Reply to: Note 41604 posted by Norton

There is already a "test" zone on testport, where you can already build
whatever.

All you need is lv 204, and I think you can get that by asking nicely

Reply to: Note 18392 posted by Teleron

Bags with 100% weight can be put into other bags I believe. To allow sorting
stuff within a bag.

Reply to: Note 41577 posted by Castiel

I think it would work better as a purely instanced area, rather than existing
areas. That's because some areas are just 100% pupmobs, while others have
annoying mobs in them like sanced mobs, etc, at various parts.

I think there was already work done in relation to having an instanced dungeon,
but I suspect it's gone on a hiatus though :(

Reply to: Note 41556 posted by Starling

Myth's idea, if it could be implemented, would be extremely difficult (except
with some sort of super advanced deep learning AI) to script. The premise as
I understand it is not randomised find and kill, but for a human to replace
mob names with another description. E.g.: if target mob is 'the orc general',
it could be subbed to 'leader of the green-skinned mountain dwellers'. If area
is the peaceful giant village, a player with a decent knowledge would figure
out that it's referring to the orc general. A script or database cannot
really figure it out.

That said, I'm not sure it's feasible for an imm to replace names every 5 min
before a gq. Perhaps what could be done is having weekly lists mapping certain
descriptions to mobkeys (maybe 2-3 every 10 levels), and have the gq mobpicking
code try to prioritise picking one of those mobs. Still a lot of work to
generate something new every week though.

Reply to: Note 41528 posted by Deepstar

There are a few people complaining about mobwalks... but I don't understand
exactly how people with mobwalks are advantaged?

I'm pretty sure people with mobwalks would also use hunt trick if there
were multiple same-name mobs. It's not like a database magically tells you
which of 30.princess is the right one. 

Removing hunt trick makes it an equal PITA for everyone if there's multiple
same-name mobs.

Reply to: Note 41499 posted by Crowley

"muffle" as you suggest already seems to describe daze, and amnesia.
"bind" also seems to describe demoralise.

Is your suggestion just to give it to more classes?

Reply to: Note 41469 posted by Rhuli

> I've been trying to think of ways to improve or come up with a 2.0 version
> of Aarchaeology.  I don't think adding 50 more items is the way to go, though.
> Any additional ideas are welcome.

I think Aarchaeology 2.0 can be more aarchaeological than getting random loot.

How about this:
Players can visit the Professor to get a "rumour" of where a possible dig site
might be. This would be a sort of hint at an area, located somewhere on one
of the continents.

Players can then go to that area, pick a room, and 'dig'/'excavate' or some
sort of special command. If it's the wrong room, it could give some sort of
hint to say you find traces or something indicating the site is north/south
/east/west, maybe also a graduated response indicating whether it's much
farther north, or close by, etc.

When you find the right room, you get a random aarch piece.

Command should be time-limited, maybe you can dig/excavate one time a day.

So overall, it'll be kinda a daily thing - you first find the professor to
get a zone (I use area loosely to mean a general part of a continent), and
then you kind of try to hunt down the specific room, having to think about
where to dig next carefully since you only get 1 try a day. Players will
also have to keep track of where they've been digging.

On the whole, I think most if not all of the above can be implemented via
mobprogs so Lasher doesn't need to code much (though maybe custom commands 
in every room of every continent might be an issue, not sure).
Most of the work will be having to coming up/writing customised hints as to
areas of the continents though.

Reply to: Note 41436 posted by Valour

I like Durel's idea - kinda "autobalances" all classes forever, leaving it
easier to add new skills etc without worrying about breaking balance or
making a new op class.

I would make a generic % multiplier bonus on all damage, which would
increase for a underused class, and decrease for popular class.
Could have a multiplier that is computed weekly/daily based on average class
distribution.


The other idea, requested often, is damage over time or healing over time.

Reply to: Note 18337 posted by Koala

Options: 1- All items, sorted by ascending level.
         2- All items, sorted by descending level.
         3- All items, sorted by item key, then ascending level.
         4- Precious items only, sorted by ascending level.

Winds eq has precious flag so seems to be working. I don't know what should
have precious flag though, and whether it's supposed to be limited to aardeq.
My various medals, tp stuff also have precious flag.

Reply to: Note 18320 posted by Iocaste

I can confirm the bug - any failed cast of illuminate (ie add glow but
no stats) will also add the illuminate flag, making disenchant unusable.

Not sure what changed but reproduced on both test and live.

Reply to: Note 18315 posted by Iocaste

You probably needed to use disenchant to remove the +3 wis illuminate rather
than setflag. Don't think this is the same bug.

Reply to: Note 18305 posted by Ganesha

There's no wis on the item at all, so it's not clear how illum flag got added.

Task 19 : Receive a Gift

...

When you get to the forge, look at the sign. From there, you can
you any of your series cases on any of the equipment. You may purchase

seems there's something missing between the two sentences

Reply to: Note 41338 posted by Crowley

Long time ago I suggested that volley damage should have a function of lower
damage the lower players' hp is.
I.e. If you do a fullvolley at 100%, maybe you bring them down to 50%. If
already at 50%, down tp 25%. 25% to 12.5%. Effect is that you can weaken but
not fully kill a player from any volley.

But Hunter is pretty weak already, and at SH at least it's not much use, so
I'm not sure if any nerf is needed.
It also removes the possibility of a hunter "death squad" which would be a
few players running around together and instakilling any player with no
chance to react. But again I'm not aware of anything like that happening.

Reply to: Note 41243 posted by Tryllus

Not all current epics track completions, so the data is going to be patchy.

Reply to: Note 41207 posted by Crowley

Been a long time, but I thought they don't see invis?

Reply to: Note 18251 posted by Quarana

Doesn't eqsearch already indicate that an item is invis?

That's also stated in the eqsearch help file.

Reply to: Note 41189 posted by Garfield

Is strangle duration actually so long? That's not been my experience - maybe
1 tick or so, but please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Or are you confusing strangle with the sleep spell?

Reply to: Note 41171 posted by DjVoltron

Why in the world would anyone care what the total number of random instincts
is? It's a pretty meaningless number compared to individual instinct amounts or
total trains used

Reply to: Note 41169 posted by DjVoltron

You can already use instinct check to see how much you've put into instinct.

Reply to: Note 41149 posted by Quarana

The downside to having a long time-out is that it holds up the queue for
everyone else (no other 10 or fewer wins gq will be called while one is
ongoing). A timeout was added to prevent issues if someone decides to 
go afk for example.

The timer (10 mins) resets every time you kill a mob, so it can actually
be very long. 10 minutes should be plenty of time to find any mob - learn
to use maps instead of wandering around aimlessly, and if you realise some
area is particularly troublesome, take a quick break to kill an easy mob
to reset the timer.

Reply to: Note 41131 posted by VeryLongName

Uh, isn't that exactly what setting a pagesize does?

Reply to: Note 18210 posted by Bitties

I think kflag is at the Aylorian forge, just south of the weapon forge which
runto erroneously brings you to.

Reply to: Note 41082 posted by Mendaloth

> The idea that you can somehow defeat scripts with complicated factors such as
> mazes and randomized zones is just not true.  The only thing that is possible
> is to raise the bar and skill level required for those making the scripts.

You're right, but I think that's the point. Unlike popular graphical games
where there are millions of players and always people willing to pay money
for the development of scripts, etc, Aard isn't that widely popular, and it
isn't exactly the target of the proverbial bot farms that make gold (or
whatever) to sell to other players for irl money.

If the bar is sufficiently high, the vast majority will not have the ability
or time to develop scripts for it.

I believe it is possible to design minizones that are hard to script, and even
then a script is not likely to give a significant advantage over a human.
E.g.: a miniboss like morgak (dodge the exploding runes). Don't think a script
gives a significant boost. Don't even know if anyone's even written a script
for it.

I should also point out that a fully automated maze-solver is illegal.

Reply to: Note 41077 posted by Vespar

I think there was some work done on creating random instanced zones. That
concept could translate into a temporary zone where a bunch of players
compete to complete some sort of objective (find kill a mob/ find item, or
something).

Perhaps there could also be various "fixed" minizones within the mazes that
could have similar designs or mechanics to pass - this would reward some 
degree of knowledge/exploration of such random zones, and which of these
minizones that pop up could be randomised. Depending on what's randomised in
it, it could be easy for a player who knows them to figure out, but hard for
a script to do the same.

Could even have minibosses that you had to defeat using certain mechanics.

Could be designed with a portal entry/ portal exit after completing the
minizone, and plugged into any section. Players could perhaps even
design such minizones that could be added to the pool.

Reply to: Note 41059 posted by Tymme

+1, I think find could be expanded to be used more generally. Maybe can unlock
the keywords once the room is explored.

Would also make it easier for those who don't use mappers.

I don't understand the logic behind the suggestion, at least for GQs.
 
The reason t9 redos had cp rewards cut is because it was possible to earn a
massive amount of qps (e.g. 3-5k a day) which was seen to break the game  
balance. 
 
GQs are not a massive source of qps since they don't occur frequently.
 
There is no mechanic in the game which cuts rewards after hitting a certain
total, which seems to be what you're suggesting.
 
What benefit does your suggestion bring?
As for CPs, I think it would at best only make sense to extend the per-day
limit to non-t9 redos, but again I don't think any total cap should be
added. It would be unfair to newer players vs older players who have done 10k+
cps without caps.

Reply to: Note 41012 posted by Zagyg

Sure players get a good boost, for all of about 15 minutes maybe. Is that
really a problem?
And if the boost is valuable, prices for such pills will go up significantly

Reply to: Note 18195 posted by Sotura

Are you in a room with a mob with a keyword that "str" would hit?

It would be cool if imm pills/triv pots/special limited pills/pots would 
give a random subclass spell buff, e.g. desecration, power projection, 
timeshifting, gaia, etc.

Would make them give a tangible and significant boost, as the stat bonuses
that you currently get are of limited utility to maxxed out players

Reply to: Note 18182 posted by Dillon

Superheroes don't get hungry or thirsty, don't need the wish

Reply to: Note 40965 posted by Dillon

The main point of awareness is to block the backstab skill,
not to add resistance (which would protect against all damage).

Reply to: Note 40942 posted by Avandar

I think shorter repop times + personal timers is the way to go, such as in
Winds. Addresses timezone issues while not significantly increasing the
number of runs. E.g. repop timer of 30 hours + 72 hour personal timer = 1-2
runs per week. In fact, ideally the repop timer could be even shorter so
multiple timezones could organise runs on weekends (where most people are
available).

Not sure about adjusting difficulty since that needs a lot of work and
extensive rewriting if the epic doesn't already permit it.

I think IF1 and IF2 points should be separated, although I think it would
be nice if people with lots of IF2 runs already (e.g. me) could get some
of the points converted to IF2 points. Should be fairly straightforward
to calculate based on #runs x 15 points.

Reply to: Note 40889 posted by Tymme

As much as I would like to see this as a navigator, I think that would make
it way too unfair for all other participants in a GQ.

Especially since bypass typically is used on all the tedious areas like
D8, Partroxis, etc.

Reply to: Note 40868 posted by Starling

Justifications for punishments include, apart from rehabilitation, deterrence
and prevention (and some say retribution). 

If the only punishment for bad conduct is to preventive in nature (i.e.
preventing them from talking on channels), then there's limited to no deterrent
effect. I.e. a player will just figure that the worst that happens for breaking
conduct rules is they don't get channel access for a period of time.

Punishments that are wider than just that have a deterrent effect, because the
player will realise that breaking rules hurts them beyond just that.
That's why we also have punishments like jail, freeze, or nuke.

That said, I don't see an issue with a specific nochan vs gag all distinction,
although I would say the liberty should remain with imms to decide whatever
punishment is most appropriate.

From what I've seen though, the usual nochan punishment for non-repeat
rule breakers tends to be shortlived in nature, and which usually serves its
purpose.

Reply to: Note 40853 posted by Androg

Issue is that goals aren't set up for it. Some goals give rewards midway
through (e.g. academy fundraising leaflet) and there's no way for the system
to know when an item given is a 'reward', or random goal-related item. 

One idea raised before is to allow resets of goals on tiers (and allow
collecting the reward again), not sure what happened to that.

Reply to: Note 40851 posted by Abelinc

The concern I would have is that t9 redoers tend to have low tnl but very
high levelling speed. If this is implemented, it could bring a whole new
type of superdragging (i.e. t9 redoer drags someone, and they basically get
super kill speed + almost permanent double exp from the t9 redoer).

Not sure that's necessarily a good thing.

Also, when would the 0tnl "lock" kick in? Is it when someone is about to level
out of the 15 level range? Or does it bring everyone to the same level?

If the former - it would exacerbate the hyper dragging concern. If the latter,
it would really mess up the usual group dynamic. Plenty of people have
different tnls and don't necessarily want their levels to be locked to whoever
else is in their group, especially since by definition it slows down their
levelling speed.

Reply to: Note 40850 posted by Wire

I've suggested before the idea of temporary stronger items. E.g. you could
merge 2 rank5 into a rank6, but the item has a timer and will crumble 
within 1 month.

To me that gives something to do (forever), while not creating power creep.

Reply to: Note 40844 posted by Impurifan

Castiel already pointed to help gq rules...

See also help policies6

The only exception to this teamwork is global quests.  Winning a gquest is
an individual accomplishment and aid on global quests has a negative impact
on the other participants. It is illegal to have others repeatedly kill a
gquest mob you have already killed, kill key mobs, attack a gquest mob and
remove weapons, etc. 

Sure it's not specifically listed, but it seems obvious to me that slothing
someone is just the same as the other examples listed.

Reply to: Note 40834 posted by Srykr

15 points is with the ring, 10 points is base I believe.

Reply to: Note 40797 posted by Castiel

Insofar as Tram casted sloth on Wire during gq as "payback" seems to be an
admission of breaking the rules...

But anyway, agree with the original idea. The point of sloth was to help
pk by preventing someone from getting away. If they can make it to clan/manor
etc, they've already gotten away. No reason for making things
unplayable until it wears off, which is mostly an issue
in gqs (you can afk for a few mins otherwise). I had
 a random aggro mob cast it on me once, and it was hellish.

Reply to: Note 40757 posted by Tymme

Please don't add rewards to the point where people feel obligated to join
activities or they are "losing out" on rewards.

My reasons for not playing stuff - 
Blackjack/Slots - it's just basic gambling with statistical loss, 
Poker - it's gambling + I don't know how to play well
Mafia - party game, not something I'd play over and over again, and more fun
        IRL tbh, when you can try to read people's expressions etc.
Laser - Scripts give huge advantage.

The above also aren't quite in line with the Aard game mechanics, i.e. an RPG
/ hacknslash. They're minigames, not the focus of the mud.

Wars - the participation rate is low, and the outcome of most wars is
predetermined (i.e. based on participants' stats, you know who will win). 

It could be vastly improved with randomised team wars. Have suggested this
ad nauseam. Randomised teams would mean people have a more or less 50:50 chance
of winning, even if teams are imbalanced. Odds get closer and closer the larger
the teams get. 

I think laser could be reworked into some sort of arena mini-game where
character stats don't matter as much, and ideally can't be scripted. Possibly
add some delay/lag to movement, and have make it possible to dodge shots? 

I've seen various minigame series that are mods of other popular games, where
there are a bunch of randomised minigames that players will do (e.g. Uther
Party in Warcraft 3, that I can think of offhand). One game which would
probably translate well to aard would be bomberman maybe?
The classic NES tanks game too I suppose. 

Reply to: Note 16831 posted by Irmie

I think the @@ is supposed to represent the head of a mace.

Reply to: Note 40707 posted by Gilduran

45 level difference is insane, maybe 2 or 3 levels a tier would make sense.

Reply to: Note 40690 posted by Icarus

Since when is disarm a very useful pvp skill?

Reply to: Note 40684 posted by Icarus

> I propose the affect from the Bracers of Iron Grip be changed from NoDisarm, which
> completely voids a very useful PVP skill,

Since when is iron grip a very useful pvp skill?

Reply to: Note 40676 posted by Tymme

I believe this has been rejected before because allies aren't consistent (like
flist). Someone who replies to you might have their message
sent to someone not your Ally.

Reply to: Note 16799 posted by Abelinc

> But a spell doesn't know how many words are in TWO of its positional 
> parameters, making the need for single-quotes required to know when one
> argument ends and another starts. It could be rewritten to be slightly
> smarter which would eliminate this particular issue, in that the third
> (optional) argument of the target is always the last.

You mean this? I believe the point of Zoot's note is that she never understood
why quotes are needed for spell targets, your response was that this was
because casting has 2 parameters, to which I responded to say that it's not
really an answer, because cast always assumes the first parameter is a single
word anyway.

Reply to: Note 16796 posted by Abelinc

> For spells, it's much more difficult:
> 1) First word is cast
> 2) Second and maybe third words are spell
> 3) What I'm acting on may start at the third or fourth words, 
>    and may go farther out than that

Except even for spells, the third word is always considered to be the target,
unless the spell name is in quotes.
E.g.:
c indestructible aura -> They aren't here.

Since it already assumes any multi-word spellname will be in quotes, there is
no reason not to treat any subsequent words as target.

Reply to: Note 553 posted by Abelinc

Not every lottery bet is statistically loss making. Especially with rollover of
prize monies, sometimes you have a statistical positive expected value. 


See e.g. the story of Jerry Selbee.