mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,688
|
Post by mehtastic on Nov 1, 2024 18:45:32 GMT -5
Word travels through the cliques that the staff made a staff-only #evennia channel on the game's Discord server after the game closed. Evennia is a MU* creation system that is used to power Arx and pinkerdlu's Reign MUX project. While I don't know for certain what is being discussed there, it's a safe bet to assume that the staff are at least discussing the idea of remaking Armageddon, or making a successor to Armageddon, with Evennia.
|
|
|
|
Post by gringoose on Nov 1, 2024 19:35:28 GMT -5
If true then it means they probably want to design a MUSH. That would be good and get rid of 90% of the problems with Arm. Good for them. I hope they succeed.
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,512 
|
Post by Jeshin on Nov 1, 2024 19:35:54 GMT -5
I hate betterdiscord, when I was actively developing for a game we used to make fake channel names to fuck with people who used that to see things they shouldn't on servers.
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Jeshin on Nov 1, 2024 19:36:25 GMT -5
Evennia can be used to design an RPI, Project Redshift my Expanse style scifi RPI was coded in Evennia.
|
|
baron
Clueless newb
Posts: 119
|
Post by baron on Nov 1, 2024 21:27:49 GMT -5
There were undead in the world, and really, the necromancer was just adding back in an archetype that was removed (albeit removed with good reason).
I didn't have a problem with Mary Sue powerful characters, as powerful antagonists are needed to challenge characters that can one-v-one a mekillot. The necromancer looks more killable than a fully branched sorc and less annoying to deal with than a psion.
The real problem is that it would be staff/staff-informed pets inevitably playing the necromancer(s) as PCs, and mundane characters wouldn't have recourse for dealing with them, as the traditional tool of poison wouldn't work. And even the time honored strategy of "waiting until the character dies of old age" wouldn't prove helpful.
A fix might be to give the necromancer a weakness. Maybe they don't die of old age, but they do molder in the ground sleeping for protracted periods, like corpses. Maybe a fully corrupt necromancer can't log off and needs to find a safe-ish tomb (surrounded by their zombies and friendly PCs for protection perhaps) to exist as an attack-able corpse when they are offline. Might also cause damage to a fully corrupt necromancer in direct daylight, or reduce their mana regen to 0 during the day, or require they "sleep" in order to regen mana at all.
If the chosen tombs had some anti-magic properties, the power ranger elementalists/sorcs/templars might have to enlist mundane to actually do something.
I mean, I'm aware that it really, really doesn't matter, but just saying, the problems with the necromancers were solvable, and it's an archetype I know players would have fun with. It's just, maybe they could have elicited ideas for how to make it work from the community, instead of keeping things under lock and key. Including ordinary pleb players in those kinds of code/world-building discussions would have also generated some excitement, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by generality on Nov 2, 2024 1:00:50 GMT -5
Wouldn't be shocked at all, but I'm not sure I care enough to dip my foot back into the Arm community now. Even if you rebrand it.
You folks made the bed, now sleep in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by anoobarak on Nov 2, 2024 3:28:24 GMT -5
Not surprised. I logged in for all of three days before quitting again.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Nov 2, 2024 8:43:36 GMT -5
There were undead in the world, and really, the necromancer was just adding back in an archetype that was removed (albeit removed with good reason). I didn't have a problem with Mary Sue powerful characters, as powerful antagonists are needed to challenge characters that can one-v-one a mekillot. The necromancer looks more killable than a fully branched sorc and less annoying to deal with than a psion. The real problem is that it would be staff/staff-informed pets inevitably playing the necromancer(s) as PCs, and mundane characters wouldn't have recourse for dealing with them, as the traditional tool of poison wouldn't work. And even the time honored strategy of "waiting until the character dies of old age" wouldn't prove helpful. A fix might be to give the necromancer a weakness. Maybe they don't die of old age, but they do molder in the ground sleeping for protracted periods, like corpses. Maybe a fully corrupt necromancer can't log off and needs to find a safe-ish tomb (surrounded by their zombies and friendly PCs for protection perhaps) to exist as an attack-able corpse when they are offline. Might also cause damage to a fully corrupt necromancer in direct daylight, or reduce their mana regen to 0 during the day, or require they "sleep" in order to regen mana at all. If the chosen tombs had some anti-magic properties, the power ranger elementalists/sorcs/templars might have to enlist mundane to actually do something. I mean, I'm aware that it really, really doesn't matter, but just saying, the problems with the necromancers were solvable, and it's an archetype I know players would have fun with. It's just, maybe they could have elicited ideas for how to make it work from the community, instead of keeping things under lock and key. Including ordinary pleb players in those kinds of code/world-building discussions would have also generated some excitement, I think. nilazi had some limited undead powers, but they also weren't anywhere near as beefy. there wasn't any sort of corruption mechanic beyond relationship to the land, which actually had negatives. antagonists are fine when they're close to being on the same level. i've had a mage that could easily solo mekillots, but that revolved entirely around them being prepped with a summon up and walking into it. they were still extremely susceptible to everything in the world though. the necromancer, like sorcerer, wasn't made to be an antagonist. it was made to stomp pubbies and be the main character of the game while every other player served as an NPC. how many players, and i mean actual players not staff saying 'welp i'm going to play a necromancer now', were actually going to be able to play it? how was it going to add to the game instead of just being another isolated evil character that takes base in a ~recently built~ castle by halaster who comes out to stomp players? the game was already tipped so hard to fucking over mundane characters and low-level elementalists that it's just eye rollingly bad to see another huge jump in power added. |
|
|
|
Post by Azerbanjani on Nov 2, 2024 8:54:30 GMT -5
Why is necromancy its own class anyway, didn't sorcerer have all the old Nilazi spells? Why not be the necromancer AND throw lightning?
Also sorcerers are already stompers + iso roles, at least they can be preservers and kinda make a little magic hang out team.
This is strictly just an evil class. Almost comically so.
|
|
najdorf
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 265
|
Post by najdorf on Nov 4, 2024 10:38:24 GMT -5
Why is necromancy its own class anyway, didn't sorcerer have all the old Nilazi spells? Why not be the necromancer AND throw lightning? Also sorcerers are already stompers + iso roles, at least they can be preservers and kinda make a little magic hang out team. This is strictly just an evil class. Almost comically so. cause halasturd says so |
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,688
|
Post by mehtastic on Nov 5, 2024 5:51:45 GMT -5
Necromancer was planned to be its own class to separate it from sorcerer for plot reasons, and probably to give it special mount/gate NPCs since that was assigned by class in the code.
I wouldn't read too much into it. A lot of staff coding decisions were slapdash. Given the state of the game now, it wasn't their worst mistake.
|
|
