|  | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:23 am |  |
I am missing out on what looks to be a fun time because I pulled my face armor from my pack as we were walking to the gates, and by the time I realized what happened, it's to late.
THIS IS ANNOYING AND STUPID.
For the love of all that's holy, change it back.
What if we were in the wilderness, or taking fire from bandits? I'de be dead because you wanted to make soloscaving harder somehow that is lost on me.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:30 am | |
I agree on account of inconsistency... hitting a room direction doesn't automatically drop you from the party... if getting something will drop us from the party, we should have to do an exclamation point... example:
e !
get scrap !
get gloves pack !
consistency always seems to make sense...
in this way your character can also behave logically, if you're typing "get gloves pack" he wont stop and get them until he actually has a chance to from the walking
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:35 am | |
We'll talk to the coder about making it less irritating, but the purpose wasn't to make solo-scavving harder, it was to fix a bug where people could start walking and then pick something up that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to move.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:36 am | |
PLEASE before an allcaps message that precedes a post that's vaguely inflammatory sortof negates the purpose of please. Just as a suggestion.
I don't like the get change, but I do understand why it was made. It was made to fix an abuse of the movement/encumberance system. Do I think that it shouldn't've been done? Nah. I'd rather see other changes(like more active wildlife with AI, including lagatos that stick to a small area around popular, 'dangerous' scav-spots, and small packs of hiders/sneakers that will jump lone soloscavvers) that make it viable but more reliant on skill than code abuse.
But I don't think this is the way to see that change.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:37 am | |
A better solution might have been to just not allow picking up items while in movement.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:38 am | |
| Throttle wrote: |
| it was to fix a bug where people could start walking and then pick something up that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to move. |
Those that behave always end up inconvenienced by those who misbehave. Mud life.
Perhaps just put it back how it was, and whenever someone is noticed abusing the bug... well, that much strain is bound to burst a few blood vessels in the brain and kill someone on the spot, yeah?  After the first two or three people drop over dead from trying to haul 800 pounds, I've a feeling the abuse will slow down.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:54 am | |
If the purpose was to fix the encumbrance/sneak issue, I think this solution doesn't address the actual problem. You can sneak just fine carrying a 200 lb lagato if you're following someone else. Rather than making sneak impossible while encumbered, since I am guessing this is a coding problem, would it be possible to add encumbrance penalties to sneak checks?
Asking because there are separate checks made per room while sneaking, yes? So adding penalties may be easier than forcing sneak off or the very inelegant solution of stopping movement while getting.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Holmes
Dictator in Absentia
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:13 am | |
Please refrain from yelling at me.
It literally has the opposite effect of what you'd like, I think.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:23 am | |
| Holmes wrote: |
Please refrain from yelling at me.
It literally has the opposite effect of what you'd like, I think. |
Sorry
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
