User Info
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 23, 2019, 06:47:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News Box
SMF - Just Installed!

Key Stats
1711 Posts in 827 Topics by 4172 Members
Latest Member: Lyle
Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1  Fox MUD World / Kazaren / Re: Mind's Eye - web puzzle on: April 17, 2010, 12:42:18 PM
The Mind's Eye Inn/Tavern is Crimson's masterwork as far as puzzles.  I suspect a few folks have solved many or most of them, but more have probably not.

Persistance and careful observation will win out, but it may also take some clever guesswork.

My first suggestion is to email Crimson ... if nothing else, it'll delight him folks are still puzzling over his work!   Smiley
2  Fox MUD / General Discussion / Re: Foci price increase on: March 18, 2010, 12:25:57 AM
Been up 2nd night all night coding on Fox, so this is too brief, but it beats another day of my not responding (sorry).

- everybody who plays matters to us, very much including the 'fun' of the game
- we honestly try really hard to be fair, open, honest, and show no favoritism
- we're all human, but I think we run a very decent game/world
- we welcome comments, queries, questions, considerations, complaints, and the like
- more specific points I'll try to get back too asap ... rl is very busy for me atm

I'm all for progress, as long as we avoid, at least overall/as much as possible, "taking back what was given" e.g. if we were to give out 10,000 QPs, realize our mistake, then strip all QPs from the pfiles -- that would suck, and we always seek to avoid that trend whereever possible.  So please bear with us as we try hard to get QPs out there and at the same time make sure they're worth having.

(more later after I get some sleep Wink
3  Fox MUD / Bugs / gate/summon/vision targets PCs preferentially now on: January 13, 2010, 11:20:14 AM
Previously, as Snake, et. al., have found, gate (lesser, vanilla, and grtr.), summon (vanilla, far, and greater), and vision targetted whatever was 1.snake -- which was the most recent to enter the game, be it spawned mob or logged in PC.

I've fixed that so now the targetting on these seven spells will try to find a PC by that name, first, THEN if it can't find a PC to try to target, it will aim for a mob.

*strut* *sweat* *wheeze* ... okay, well, yeah, it was a 1 line fix *blush* ...sorry it took us this long to sort this out  ;')
4  Fox MUD / Bugs / Re: Mobs get added to Reply on: January 13, 2010, 11:15:46 AM
Just tested 'tell' ...

tell Joe
...sends a tell to the PC Joe, if Joe is logged in, else tries to talk to 1.Joe the mob

tell 1.Joe
...goes with newest/most recent to enter game (PC login or mob spawn) by name Joe (which might be the PC, or might not if a mob named Joe spawned after they logged in)

(This doesn't fix 'reply' but I did just fix targetting gate/summon/vision ... see that other post.)
5  Fox MUD / Suggestions / idling out in inns on: October 03, 2009, 01:21:17 AM
For a while, I've been frustrated that if I want to rent on a particular continent, I can, but if I idle out there, I get shunted to DB's infirmary.  Now, in general, this is great, as it prevents folks from getting stuck someplace -- you can always idle out and wind up back in 'town.'

But, I'd like to see folks who idle out in a few places reenter the game there, much as if they had rented (ditto on quit!ing out there, too).  These would include most 'inns' (Golden Griffin near CK, Dark Dreams in FP, the ones in Anom's Oasis, Derimore, Boantia, the Eerie Forest, and so on) -- if you quit! or idle out within these, we presume you want to reenter the game there, and could change the code so you actually would.

This allows us to fully encourage folks to park their PC at an inn for a variety of reasons, w/o actually renting out (holy eq, fam's diployed as gate beacons, unrentable eq are a few reasons why idling one PC at an inn instead of actually renting them out might be preferable) while afk or playing another PC actively.  And it seems a logical upgrade to our existing game, well within the 'rules' as well.

Feedback always appreciated (and sorry I'm sometimes slow to do so for others' posts!), Sygis
6  Fox MUD / Suggestions / Re: Tattoos on: April 18, 2009, 05:05:11 AM
Hmm, great ideas, and the potential for all sorts of things!

(Thus far, the only improvement we've made to PC appearances was to expand how big your 'appearance' could be, and to set up a system of restrings (renamed items) so everybody could have a couple custom pieces of eq.)

Tattoos in gaming:
- DnD: various editions mentioned tattoos, but the psionics rules from 3.x editions used tattoos as a place to store psionic power sort of like how a scroll or a potion stores a spell
- Rifts: ancient magic specific to a particular subrace of dragons and a few who probably learned it from them allowed tattoos of power -- personal enhancement or ability to call upon what on Fox would be more or less spell-like abilities
- various games: often tattoos were a mark for hidden allegiance to some dark power, a less visible 'unholy symbol' or assassin's guild mark

So, that's what other folks have done -- *hardly* an exhaustive list, by any means, but a little perspective.

On Fox, I see 2 things this seems to address:
First, we'd like to see your options in setting up a character description expand greatly.  This might include:
- more restrings more easily -- for example, as a quest prize (probably not first place prize)
- a more structured description, which we could also allow certain parts of the game to alter (e.g. if you get cursed with the 'rune of betrayal' it might glow ominously upon your forehead, plain for all to see, etc.)
- various other places to wear things, perhaps just for ornamental sake: earrings, various other piercings, small accessories to your wardrobe, etc.

Second, permanent or semipermanent marks of power, achievement, or otherwise noteworthy gain could be vested in "tattoos' if folks wanted ... "You seek out the ancient ogre necromancer, who points his clawed forefinger at your heart, evoking a searing pain in tyour chest!  As the pain recedes, you pull aside your tunic to discover a black scar over your heart -- a scar that pulses with terrible power, and unknown purpose!"  Perhaps you've just been "blessed" by Shouda, Lord of the Void, and now regen faster at night, or regain mana as well as hps every time you cast 'drain life' upon a victim; but you also bear 'the heart of darkness' mark, and some folk might shun you, or worse....

Or it could be a way to learn a spell w/o praccing it, but you can only have one or a few such tattoos at a time (and would bypassing pracs mean the spell is more draining to cast -- take more mana and/or movement as well as mana to cast?).

Or it could bind a creature to you who you could call forth for aid (though admittedly we're still working on getting summon aid implemented).

And anyplace I say "tattoo" I suppose it could say "branding" or "piercing" or whatever.

That sort of thing hints at the depth to which we could pursue tattoos.  Really, are folks interested?  Let us know, please!  Smiley
7  Fox MUD / Suggestions / pthieving: simple, brutal system on: April 18, 2009, 04:45:00 AM
I played on a MUD years ago where pkilling and pthieving were simple:

- default was you could not be pkilled or stolen from by other players
- if you became a pthief, it was a permanent decision; thereafter, you
  could steal from other players, but ONLY those who likewise decided to
  become pthieves -- you still couldn't steal from those who wished to be
  exempt from pthieving
(similar rules about pkilling were also in place, but grouping made that
 really akward as pkillers could group with non-pkillers)

I'd be happy to allow folks to make a permanent choice to be pthives, but
limit their pthieving to only be able to target fellow pthieves (as far as
stealing from fellow PCs goes).

As for vendetta law, that's murky and uncertain, but this option would
largely say if you want to, you can, but only from folks who, like you,
can and will steal eq -- getting it back might be hard.

Frankly, this still leaves pthieves fairly neutered, which, bluntly,
is kind of how we like it -- stealing from newbies or those who aren't
likeminded and crafty (or shady, or worse) might seem like fun to some,
but it's not fun for the victim.  But, for those who feel they can get
the upper hand even against fellow pthieves, this expands their options

Feedback welcome, thanks, Sygis
8  Fox MUD / Help/Tips/Guides / Re: Worshippable Gods -- starting sacs on: March 04, 2009, 11:30:04 AM
When you first start play, you can sac to 'noone' ... this stops being an option after you leave the game for the first time.

A good place to get started is the cathedral of the Sacred Order, a benevolent shrine in the northwest corner of Dakron Bae.  (In game helps on pledge, sacrifice, and the Sacred Order have more details for you.)
9  Fox MUD / Suggestions / Re: cl 22 revelation spell -- perspectives on: March 03, 2009, 03:39:05 AM
I know, I'm replying to my own post, but this is a separate issue and seemed to warrent it Wink


First, this spell has roots in several games:
 MUDs -- Merc, if not earlier, this was a spell (with a cute name: 'faerie fog') to strip invis from everyone in the room (Throm commented this out of Fox from our Merc 2.1 roots, fyi, but Fickle and I agreed we'd like to see this (re)implemented someday....)

DnD -- neither quite as powerful nor quite as 'high level' a spell as 'true sight' (duration > instantaneous, reveals illusions, magic, invis, etc., though not 'hiding' beings), 'revelation' is closer to 'invisibility purge' (a clerical spell of vaguely similar or perhaps slightly 'lower' level which only stripped the invisible state)

Second, there is the question of how this spell works, and to whom 'revelation' reveals things.  I see two options:
self only -- indicating this is a 'mental' spell which somehow grants the caster some kind of supernatural awareness ... only they see who's hiding, and perhaps it shouldn't really affect invisibility, but rather simply reveal this to the caster in that same instant

group only -- a flash of starlight reveals all who were hidden, and strips invis from them, leaving only truth behind, etc. ... this was the version I envisioned (based on goddess of stars, divination, and awareness/perception, Cydirea ... in game helps available on her name at the immortal level, fyi, which also ties her in with a few other odd (npc) gods I've included various places -- our own immortals have long avoided, with a few delightful exceptions, adopting the kind of personas and domains which would have been needed to craft a comprehensive set of pantheons, so I've imported a lot from my personal campaign worlds).

So, 'revelation' isn't an original concept, though I've put a unique spin on it for Fox, if we agree on it.  Thanks!  Smiley
10  Fox MUD / Suggestions / Re: cl 22 revelation spell on: March 02, 2009, 09:19:49 AM
Can pcs do it to each other[?]

I'd assume that would be included.  Currently, I believe they can 'unweave' each other quite freely -- and if they wanted to, unweaving or recalling the tank while a group is fighting is certainly a vicious move.

I can see the double edged sword problem here.  So, maybe part of revelation is some sort of selective casting syntax: target everybody vs. target everyone I'm not grouped with?  I'd assume at least the default syntax is everyone I'm not grouped with (if not the only syntax if we don't want to allow 'outing' one's own group?).  Added syntax-->targetting options exist: target all the mobs present I'm not grouped with -- I'd highly suggest this be a good option, maybe even the better default (default meaning if you just: cast 'revelation'
then this is what happens).  So, my suggestion would be 2 or 3 syntaxes:
cast 'revelation'    --> targets only those mobs not 'grouped' with self (recall: fams always "grouped" w/master)
cast 'revelation' all --> targets mobs and PCs not grouped with self (ditto fams)
cast 'revelation' Imadick --> targets everyone except self (and maybe own fam) ... thinking we don't really want them targetting their own group like this (thus the Imadick syntax as a non-serious suggestion) ... if they really feel the need to target own group, they can preceed "cast 'reveleation' all" with "follow self" (if not the group leader) or "group <butthead>" (if they are the group leader, to ungroup said fellow PC or charmed/pet mob following them).

Of course, if this affects caster's invis, then caster, too, is vulnerable if this reveals them to aggro mob(s) who could not see invis.  So, to be of worth, it probably needs to at least be castable to not affect one's own invisibility -- and frankly, probably never needs to affect one's own invisibility (we have 'visible' command to just turn one' own invis off).  (Obviously, this has no effect in 'wizinvis' -- that immortal more-than-regular-invis state.)

Thanks Vic, your query cleared up a few murky issues!  Smiley
11  Fox MUD / Suggestions / Re: cl 22 revelation spell on: February 28, 2009, 06:44:46 AM
(The teacher already in the game does not, as yet, teach this spell, of course -- it's not coded in yet at any level.)

Victoria asked:
Does this affect PCs?

I'd presumed so -- what's good for the goose and all that....  So, yes, mobs could use this to strip invis off PCs, though I'd be careful to avoid doing that very often as doing so + aggro mobs creates a *nasty* surprise.

(And my intention was the caster can see, from this, all hiding/sneaking folks present, frankly, but only for an instant -- they don't lose their stealthiness, aside from 'invis').
12  Fox MUD / Suggestions / cl 22 revelation spell on: February 23, 2009, 06:14:27 PM
Upon casting this room-wide spell, everyone in the room has invis stripped
away, standing revealed.  Also, the caster has a chance to notice who is
hiding in the room, but only for that moment (as if hide failed -- same info
as 'scan' shows).

By level 22 cleric, they've mastered vision, whispers of the sylphs, and the
invis spell (if they wanted to).  Plus, current level 22 cleric spells are
mass resist cold (nice for groups every once in a great while) and familiar
(which they probably got already off their mage class at mage level Cool, so
cleric level 22 can probably use something else to learn.

Uncommon spell, already have one of its teachers in the game.  ;')

Feedback?  Smiley
13  Fox MUD / Suggestions / Conjure: new idea on: February 23, 2009, 07:14:43 AM
What if we left conjure as it is, now, with the currently available crummy
eq as it is (knife, dagger, candle, etc.), lasting until you rent/we reboot.

Then, we add in more eq you can get ... later?  ...or eq which scales with
caster level?  I'd make all this eq timered (with flicker message before it
disappears -- e.g. Your conjured sword flickers, and seems about to vanish!).

For Example: can now conjure level 1 dagger, ooooo
OR you can: cast conjure dagger 12
which conjures a level 12 dagger (min. level to use = 12), which might have
better stats than the standard level 1 dagger, and is timered, unlike the
standard (default) level 1 dagger you conjure if you don't specify a no.

(There is a wee problem scaling the bag, as it doesn't go away when you
leave the game or the game reboots, yet ... we have to solve the issue of
where the contents go if the bag goes away -- currently the code doesn't
handle that too well.  But that can get fixed, I think ... will probably
just let vanishing containers dump contents to inventory, maybe...?)

If we feel we need additional balancing factors, sure, we can let the
conjuring of higher level (than level 1) equipment have a chance of
failure, probably greater the higher level you try to conjure.

Obviously, the highest level equipment you could conjure would be your
(mage) level, so cast conjure candle 99 would really cap at caster's
mage level.

Mana cost would also need to scale upwards as you conjure higher level

Components ought to help offset any increased chance of spell failure,
in addition to their normal casting chance bonus and mana cost reduction.

OR we could leave conjure alone completely, and all these higher level
options could be 'greater conjure' ... but I think that would make
'conjure' almost completely worthless, and would instead be in favor of
just adding this scaling feature/option to 'conjure' itself.

I also think the timer ought to be not too great, and even ought to be
a wee bit lower the higher level the item is (from 12 ticks for level 2
down to 8 ticks for level 40, or 7 6 5 ticks for levels 41 42 43? --
just guessing at those no.s...).

A final balance could be for better eq, we impose a small gp cost to
the spell, including 'letters of credit' option, IF we feel this is

(Been working on code handling conjure better, lately ;')

Feeback please?  Smiley
14  Fox MUD / Suggestions / Old Feedback from Dagda, Fritzgrad, and Smoke on: February 23, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
Years ago, this idea was still circulating from the 1999 posts.  These were the responses to the older, less balanced version of the concept of memming healing spells (from 'mortal suggestion board' in game):

(Coder was a training character used by Dagda at that point in time, FYI.)

Message 170 : Mon Apr  1 '02 (Coder)      :: Re: memming nonblasting spells

Memming of cleric spells comes up again and agiin and gets shot down every time
with what probably is good reason. There are a couple of problems with memming
of cleric spells:

Firstly clerics can already mem blasting spells. I doubt they want this ability
   taken away, so even though in an ideal world clerics would mem the healing
   spells and mages the blasting spells it is probably too late to change over
   to this system now.

Secondly healing spells cost a lot more mana than blasting spells. This means
   that if you can mem them you get a higher effective mana pool. For example
   if you mem 12 soul chills you have 33*12 = 396 mana worth of mems, if you
   mem 12 balms you have 60*12 = 720 mana worth of mems. That is basically
   another 324 mana to play with during a fight which is a lot of power to be
   handing out.

Thirdly no matter how you look at it it is going to make players more flexible
   and therefore more powerful. Now how much more powerful I dont really know
   but we should be very careful not to give out that much more power lightly.

There are a couple of things we can do to alleviate some of these problems.

We can make each memmed healing spell take up two mem slots. this solves the
problem with giving players more mana to play with. Whether meming healing
spells depends on wisdom or intelligence would also have to be decided. If it
depends on wisdom then memming a mixture of spells would be problematic. Maybe
preventing a mix of healing and blasting spells in memory at once would be one
way to solve that. A better solution might be to have a mana limit on the
amount you can put in memory at once. After all shouldn't an archmagus be able
to mem a lot more dart arcanes than soul chills? It also solves the loophole
of memming a lot of spells when they are initially available at max mana to
get around the mana cost, and would open up the possiblity of items that can
increase your memory pool which might be cool. Another option is to make it
take twice as much mana to mem a healing spell but still allow the full quota
of mems. This would offset the increased power with increased preparation time.

Next I would suggest only allowing ma-cl and cl-ma to mem healing spells. They
are supposed to be the supreme casters, and for that they get poor hps and no
corresponding boosts. If we let them mem healing spells then at least they get
something to make them the foremost casters.

As for giving out this ability in a built in quest or through a quest item I
would tend to say no, if its through an item they you only have to find it
once for all your characters which is unbalancing. Also it is a very big quest
prize and unless that quest is very, very hard, with deaths etc and cannot be
a quest that people will learn and be able to run through. Even then I would
still say that this is too big a prize to give out.

In summation I would give a tentative agreement if:
1. Memming heal spells take 2 slots instead of one (or double mana cost to mem).
2. Memming heal spells was restricted to ma-cl and cl-ma initially.

I think this would be enough to allow for some active evaluation. It would get
memmed heal spells into the game by giving them to what would seem to be the
weakest physically of our classes, restore (promote?) ma-cl and cl-ma to being
our premium spell casters and prevent us from having to deal with this proposal
every six months like we do now.



Mon Apr  1 '02 (Coder)      :: more on mems

For what its worth I had been toying with the idea of a different mem idea
altogether. Where you can mem as much as you want but have to pay a mana upkeep
to keep your memory intact each tick. Something around 1/5th of the mana cost
of all the spells in your memory. If you don't have this mana, you lose some of
your memmed spells. So you could stack up on mems as long as you were going to
use them quickly or sustain a few over time relatively easily. Take for example
a mage who could mem 10 soul chills for 330 mana and would have to spend 66 mana
a tick to maintain these spells. If they wanted they could instead mem 20 soul
chills but then they would have to spend 132 mana per tick just to keep their
mems intact. Some sort of sliding scale would be in order probably, 1/10th of
first 100 mana, 2/10th of next 100, 3/10th of next 100 and so on. At that rate
the 10 mems would cost 10+20+30+12 = 72 mana a round upkeep with the 20 spells
taking 10+20+30+40+50+60+28 = 238 mana per tick. A nice idea is also would be
to have hps used instead of mana to sustain mems if the caster has no mana left,
I just like the image of a mage so brimming with magical power that he has to
unleash it before it consumes him entirely.



Tue Apr  2 '02 (Fritzgrad)  :: Re: memorization of non-blasting spells...

I am against this, as it would allow for just a ridiculous amount of healing,
heck, this character, or one of similar caliber could do amazing things with
his more costly, heal spells memed, asopposed to the usually cheaper blasting
spells, and imagine what would happen if your Druid and Patriarch Cleric lords
could use this ability, quested for or not, even if it used two slots, etc,
I am against this...  Hell, I think the memming of spells is already a twinkish
and somewhat overpowered ability, and to add the possibility of memming heals
would just be absurd.

Note: This is my opinion, based on the "balance" theory.

Tue Apr  2 '02 (Smoke)      :: mem

wow, memming, one of my favorite parts of playing an elf archmage with 25 int.

I think it would kinda suck if we had to pay upkeep to keep the spells in our
mem's. I think it'd be a sweet idea to be able to mem healing spells and I
think the best way to do it would be to have a rare item that allowed you to
mem one healing spell and would then disiappear (disinigrate or whatever) but
I think it should take up the same amount of space (not overpowering and it
would get components into the game quicklike)  If it was as rare as poisonblade
then it wouldn't really affect game play that much (except maybe for a kill or
three) Anyway, you can already scribe balm et-all then just recite it off of
the scrolls.  I know it's not nearly as easy as being able to mem, but if one was
to really work at it, they could have a big bag full of balm spells to play with.
15  Fox MUD / Suggestions / 'devote' -- memming healing spells on: February 18, 2009, 01:36:37 PM
I've been kicking around an idea for a while now, including feedback and ideas here and there, about if we should let folks mem healing spells, and how we'd do that.

new command: devote (if needed -- or we might just stick with 'memorize' and let it do both, frankly)
syntax: ...just like mem, clear, clearmem commands (I'll let you read helps in game if interested)

You would be allowed to mem healing spells, but:
1. Wisdom Based: based on Wisdom, not Int (so high wisdom chars can mem more healing)
2. Fewer Slots: not as many mem slots as Int gives for blasting spells ... maybe ... half as many?
3. Blasting *or* Healing: you can mem healing, or blasting, but never both

(If you have healing spells memmed, have to cast or clear them before you can mem blasting spell(s), and vice versa.)

This allows folks to 'hang' spells (see the two Amber series for that reference) ahead of time, but they have to choose healing *or* blasting.  (We might want to let them also devote mems to buffing -- e.g. sanc, spell shield, etc.?)

Finally, I'd propose cleric primes get +1 extra devote/mem healing slot over other prime classes.  This isn't a big bonus, but it is bigger than with Int/blasting mems as there will be fewer Wis/healing mem slots.  (This could be right from level 1, or maybe we should offer this when they lord as a lording bonus?)

(Code just needs to see if spells memmed, then see whether blasting (baneful) or healing (beneficial), and then knows if it's checking Wis based or Int based slots, so we could just use 'mem' for both, frankly -- and I'm kind of in favor of expanding existing commands, instead of adding additional ones, generally.)

(And I'd suggest letting mage primes s have +1 blasting mem slot over other primes the same way we do for cleric primes and +1 healing mem slot, for symmetry.)

The downside is clerics get more powerful ... I've heard a Cl/Wa or Wa/Cl is among the most powerful char builds in many ways.  If so, yes, this just makes them more powerful.  But my experience is a MUD with a lot of healers is a more stable, happier MUD -- grouping is easier, raises more likely.

I've also noticed other chars get to twiddle their thumbs while mages mem.  This allows clerics to mem up somewhat along with the mages, if they want (and weren't memming blasting spells just because).  As for what Crintallo's doing (Wa/Th, no caster levels), well, he'll find ways to amuse himself, like always; as for other warrior or thief prime minimal casters, as long as they can mem something more effective than headbutt, they will -- and this allows them to mem a few healing (or buffing?) spells, increasing their options, as well (yes, if your cleric quad is healing the tank, something might be about to go wrong, I agree).

So, here's that suggestion, as bantered about in various less organized, less universally available forums from time to time.   Smiley  Please let us know what you think -- very intentionally posted in the mortal accessible suggestion forum, 'cause I hope to get honest feedback from anyone and everyone, positive and negative.  Thanks!!

- - -
Credit where credit is due:  Seems back on Fri Dec 10 '99, Windfyre posted the suggestion to allow *either* wis based healing mems *or* int based blasting mems -- I even responded to his post, but had since forgotten about it.  Thanks Windfyre!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Serene Forest based on Arcane Magic, Created by | Buttons by Andrea

MKPortal ©2003-2008