|
|
Post by Citanest on Mar 16, 2008 6:49:41 GMT -5
So, some Warlocks feel that in order for the game to progress we have reached a stage where rule modifications are required. The main problems currently are an unbalanced Paralysis, and a corollary problem regarding the D/P opening.
Taliesin and Slartucker appear to have some good possible suggestions as to Paralysis replacements that might even things out. The problem is that RavenBlack is not that involved in the game nowadays and would (quite rightly) not wish to spend time rewriting his game code.
So... will we proceed forever with Warlocks producing 20+ turns of D/P mirror and 30+ turn Paralysis chains?
If we got together a coherent proposal for rule modifications, RB might be prepared to help if we asked nicely. And wasn't somebody developing an alternate engine (Vilhazarog?) that could be used to test stuff?
I'd hate for this game to stagnate; it could be brilliant with a little work.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Mar 16, 2008 10:11:39 GMT -5
I wonder if RB would be open to selling the code/site...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Mar 16, 2008 11:38:16 GMT -5
Well, Richard Bartle allows people to play the game for free as long as they don't make money from it, and I think RB runs the site at a loss anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilhazarog on Mar 17, 2008 19:15:06 GMT -5
I've been playing around with a web version for a while now. I got a fancy flex-based front end on it, I can add users, games can be created, news items can be posted, gestures can be submitted. Still need to add all the bonus input controls for things like specifying charmed hand/gesture, para, banked spells, perm, ordering monsters, etc. The layout of the UI needs to be refined once all the functionality is there... still need a UI for building custom spellbooks. Then the engine itself needs to be finished off (implement blindness/invis correctly is the major thing, the rest is just tweaks to bring it more into line with Warlocks)
Then I just need a public site to put it on.
It's slow going because I only put maybe 2 hours a week into it. Code is all in the public if anyone wants to help?
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Mar 17, 2008 20:43:22 GMT -5
I wish I could, sadly all my free time is being taken up with a... *hangs head* fantasy AFL website... ...it this addiction!! However, give it a few months and I'll see what I can do.  |
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Mar 18, 2008 13:31:32 GMT -5
It sounds pretty cool Vilhazarog. I would help if I knew the first thing about programming, but I lend my unwaivering moral support and will assist in testing/any other way I can.
How easy would it be for you to add new spells occasionally for the purposes of playtesting? I guess it would depend on the complexity of the spell...
|
|
|
|
Post by vilhazarog on Mar 22, 2008 23:41:39 GMT -5
Yeah, most spells should be fairly simple to add as long as they don't rewrite the rules or require complicated input from the user...
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Mar 23, 2008 15:16:12 GMT -5
I'd offer to test the following variant:
A suggestion for FFF (AFAIK by Vermont): standard paraFC para, but cast each second turn
Possible name 'Paraplegia' =)
A suggestion (AFAIK by me, but I don't insist so don't beat me please if it was already suggested) for DPP: standard amnesia, but affects only one of target's hands at casters choice (and monsters don't attack).
Possible name 'Perseveration'.
I think with such changes:
1) DPP is weak enough,
2) but DPP is still playable,
3) and FFF is still playable,
but I'm not sure that FFF is weak enough.
I understand that FFF and DPP effects become quite similar, actually, but
1) they still differ
2) this changes are easy to implement and to test
3) they still have quite different spellweave\game situations to be used.
|
|
