Gondor vs Mordor 2 logo
Home Forum Wiki Map Downloads
Become part of the community!
 
 
User Info
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
26 November 2020, 04:22

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
News Box
Welcome to (Gondor vs Mordor).

Key Stats
12915 Posts in 1321 Topics by 601 Members
Latest Member: azihohaloyen
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: Cant log on on: 30 December 2011, 02:05
just tried to log on again.  Saw fire marshall meathead and two others, but got the black screen + background music + timing out.  Would be much obliged if you pushed the red button again!
2  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: Cant log on on: 30 December 2011, 01:55
 thanks !
3  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: Cant log on on: 29 December 2011, 19:13
hello,
followed meathead's steps re: cep update and saw my list of toons, but got a similar blackscreen with background music and timeout.  Is my account still locked after that circa summer 2011 hacking incident?
 help
Lf
4  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: Right Turn Clyde on: 29 December 2011, 18:51
dc26 daze = nice (at least until Turril made me sell them) !
5  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: Anyone still around? on: 29 December 2011, 18:49
Ahh, Rabbac is quitting again, I see.  Shocked
6  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / Admin Announcements / Re: Yoghurth's Goodbye Event on: 19 March 2011, 19:59
- might miss your event Yogurth
- been trying to log on for the last hour, but my computer keeps crashing into the black (or blue) screen at the login screen.
7  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: ati2dvag on: 22 January 2011, 19:07
howdy,
Thanks for the response.  I updated them yesterday, which didn't seem to do anything.  And there are no new bios drivers for the video card. Going to try to clean out of the dust balls in the comp next and then try to re-re-install the vid drivers while in safe mode. Let's see if this works.
ciao,
Lf
8  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / ati2dvag on: 22 January 2011, 17:32
howdy,

ok to f/c and the two others that were in edoras with me, it seems I won't be coming back today until I figure out this problem.  I got a blue screen of death while running onto the osg map.  And every time I reboot, I get artifacts on the screen.

If anyone knows a solution to this problem, let me know.

Lief
9  Misc / Off-topic / 75k USD on: 10 September 2010, 23:15
Interesting, but can models truly capture the intangibles ?  icon_scratch

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-money-20100906,0,6014464.story
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/27/1011492107.full.pdf+html

1 USD =
 = 1.03440 CAD
 = 6.77356 CNY
 = 0.78672 EUR
 = 0.64803 GBP
10  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: PvP statistics on: 05 September 2010, 02:25
Howdy all,

PvP stats are done. http://www.gondorvsmordor.com/gvm1/wiki/index.php/Category:PvP

The Avg Victory Points was 21.7; remember that the VictoryPoints of those that do not have the minimum 15 are excluded from the calculation of the Avg Victory Points number.


ciao,
11  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: curses - blinding my eyes ! on: 31 August 2010, 22:36
Except for the text in red, the rest of the text should be plain. I don't know why part of my posting is bolded (white) ?
12  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: curses - blinding my eyes ! on: 31 August 2010, 22:34
Howdy,

Thanks for responding.

1. Sancho

  a. ideas vs. "why are you suggesting so many nerfs"
As I've said before, I like ideas. Silly ideas will be ignored. Unreasonable ideas will be countered by argument. All other ideas will be debated and possibly implemented. This is the whole reason for the FUTURE forums.

Regarding the "proposal: HIPS capability" posting in greater detail, you will note the first two sentences: "A suggestion was made to move the HIPS capability to a higher SD level. The author opposes such a move." From this, I thought that I made it explicitly clear that I did not favor moving the HIPS capability to a higher level, which I would define as a nerf. Instead, this HIPS posting merely stated a proposal IN THE EVENT THAT DMs decide to make the aforementioned move.

You're free to point out any other proposals of mine that you deem to be a nerf. Other than proposals about killing the melee cleric build, I don't think my previous proposals were nerfs per se.

  b. RP
Perhaps my use of the word "metagaming" created the wrong impression. This proposal has nothing to do with RP, which is not my cup of tea. As stated in the proposal, this script is meant to challenge players to pre-plan their attack and not to rely on the ability to dynamically communicate up-to-date info about enemy NPCs/PCs since death can and will occur to players.

  c. the one-armed economist
Here, you've stated that "eing able to talk while dead is ... not going to kill a boss any more than yelling curse words at the WK," which seems to imply that the you think that this Blind_onDeath script should have no effect on the killing of bosses. But, on the other hand, you state that this proposal has crossed the line, which seems to imply that the Blind_onDeath script could make the bosses too difficult.

I will agree with your second statement. This Blind_onDeath script has the potential to make the bosses too difficult. However, this is where DMs will have to use their judgment after some beta testing. As you know, Dale initially was impossible with the very quick respawn times and the ToD was also impossible according to player comments when it was first introduced. Both maps have since been tweaked.

Having said this, DMs, presuming that there is interest, will have to decide where to put this script. Perhaps ToD is not an appropriate map. But, perhaps, the maps with the WK (see NLawson's posting), Aragorn (working off of NLawson's implicit suggestion), the Balrog, Prince Cardolin or Old Man Willow might be. Others? Moreover, in addition to tweaking this Blind_onDeath script, presuming that it would ever be implemented, DMs can also remove it, cf. original HIPS timer.
 
  d. implementation
You stated: "ut something like this that effects every area would make it even harder for the large numbers of new players to gain a footing." Although my proposal focused exclusively on bosses, I didn't directly address this. Nevertheless, you are right to stress that this Blind_onDeath script should not apply to non-boss areas ... or by extension to all boss areas.   



2. radagast
Interesting. 



3. NLawson

  a. "the whole "talking while dead" thing doesn't really help except against NPCs"
With regard to group PvP specifically, I must disagree. If my dead toon can see that Turril's lame twinked dragon RIGHT NOW looks like he needs to rebuff and that he is heading RIGHT NOW to the north east corner of osgiliath, then I can tell my mates to make haste RIGHT NOW to pwn him while he is resting (or at least while he has deshifted) !!!! There are so many possibilities if one has up-to-date information RIGHT NOW about the enemy ... otherwise, the fog of war will hamper one's ability to capitalize on any opportunities that may present themselves.

  b. script implementation
I'm not a scripter. I only posted references to the scripts in previous postings so that the DMs realized that I did my homework (or tried to). In any event, errors in removal of blindness and script firing will be directly attributed to the DM scripter and/or the fact that the server has been running for 24+ hours straight.

You stated: "What if the battle music ends because everyone swaps maps..."
This is why I wrote: "Personally, I think the first is the better alternative," where "the first" refers to a fixed time period of 999 turns, rather than using a condition (i.e. battle music).

  c. reasons
    i. "unable to read text in the chat box" - I strongly believe that you cannot prevent chat from going to the chat box. I was merely speculating about the possible use of deafness. In any event, this is not so important. Indeed, the continued use of the chat box if and when a player dies is irrelevant for the simple reason that the continued chatter is not at issue, but rather the DYNAMIC access to UP-TO-DATE info about movement, status and possible intentions of enemy NPCs/players. Without being able to see, it makes it harder to have access to this up-to-date information.

  ii. The Blind_onDeath script is supposed to promote communication that occurs BEFORE the fight begins since players *would know* that the script will greatly limit the amount of useful up-to-date information that come from dead players AFTER the fight begins.

  iii. short end of the stick
The Blind_onDeath script is meant primarily to increase the challenge of specific bosses on specific maps. From your posting, it seems that the WK is too easy. Perhaps this script will make him a bit more challenging?

  iv. "For those that can be soloed ... one VERY skilled toon, or special tactics"
Depending on the uberness of the gear on particular bosses, I think DMs should make it challenging enough that one requires 3, 4 or more players. No high level boss with uber gear should be solo-able.

However, I do agree with the second point regarding tactics. For those bosses that are too easy, perhaps DMs could implement the Blind_onDeath script instead of making the boss even more uber ? THIS is the core of my proposal.

  vi. zerg attacks
Well, we all know that zerg attacks fail against the BD map with Herumor, Furnor and Azwyrn as well as the ToD. However, well coordinated attacks against the former has been shown to yield victory and loot. (I have heard that recent ToD raids have not been optimally coordinated.)

 vii. "to increase communication"
This is a joke; I thought the eye rolling would make this clear. And yes, I do talk too much  Grin



4. Khaine
I can't respond to a mere "[n]o" response.


5. multiboxers
I'd like to hear input from multiboxers like Dumbledore and Bri and any others that may not be so well known.


Ciao,
13  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / curses - blinding my eyes ! on: 31 August 2010, 01:38
Howdy,

While fighting a boss yesterday, I was again reminded of a particular idiosyncracy of NWN. While laying dead, my corpse was sending out party chatter about locations of NPCs/etc. Then an NPC walked by and caused me to make a save, which I failed. Thereupon, I was blinded and useless to the team effort (in my mind) for the next several rounds. This got me thinking.


WHAT ?
So, what if there was a script that introduces the outdated concept of Command, Control and Communication to GvM? In particular, this script would automatically cause players to be blinded (and deaf) if and when they die. With regard to implementation, the script will make the screen black and the dead player deaf either automatically OR by causing an auto failure to a save, whether to a particular save or force a save roll vs multiple saves (cf. great thunderclap).

Moreover, the duration of the blindness and deafness will either be fixed to some very long period, e.g. 999 turns, or be ended by cessation of battle music. Personally, I think the first is the better alternative since players can stop the battle music by running to the other end of the map, e.g. haradrim black cavern, or leave the map altogether. 

Finally, rezzing naturally will remove the blindness and deafness. Incidentally, one must consider how to treat those conditions that death can not and will not remove; for example, some conditions require that the player jump in the pool in Eru's or take some other, specific action. This proposal does not addresses these specific conditions.

Notes:
  a. great thunderclap forces one to make reflex/fort/will saves regarding three diff effects. Here, the blind/deaf script could have the effect from ANY of the three saves be the same result, i.e. deaf and blind.

  b. Does deafness prevent players from receiving what would normally be outputted to the chat window? From memory, I believe that deafness does NOT prevent text from appearing in the chat window. In fact, the only thing that deafness seems to do for a player is to protect from curse song. In any event, if deafness does not prevent text from being outputted to the chat window, then one can ignore the deafness component of this on_Death proposal.


WHY ?
1. For both party PvP and party PvM, players must (ok, should) coordinate BEFORE engaging in combat. Specifically, once a player is killed, any further communication to/from that player will cease. This would disrupt planning and implementation of tactics. In short, pre-planning would require players to interact to a greater extent than they do already. This can only be good for the GvM community.

2. Such a script would reduce metagaming and account for the "unfairness" in favor of players against the helpless NPCs (and against enemy players). If the word unfairness seems inappropriate, one may substitute the word unrealistic (to the extent that one can use such a term in a computer game).

3. This script, in theory, could encourage DMs to re-consider the upgrading of the uberness of the various and sundry bosses that are vulnerable to zerg attacks. A zerg attack is an attack in which a large number of players just charge enemy NPCs and/or players with little coordination.

4. Finally, this script would make certain loquacious players quiet for a change  Roll Eyes


ciao,
14  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: Core Class Boost on: 31 August 2010, 01:30
Ooops, sorry radagast.
mea culpa, mea culpa. I didn't mean to contribute to the hijacking of your thread.

I have one saving grace comment.

One could have a DM go through the item list. As appropriate, pick out and modify uber items so that a particular uber item can only be used by a toon with 38+ ranger levels, for example.

I have no idea how one does it. But, Red had the BD store that had the outrageously uber items which required builds that are 95% pure (=38/40). Also, at least one current item has 50 bluff on it laugh

Anyway, since 90%+ of the players on GvM are item hoarders, I am very very very very very very very certain that if uber items required an almost pure build, it will be so  Grin

Phew ... Hope I saved myself from being called a hijacker.
15  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: Core Class Boost on: 31 August 2010, 01:14
Howdy,

Since I got the statement that 1SD builds won't get downgraded or otherwise be adversely affected, I'm not inclined to complain about having to kill a few more NPCs to make up for a mere 20% multiclass XP penalty.

In fact, before Terrorble gave keen senses to rangers, assassins and rogues, everyone of my toons were elves (except for melk, a DD build and Ysabeau, a halfling sneak developed with Endless et al.). So, I had LOTS of fun with the 20% multiclass xp penalty. Moreover, since I've already made several toons with 40% multiclass xp penalty, I can say that it is annoying, but not a game changer for me. For example, postwipe and off the top of my little old head, there are three toons:

Solenne1: pally 32 rogue 2 fighter 6 (elf, longsword) - at level 36 or so atm
Solenne2: pally 32 rogue 2 fighter 6 (elf, b-swd) - at level 32 or so atm
Kirsten: ranger 30 fighter 8 bard 2 (elf, scimmy) - at level 40 and about 1,2 million xp atm


Considering that you're only complaining about a 20% multiclass xp penalty and that the faction xp bonus has been as high as 120 percent (or higher?), well ............. Well, that's my 0.13576 yuan renminbi (2010.08.30, 19:06 EST).

ciao,
16  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: Animal Empathy on: 31 August 2010, 00:55
I finally got a bunch of animal empathy boosting items on my 'baby' charmer. Unfortunately, all y'all keep putting in new maps ... and loot ! One must prioritize ...
17  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: proposal: HIPS capability on: 19 August 2010, 09:24
Howdy all,

As sneaks comprise about half my active toons, I'm very pleased with these two comments:

1. Ollebroc: I have no intention of changing HIPS ...
  - There are some other words after the word "HIPS," but that's as much as I can read   Grin

2. Terrorble: We really can't move HiPS to any SD level other than where it is now. 

And I never saw the word "nerf" in Red's posting.

One must hope that DMs are too busy to change their minds

ciao,
18  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: proposal: HIPS capability on: 18 August 2010, 01:41
The following was drafted before Olle's comment.
Having said this, it's time to make some more toons with only 1 level of sd  Tongue




Howdy all,

The second sentence in the first posting in this thread states: "The author opposes such a move."

From there, I presumed that some change would be made in due course. Accordingly, without trying to kill the English language, which would likely make NLawson unhappy, I would say that there was a clear implication that the first proposal and by extension all subsequent discussion on the part of the author (i.e. me !) were intended to cushion the fall of the hammer, in a manner of speaking.

So, this thread is a "pre-emptive counter proposal" in response to the possibility, ... nay probability in my mind at the time that the DMs may have an interest in moving HIPS capability from SD1 to SD5 or higher. Other than this basis, I did not state an opinion as to the underling rationale behind the DMs' thinking. Accordingly, my (counter) proposal is not motivated by a concern about any imbalance vis-a-vis the SD class and PvP, nor an argument about class purity. This of course does not eliminate the probability, rather than possibility, that the former in fact may be the basis for the said interest.

In addition, while I may not make strange builds like the hipsing risen lord, I do fancy the SD class. Indeed, as is evident from my comments in my previous postings in this thread as well as the toon listing below, I am the last person who would want to handicap the SD class unnecessarily. 


SD sneaks and current level breakdown:
Anaelle: monk 15 sd 1 assassin 1
Celandine (1st): ranger 23 sd 1
Henri: Ranger 25 fighter 5 sd 10
Isgaard: wiz 37 sd 2
Jehanne (1st): bard 9 sd 2 aa 29
Lucette: rogue 33 fighter 6 sd 1
Meiju (1st): monk 12 sd 1
Mindy (2nd): Ranger 23 sd 1
Nulliette (1st): monk 30 sd 5 assassin 5 (no boss gear on this toon - I need to farm some more)
Nulliette (2nd): monk 30 sd 5 fighter 5
Nulysmal: ranger 6 assassin 24 sd 10
Songul ranger 9 wiz 21 sd 10
Tiphaine: monk 30 sd 5 fighter 5
valeriane: monk 18 wm 14 sd 1
Ysabeau: ranger 27 sd 10 assassin 3


dr/sh sneaks and current level breakdown:
Meiju (2nd): druid 5 Ranger 7 shifter 26 - spectre
Letizia (3rd): druid 28 - caster, but uses epic kobold kommander form


All of the toons listed above are fully geared for PvP and/or PvM unless otherwise noted. Of course, one may question the uberness of their gear. For example, Val does not have the Nazgul qstaff and Songul is using Kerlin's rubbish rapier instead of Mr. Bard's rapier. Oh well ... one must struggle on.

Well, gtg ... 

ciao,
19  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: proposal: HIPS capability on: 15 August 2010, 10:25
addendum:

NLawson's comment about removing the penalty to hide/ms when a toon rested just gave me an idea. Perhaps do not have the penalty applied every time the sneak toon successively HIPSes (NLawson - cumulative skills penalty) or even when the player sneaks (MDR - non-cumulative skills penalty).

Instead, one could use battlemusic as the trigger. Perhaps one could use the function MusicBattlePlay(object) as the trigger to impose the hide/ms skills penalty and use the function MusicBattleStop(object) as the trigger to remove the hide/ms skills penalty ? Here the determination of the hide/ms skills penalty would occur just 1x per battle per toon. This could solve the concern about server lag.

In any event, working off Olle's idea about applying the skills penalty to EVERYONE, one could apply the PERCENTAGE based hide/ms skills penalty to all toons on the map, whether already on the map or entering the map, as soon as the battle music starts. This would mean that the script would fire less frequently than the proposals made by NLawson or MDR. At the same time, the penalty would not be a perpetual burden on sneaks - so long as they are not in combat mode.



*cough*
We still need someone to test this statement in a GvM setting with a sneak toon that has 0 hide and 0 ms:

"even with a very low hide score versus very high spot score with keen sense, NPCs and some PCs still manage to disappear.  So applying a penalty may not actually achieve the effect we want. In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory."

20  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: proposal: HIPS capability on: 15 August 2010, 10:10
Howdy,

Please note that any references to nwn functions does NOT mean that I know how to use such functions; in fact, I have no idea how to script. However, the functions are inserted to provide reference should DMs/others wish to more accurately follow my line of reasoning.

So, here is a T.O.N. (Terrorble.Ollebroc.NLawson) of comments:

Terrorble's comments:

1. Let me clarify the results of my testing in a leveler mod. If the sneaking toon had zero hide and zero ms, then spamming the HIPS button does not cause the opponent to have action cancels. However, if the sneaking toon had 10 hide and 10 ms, then spamming the HIPS button seems to cause action cancels, although the NPC may pick up the "scent" of the sneaking toon very quickly after having its action being canceled.

What is needed is for "someone" to do actual testing of this in the leveler mod. Since the critical number appears to be zero hide and zero ms and since there is no way for me to lower my sneak toon's hide and ms to zero, I cannot test it in GvM. Without testing in the GvM world, we are only speculating - full stop.


2. flags
It sounds like the flag can hold the temporary penalty to the hide/ms skills, whether limited to 50 as implied by Olle or is limited only by the value obtained by the function GetSkillRank. This is very interesting.


3. I realize that the phrase "script checking every second" applies to an earlier implementation. However, you continue to refer to flagging within the context of the script execution as if it is something that will not cause unnecessary lag. Is this the case ?

So, if you think that you can tweak the current timer script:
- to account for the sneaking toon's build, e.g. number of levels of SD and/or shifter and possibly to account for specific feats; and
- without creating a significant source of lag
Then, get back in the laboratory and make it work !!!

You can always re-tweak the script post hoc.



Olle's comments:

1. A percentage based system for the hide/ms skills penalty may be better than a system that uses raw numbers. While a "raw numbers" approach can account for the number of SD and shifter levels, there is concern that it will not account for how many hide/ms points a toon actually has at a specific level. In other words, the percentage based system can account for BOTH the number of SD/shifter levels and the number of hide/ms skills of a toon. The latter ultimately means that the quality of the build does make a difference (in addition to what classes are chosen and how many levels of each class a toon has).


2. I forgot about the 50 skills cap.

I wonder if the GetSkillRank function can be used to do an endrun around the 50 skills cap (as noted in the original proposal, Step BB)?? 


3. I oppose giving any advantage to rangers or druids vis-a-vis the HIPS related penalty to the hide/ms skills. Any HIPS advantage re: the skills penalty script should only benefit those builds that have the two classes that have inherent HIPS capability, i.e. SD1+ and shifter7+.

Incidentally, you will note that the Amended HIPS Capability Proposal includes 7th shifter as a floor to the calculation:

   subT_Sh = if((lvl_sh - 7)<=0,0,(lvl_sh - 7))

Notwithstanding the fact that I have MANY ranger toons, I oppose giving these benefits to them; and I oppose giving rangers the HIPS ability, regardless of any level requirement or setting requirement, e.g. must be in "natural" tile map. Similarly, druids should also be unable to have any advantage vis-a-vis the HIPS related penalty to the hide/ms skills.


4. parade of horribles
Hmm, I thought that calls to weather and time of day functions would cause unnecessary lag. If you know how to implement this (i.e. time of day, weather can be used as factors in determination of the hide/ms skills penalty) without introducing concern about server lag, then this would be cool - very cool. [If you give me the factors involved and an agreed upon formula, I would be glad to model it.]

interesting functions:
 - day or night --- GetIsNight()
 - outdoors map or not --- GetIsAreaNatural(object)
 - everpresent combat factor --- GetIsInCombat(object)
 - clear, rain or snow --- GetWeather(object)
 - artificial lighting --- there must be functions that determines presence of artificial lighting ( ?? GetPlaceableIllumination(object)?? )and accounts for the strength of such lighting (??); I reckon that throwing in a calculation of distance between the sneaking PC to the artificial lighting via the function GetDistanceToObject(object) would cause too much server lag ?

       Roll Eyes and one needs to know whether there is a line of sight between the sneaking toon and the artificial lighting (via LineOfSightVector(vector, vector))

        Evil One should also decide whether the strength of the obstructed artificial lighting (in consideration to the size of the room in which the sneaking toon is located and the reflectiveness of any and all surfaces that are relevant and the size of the obstruction surface ... and its angle .... and whether the sneaking toon is running (i.e. hasted) or is walking .... or is encumbered .... or has a loose pebble in his/her/its left boot .... what about the right boot ?


NLawson's comments: 
A. Your counter proposal seems reasonable, but for two points.

1. it is not feasible 
In a single player environment, you'd have a great idea. Your anecdotal line of reasoning was both entertaining and sound.

Alas, GvM is a multiplayer environment; your counter proposal likely cannot be implemented without serious lag issues. Olle already noted that MERELY using a timer script raises concerns about lag and implicitly about script integrity, in a manner of speaking, over time. And the timer approach of the original proposal only involves reading data from the toon, afaik.

Specifically, the timer approach of the original proposal merely requires that the script utilise such "reading" functions as GetClassByPosition(int, object) and GetLevelByPosition(int, object) in order to get the build of the toon and calculate the hide/ms skills penalty, the duration of the HIPS mode and the HIPS_wait value. Other than incidental writing to disk, if any, the time approach should have minimal impact on server resources. Unfortunately, Olle predicts that the timer component, i.e. calculating the duration and implementing the two time periods (HIPS duration and HIPS_wait), is just too much for the server to handle.

Conversely, your counterproposal, which would not use a timer, would require that the server not only determine the build of the toon (reading) and calcaulte the appropriate percentage, but also write this data and save it for use in subsequent calculation if the toon HIPSes again. Since under your counter proposal, a sneak can HIPS 6x (or 20x) before losing the ability to HIPS, the server likely must read from the toon (1x) and from the stored data (6x to 20x) and write data (6x to 20x).

In addition, one can only imagine the effect of the reading and writing when hipsing NPCs are included !!



2. it does not take into account the shifter class
Your counter proposal does not account for shifters. Shifter 7 gets the kobold kommander shape, which has free HIPS. At shifter 10, a player can choose to take undead shape for spectres, which also has free HIPS. At shifter 17, a toon would have epic kobold kommander.

If you amend your counter proposal, you must account for shifters that sneak. Shifters that do not sneak could care less about a HIPS script. On the other hand, shifters that do sneak, like Endless's kobold toon, would love to be ignored by the HIPS script while SD toons would be affected by the HIPS script. This naturally would be unfair.



B. monks and rogues vs. grunts

On an unrelated note, You (NLawson) make a great point that should be inserted into the PvP Statistics thread vis-a-vis the "cowardly" Fraunck (sd monk), who utilised hit-and-run tactics:

"Hipsers also have lower toe-to-toe combat ability than normal, so they're much more likely to die in a straight fight than if it was a fighter, bard, or even a mage who was surprised."



C. Other comments

1. sole intent
The intent of the HIPS proposal is not to punish sneaks, but to save them; the author has many toons that only have 1 or 2 levels of SD. In any event, if DMs implemented the aforementioned suggestion, then SDs (and presumably shifters that sneak) will not be able to HIPS at all ..... until they have a minimum number of SD levels, e.g. 5 or 7. Presumably, for shifters, it is hardwired to shifter 7 for kobold kommander. Note that the term HIPS means HIPS while standing in front of your opponent and NOT corner sneaking, which is to run around the corner and out of the line of sight of an opponent so that one can utilise the hide command.

The proposal in this thread is offering a compromise that would keep the HIPS capability at SD1 (and shifter7), but allow DMs to impose penalties to the hide and ms skills depending on the build, e.g. number of levels of SD and shifter.


 
2. numbers
Have no fear about the big, bad 81% number, NLawson. The DMs will save you !

The formula and resulting numbers are merely starting points for discussion. The purpose of disclosing the numbers is to provide proof that the formula does work and to give a general idea of its impact.
21  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / Re: proposal: HIPS capability on: 14 August 2010, 09:59
Howdy,

All right. Having built a model based upon your suggested alternative, the resulting formula is certainly much simpler and undoubtedly it will be less stressful on the server than the original HIPS capability proposal.


Presumptions:
1. There is no interest in allowing race (i.e. small stature), nor any of the feats that are enumerated in the original HIPS capability proposal to have an impact on the determination of the hide/ms penalty.

2. As the use of absolute numbers for the penalty likely will raise complications, the model utilised a percentage based formula for determining the hide/ms skills penalty.  

3. It is not appropriate to insert a 1d20 dice into the formula.




Points for consideration:

1. Add shifter class
If the SD class is deemed to be the pivotal factor for determining the hide/ms penalty because of its inherent HIPS capability, then one must add shifter levels into the mix as well. Specifically, just as SD1 gets HIPS capability, Shifter7 also gets HIPS through the Kobold Kommander shape; one certainly does not want a situation where kobald kommanders can do an endrun around this modification to the HIPS capability.

2. set start/end points for the two classes

  Starting points: SD1 and sh7
  End Points: SD10 and sh17  

  Sh7 and sh17, respectively, grant the kobold kommando and epic kobold kommando shapes.

  Although undead shape can be taken at sh10, use of sh10 as an end point would result in a window that is too narrow.

  SD10 was chosen as the "breakeven" level for one primary reason - DMs. Unfortunately (or fortunately), dexer sneaks will take 10 SD levels anyway since this would fulfill the prerequisites for epic dodge.




Amended Proposal HIPS Capability  

The amended formula uses nested if,then,else statements. There likely is a better, nwn solution, but the following formula produces the desired outcome in the simplest way under ... Excel.


Penalty% = subT_Comb x 9

subT_Comb = if((10 - lvl_SD - subT_Sh)<=0,0,(10 - lvl_SD - subT_Sh))

subT_Sh = if((lvl_sh - 7)<=0,0,(lvl_sh - 7))


Penalty% = percentage that will be used to determine the hide/ms skills penalty  
     The product of the Penalty% and the sneak toon's hide/ms is rounded down !

subT_Comb = sub total that takes into account the sneak toon's total SD and shifter levels

subT_Sh = sub total that takes into account the sneak toon's shifter levels


Table AA
sd   sh   subT_sh   subT_Comb   Penalty%
0   0   0   10   90
1   0   0   9   81
2   0   0   8   72
3   0   0   7   63
4   0   0   6   54
5   0   0   5   45
6   0   0   4   36
7   0   0   3   27
8   0   0   2   18
9   0   0   1   9
10   0   0   0   0
11   0   0   0   0

 
Table BB            
sd   sh   subT_sh   subT_Comb   Penalty%
0   0   0   10   90
0   1   0   10   90
0   2   0   10   90
0   3   0   10   90
0   4   0   10   90
0   5   0   10   90
0   6   0   10   90
0   7   0   10   90
0   8   1   9   81
0   9   2   8   72
0   10   3   7   63
0   11   4   6   54
0   12   5   5   45
0   13   6   4   36
0   14   7   3   27
0   15   8   2   18
0   16   9   1   9
0   17   10   0   0
0   18   11   0   0


Table CC
sd   sh   subT_sh   subT_Comb   Penalty%
0   0   0   10   90
1   0   0   9   81
2   1   0   8   72
3   2   0   7   63
4   3   0   6   54
5   4   0   5   45
6   5   0   4   36
7   6   0   3   27
8   7   0   2   18
9   8   1   0   0
10   9   2   0   0
11   10   3   0   0


Table DD
sd   sh   subT_sh   subT_Comb   Penalty%
0   0   0   10   90
0   1   0   10   90
1   2   0   9   81
2   3   0   8   72
3   4   0   7   63
4   5   0   6   54
5   6   0   5   45
6   7   0   4   36
7   8   1   2   18
8   9   2   0   0
9   10   3   0   0
10   11   4   0   0
11   12   5   0   0
12   13   6   0   0
13   14   7   0   0
14   15   8   0   0
15   16   9   0   0
16   17   10   0   0
17   18   11   0   0



Example1:
- player's sneak (Wabbit) is ranger23 Fighter4 SD8 and has 100 hide and 100 ms.
- The Penalty% is 18%.
- This means that until Wabbit takes the next level of SD, his hide and ms will be reduced to 82 hide/82 ms.

Example2:
- player's sneak (Bunny) is ranger21 Fighter4 SD3 and has 75 hide and 75 ms.
- The Penalty% is 63%.
- Applying the Penalty%, Bunny has 27.75 hide and 27.75 ms.
- However, the above number is rounded down; this means that until Bunny takes the next level of SD, her hide and ms will be reduced to 27 hide/ 27 ms.


Comments:

1. The amended formula has the advantage of being simple. However, the primary weakness of this amended formula is that a toon need not have either SD10, nor shifter17 in order to avoid the skills penalty to hide/ms. Of course, if DMs merely selected the SD10 and implicitly shifter17 under the author's interpretation to require more pureness in a build, then the aforementioned issue is moot.

Although there are other permuations, tables CC and DD are merely illustrative of the minimum build for zero skills penalty to hide/ms. Of course, tableAA shows the "fastest" way out of the hide/ms skills penalty.

 tableAA: SD10
 tableBB: Sh17
 tableCC: SD9 (Dr5) Sh8 = 22 total levels
 tableDD: SD8 (Dr5) Sh9 = 22 total levels


2. the "9" in the Penalty% formula
Although a toon with neither SD1, nor shifter7 will not have the HIPS capability, such a toon may still be capable of corner sneaking. Notwithstanding the serious penalty of 90%, the formula as written allows the player to corner sneak.


3. Bunny doesn't really want world domination, but rather her doudou; this video is dedicated to Endless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaV7hhsfqHU
22  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Future Talk / proposal: HIPS capability on: 14 August 2010, 03:51
Howdy all,

A suggestion was made to move the HIPS capability to a higher SD level. The author opposes such a move. Among other things, such a suggestion would cause issues with existing toons that only have 1 level of SD. 

This proposal takes a different approach to an earlier mechanism, i.e. if not 10+ sd, then timer is imposed. As the author is not well versed in scripting, the objective is not to outline the implementation, but rather to provide a method of approaching the issue. Indeed, this proposal is primarily aimed at generating debate on an approach that does not involve moving the HIPS capability to a higher SD level.

The core of this proposal is the fact that testing in a leveler mod revealed the following:

Question1: if a sneak toon (level 21 - monk 16 F 4 sd 1 with 0 hide and 0 move silently (modified, not naked)) tries to HIPS, can he/she/it cause action cancels?
Answer1: testing in leveler mod against a human monk opponent and later against human fighter opponent and finally against an AA (i.e. elf) - RESULT: spamming hips does nothing; the three NPCs appear to ignore the HIPS spamming.

Question2: similar to Question1, but toon has 10 hide and 10 ms (modified, not naked)
Answer2: in each case against the three NPCs, the NPCs stopped attacking; this suggests that in the GvM setting, if hide and ms are positive numbers, then action cancelling is possible.

Absent confirmation or contradiction in the GvM setting, this proposal will work under the theory that a presumption can be made. Accordingly, the proposal will impose a hide/ms skill penalty that would bring these skills to zero (0).




Proposal Overview:
AA. This proposal affects HIPSing toons, whether SD or shifter, only to the extent that their time in HIPS mode (and re-entry) are timed.
BB, After time runs out (or if the player sneak voluntarily leaves HIPS mode), the toon sneak will incur a temporary penalty to the hide/ms skills so that these skills are reduced to zero (0).
CC. The duration of the hide/ms skill penalty depends in part on the value derived in part AA.



Proposal Details:

AA. HIPS_Duration
Objective: determine how long HIPS will last before the skill penalty applies

    HIPS_Duration = 1d20 + Factor_Class + Factor_RaceFeats + Factor_Skills

Factor_Class =  { SD lvl + (shifter - 7) + roundDown[(assassin - 14) / 2] + roundDown[(ranger - 21) / 3] + roundDown[(rogue - 13 ) / 3 ]  }

Factor_RaceFeats = smallStature + stealthy + skFoc_hide + EskFoc_hide + skFoc_ms + EskFoc_ms + Lucky + SelfConcealment

Factor_Skills = roundDown((Skill_Hide + Skill_MS)/10)


HIPS_Duration min: 1 round (i.e. 6 sec)
HIPS_Duration max: 100 rounds (= 10 turns = 10 min)

Factor_Class: 1 minimum to 30 max

smallStature: 0 or 2 (halflings and gnomes get this "feat")
stealthy: 0 or 5
skFoc_hide: 0 or 1
EskFoc_hide: 0 or 1
skFoc_ms: 0 or 1
EskFoc_ms: 0 or 1
Lucky: 0 or 4
SelfConcealment: 0 or 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 or 10

Notes:
1. classes:
  shftr 7: kobald kommander can HIPS (lowest level shifter that can hips)
  assassin14: toon can get keen senses with alertness feat
  ranger21: toon can take bane of enemies as a general epic feat
  rogue 13: if not monk, nor sd, then 13 rogue levels is minimum needed for qualifying for epic dodge


2. Skill_Hide and Skill_MS is the modified skill (i.e. with items/buffs/dex mod)
  (a) Skills (hide/ms) are assigned a lower weight in the formula for the simple reason that any sneak will logically have high values for these two skills.

  (b) The author is uncertain whether nwn will consider the existence of skFoc_hide, for example, if the toon also has EskFoc_hide. If not, then assign 0 or 2 to EskFoc_hide. Ultimately, the purpose is to give a max of 2 for having both skFoc_hide and EskFoc_hide.


3. The feats stealthy and Lucky are given greater weight because they are relevant to the idea of sneaking, but yet are not normally selected for builds. 




BB: HIPS_Penalty_[Skill]
  Objective: after time runs out (i.e. HIPS_Duration) or if the player sneak voluntarily leaves HIPS mode, script should apply penalty to hide/ms skills of player sneak so that he/she/it temporarily will have have hide and ms = 0

  Penalty_Skill_Hide = Penalty[result of GetSkillRank] - Player_Skill_Hide = 0
  Penalty_Skill_MS = similar to above

  comments:
  1. ?? use GetSkillRank with FALSE nBaseSkillRank to get modified skills (hide/ms), i.e. do NOT use the base/naked skills

  2. ?? use EffectSkillDecrease(int, int) to apply the penalty (http://www.nwnlexicon.com/compiled/function.effectskilldecrease.html)
   Possible issues:
    (a) for GvM players, is there a concern re: "Immunity: Skill decrease?"

    (b) "limit for nValue is unknown" - if this function has a hardwired max, then there might be an issue with trying to bring the player sneak's hide/ms skills to zero (since the GetSkillRank value will likely exceed the allowable max under this function).


  3. player counter - bard song
    (a) Can players do an endrun around this temporary penalty to hide/ms by using bard song ? See the above web link and note the language: "It is unknown if these stack or counter Increases in skills."

    (b) If so, perhaps make the player deaf via EffectDeaf() for a duration to equal to the HIPS_Wait ? If this route is used, would it unnecessarily handicap sneaking mages?




CC: HIPS_Wait
Objective: sets an end to the temporary penalty to the hide/ms skills

    HIPS_Wait = ROUNDDOWN([max(HIPS_Duration) - HIPS_Duration] / 5, 0)

max(HIPS_Duration) = 100 rounds
min: 1 round (i.e. 6 sec)
max: 20 rounds (i.e. 120 sec)
 
HIPS_Duration   HIPS_Wait
100   0
95   1
90   2
85   3
80   4
75   5
70   6
65   7
60   8
55   9
50   10
45   11
40   12
35   13
30   14
25   15
20   16
15   17
10   18
5   19
1   19
0   20


Notes:

1. scripting
It is unclear to the author by which method step CC might best be achieved. Perhaps one or more of the following is appropriate:

  (a) for bloated script, one could use EffectSkillIncrease(int, int) to remove the effect of the skills penalty. But, KISS is probably best.

  e.g. in any event, one possibility:
  - use DelayCommand(6.0, ExecuteScript("script_name_here", oNPC))
  - use the HIPS_wait instead of the 6.0 value in the formula above
  - for "script_name_here," one could utilize EffectSkillIncrease(int, int)

  (b) use the function RemoveSpecificEffect(int, object) ----- but the skills penalty is not an effect per se ?

  (c) use some function that is unknown to the author that sets a time to the skills penalty to hide/ms


2. Naturally, the HIPS_Duration value from step AA that will be used in step CC must be calculated BEFORE the skills penalty to hide/ms (step BB) is applied. Otherwise, there will be cause for complaint.



Example: 30sd 8 f 2 r

max   factors   
30   class      30
25   race+feat   17
25   skill      8
20   dice, 1d20   20
= 100      = 75

With a HIPS_Duration of 75 rounds, this toon can sit around for 7.5 min in HIPS mode. If this toon leaves HIPS mode, whether voluntarily or not, the skills penalty to hide/ms will persist for 5 rounds, i.e. HIPS_wait is 30 sec.

 


Alternatives:

1. Higher level SD are exempted from the script
For example, the script could be written to exempt a toon with 14+ SD levels from steps AA, BB and CC. Effectively, such a toon would enjoy all the benefits that SD toons have atm.

The 14th SD is targeted because SD 13 grants a bonus feat. Also, 10 SD seems too low given that the exemption from the script can be a powerful advantage under the proposed HIPS scheme.


2. tweaking the duration of HIPS_Wait
If DMs deem that the HIPS_Wait value is unreasonably long, one could modify the "5" divisor. So, one could use "10" instead and get the following:

HIPS_Duration   HIPS_Wait
100   0
90   1
80   2
75   2
70   3
60   4
50   5
40   6
30   7
20   8
10   9
1   9
0   10
23  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: PR opportunity ! on: 05 August 2010, 08:05
Looks like we have a volunteer  laugh
24  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / PR opportunity ! on: 05 August 2010, 06:48
Howdy all,

I noticed that these pages have not been updated in a while:

server info page
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/LOTR_Gondor_vs_Mordor

House rules (LOTR Gondor vs Mordor)
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/House_rules_(LOTR_Gondor_vs_Mordor)

Spell changes (LOTR Gondor vs Mordor)
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Spell_changes_(LOTR_Gondor_vs_Mordor)

Class changes (LOTR Gondor vs Mordor)
link to "dead" page found on: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/LOTR_Gondor_vs_Mordor
link should be added to: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Gameworld_details


Having pages that are more up-to-date surely will increase our chances of attracting new players. "Someone" should consider updating these pages ... please.

ciao,
25  Gondor vs Mordor 1 / GvM1 Players Forum / Re: PvP statistics on: 05 August 2010, 06:47

That's the spirit, NLawson !


If you think NLawson is a vet ( Tongue joking!), then Flaccid's assertion is correct. See below for a listing of those that were killed by Flaccid (same faction).

Total   Vacct 
1    .denikrut
1    Chaozrulez
1    Dragoneye77
2    lolzcatz
1    mer'loc
13    NLawson
2    Sancho29
1    SlowDown_BR_
3    Thiagow2008
1    Yoghy


multiboxer abuse - it doesn't appear to be a problem.


Several additional points:

1. BH title

Twinks aren't going anywhere and their scores will be considered for the BH title, as modified by the new bounty hunter algorithm. As stated before by the various posters including myself, you can make a twink to counter or you can avoid them, e.g. stay out of sight or play a toon out of their range. 

Also, I'm going to have to agree with NLawson, Sancho and Endless here. The toon that wins the BH title is only as important as you make him/her/it out to be. So, if you don't like twinks and a toon that you believe is a twink wins, then you can ignore him/her/it.



2. one pvp tactic that is "lame" 

First of all, here is my definition re: perceived degree of pvp action:
   lame > cheesy > unsporting

Having said this, I think it is more than unsporting; it is at least cheesy; and is possibly lame when a player does the following:

 (a) playerX parks his uber pvp toon (whether twink or not and who we will call KillerY) on mapZ and then logs out;
 (b) playerX plays on some other toon, but when he/she/it notices that a likely prey is moving onto mapZ, he/she/it logs out and back in with KillerY;
  (c) Then, IMMEDIATELY after the kill, playerX logs out KillerY so that there can be no counterattack against KillerY;
  (d) playerX then resumes playing gvm on a different toon.

This is not illegal, but I think it is lame.

Now, if playerX ran back to xroads or some faction area allied to him/her/it and then logged out, then I could see this being ok - so long as there is REASONABLE opportunity, whether in time or space (i.e. distance to run) for a counterattack to happen against KillerY. The latter presumes that there WOULD have been a counterattack but for the possibility that KillerY logs out IMMEDIATELY.

But everyone has their own definition.



3. Fraunck - the troubelmaking monk/sd

You can't blame Fraunck for not standing toe-to-toe vs a grunt if he was fighting a grunt. Monks are NOT made to fight that way. You might as well expect a non-pm mage to melee against a grunt.

This game is pretty much rock-paper-scissors. And for a monk/sd, the speed and hips are the primary assets. A monk/sd would lose all its/her/his advantage by standing toe-to-toe vs a grunt.

Incidentally, ask Turril for a build that can kill Fraunck. It's the only build that my monk SDs worry about, although things have changed in Middle Earth  Cheesy



4. Schlix comments:

 a. picking on new players

Send a PM to a DM or tell a DM about this in-game.


 b, miraculous timing vis-a-vis city raids.

I'm going to have to disagree. If playerX2 is playing on the Mordor team. Then gonds raid MM city. Immediately, playerX2, who was on a a level 5 Mordor toon, switches to a level 40 AA Mordor to defend.

This is a golden opportunity and not lame imo ! Now, it would be lame if playerX2 continues to defend over and over and over again against the raiding gonds. One defense is good enough. Defending twice ... ehhhh, I don't know. One would be starting to intrude on the fun of others. 

On the other hand, if playerX3 was on the Gondor team and the Gondor team decides to raid MM city. And then playerX3 leaves the Gondor party and waits 30 min and THEN switches to the Mordor party to defend, then that is definitely lame, but not illegal.

However, if playerX3 sits on the Gondor team and listens to the strategy for the raid on MM city and leaves party just as the Gondor team is assaulting the bridge in order IMMEDIATELY fight the raiding gonds, then this would be ILLEGAL.



 c. credit for same faction killings

Yes, except for the instances where NLawson has "to teach them a lesson," I would like to think that same faction kills were done for reasons of convenience (e.g. level drain/free port). I just have numbers. Unfortunately, the server cannot record players' intent. 

Also, in the past and in the future, all tables (except BH) will include same faction killings. There are just too many toons for me to isolate the same faction kills.

However, for the all-important BH table, I will account for same faction kills as noted in my proposal since there would be fewer toons that would need to be analyzed.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Theme by Nesianstyles | Buttons by Andrea