32 replies to this topic

[T.G.Maestro]

Totally different actually. You can't place a 5-hours long protection effect upon ALL the creatures of ALL the areas where the party MIGHT go

Littiz... I'm talking about effects that apply to the caster, like Elemental Prince Call. THAT works very much like that.

Out of curiousity, is your solution for this specific problem or was it to re-define the problem? If the former, please share--I always like to learn new coding tricks

It's the latter.

[Stone Wolf]

Totally different actually. You can't place a 5-hours long protection effect upon ALL the creatures of ALL the areas where the party MIGHT go

Sadly I might end up using something like that to prevent spells of certain schools from working in certain areas. I'll have to use a short duration and constantly reapply the effects. :bash:

[igi]

There are several ways to do this, but they are all work-around - if you want something perfect, you wont get it, either take the best option, or dont.

If your spell target is Self (ie. you cast the spell on yourself), you could have a chain of spells - the 1st casts the second, and then sets an immunity to the second for a set time. The second spell would be the 'real' spell.

As for the IESDP not being perfect - IF YOU SPOT SOMETHING WRONG, INCORRECT, OR INCOMPLETE, TELL ME!

[Littiz]

Littiz... I'm talking about effects that apply to the caster, like Elemental Prince Call. THAT works very much like that.

And so you're running full circle. To have an effect applied on the caster, you have to use my solution, where the cool-down is moved to the selecting-spell.

Out of curiousity, is your solution for this specific problem or was it to re-define the problem? If the former, please share--I always like to learn new coding tricks.

Of course the latter: when a problem has no solution, I try to find the perfect solution to a slightly different problem.
TGM forgets to mention that my proposal solved all the needs of targeting, cool-down timings, menu issues (for some players), scripting needs... everything, with just an idea.
But if we prefer to keep running in circles, so be it....
(actually my preferred solution would be again different, and simplier. Comfort in playing has its value..)

There are several ways to do this, but they are all work-around - if you want something perfect, you wont get it, either take the best option, or dont.

If your spell target is Self (ie. you cast the spell on yourself), you could have a chain of spells - the 1st casts the second, and then sets an immunity to the second for a set time. The second spell would be the 'real' spell.

As you say, bt_igi, please convince TGM
They would be all work-arounds, and as such, we cannot use them.
A solution like this would case a lot of problems with targeting, too.

Edited by Littiz, 26 October 2004 - 11:49 AM.

[Galactygon]

I recieved a PM from TGM for help, but I'd rather post it here, for discussion purposes --

Igi basically summed it up. You can additionaly have spells that target an area be cast through spell #b by using the cast spell point opcode (look at a fireball scroll).

So if you have a spell affecting an area, you can have spell #a cast spell #b, and spell #b protects you from spell #a, which prevents spell #b from being cast (since the cast spell point has a target of 'self').

-Galactygon

[T.G.Maestro]

I try to find the perfect solution to a slightly different problem.

And ignore the fact that there can be more.

TGM forgets to mention that my proposal solved all the needs of targeting, cool-down timings, menu issues (for some players), scripting needs... everything, with just an idea.

Yep, an idea that would reduce and skin the whole concept to its basics, resulting in something very far from the base idea. And I don't forget to mention that there ARE working alternatives, without the cooldown effect.
Littiz, you should know that minimalism is not always the best path to take. While it can be perfect in specific solutions, sometimes it ruins the whole concept. This is such a case.

[Littiz]

And ignore the fact that there can be more.

I'm hearing, and I'll also wait for the coded and readied stuff.

Yep, an idea that would reduce and skin the whole concept to its basics, resulting in something very far from the base idea. And I don't forget to mention that there ARE working alternatives, without the cooldown effect.
Littiz, you should know that minimalism is not always the best path to take. While it can be perfect in specific solutions, sometimes it ruins the whole concept. This is such a case.

I think this is referred to my second proposal, the simplified one (which I still would prefer, you are overdoing things here, imho).
My first proposal practically answered to every "request", except the ones with no practical (or correct) solution.
Actually I've been quite surprised by your refusal, at this point I'd leave the ball to you, as we say, and I'll accept your versions (as long as you don't put excessive costs like permanent CON loss).
Clear terms though: if I spot a technical flaw somewhere, they'll have no place in the mod, as always.

[T.G.Maestro]

I think this is referred to my second proposal, the simplified one

Yes.

My first proposal practically answered to every "request", except the ones with no practical (or correct) solution.

Are you referring to the proposed version where mages would get ALL the TDs at once? I think I was clear why it would act as an overkll that way. Very unbalanced, and would look like a sorcerer ability IMHO.
Also, AFAIK that version completely lacked material components (which might be "redundant and unpractical" as you say, but still, those little additions give this ability it's real flavour :thumb:

Clear terms though: if I spot a technical flaw somewhere, they'll have no place in the mod, as always.

Fair enough.

[Littiz]

Are you referring to the proposed version where mages would get ALL the TDs at once? I think I was clear why it would act as an overkll that way.   Very unbalanced, and would look like a sorcerer ability IMHO.

Really TGM, are you kidding or what?
It is *I* who opposed such a solution for similarity with sorcs.
But it was what *you* asked - at the time at least, now it seems you have changed opionion - and how your first version would have worked.
Well, better than that, since with scripts I could check for INT, level, class, and even the presence of components if necessary.
It really seems you reject some of my stuff for prejudice without even understanding what I propose.

Fair enough.

At last. Don't ask me to code or solve problems, this time.

[T.G.Maestro]

Really TGM, are you kidding or what?

Usually not.

It is *I* who opposed such a solution for similarity with sorcs.
But it was what *you* asked - at the time at least, now it seems you have changed opionion - and how your first version would have worked.

Yep, and that was about 6 months ago, or so, right?
And of course I changed my opinion - it was problematic both from technical and ideological aspects.

It is *I* who opposed such a solution for similarity with sorcs

And now it is "You and I" who oppose such a solution...

It really seems you reject some of my stuff for prejudice without even understanding what I propose.

Hell no, shame on you for thinking such baaad things about me! B)
Nope, jokes aside, if I "reject" an idea of yours, it is mostly because:
1.: I misinterpret it;
2.: I cannot accept one of its features (such is the lack of material components in this case)
3.: I have another idea and would like to discuss ALL the possibilities before praising a seemingly good suggestion.
And accept it or not, you work the VERY same way Littiz - I just know .

Really, nothing personal. :thumb:
(hey, put down that flamethrower!!! )

[Littiz]

Yep, and that was about 6 months ago, or so, right?

A week ago.

I cannot accept one of its features (such is the lack of material components in this case)

Again, not entirely true.

hey, put down that flamethrower!!!

Indeed I've preferred a "peaceful" solution this time
I retire my availability for this component, and that seems peaceful enough

Edited by Littiz, 28 October 2004 - 04:38 AM.

[Andyr]

You two probably have more posts arguing about modding than on - topic posts in your forum.

[T.G.Maestro]

Damn true Andy.