CL: touristification of the FH

"Darkening" <shadow.DeleteThis@blackonblack.net> wrote in message
news:shadow-87AF3D.20112010112003@news.verizon.net...
 > In article <ab72f927.0311101348.626b4eb3.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>,
 > watsongm.DeleteThis@moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:
 >
  > > CL: touristification of the FH
  > > SNIPPED TO END<
 >
 > You have no idea how this will impact the playerbase.
 > It's painfully obvious that the voices of alpha-dogs far outweighs that
 > of the bulk of the players who are not alpha-dogs.
 >
 > Bye folks...

Did Sabbit just leave a second time?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <7685908a.0311110604.761dfe28.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>,
tidyup.DeleteThis@tidyup.co.uk (Fundin) wrote:

 > Well im pretty pissed is has to be said but i'll see how things pan
 > out in the next month or two as im still enjoying CL atm. I spose i
 > always would be as it went against my views ;-(

Waiting awhile to see how things pan out before making a final
judgemment is something I intended to add at the end of my other post in
this thread. I was in a rush to leave (had an appointment) and it got
left out.

CL has been part of my life for 5+ years and despite the problems,
more times than not, I've enjoyed it. That being said, I've learned to
give things a little time before making a final judgement. This
situation is no different.

However, I'm still troubled by much of this and I'm really worried how
much this might further affect the player base, specifically the pool of
people that I have to adventure with. I hope people give this a little
time rather than leave at the drop of a hat although I wouldn't blame
them if they do either. Time will tell.

Yor
--
"Yor is a strapping caveman type who runs from adventure to
adventure, battling cool dinosaur puppets, desert zombie hordes,
sex hungry ape men and more." -Internet Movie Database<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <Ba4sb.6335$Ym.1666659@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>,
"Mjollnir" <peterbayly.DeleteThis@btinternet.invalid.com> wrote:

  > > 3) The chain bug should be fixed.

 > Would this be the chan bug that allowed us to return the portal to town once
 > we finished using it?

The portals allow you to move for a few frames and drag the portal
behind. This design allows the portals to be moved slowly, and with
great effort. "The Chain Bug" was the one that allowed players to
"snap" the portals from place to place using the "bungie-chain"
behaviour. Another restriction of the intended movement scheme is that
the mover is poped to the other end of the portal, and has to wait a
little while to come back. The Chain Bug allowed the chained (fallen)
to move the portal a great distance, port to the other side, then
immediately be chained back to repeat the process.

He's just saying that the portals must now be moved the way he intended,
and not via weird interactions and edge cases. Whether that helps or
hinders a particular use is not the matter, just as the 65 speed limit
is not there specifically to prevent you from getting to work on time.
It just "is", and we feel that the portals are better for it.

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

Watson GM wrote:

 > 2) The ability of certain mystics, with help, to very quickly move the
 > portal around remains (assuming that I coded everything up correctly).

I haven't researched the actual mechanics involved, but why should a
mystic require help to do this?

-jrr<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <born12$ml7$1@opal.spiralweb.com>,
"Aldernon" <aldernon.DeleteThis@SPAMrisingMEclawNOT.com> wrote:

 > "Darkening" <shadow.DeleteThis@blackonblack.net> wrote in message
 > news:shadow-87AF3D.20112010112003@news.verizon.net...
  > > In article <ab72f927.0311101348.626b4eb3.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>,
  > > watsongm.DeleteThis@moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:
  > >
   > > > CL: touristification of the FH
   > > > SNIPPED TO END<
  > >
  > > You have no idea how this will impact the playerbase.
  > > It's painfully obvious that the voices of alpha-dogs far outweighs that
  > > of the bulk of the players who are not alpha-dogs.
  > >
  > > Bye folks...
 >
 > Did Sabbit just leave a second time?
 >
 >

As far as I know, I am not Sabbit.
And I left the game...not the NG.

You truly are an ass-munch
--
 > Where did we say that all challanges were good? I bet it would be hard
 > to play while you (the clicker) were on fire too.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <7685908a.0311111155.5cb9b982.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>,
tidyup.DeleteThis@tidyup.co.uk (Fundin) wrote:

 > What i meant was that areas are
 > difficult to get to, with the dwindling exiles in puddleby its harder
 > to get to these places than before. Portals made it easier again :-)
 > GM chaning em makes it harder again.

 > I dont think it needed to be harder as its hard enough already, thats
 > sorta what i meant :-)

My understanding is that it will be easier than it was before the
portals, but harder to use the portals to mess with other players.

That's good, right?

Helpful "everybody say 'THANK YOU, WATSON!'" GM

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

Watson GM <watsongm.DeleteThis@moopenguin.org> wrote:

 > CL: touristification of the FH

 > 1) The portals will no longer always last forever where they are
 > parked. Further, if they are parked in a safe spot, they don't last
 > very long at all.

 > 2) The ability of certain mystics, with help, to very quickly move the
 > portal around remains (assuming that I coded everything up correctly).

 > 3) The chain bug should be fixed.
 >
 > Watson GM

So you removed some of the usefulness of the portals from those that
want to actually benifit, yet left intact the ability for PM to fuck
other parties over?

Great fucking move, that should REALLY improve things for everyone but
PM.

This sends the clear message that says "fuck what players want". You
just justified evertying PM does with the portals, and told the rest of
us to get fucked. Even though almost everyone NOT in PM wants to use
the portals for something useful, you lessen that ability yet do nothing
to stop PM from fucking with people trying to use them.

Jesus christ I wonder why I fucking bother sometimes.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

 > Slyph wrote:

 > If the portals will be as immediately movable as their
 > original design, I'll have to object: players should not be able to
 > disrupt other players so directly, a tactic for which I've yet to see a
 > rational defense.

Here's my simplified thinking:

1) A single mystic can do a lot to help an adventuring group of
fighters and healers by moving a portal quickly. This actually
happens. This, by and large, is a good thing.

2) A lone mystic can do a great deal to hinder an adventuring group of
fighters and mystics by moving a portal quickly. This actually
happens. This, by and large, is a bad thing.

3) My opinion is that it's premature to make a call which says the
"bad stuff" clearly outweighs the "good stuff". Fixing things so that
players get all the benefits of #1 without any of the problems of #2
is non-trivial, and I'm not particularly inclined to try.

Watson GM<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <ab72f927.0311121057.6dd43c35.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>,
watsongm.DeleteThis@moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:

 > Here's my simplified thinking:
 >
 > 1) A single mystic can do a lot to help an adventuring group of
 > fighters and healers by moving a portal quickly. This actually
 > happens. This, by and large, is a good thing.
 >
 > 2) A lone mystic can do a great deal to hinder an adventuring group of
 > fighters and mystics by moving a portal quickly. This actually
 > happens. This, by and large, is a bad thing.
 >
 > 3) My opinion is that it's premature to make a call which says the
 > "bad stuff" clearly outweighs the "good stuff". Fixing things so that
 > players get all the benefits of #1 without any of the problems of #2
 > is non-trivial, and I'm not particularly inclined to try.
 >
 > Watson GM

You're not inclined to try? Here's my simplified thinking: the bad
stuff (#2) has already shown itself to make the portals nearly useless
when players set out to make the use of the portals dangerous. It's
disgusting behavior, and it goes unchecked. Players have been enforcing
their views of the portals onto other players, in addition to arguing
their points.

Will Klur and others refrain from interferring with other players's use
of the portals? I somehow doubt it. This is disappointing to me.

Is it really so hard to make the portals coded that once set down they
cannot be moved at all for a period of time? Perhaps the portals could
be coded to be movable only after they repair themselves to the cloud.
This would satisfy concern number two, neatly.

--
Slyph's scrolls: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://slyph.puddleby.info/" target="_blank">http://slyph.puddleby.info/</a>
PWC's Journal: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/" target="_blank">http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <pnatsch1-644690.11282211112003.DeleteThis@newsr2.tampabay.rr.com>,
Yor <pnatsch1.DeleteThis@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

 > In article <7685908a.0311110604.761dfe28.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>,
 > tidyup.DeleteThis@tidyup.co.uk (Fundin) wrote:
 >
  > > Well im pretty pissed is has to be said but i'll see how things pan
  > > out in the next month or two as im still enjoying CL atm. I spose i
  > > always would be as it went against my views ;-(
 >
 > Waiting awhile to see how things pan out before making a final
 > judgemment is something I intended to add at the end of my other post in
 > this thread. I was in a rush to leave (had an appointment) and it got
 > left out.
 >
 > CL has been part of my life for 5+ years and despite the problems,
 > more times than not, I've enjoyed it. That being said, I've learned to
 > give things a little time before making a final judgement. This
 > situation is no different.
 >
 > However, I'm still troubled by much of this and I'm really worried how
 > much this might further affect the player base, specifically the pool of
 > people that I have to adventure with. I hope people give this a little
 > time rather than leave at the drop of a hat although I wouldn't blame
 > them if they do either. Time will tell.
 >
 > Yor

(Not really replying to Yor in particular but to others who are quite
dissatisfied.)

I just see this development as making the portals less attractive for
using them. As such, aren't we just in the spot we were in before they
were introduced?

I liked the game before then and still like it now that portals are less
attractive.

But, that's just me. If you don't like using them, ignore them and
continue playing.

HWC for Merl

--
Merlisk
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.sundragonclan.com/merlisk/" target="_blank">http://www.sundragonclan.com/merlisk/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <slyph-92EEA7.13245712112003.TakeThisOut@news.spiralewb.com>,
Slyph <slyph.TakeThisOut@fake.address> wrote:

 > In article <ab72f927.0311121057.6dd43c35.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>,
 > watsongm.TakeThisOut@moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:
 >
  > > 3) My opinion is that it's premature to make a call which says the
  > > "bad stuff" clearly outweighs the "good stuff". Fixing things so that
  > > players get all the benefits of #1 without any of the problems of #2
  > > is non-trivial, and I'm not particularly inclined to try.
  > >
  > > Watson GM
 >
 > You're not inclined to try?

I wonder if he realizes how damning statements like that are.
--
 > Where did we say that all challanges were good? I bet it would be hard
 > to play while you (the clicker) were on fire too.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

In article <shadow-D7DE84.15451612112003 DeleteThis @news.verizon.net>,
Darkening <shadow DeleteThis @blackonblack.net> wrote:

 > In article <slyph-92EEA7.13245712112003 DeleteThis @news.spiralewb.com>,
 > Slyph <slyph DeleteThis @fake.address> wrote:
 >
  > > In article <ab72f927.0311121057.6dd43c35 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>,
  > > watsongm DeleteThis @moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:
  > >
   > > > 3) My opinion is that it's premature to make a call which says the
   > > > "bad stuff" clearly outweighs the "good stuff". Fixing things so that
   > > > players get all the benefits of #1 without any of the problems of #2
   > > > is non-trivial, and I'm not particularly inclined to try.
   > > >
   > > > Watson GM
  > >
  > > You're not inclined to try?
 >
 > I wonder if he realizes how damning statements like that are.

<insert name> GM: Y'know, cold fusion is pretty hard. Maybe I won't try.
Players: U SUXXORZ LAZY BASTARD.
<insert name> GM: Or maybe I could, y'know, not move a mountain.
Players: We're paying you for what, now?

--
HWC for Hidden <hidden DeleteThis @noDASHop.com> <http://www.oralse.cx/>
"Carpe diem via scrotum."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH 

Jeff Ray <jeffray DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:

 > Watson GM wrote:
 >
  > > 2) The ability of certain mystics, with help, to very quickly move the
  > > portal around remains (assuming that I coded everything up correctly).
 >
 > I haven't researched the actual mechanics involved, but why should a
 > mystic require help to do this?
 >
 > -jrr

I think he is frozen when he starts to teleport, and has to be pushed
into the portal before he moves.

And leaving this ability in was really retarded.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: touristification of the FH