[CF-Devel] Sorry

[dnh at hawthorn.csse.monash.edu.au]

Okay let me rephrase my previous email. I am not going to waste 4 or more
weeks attempting to rewrite the whole code so a Q can wield two weapons,
and some weapons are two handed. As I have previously stated I consider
this a long term project and thus do not see a quick one night solution.
After almost two weeks I am now told that basically all my ideas are
worthless is not something which puts on in a particualarly good mood =|. 

As Mark has said,

" So at this point, I think discussion is still good.  I don't have a big
problem with people not using shields - I've played some games where you
can use two weapons (and not a shield), and it was certainly a choice on
whether I wanted to do that or not."

In every game I hgave played where multiple weapons have been able to be
wielded (thinks of Diablo II), it is usually alot better to go with the
shield. This was how I was planning to set it up, put enough negatives
that it is much better to get that extra defense from the shield.


"Swinging two swords around just ain't "realistic"!!!"

Let me assure you Pete, that that is more than realistic. Barbarians were
well reknowned for the ability to trample armies by running through
equiped with 2! axes. While (And I have already said this) I plan to add
code so that a certain weight level must be observed before a player
can wield, the values I suggested were rough. If they are to high... we
TAKE THEM DOWN!. How hard is that? To tell the truth I plan to just write
the code and leave it, if people want to take advantage of it so be it,
but the attack code is VERY poor and needs alot of catching up. It is just
outdated now, I am sure it has fitted the purpose for along time, but it
simply wasn't designed for the new and improved battle scenarios we now
face.

Concluding, Pete, I have alot of trouble understanding how you can go from
wanting to remove caps, and taking out tables to declaring that something
shouldn't be added because it will change the balance. I don't get upset
by what you say, I welcome, and have welcomed all comment on this project.
What I get upset about is your repeating of information I have already
found solutions for, why is it so hard to comprehend balancing a few
items? The majority of them should be okay anyway and it is the code that
will balance it, not really the items... Again I have already said, please
don't tell me the problems, I know them already, try and find SOLUTIONS.
By all your problem finding it seems to me you are not being constructive
rather dogmatic. Take this how you will, I don't enjoy one bit having
stupid arguements about stupid things. This is the last message I send
about this, please try and help me or at very least be constructive.
Signing out

dnh