grumble
GDB Superstar
toxic shithead
Destroyer of Worlds
Posts: 1,619
|
Post by grumble on Dec 8, 2015 20:46:31 GMT -5
Yes, indeed. Was it the one where they moved the shield wall?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 22:50:13 GMT -5
They all fell into a hole and died a few months back, too.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Dec 8, 2015 22:55:29 GMT -5
They all fell into a hole and died a few months back, too. yeah wasnt that the one they vaguebooked on gdb that got the stupid warnings signs put in and now the nofollow code? u can tell staff is desperate to keep players happy (and around) when theyre finally willing to do shit like that with 20-year-old game staples that they never felt was a problem until now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 22:59:13 GMT -5
They're also things that staff (and GDB ultra-retards like spawnloser) used to vehemently defend and justify, refusing to acknowledge that there was anything wrong when shit like that happened. I once complained about the fact that climbing will occasionally cause you to land on your neck and knock you unconscious even if you're climbing one room from ground level. Someone actually said "well, Zalanthas is a harsh world."
I was like, what? It has the gravity of a dying star or something?
I think they've either removed that "feature" since or reduced the chance from a ridiculous 5% to something miniscule, because it hasn't happened to me on any recent character even though a couple of them climbed frequently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 22:58:59 GMT -5
they lost two sergeants on that one
i think the falling demons bandits in the desert shitfest was 2014, summer. i could be wrong.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Dec 9, 2015 8:53:00 GMT -5
They're also things that staff (and GDB ultra-retards like spawnloser) used to vehemently defend and justify, refusing to acknowledge that there was anything wrong when shit like that happened. I once complained about the fact that climbing will occasionally cause you to land on your neck and knock you unconscious even if you're climbing one room from ground level. Someone actually said "well, Zalanthas is a harsh world." I was like, what? It has the gravity of a dying star or something? a fall from a (minimum) one story drop onto ur -neck- should leave u grateful to have even survived, much less avoided permanent damage. the crit fail is exactly that nightmarish freakshow slip and fall that would get u fucked up for landing wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 9:01:56 GMT -5
No. I'm talking about standing on the ground and trying to climb up, and oops you slipped and fell on your neck for as much stun damage as you lose from falling three rooms. It even happened when climbing laterally through rubble rooms, and at the time the chance was something like 5%, so it would happen on a daily basis if you climbed regularly. If you actually fall down, the code already accounts for the damage you suffer. I'm not talking about falling down into rooms below you.
The critfail climb code was absurd and completely unrealistic, and it seems to have been taken out, but back then there was no shortage of GDB retards trying to justify it exactly like you're doing. The issue wasn't that landing on your neck was dangerous, it was that the code caused you to land on your neck all the time without accounting for anything such as the actual nature of the climb, many of which are presented as fairly trivial.
They're fortunately starting to see a bit of sense and fixing these ridiculous "features," but it's a testament to Armageddon's traditional staff stubbornness and the blindly anti-change nature of its community that some of these horrendous bits of code have lasted, in many cases, two decades. Amusingly, it seems to have taken the departure of many of the game's veteran players to get rid of this "must naysay every proposed change" culture that was so ingrained.
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Dec 9, 2015 9:14:10 GMT -5
They're fortunately starting to see a bit of sense and fixing these ridiculous "features," but it's a testament to Armageddon's traditional staff stubbornness and the blindly anti-change nature of its community that some of these horrendous bits of code have lasted, in many cases, two decades. Amusingly, it seems to have taken the departure of many of the game's veteran players to get rid of this "must naysay every proposed change" culture that was so ingrained. this is what the fuck is wrong with Arm. the huge opposition to change or revising old and outdated aspects of it. i honestly don't belief staff have justification for most of the game (why do combat skills take so long to learn? why aren't there clan-specific bonuses for being a Tor scorpion for example? why is agility so worthless?) beyond it's there because that's how the game has always been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 9:16:59 GMT -5
I think some of it is also that the people who do know how to game these systems don't want to make it easier for others because then they don't have so much of an advantage over the common player.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Dec 9, 2015 10:18:46 GMT -5
No. I'm talking about standing on the ground and trying to climb up, and oops you slipped and fell on your neck for as much stun damage as you lose from falling three rooms. It even happened when climbing laterally through rubble rooms, and at the time the chance was something like 5%, so it would happen on a daily basis if you climbed regularly. If you actually fall down, the code already accounts for the damage you suffer. I'm not talking about falling down into rooms below you. no i get what ur saying, but the minimum 'one story' thing was used to put the size of whatever room ur climbing in in context. i say minimum because in the city succeeding got u to the first floor of a building, whereas wilderness areas are scaled as much larger space per room. so a critfail climb neckfall with a shitload of stun is reasonable when the room size is accounted for The issue wasn't that landing on your neck was dangerous, it was that the code caused you to land on your neck all the time without accounting for anything such as the actual nature of the climb, many of which are presented as fairly trivial. all u were bitching about before was this tho I once complained about the fact that climbing will occasionally cause you to land on your neck and knock you unconscious even if you're climbing one room from ground level.Someone actually said "well, Zalanthas is a harsh world." I was like, what? It has the gravity of a dying star or something? getting knocked out in the span of climbing in a space roughly equal at the smallest to a one story fall is reasonable and doesnt require the 'gravity of a dying star'. a critfail is technically also a failed climb check (even if the code is stupid sometimes and doesn't register that when u go unconscious in the room u critfailed in) so its irrelevent whether ur going up, down, west or east when it happens. the implication with climbflagged rooms is that is these places are perilous enough that climbing is the only way to pass thru them, so bitching about the code (if its about anything more than the 'frequency' which u say they changed) may just reflect u being out of touch with gw reality of where ur at or they need to update their room descs and switch around the climbflagged rooms to reflect the dangerousness of some of the rooms if they wanted it to be less binary then an alternative 'tweak' would be limit critfails only to certain directions maybe just up and down; this would also solve the prob of critfails when ur going through nswe rubble in the wastes that theyve decided arent really that dangerous
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Dec 9, 2015 10:54:16 GMT -5
jkarr the original climb code made no sense in the context of how the game handled damage. a climb critfail from one room was more dangerous than a warrior with an obsidian blade hitting someone in the unarmored head for max damage.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Dec 9, 2015 11:29:45 GMT -5
jkarr the original climb code made no sense in the context of how the game handled damage. a climb critfail from one room was more dangerous than a warrior with an obsidian blade hitting someone in the unarmored head for max damage. sure is, but stun code is a bitch and if ur falling from any reasonable distance (a matter of feet even) onto ur neck, u should get fucked up period and poss knocked out unless ur tough as hell and werent trying to be guarding/scanning/watching/waying ur fuckbudy midway up the wall. anyone that isnt also bitching about being able to be knocked out in a few hits, barefisted, while wearing a helmet has no leg to stand on to argue about how unrealistic it is to get knocked the fuck out after critfailing a climb and landing a freakshow fall within a story's distance onto ur -neck- so just like a lot of other areas of the game its some clumsy code thats trying to reflect and give some danger to what happens when u fuck up and fall the wrong way when ur doing some dangerous shit (like 'slipping and cut urself' even if u emote dripping the poison on the flat of the blade while wearing mekskin gloves) but ill take those risks over making shit that much more dangerfree for chars to pursue tweak it as necessary if the frequency is too high, but i have no sympathy for no ones theyre spamfailing multiple times and end up damn near breaking their neck in the process
|
|
punished ppurg
GDB Superstar
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
Posts: 1,098
|
Post by punished ppurg on Dec 9, 2015 11:30:42 GMT -5
jkarr is what the fuck is wrong with Armageddon; the way you're justifying objectively bad gameplay decisions with shoddy half-baked logic holds back the game and deadens the experience from being enjoyable. Climb is still a bad skill, but nowhere as unreasonable as it might have been. Everything in this game is too "sacred" for my tastes. @rgs is on the gdb talking about lowering stat discrepancies and is literally being trolled by Lizzie -- if I had posted "I don't care enough about your argument to try and understand where you're coming from", and then continued to argue? I would have been banned in a heartbeat. But since she's a superstar and since she's displaying the chronic capacity to unreasonably defend bad gameplay design made by amateur developers, she's beyond reproach. You can't even call it out over there, because that's trolling, too! I don't want to lose my GDB account again over such a piddly observation, but seriously.
|
|
king
Clueless newb
Posts: 118
|
Post by king on Dec 9, 2015 11:45:56 GMT -5
I feel like Lizzie would be the kind of person to tell you you're doing something wrong through thick, overly verbose emotes along the lines of: looks at you blankly, totally not understanding how you don't get the vernacular, newb.
she's not a superstar. she's been playing long enough that staff let her walk the thin line between debating and trolling - that's all. come on, staff don't even want her on staff. people like you get banned because you get all impassioned and start preaching about the establishment, then somebody calls somebody a cunt in the nerdiest way possible, and it's gg.
edit: or, in your case, you just blatantly ignore their several warnings and decide to toe (oops) the line.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Dec 9, 2015 11:49:30 GMT -5
jkarr is what the fuck is wrong with Armageddon; the way you're justifying objectively bad gameplay decisions with shoddy half-baked logic holds back the game and deadens the experience from being enjoyable. im not at all what the fuck is 'wrong' with armageddon. its stupid to argue against high stun damage from a critfailed climb because it is 'unrealistic' because it is simply not at all if u want to say its inconsistent with other damage values or stun values, say that and work from that angle, but getting knocked out or severely dazed from a short fall onto ur neck is anything but unrealistic. there are much better ways to argue for its change than realism - if anything that approach reeks of all kinds of 'realism when its convenient'
|
|