No Subject

["Mark Wedel" <mark@icp.siemens.com>]

________=22Re=3A_CF=3A_Re=3A_Temples_of_Scorn_=2F_New_Pantheon=22_=28Jan_1?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?5=2C__5=3A38pm=29?=
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990115130707.11700A-100000@freibier.htu.tuwien.ac.at> 
	<369F6EED.BA57687E@eed.ericsson.se>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 06sep94)
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rapha=EBl_Quinet_?= Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se>,
 CrossFire mailing list <crossfire@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: CF: Re: Temples of Scorn / New Pantheon
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="PART-BOUNDARY=.19901152204.ZM20645.eng.pyramid.com"


--PART-BOUNDARY=.19901152204.ZM20645.eng.pyramid.com
Content-Description: Text
Content-Type: text/plain ; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Zm-Decoding-Hint: mimencode -q -u 

On Jan 15,  5:38pm, Rapha=EBl Quinet wrote:
> Subject: Re: CF: Re: Temples of Scorn / New Pantheon
> =

> By the way, your patch (included in the other mail) will be a bit hard =
to
> apply for those who have a version 0.95.x, because you included a simpl=
e
> diff instead of a context diff ("diff -c oldfile newfile").  The latter=

> would have been easier to apply because it is more tolerant to changes =
in
> the file.  But it should work on 0.95.x with a bit of editing; I am goi=
ng
> to try that tonight.

 context diffs aren't really more tolerable (if any of the lines in
the context are different, it will reject them.)  Context diffs are much
more humanly readable and thus much easier to figure out where they go if=

the source has changed in any way.

> =

> I haven't checked yet, but it should not be too difficult to do that.
> If a blessed weapon gets a pointer to the god that blessed it, it
> should be possible to check this later and compare the gods.  Then
> the player who tries to get both blessings would get nothing at all.
> It is simpler to consider that the weapon cannot be blessed anymore
> instead of trying to remove the attacktypes that the other god could
> have put on it (because it was OR'ed, so you do not know what was
> there before).  And of course, the player would anger both his god
> (for using a weapon blessed by another god) and the other one, so he
> could get some surprises...

 Pointer is a bit mysnomer here (true pointers don't service.)  But
obviously and other_arch value or something could be set.  Have to make s=
ure
there are not any side affects.

 It might make sense for god improved weapons to act like player improved=

weapons - the god won't improve it beyond what the player can use, but
it means that a high level player could not manage to get a great
weapon from his god and give it to some newbie.

 In actuality, with the new improvement code, which is more balanced, I d=
on't
see a need to tie the weapon to a particular player.  If a player wants t=
o
give some newbie his nice sword, so be it.  However, if it is too good, t=
he
newbie can't use it (and this isn't really any more abusive than the
experience player just giving the newbie the necessary scrolls and other
equipment to make improved weapons.)

 But back to the point - the god improved weapons shoul perhaps have
numerous ways in which the god may improve it (maybe increase a stat, may=
be
add protections or new attacktypes).  But praying multiple times may get
something.  But this may involve adding some form of kharma relative to
the god (ie, doing lots of things your god likes improves your karma, =

and when you pray over the altar and get something really good, you
lose some of that karma).




-- =


-- Mark Wedel
mark@pyramid.com

--PART-BOUNDARY=.19901152204.ZM20645.eng.pyramid.com--

-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]