[CF-Devel] WHAT?!?!

[Peter Mardahl]

>
     
      Okay, what are you guys talking about?
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Shields obselete?? Shields are already obselete.. the only reason anyone
     
     >
     
      wields them is because that is the only choice. You think this is GOOD? I am
     
     >
     
      shocked. Here we are adding PR and on the verge of changing all the gods..
     
     >
     
      and you say "major game change". I realised long ago that this would
     
     
Yup, those are major game changes too, but we've discussed the hell out
of them and built a consensus.  It's pretty clear that doing the PR
and the Gods changes will bring more balance to the game.

NOW we're discussing "wielding two weapons".
Weapon          Weight
Defender        20
Holy Avenger    25
Demonslayer     25
Stormbringer    25
Staff of Magi    4.5
Darkblade       20

So, pick any two of those and I can wield them if I have a Str of 20,
if your weight limit of 50 at str 20 is used.

But forget all that.
Consider two "improved" daggers.  If raising stats via improved
weapons was bad BEFORE, well, NOW it is twice as bad.

We'd have to go through and adjust ALL the weights to satisfy your
system, and even when we were through, we'd still have a system open
to abuse.  Open to abuse?  Begging for abuse.

I still say two weapons is only appropriate for a Q, who cannot use
either a shield or armour, or a helmet, or girdles.  Allowing 2 weapons
for Q's seems like a cool redress.

>
     
      is that? If we bump the average AC of a shield up around 4 (remember a
     
     
Yeah, but shoes rarely/never have any protections.  Shields do.
I always use shields now, but I would NEVER use them if I could use
two weapons instead.  I might use a Taifu or a Defender, but never again
a shield.  (Did I mention that Taifu's weigh only 5?)  Do you use
shields now?  Yes?  Then why are you claiming they're useless?


>
     
      standard is NO reason WHAT SO EVER, to stop progress. Not only is it more
     
     >
     
      realistic.. but it will be ALOT more fun to sacrafice AC for damage, we add
     
     
There's that "r" word again.  Let me use the "r" word against you.  How
many great swordsmen in history were able to use two swords effectively
in combat?  Swinging two swords around just ain't "realistic"!!!  Look
into any fencing class....  Sword+shield is downright standard though.

But screw realism.  This is crossfire.  Two weapons will make shields
obsolete, and more than double the combat strength of characters:  they lose
nothing by dropping the shield (weapons can come with AC and protections too),
and double their damage, and quite possibly gain some stats into the
bargain.  Unless, of course, we put in a lot of rules so that they
can't actually wield two weapons.  (Restrictions they'll easily circumvent:
consider a weapon-improved taifu with high Str and Dex.)

Your proposed counter to shield obsolescense is to 
inflate shields to great power, so they'll be useful compared to weapons.  
How about deflating your two-weapons proposal, instead?  It's much less work.

Please don't confuse "change" with "improvement."  You paint us as
resisting "progress".  Well, I'm not convinced using two weapons is
"progress."

>
     
      face reality.. a shield gives as much AC as a pair of shoes. What the hell
     
     >
     
      (roughly) 50. To protect against multiple Dragonslayers we just bump the
     
     >
     
      weight of the sword up.
     
     
>
     
      do it.. but you have to give me time. I REALLY am starting to get sick of
     
     >
     
      comments like, it will make it too powerful blah blah blah. That is what
     
     
I'm sorry to hear you're tired of receiving our critical comments on your
proposed change.  I'm also sorry that you seem to be taking it as a personal
attack rather than concern for game balance.  It's no fun when people shoot
down your pet idea.  But I think this pet idea of yours is going to detract
from game balance, not like the PR and the Gods changes, 
which I think will be beneficial.

>
     
      TESTING is for, items change, we change everything, why does that suddenly
     
     >
     
      have to change when I make a common sense suggestion about something which
     
     >
     
      crossfire has been lacking for ALONG time? Stop worrying about simple holes
     
     >
     
      about overpoweredness, and start thinking about how you could help me create
     
     >
     
      the best code for the job =). There is a list of obselete items as long as
     
     >
     
      this email, as we go through we can allow them to catch up.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      I mean offense in this email, but I find it very bizarre that such comments
     
     >
     
      as Andreas and Peters are being made at a time like this. Sorry, take it up
     
     >
     
      with me on IRC.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      dnh
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      _______________________________________________
     
     >
     
      crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     >
     
     
      crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
      
      
     >
     
     
      https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel