptors checking if any are bad, saving each as you go, finally sending an email to a coder telling them PLAYERX's descriptor was fucked and prolly lost 15 minuits of game play and could use a token for being unlucky.
Or how about the pore fucker who goes dead linked in CPK to come back a whole lot of eq less, when all you need to do to stop someone from going deadlinked out to avoid a CPK is add a timer that keeps them live for 30 seconds befor killing the descriptor off.
So i sound harsh you might say and all i want to do is bagg out the imms who work so hard on the code, NOT AT ALL, im just hilighting how making rules to fix shit is the wrong way to go and will always be the wrong way to go.
-
~~@Guest:~~
> [.Now i know you Redraven have used some skills for your own benifit befor reporting them as a posible expliots(xtrasp going crusader as one, mounts casting spells and such was changed well after you got some use and benifit from it).
>
> .
Ok, well I didnt look as it being an exploit, but a benefit, of being crusader, the Order command was there and Mounts forming with crusader was a benefit of being a Crusader.
When it was determined that it wasnt, the fix was put in. It was never made illegal nor stated that it was a bug before it was changed. Nor was it stated that it was frowned upon or considered shady by the imms, Flee Killing has been stated as such. Though not made illegal.
To generally say rules are not needed? That is pure BS, there are rules that cant be coded economically, Biggest one I can think of would be a ban on pk of someone that had been led into pk, I am not a coder, but that would seem to be a nightmare to code, without it being worth it. As well as some other basic rules. I also did not suggest the making the rule as the end all, but as a way to stop it till a way to defeat it by code was decided upon and implemented.
And the fleeing costing xp? Even that would have to be an enourmous loss to make it not worth using this method. And hence make it non-economical to kill some mobs that u have to use this method for no matter what level u are.
Anyway, I am tired and losing my thoughts, So will probably come back to this later
-
> The problem with many muds in general is the over abundace of RULES, if the code allows it then it should ba a legal thing to do. Stock rom penalizes you some experience if you flee or die, surely any coder who has removed such functionality would relize what would happen, players being what they are, are going to explioit (use) the code as it is designed. There are many ways to overcome this, but adding yet another rule to stop you doing something that the code allow is just plane DUMB.
>
> Rules are bullshit, are always going to be bullshit, rules are excuses coders make for sections of code that they cannot think outside the box to fix
>
> Adding a delay to anyone issuing a save call is just lazy, when you can catch a sigsev when the mud crashes, go through all the descriptors checking if any are bad, saving each as you go, finally sending an email to a coder telling them PLAYERX's descriptor was fucked and prolly lost 15 minuits of game play and could use a token for being unlucky.
>
> Or how about the pore fucker who goes dead linked in CPK to come back a whole lot of eq less, when all you need to do to stop someone from going deadlinked out to avoid a CPK is add a timer that keeps them live for 30 seconds befor killing the descriptor off.
>
> So i sound harsh you might say and all i want to do is bagg out the imms who work so hard on the code, NOT AT ALL, im just hilighting how making rules to fix shit is the wrong way to go and will always be the wrong way to go.
Yeah, you have a point about muds having too many rules and such. I'll agree that if AT all possible we should code things to be impossible rather than illegal. No argument there. I'll even give you the link-dead-in-CPK as a good solution that should be implemented when I have time.
However your generalizations are just such crap. Rules are always going to be bullshit? Some rules that can be fixed by the code, yeah. But please tell me how you're going to child pornographers from coming onto the MUD and harrassing people by using the code? How are you going to prevent people from making public threats on others using the code? How are you going to code it so that people can't post someone's street address over public channels, or prevent someone from giving their character away? All of these things have happened, and all should NOT happen, and none of them can be prevented by "thinking outside the box" no matter how clever of a programmer you are.
As for your descriptor "save" fix, it's inherently flawed. What if the same bug that caused the crash happens to buffer overflow and corrupt the heap along with someone's (or everyone's) character data? We can write the corrupt data to disk using your solution, losing all of their stuff and risking that the game crash whenever the person subsequently logs in, or we can do it my way and make sure that people's chars aren't saved with defects. The lag on save is a patch fix at best, yeah. Someday there'll be a time when people won't need to save manually. If you notice we've went from many segfaults a day to a 12 day uptime while I've had control over the code. I'm not saying I've done anything amazing, but progress HAS been shown,
For the record I think it's pretty lame to have people lose xp for using a command, or lose xp at all for that matter. And if you automatically punish people for using a command, how is that different from making a rule against it? Yes, I will code it so that this doesn't happen, when I have time. I know my code isn't the best, and I'm not claiming it to be in the slightest, but also note that I'm doing this for free as a hobby, I'm not forcing anyone to play, and unlike many other MUD implementors I actually have a real life outside of mudding.
I'm not sure exactly, but it seems like we have a troll in our midst seeing as how he/she is great at dishing out criticism but doesn't bother to leave a name so I can at least know who the hell I"m talking to :> If you're such a brilliant programmer, feel free to make your own mud and show me up. Trust me I won't be losing any sleep over it 8)
-
> As for your descriptor "save" fix, it's inherently flawed. What if the same bug that caused the crash happens to buffer overflow and corrupt the heap along with someone's (or everyone's) character data?
Is it that hard to validate the data as we go? of course you wouldnt want to save a whole bunch of crap, that would cause more more trouble then the fix.
As for the things you mention as rules that you cannot code for, i do agree those things are imposible, but i was talking about things like RULE 1: dont use this command till i fix it, of which Dont flee kill if made a rule would be.
> I'm not sure exactly, but it seems like we have a troll in our midst seeing as how he/she is great at dishing out criticism but doesn't bother to leave a name so I can at least know who the hell I"m talking to
There is no troll, i have spoken to you personally about the CPK timer fix, and the only reason i didnt log in is cause i cannot remember my password and the email i used to sign up is no longer valid and cannot retrieve the password. When time permits i will email lukus about it.
> For the record I think it's pretty lame to have people lose xp for using a command, or lose xp at all for that matter.
So do i, i wanst advocating for the use of it.
Surely your not all that thin skinned syn and think that my thoughts and opinons are an attack at you or the effort you put in and i know you prolly have a life, college, prolly a job, and surly you want to get layed every now and again too and have upkeep on a woman as well.
The whole post was about muds in generaly its just that i used examples from here to illustrate my points, i know what its like on both sodes of the fence and as a player i dont like to be told that i cannot do something, i have never flee killed to level, that is pointless and anyone who has to flee kill to level is a total lamer, there are enought places in sentience to level where at each 30 level group you wont loose to much in the way of HP by killing there. and if some think its a way to speed level i dont get that either, you can pretty much level out in poa anyways.
There are enough logs sent to ertai as it is without him having to decide that playerx is a flee killer,.
Tommi
-
Here is a section of a thread on mudconnect.com that i was active in, it sort of somes up why rules are not a good opion.
Heh. That's one of Lambert's Laws.
So I gotta disagree. *chuckle* I think players will always find the shortest path to the cheese. And they'll talk about it. You can count on it. **Again this is where some admins, much like the scripting issues, waste a lot of time (and money) punishing and policing players** for following their very natural and oh so human inclinations. It simply doesn't matter how smart or clever you think you are, it only takes one player finding that cheese. And then they'll wiggle their butts like bees and even your dimmest bee will be feasting on cheese regularly. :-)
-
~~@guest:~~
> Here is a section of a thread on mudconnect.com that i was active in, it sort of somes up why rules are not a good opion.
>
> Heh. That's one of Lambert's Laws.
>
> So I gotta disagree. *chuckle* I think players will always find the shortest path to the cheese. And they'll talk about it. You can count on it. **Again this is where some admins, much like the scripting issues, waste a lot of time (and money) punishing and policing players** for following their very natural and oh so human inclinations. It simply doesn't matter how smart or clever you think you are, it only takes one player finding that cheese. And then they'll wiggle their butts like bees and even your dimmest bee will be feasting on cheese regularly. :-)
Much better, thanks. I think the ultimate point is that it wouldnt be a good idea to make a rule against flee kijlling as it could easily be prevented by the code… I'll do this as soon as I have time. I'm not gonna say I haven't made a temporary rule or two to prevent people from doing stuff before i fix it... but it's always with the ultimate intention of preventing it rather than punishing people for it. Just want to make sure people understand that... I think our imms have way too much good stuff to do without having to be the SS for things we could easily prevent with the code. Sorry if i got a bit defensive.
I gotta go right now but I'll read over this thread again in a little bit. I think I may remove the save timer now that I think about it. The problem with validating data though is that it's kinda hard to do in C... there's no bounds checkign on arrays, etc., so if I screwed up and put a &x + 1 instead of &x + 2 it could write into someone's data and overwrite the valid flag. I'll try to think of a way around this. Meanwhile I gotta run, peace 8)
