jorb wrote:You funny guy, dragonlord.
ya agreed i think his life is a prank xD tbh
jorb wrote:You funny guy, dragonlord.
jorb wrote:You funny guy, dragonlord.
jorb wrote:There is nothing to do a writeup of. I have already stated our design ambitions. The only thing we have right now is flux.
Ysh wrote:You all forget that bucket is include. I think with bucket it is fair price.
dzielny_wojownik wrote:jorb wrote:You funny guy, dragonlord.
ya agreed i think his life is a prank xD tbh
Ysh wrote:You all forget that bucket is include. I think with bucket it is fair price.
sabinati wrote:do you expect me to just check the forum constantly, fuck off
Burinn wrote:ITT: Teleskop shits up the thread.
loftar wrote:xdragonlord18 wrote:good thing forum posts are mutable
Also a good thing that they take literally zero time to formulate.
Ysh wrote:You all forget that bucket is include. I think with bucket it is fair price.
Burinn wrote:ITT: Teleskop shits up the thread.
Zeler wrote:Burinn wrote:ITT: Teleskop shits up the thread.
Thats not Teleskop you stupid... It's diffrent retard
sabinati wrote:do you expect me to just check the forum constantly, fuck off
xdragonlord18 wrote:where are these writeups explaining what youre implementing for combat
jorb wrote:In the Pipe
-----------------------
- We have spent a fair amount of time discussing/gearing up for some work on the combat system, which we will try to implement for our patch next week, barring divine inspiration to the contrary. Generally speaking our ambition is to try to find a happy medium between the present combat system and Legacy's combat system. The points we want to address are:
- Remove all randomness and the idea of a deck more or less with it.
- Retain the idea of a reduced selection of attacks/moves available during actual combat, relative the total number of attacks/moves in the game, but increase it from five to at least a full hotbelt.
- Retain the idea of combat discoveries.
- Gankiness is a problem with the present combat system. Partly this is due to the damage model, but another part is how blocking works. Return to one defense meter per some formulation, and make it non-dependent on a first input, i.e. you should have a defense meter without having to activate a block.
- We are a bit skeptical of global combat states -- intensity, advantage -- but may nevertheless implement some. Legacy's concept of some shared states that both parties could affect was at least somewhat interesting.
- One thing we do like with the present system is how blocks can have various special effects when cleared, timed out, hit, or whatever, and we'd like to try to retain the buff based mechanics in one way or another.
- We are considering the interactions between horses and combat, as illustrated by the abovementioned changes.
jorb wrote:
In all seriousness: This is one reason why I don't think writeups are particularly meaningful. It obviously eluded you that I had even written one, despite it being on the first page of the very thread we are in.
sabinati wrote:do you expect me to just check the forum constantly, fuck off
Users browsing this forum: Claude [Bot], Dotbot [Bot], Python-Requests [Bot] and 3 guests