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.

Reply to: Note 40625 posted by Thridi

Clan potions are already 'static' flagged, so it doesn't save the individual
item data

Reply to: Note 40619 posted by Fiendish

I thought since we moved to v3, the old 'vnums' are no longer relevant, and
there are virtually unlimited item keys possible. I don't think it makes a
difference to storage either...

Reply to: Note 40589 posted by Uuna

To clarify, friend makes the mule account, so it's not multiplaying

Reply to: Note 40586 posted by Mordist

(1) I didn't suggest removing item limits altogether (i.e. unlimited capacity),
    so the amount you'd end up carrying is the same as now;

(2) I don't think the change would increase hoarding. People already deal with
    the limits by just asking a friend to hold on to their stuff (whether on
    their main char or by making a mule account to hold it).

Could item limits be changed to either (1) a fixed limit, or (2) based on
saved SH stats?

Currently, if you have maxxed stats at SH (and presumably high str), when you
remort or redo, you lose about 400-500 item slots, and it's a huge hassle
trying to clear up inventory space in order to do so. I'm not sure what this
really adds to the game.

Reply to: Note 40568 posted by Zoot

I quite like this idea. It's been ages since I've gone to a low level area for
any reason.

Reply to: Note 16765 posted by Redryn

Actually, http://www.aardwolf.com/mud-features.html should be checked and
updated (or removed if too much hassle maybe).

- Classes doesn't refer to subclass system
- Spells and skills list not updated
- Clan list not updated
- Tier bonuses not up to date

Or maybe link to the wiki instead.

http://www.aardwolf.com/fstats.html

Still refers to the old stat system with max of 350 + 150.

Reply to: Note 40543 posted by Fiendish

Sounds like a terra boss mob.

For some reason the Aylor pclass warrior training room became unexplored for
me, which is rather a pain since I don't really want to classchange into pwar
just for the explore...

Reply to: Note 18097 posted by Throxx

I just went to get a thorn, it was lvl 110. Maybe you're using the wrong
thorns.

Reply to: Note 18095 posted by Throxx

Thorn is lv 110?

Reply to: Note 40517 posted by Nid

You can already go fishing in Sen'narre or Nalondir. Doesn't seem
like a popular feature.

Reply to: Note 16756 posted by Sammael

Not a typo, it has "girl". Being a descriptor isn't a reason to add as keyword.

Reply to: Note 40497 posted by Wars

Someone once got nuked for summoning newbs to be pked...

Reply to: Note 18088 posted by Tymme

It was pointed out on testport, so I think it was intentional.
Poor thieves could use some love anyway

Reply to: Note 40495 posted by Vespar

Base exp is increased and then divided by # of group members.
I think there's a sufficient bonus already, and grouping is already quite
common.

Reply to: Note 40489 posted by Wire

What Wire said is mostly correct. That said, there is a lot that can be done
through mprogs. But do you have a more specific explanation of what is
'be more like players'?

I'm always on the lookout for ideas as to how to make more challenging 'boss
fights' (I don't know if you've tried my areas yet).

Reply to: Note 40483 posted by Kratos

Grouping already gives an exp bonus, 50% for two and 100% for 3+ iirc.

So I'm not sure what this is asking for?

Not really a typo, but I think help redo should provide some additional
information on redos...

- You get bonus instinct trains
- SH costs are lowered
- Campaigns have diminishing returns

(Any other specific things that apply to redos)

(I don't know the details exactly, and couldn't find a helpfile on it...)

Reply to: Note 40411 posted by Castiel

How about an ability to "take over" the revenge someone else has?
Typically "avenging" is avenging someone else.

Reply to: Note 40406 posted by Malas

If we're getting this, I'd like to suggest getting all affect flags somewhere,
seeing that sanc is up is pretty useful (lots of people use tracker scripts,
or sometimes miss it when sanc drops until someone tells them).

Reply to: Note 40392 posted by Tymme

None is still around (you can get it with change sex). I don't see a big issue
having it as a selectable option, but I imagine it's pretty low on priorities..

Reply to: Note 40337 posted by Lasher

> Only concern with this is items that might have been allowed to be heavier
> on stats on condition these flags were set, I feel like I remember at least
> a few over the years (but not what they were). They would all now become
> enchantable.

Not 100% sure what you are referring to, but I can think of some items, e.g.
Nyne goal3 reward
(Striding towards doom) which I believe have higher rolls. Such items
invariably also have ill/sol/res set as flags baseline though, so I don't
think the concern arises. (After all, tptoggle has been around for decades and
paying 2 tp for a toggle is trivial).

Reply to: Note 40324 posted by Nasus

> I cannot agree with "we dont need more game mechanics"

If scroll had same lag as potion when used on self, will there ever be
any point in having a potion vs a scroll?

I'd just buy scrolls because I could both use it on myself like a potion, or
on others if I wanted to.

Reply to: Note 40294 posted by Crowley

People still use lvl 201 pots, so saying it's useless is incorrect.
Healing more simply costs disproportionately more, it's called diminishing
returns. 

Look at triv heals - the cost:heal ratio is even worse, but the market
value remains high. If people weren't willing to pay disproportionately
more, the price would drop.

If you don't think 201 heal potions are worth the additional cost, that's fine,
you're not obliged to use them. I don't either because I'm cheap. But pots
are already dirt cheap and prevalent, and there's no need to make them
cheaper.

Reply to: Note 40286 posted by Mondaine

If it's an issue of making alts to abuse, just add a no-quit flag for anyone
who gets married for the duration.

Then also make it a rule that sham marriages are illegal.

I don't really like the idea of 15 min double qp though, not least because
only about half the mud would benefit at random.