Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Complex weaponry

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 2:11:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I've been pondering the possibility of expanding the variety of weapons
using multiple characteristics, such as weight, length/reach, and
available attack types (bash/hack, stab/jab, slash, hook)
rather than just many types of weapons with different bonuses, to
increase the useful lifetime of items like daggers, and increase the
interest in the narration of combat, but I'm not sure I quite
understand the physics well enough to produce a useful model.

attack type concepts:

bash/hack: the weapon is swung in an arc; impact is perpendicular to
the direction of travel. generally, axes are better at hacking than
swords, but why? I know they concentrate more of their weight at the
axe head, so that if a sword and axe of same weight are swung at the
same speed in the same arc, the axe has more energy but doesn't this
just also decrease the wielder's mechanical advantage? why not just
exert the same energy on the sword and swing it faster?

slash: the blade is swung, edge closer to parallel from direction of
travel. generally swords have longer blades, and so are better at
slashing than axes?

stab/jab: force exerted parallel to the long axis of the weapon, along
a line from the wielder, through the weapon, to the target.

More about : complex weaponry

Anonymous
May 9, 2005 5:59:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 9 May 2005 10:11:30 -0700, "jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com"
<jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I've been pondering the possibility of expanding the variety of weapons
>using multiple characteristics, such as weight, length/reach, and
>available attack types (bash/hack, stab/jab, slash, hook)
> rather than just many types of weapons with different bonuses

Copy and paste of my list of possible weapon qualities (as usual, this
list carries as caution against using all items on the list at once):

Qualities weapons may have include:
damage done (amount, type)
ease of use (modifier to either skill check or to learning
cost/rate)
chance of critical hit
type of critical hit
parrying modifier
armor-damaging modifier
penetrate/ignore armor modifier
range or reach
attack speed (time taken by attack)
recovery time (time before next attack is possible, usually
short/nil, but crossbows require long recovery) - "recover weapon" as
action?
readying time (time to deploy weapon from unready state, long
for stringing bow, short for drawing sword, can be reduced with skill)
exhaustion modifier
recoil (penalty to next shot if not recovered?)
breakage/jamming/fumbling stats
minimal strength/agility
required height to use
required space to use
one or two handed
market value
cultural availability (including arms control laws)
cultural significance
ammunition type used
ammunition capacity
weight
balance (quality as thrown weapon)
appearance (plain, fancy, strange designs)
tech level
material(s)
special features (enchantments, "smart" weapons, scopes,
silencer)
concealability

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Idiot boy, when are you going to post something useful?
Or better yet, get a job and stop being a welfare bum?
Dance, Puppet, dance!
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 5:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

R. Dan Henry wrote:
[snip excellent on-topic information]
[snip rude aside tackily tacked onto the end for no apparent reason and
utterly without provocation]

Stop being an ass!

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:31:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Hello everyone.

First time poster long time reader.

One of my favorite parts of RPGs is system design, and I have some
first-hand experience in the use of weapons in RL as well as their
implementation in games of varying complexity (and accuracy).


> I've been pondering the possibility of expanding the variety of weapons
> using multiple characteristics, such as weight, length/reach, and
> available attack types (bash/hack, stab/jab, slash, hook)
> rather than just many types of weapons with different bonuses, to
> increase the useful lifetime of items like daggers, and increase the
> interest in the narration of combat, but I'm not sure I quite
> understand the physics well enough to produce a useful model.

The idea of having different types of damages is somewhat akin to this
concept. Many games, including AD&D 2e, have implemented this, though it
usually only makes a difference in very specific situations.

Having weapons that do crushing/bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage
is one way to make the system more interesting and keep certain weapons
(such as daggers) useful for specific purposes.

Another option, which I have seen very seldomly, is the ability to perform
different forms of attacks with weapons that can do different forms of
damage. For example, a traditional longsword can slash as well as pierce,
and even crush (hitting with the blunt part of the blade, as in subdual
damage in D&D 3e, provided, with some penalties for awkward use).

In Morrowind, for example, depending on the directional key you were using,
a weapon would attack in a specific way, yielding various ranges of damage,
but this is not too feasible for a Roguelike. The more straightforward
option would be to allow the player to press a certain key for a desired
attack type, but this ruins the "walk against the target to attack" approach
(which, if you want to preserve, you can just have a default attack type
when "walking against" but also allow the player to perform different
attacks and switch the default).

Another approach, which can also yield interesting results if done well, is
to allow the character to gain experience in specific techniques with
specific weapons (which can, if desired, provide bonuses to the same
technique used with another weapon). To be clear, I mean something like
having a specialized skill under Longsword called Slash, which further
specializes the player. For further flexibility and character customization,
you can even have these specialized subskills be tied to different stats, so
that "chop" uses bonuses from Strength while "stab" uses bonuses from
Dexterity.


>
> attack type concepts:
>
> bash/hack: the weapon is swung in an arc; impact is perpendicular to
> the direction of travel. generally, axes are better at hacking than
> swords, but why? I know they concentrate more of their weight at the
> axe head, so that if a sword and axe of same weight are swung at the
> same speed in the same arc, the axe has more energy but doesn't this
> just also decrease the wielder's mechanical advantage? why not just
> exert the same energy on the sword and swing it faster?

This technique is also sometimes referred as "chop" and you are indeed right
that axes are better at it than swords, and it is for the following reason:
The weight of the axe head is much heavier than the shaft, giving it a
stronger force at impact. But swords are not designed in this fashion, they
have a longer blade by comparison to an axe, and hacking with a sword is
likely to get it stuck in your enemy, as well as doing less damage. Try the
following: get a very sharp, non-serrated knife, and try to put a lot of
force into it and chop a piece of meat. It won't work, even if the knife is
heavy. But try a meat-cleaver, this will give you the best result (case in
point: axes are more dense than swords at a specific point, giving them more
pressure at impact at that point). Now, with the same knife, bring it down
upon the meat, but instead of a chop, pull it towards you, effectively
slashing (this is what swords were meant to do). The blade is meant to be
used like this, its strength is not in its weight, but in its sharpness and
length. How to properly slash is perhaps the first thing one is taught about
swordfighting (any style), because chopping just doesn't work.


>
> slash: the blade is swung, edge closer to parallel from direction of
> travel. generally swords have longer blades, and so are better at
> slashing than axes?

Yes, as I said, the length of the blade matters, as does the weight and the
technique. There is a more circular motion to a sword swing, and when you
connect there is a slicing that is done by continuing the circle and running
the point hit along the blade until it exits at the tip. This just can't be
done with an axe.

>
> stab/jab: force exerted parallel to the long axis of the weapon, along
> a line from the wielder, through the weapon, to the target.
>

Piercing (or as some call it, shanking ;)  is pretty straightforward. A
variation of this is the downward thrust (think Psycho) that one may use
when backstabbing.


All in all, adding different damage types and techniques can work well to
provide diversity, specialization, and a reason to use certain weapons. As
for other features that can make weapons more special there is (among many
others posted in another thread down the line), the issue of weight and
concealability (referring specifically to daggers here). In D&D 3e there's
no reason why a Rogue doesn't take one class Fighter and uses a Greatsword
to do Sneak Attacks (no reason by the rule system, that is). Roleplaying
reasons can be implemented, but the gameplay is more robust if the system
itself can account for these details.


Well, enough ranting.

--Nolithius
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:49:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Actually I was considering a few basic physical properties for standard
melee weapons: weight, length, haft length, rating for different
attack types, and defense types (block w/ haft? block w/ blade? hook to
disarm?). these plus character size, strength, dexterity, skill, RNG,
and environment (how many monsters around, at what range, narrow
corridor?) should determine:

the weapon's energy and velocity velocity in an attack, as well as
which attacks are possible, advantage or disadvantage in a
tug-of-war/disarming situation, fatigue from fighting/having weapon
drawn all the time, performance against armor, and of course,

My idea was a realtime RL w/ pausability, so the player would not have
direct control over every attack, with indirect controls including
crawl-like skills and perhaps fighting styles. hence, every round
doesn't wait on a decision, but still keeps the player involved.

I dislike the usual +n bonuses on weapons, because as soon as you get
e.g. a +1 +1 long sword, the dagger goes by the wayside;
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:55:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I think
>Idiot boy, when are you going to post something useful?
>Or better yet, get a job and stop being a welfare bum?
>Dance, Puppet, dance!
it's just a signature; I assume it is humorous self-deprecation; no
need for another fight here, IMO.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:45:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Dnia 9 May 2005 10:11:30 -0700,
jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com napisal(a):

> I've been pondering the possibility of expanding the variety of weapons
> using multiple characteristics, such as weight, length/reach, and
> available attack types (bash/hack, stab/jab, slash, hook)
> rather than just many types of weapons with different bonuses, to
> increase the useful lifetime of items like daggers, and increase the
> interest in the narration of combat, but I'm not sure I quite
> understand the physics well enough to produce a useful model.

I don't think it's a good idea, either for game nor simulation.

For simulations: The efficiency of a weapon is not in the way it looks
like, but the way it's used. You fight differently with rapier, sword
and sabre, even when the weapons are similar in looks.
Offcourse, you could use a rapier like it was a sword, or a sabre like it
was an axe. At least to some extent.
But in a game's simplification, you assume that the player character
always uses the weapon the way it's expected to be used.

For games: You want to set interesting rules. Ones that are not
necessarily true and realistic -- they only have to be acceptably
realistic, but interesting in the first place.
People have this strange ability to see patterns and concentrate on
special cases. If you make all the mechanics continous, it'll become
boring.
In addition, the actual game mechanics is affected very indirectly by the
weapon attributes -- it's hard to balance and make it interesting at the
same time.
--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
`The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:53:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"The Sheep" <sheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl> wrote in message
news:slrnd80m4r.uae.sheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl...
> Dnia 9 May 2005 10:11:30 -0700,
> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com napisal(a):
>
> > I've been pondering the possibility of expanding the variety of weapons
> > using multiple characteristics, such as weight, length/reach, and
> > available attack types (bash/hack, stab/jab, slash, hook)
> > rather than just many types of weapons with different bonuses, to
> > increase the useful lifetime of items like daggers, and increase the
> > interest in the narration of combat, but I'm not sure I quite
> > understand the physics well enough to produce a useful model.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea, either for game nor simulation.
>
> For simulations: The efficiency of a weapon is not in the way it looks
> like, but the way it's used. You fight differently with rapier, sword
> and sabre, even when the weapons are similar in looks.
> Offcourse, you could use a rapier like it was a sword, or a sabre like it
> was an axe. At least to some extent.
> But in a game's simplification, you assume that the player character
> always uses the weapon the way it's expected to be used.
>
> For games: You want to set interesting rules. Ones that are not
> necessarily true and realistic -- they only have to be acceptably
> realistic, but interesting in the first place.
> People have this strange ability to see patterns and concentrate on
> special cases. If you make all the mechanics continous, it'll become
> boring.
> In addition, the actual game mechanics is affected very indirectly by the
> weapon attributes -- it's hard to balance and make it interesting at the
> same time.
> --
> Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
> `The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
> Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.


I don't think the idea of different Techniques (I'll call them that from now
on) is necessarily bad. You do run into several problems, though, for
example:

* The more complex melee combat is, the longer the fights are, which means
the more meaningful/dangerous they have to be. The pace of the game is
slowed down, which is fine if you're attempting a more tactical approach
similar to Fallout/Jagged Alliance turn-based tactical combat.

* The game is essentially less intuitive and harder to control, so you have
to balance this by providing the player some sort of insight of the fact he
can use the weapon in different ways (Roguelikes are too elitist to include
tutorials, but this can be done elegantly).
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:05:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Dnia Tue, 10 May 2005 06:53:18 GMT,
Nolithius napisal(a):

> "The Sheep" <sheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl> wrote in message
> news:slrnd80m4r.uae.sheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl...
>> Dnia 9 May 2005 10:11:30 -0700,
>> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com napisal(a):

>> I don't think it's a good idea, either for game nor simulation.
> I don't think the idea of different Techniques (I'll call them that from now
> on) is necessarily bad.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
I was talking about the idea of simulating the weapon's effect based
on their shape, weight, etc. -- a set of simple physical properties.

I'm all for various tactics -- as I said, the effect of a weapon is mainly
the way you use it, not the way it looks like.

--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
`The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:51:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

[...]
> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
> I was talking about the idea of simulating the weapon's effect based
> on their shape, weight, etc. -- a set of simple physical properties.
>
> I'm all for various tactics -- as I said, the effect of a weapon is mainly
> the way you use it, not the way it looks like.
[...]

I'm fairly certain he didn't intend to deconstruct weapons into their parts
then figure out physics/mechanics by the behavior/properties of these parts.
That would be too simulator-ish. Instead, he was looking at the parts of a
weapon in order to explain/justify the weapon's capability to do certain
types of damage or be used in specific techniques.

Adding properties such as weight, reach, concealability, etc. to weapons is
fair game in an RPG of any type, specially a RL ;o)

--Nolithius
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:53:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

The Sheep wrote:
> Dnia 9 May 2005 10:11:30 -0700,
> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com napisal(a):
>
> > I've been pondering the possibility of expanding the variety of
weapons
> > using multiple characteristics, such as weight, length/reach, and
> > available attack types (bash/hack, stab/jab, slash, hook)
> > rather than just many types of weapons with different bonuses, to
> > increase the useful lifetime of items like daggers, and increase
the
> > interest in the narration of combat, but I'm not sure I quite
> > understand the physics well enough to produce a useful model.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea, either for game nor simulation.
>

I think exploiting a detailed weight, reach and attack type system
would be a heavy burden for the player: a complex optimization task
with many calculations and uncertainty, based on unimportant low-level
details from which important quantities (bandwidth and latency,
expected damage, chance to kill) have to be estimated by the player
repeatedly, accurately and without help.

> For simulations: The efficiency of a weapon is not in the way it
looks
> like, but the way it's used. You fight differently with rapier, sword
> and sabre, even when the weapons are similar in looks.
> Offcourse, you could use a rapier like it was a sword, or a sabre
like it
> was an axe. At least to some extent.
> But in a game's simplification, you assume that the player character
> always uses the weapon the way it's expected to be used.
>

The last point is interesting: the game can have a variety of attack
types, but their selection for each single blow should be automated.
With micromanagement removed, appropriate and inappropriate techniques
for each weapon can bother the player for interesting reasons only,
first and foremost matching the choices of weapons and of skill
improvement.
If, for instance, rapiers are useful for "fast slashing" and unusable
at "chopping" the player needs to know it, both to prefer a broadsword
because he is good at chopping or to improve his fast slashing after he
finds a good enchanted rapier.
A user friendly game should have advisory screens: good and bad
techniques for a weapon, good and bad weapons for a character's
techniques, synthetic indicators (how good am I with this weapon? What
technique should I improve first to improve my performance with this
weapon?).

This could be an interesting planning exercise, but it shouldn't be
self-referential: weapons, techniques or both should have varying
results against opponent weapons and techniques, armour and intrinsic
defenses. Damage types can be an effective tool to model these
interactions.
This set of rules should be visible in a user friendly way: listing
bonuses and advantages for both sides in a fight, listing recommended
weapons and techniques against a monster or monster race and the
recommended usage of available weapons, flashing suggestions to switch
weapon, armour or tactics, advisory messages (given the true or past
distribution of monsters, what should I use or acquire?).

> For games: You want to set interesting rules. Ones that are not
> necessarily true and realistic -- they only have to be acceptably
> realistic, but interesting in the first place.

My idea of pleasant combat is limiting boring combat micromanagement to
switching weapons or tactics about once per fight or less, and making
important choices of weapons and techniques at the character building
level.
Maybe there are ways to make a combat so interesting that doing a melee
attack with more than one keypress is acceptable, but I don't see them.

> People have this strange ability to see patterns and concentrate on
> special cases. If you make all the mechanics continous, it'll become
> boring.

Continuous mechanics beget continuous optimization problems, which are
easy for computers but slippery for people.

> In addition, the actual game mechanics is affected very indirectly by
the
> weapon attributes -- it's hard to balance and make it interesting at
the
> same time.

There are two bad situations: lack of choices (dominant or "good
enough" strategies) and trivial choices (indifferent rock-paper-scissor
situations where there is no useful information and choosing randomly
is optimal).
Interesting mechanics should support a reasonable number of informed
and useful decisions: micromanagement should be (usually) useless or
impossible.
Taking care of dominance (i.e. "overpowered" options) requires some
attention to the big picture of a game (how common are different
tactical situations, character states, monster types, weapons etc.);
information to make a balanced game interesting should come from
coherent game models (I'll wield the shortsword for a while because it
has been great in my last few fights against orcs and I expect to find
more in the next few levels) and from "realistic" and understandable
details (I'll wield the shortsword because it's good against leather
and scale armour, which is what the present three orcs have).

> --
> Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
> `The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
> Dopieralski
..vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.

Lorenzo Gatti
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:40:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Nolithius wrote:
>For example, a traditional longsword can slash as well as pierce,
> and even crush (hitting with the blunt part of the blade, as in
subdual
> damage in D&D 3e, provided, with some penalties for awkward use).
>
> The more straightforward
> option would be to allow the player to press a certain key for a
desired
> attack type, but this ruins the "walk against the target to attack"
approach
> (which, if you want to preserve,
nah, as mentioned elsewhere, too many keystrokes; I'd prefer automated
(intelligent) realtime fighting, while preserving the option to pause
and think (low on hitpoints-run away!) as in other Roguelikes.

> This technique is also sometimes referred as "chop" and you are
indeed right
> that axes are better at it than swords, and it is for the following
reason:
> The weight of the axe head is much heavier than the shaft, giving it
a
> stronger force at impact. But swords are not designed in this
fashion, they
> have a longer blade by comparison to an axe, and hacking with a sword
is
> likely to get it stuck in your enemy, as well as doing less damage.
[so chars less skilled with a sword try this?]

To clarify then, the difference is due to the momentum dispersing along
the length of the edge in contact with the target as the sword bites,
in contrast with the case of the axe, which continues to penetrate
after the entire smaller blade has made contact? In this case, the
optimal hacking weapon here is a pick-axe, with just a point at the
end.
There are other effects I can think of-the impact causing a sword blade
to wobble-but that seems minor; or the fact that the majority of the
weight of the axe being further from the radius means it's traveling at
a higher speed-but this just means that for some reason, we impart more
energy to it than we would a (two-handed) sword in a similar swing;

question: what happens when we put a sword at the end of a longer
handle (securely) does it chop better?

> Try the
> following: get a very sharp, non-serrated knife, and try to put a lot
of
> force into it and chop a piece of meat. It won't work, even if the
knife is
> heavy. But try a meat-cleaver, this will give you the best result
(case in
> point: axes are more dense than swords at a specific point, giving
them more
> pressure at impact at that point).

This is a different case; a cleaver has approximately the same length
blade as a small knife, it's just heavier-either more dense metal or
just more metal; hence, more momentum/energy, same speed.
I guess I need to consider how to model a situation where the char can,
to some degree, swing heavier weps at the same speeds as lighter weps;
too heavy though (how heavy?) should slow him down, decreasing returns
for switching up to a heavier weapon. another consideration then is
that a person will generally attempt a longer swing to increase the
velocity of a heavier weapon through the length of the swing. hence
there is an opening while the weapon is drawn back, or the blow itself
is more easily dodged, or even blocked, though at the extreme, shields
and swords can be broken by a powerful blow, or armor can leave a
bruise.

>How to properly slash is perhaps the first thing one is taught about
> swordfighting (any style), because chopping just doesn't work.

had a beginner class in Iai Do, myself, or i probably wouldn't have
made the distinction.

> Yes, as I said, the length of the blade matters, as does the weight
and the
> technique. There is a more circular motion to a sword swing, and when
you
> connect there is a slicing that is done by continuing the circle and
running
> the point hit along the blade until it exits at the tip.

Okay, so momentum/weight holds the blade to the cut as long as the
transverse motion of the sword is sufficient to continue it, but so can
pulling through with the arms.

> >
> > stab/jab: force exerted parallel to the long axis of the weapon,
along
> > a line from the wielder, through the weapon, to the target.
> >
>
> Piercing (or as some call it, shanking ;)  is pretty straightforward.
A
> variation of this is the downward thrust (think Psycho) that one may
use
> when backstabbing.

i see two variations- one, where the tip is perpendicular to an arc,
(similar to the effect of a pickaxe hack, but with the arm taking the
role of the handle and motor, building momentum in the swing, and the
second, where the thrust is in line with the body, giving less distance
to build momentum but including more of the body in the momentum, and
using less of the arm and more of the stronger torso as motor, better
braced to continue through after impact.

In addition pressure on a blade can be used to cut on the way out of a
stab

There seems to be a need to include effects before and after contact.

There's other more spectacular effects that could be added as well,
probably based on skill and specific situations, such as slashing a
number of enemies around you at one time (assuming they didn't have any
armor which stopped you); the possibility of a stuck weapon or blocked
attack becoming a fight for the weapon in question (unarmed chars have
some advantage there),

To answer some other posts, I guess this is an attempt to simulate
melee more closely, though only with a few limited cases, and without
bogging down the interface. IMO, the alternatives are a game dominated
by the variety of solutions offered by magic effects, (e.g. [crawl]
Trog's berserkers) or an arms race to more powerful weapons/armor
(there is or was recently a thread on this topic).
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:35:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

> Stop being an ass!

Stop being an idiot!

(If only it were possible...)
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:56:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

g...@dsdata.it wrote:
> I think exploiting a detailed weight, reach and attack type system
> would be a heavy burden for the player

There was this one game where you could choose from attack types
and different weapons had their own set of attack types like swing,
chop and parry. I think that game also simulated the weight
differences of the weapon quite well. Let's see if I can remember
that game.. hmm.. oh, yes, it was called Dungeon Master:) 
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:18:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

How does R. Dan cause TO or Neo to respond to his .sig in a brand new
thread?

Was the .sig created explicitely for this purpose in previous episodes
of this soap opera?
I've never found serials to be particularly worthy of researching, and
don't enjoy having them forced upon me.

<changes the TV to The History Channel>
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:55:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> I think
>
>>Idiot boy, when are you going to post something useful?
>>Or better yet, get a job and stop being a welfare bum?
>>Dance, Puppet, dance!
>
> it's just a signature; I assume it is humorous self-deprecation; no
> need for another fight here, IMO.

Frankly, I'd just as soon R. Dan stopped it. He's killfiled Neo and
doesn't read the responses his .sig gets. All the .sig is effectively
doing is creating noise that the rest of us have to wade through.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:49:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> How does R. Dan cause TO or Neo to respond to his .sig in a brand new
> thread?

In every instance I've seen, Neo has responded with a direct followup,
not a new thread. In contrast, R. Dan's .sig appears in every single
message he posts here, in any thread.

Neo's been annoying at times, and I've been quite open in criticizing
him for it. But come on - asking someone "why didn't you Google that?"
is a far cry from calling them an idiot and a welfare bum at the end of
every single message you post. R. Dan and "TO's Mom"'s behavior right
now is beginning to make Neo look like a model citizen.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:01:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

The Sheep wrote:
> Dnia Tue, 10 May 2005 06:53:18 GMT,
> Nolithius napisal(a):
>
>>"The Sheep" <sheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl> wrote in message
>>news:slrnd80m4r.uae.sheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl...
>>
>>>Dnia 9 May 2005 10:11:30 -0700,
>>> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com napisal(a):
>
>>>I don't think it's a good idea, either for game nor simulation.
>>
>>I don't think the idea of different Techniques (I'll call them that from now
>>on) is necessarily bad.
>
> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
> I was talking about the idea of simulating the weapon's effect based
> on their shape, weight, etc. -- a set of simple physical properties.
>
> I'm all for various tactics -- as I said, the effect of a weapon is mainly
> the way you use it, not the way it looks like.

Speaking of weapons, if you head over /right_now/ to

alt.binaries.pictures.fantasy-sci-fi

an entire set of Tetsubo's excellent technical drawings
and subsequent renderings by others are available and
not expired.

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloRL
Heroic Adventure - Powder - Shuruppak - TheTombs
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:14:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Dnia Tue, 10 May 2005 12:55:06 -0400,
Sherm Pendley napisal(a):

> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:

>> it's just a signature; I assume it is humorous self-deprecation; no
>> need for another fight here, IMO.
> Frankly, I'd just as soon R. Dan stopped it. He's killfiled Neo and
> doesn't read the responses his .sig gets. All the .sig is effectively
> doing is creating noise that the rest of us have to wade through.

It's not the signature that's making noise. :( 

--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
`The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:14:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

The Sheep wrote:

> It's not the signature that's making noise. :( 

You don't consider personal attacks and insults at the end of every
message to be "noise"? What else do you call it then?

R. Dan knows full well that Neo will respond to his .sig. That's the
whole point of it, and it even pokes fun at that very fact, referring to
Neo as a "puppet".

That's an interesting turn of phrase, actually - who's responsible for
the actions of a puppet? The puppet himself, or the man pulling the strings?

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:28:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> the weapon's energy and velocity velocity in an attack, as well as
> which attacks are possible, advantage or disadvantage in a
> tug-of-war/disarming situation, fatigue from fighting/having weapon
> drawn all the time, performance against armor, and of course,

[and there the paragraph ends]

Well don't leave us in suspense, man! And, of course, *what*?! :) 

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:28:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> it's just a signature; I assume it is humorous self-deprecation; no
> need for another fight here, IMO.

Except it's not at the ends of all of his posts, just some. And he
repeatedly calls me names.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:52:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> There's other more spectacular effects that could be added as well,
> probably based on skill and specific situations, such as slashing a
> number of enemies around you at one time (assuming they didn't have any
> armor which stopped you); the possibility of a stuck weapon or blocked
> attack becoming a fight for the weapon in question (unarmed chars have
> some advantage there),

Oh, really? I for one would much rather have a sword knocked out of my
grip than have my arm itself removed. ;) 

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:53:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

> Except it's not at the ends of all of his posts, just some. And he
> repeatedly calls me names.

You're so accustome to changing your name at your whim? Why can't we
refer to you as we wish?
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 10:37:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"The Bard's Tale", from the C64, had different attacks, IIRC. I never
played,but watched my 13 yr old brother do so-I was bored at the time
and wanted something with more graphics-how my taste has changed.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 10:52:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

So, the author generally describes and prefers the chop, over the slash
("draw cut").
he focuses much on the "pivot points" corresponding to variable impact
points on the blade, and how the pivot point is usually near the
handle.

the pivot point seems to be the point where it is easiest to handle the
sword impact-your hand there can almost continue its motion
undisturbed, though this seems like an over simplification-your wrist
must rotate your hand around this point more degrees than at any other
point-IMO, too much of this might sprain the wrist.

It seems more logical to me to make the pivot point somewhat closer to
the wielder than the hand-that is, to aim the impact point a little
lower on the sword, so that the hand can push against this reactionary
rotation, holding the blade to the target; of course, this might just
be the way that a "hack" gets stuck in its target, I don't know.

by inference then, the "pivot point" around a similarly modelled axe
blow would be much closer to (or probably beyond) the end of the handle
near the wielder- forcing the reaction rotation back into the wielders
hands-which would push against the handle harder and force the head
deeper.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:30:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One wrote::

> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> it's just a signature; I assume it is humorous self-deprecation; no
>> need for another fight here, IMO.
>
> Except it's not at the ends of all of his posts, just some. And he
> repeatedly calls me names.

Just wait a few days. The memories will fade and other things become
more important.

OTOH sometimes it rather takes a few weeks or even years before I forget
an insult. But usually it's not worth the energy to put in a reply.
Better to something that makes you happy. Try it. I'm trying, too.

--
c.u. Hajo
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:50:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>:
>Frankly, I'd just as soon R. Dan stopped it. He's killfiled Neo and
>doesn't read the responses his .sig gets. All the .sig is effectively
>doing is creating noise that the rest of us have to wade through.

We don't have to wade through it at all - I don't - and RDH is not
responsible for Paul's actions even if he knows what is likely. He is only
responsible for his own actions; and his own actions are to have a
McQ-compliant signature.

If enough of us did it, Paul would run out of time to dance to our tune.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, May.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:02:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

David Damerell wrote::

> Quoting Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>:
>
>>Frankly, I'd just as soon R. Dan stopped it. He's killfiled Neo and
>>doesn't read the responses his .sig gets. All the .sig is effectively
>>doing is creating noise that the rest of us have to wade through.
>
> We don't have to wade through it at all - I don't -

I do, because I try to read all messages in this group, and it's very
difficult in the past weeks. I now have 1348 unread messages here, while
in the past I was usually at 0.

> and RDH is not
> responsible for Paul's actions even if he knows what is likely.

That is true, but one can always to to create peace, even if he is
responsible for the war. In this sense I think another sig would help to
return to a peaceful group again, and therefore I'd like to see a change.

> He is only
> responsible for his own actions; and his own actions are to have a
> McQ-compliant signature.

I think, trying to let this group return to a less trollish place is
more important that the question if 4 or 5 lines of s sig are ok.

You attack the minor problem while you ighnore the big problem here.

Once this si a nice place again, we can talk about good sigs. Now I
think we have more serious problems to solve.

> If enough of us did it, Paul would run out of time to dance to our tune.

I don't think we should fight agression with agression as long as there
are other options.

--
c.u. Hajo
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Hansjoerg Malthaner wrote::

> David Damerell wrote::
>
>> Quoting Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>:

>> and RDH is not
>> responsible for Paul's actions even if he knows what is likely.
>
> That is true, but one can always to to create peace, even if he is
> responsible for the war. In this sense I think another sig would
> help to return to a peaceful group again, and therefore I'd like
> to see a change.

I'm sorry, to respond to myslef, but this sentance urgently needs
correction - here what I wanted to write:

> That is true, but one can always try to create peace, even if he is
> not responsible for the war. In this sense I think another sig would
> help to return to a peaceful group again, and therefore I'd like to
> see a change.

Sorry :( 

--
Hajo
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:30:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Hansjoerg Malthaner wrote:
> David Damerell wrote::
>
>> Quoting Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>:
>>
["Neo"]

>> If enough of us did it, Paul would run out of time to dance to our tune.
>
> I don't think we should fight agression with agression as long as there
> are other options.

I second that, and in the same vein -- TO says TO is "TO". From now on,
I say TO is "TO" too. After all, whatever was, he *is*.

Erik
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:29:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:02:58 +0200, Hansjoerg Malthaner
<hansjoerg.malthaner@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

>You attack the minor problem while you ighnore the big problem here.

No... David attacks the big problem (Idiot Boy, the compulsive troll),
while certain others make excuses for his five year epic of disrupting
roguelike newsgroups and pick on a bit of relatively trivial response
-- and ignore the still larger problem that people keep *replying to
Idiot Boy's whining, therefore encouraging him* and, yes, telling him
to stop *does* encourage him. The *only* thing to do with a troll is
to *stop replying*.

"Sometimes he says something on-topic." -- the *dangerous* trolls
always do. Without a real interest in the group subject, a troll lacks
the stamina to actually destroy the group.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Dance, Puppet, dance!
But why are there *humans* dancing for the puppet?
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:44:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005, jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote only:
>
> "The Bard's Tale", from the C64, had different attacks, IIRC. I never
> played,but watched my 13 yr old brother do so-I was bored at the time
> and wanted something with more graphics-how my taste has changed.

Different attacks from what? Please quote context! We don't know
what you're talking about!

(More specifically: Google Groups Beta is messing with your posts.
Don't use Google Groups Beta. It makes Usenet regulars think you're
rude... until they look at your headers. Then they just think you're
dumb.)

HTH,
-Arthur
please http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/dont-be-evil.htm...
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:05:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> If enough of us did it, Paul would run out of time to dance to our tune.

Who?

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:38:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

R. Dan Henry wrote:
[snip virulent insults]

And here I thought the flamewar was over. Someone seems hellbent on
restarting it, it seems...

Are you going to be the next into my plonk file?

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:09:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

The Sheep wrote:
> Dnia Thu, 12 May 2005 00:38:24 -0400,
> Twisted One napisal(a):
>
> > R. Dan Henry wrote:
> > Are you going to be the next into my plonk file?
>
> Count me in too, please.

Stop this all, pls. At least he is already speaking in a polite way.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:38:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:
> Different attacks from what? Please quote context! We don't know
> what you're talking about!

I think he replied to my message about Dungeon Master, which had
different attack styles for weapons.

> (More specifically: Google Groups Beta is messing with your posts.

You need to use Options - Reply to quote the message. When you use
Reply on bottom of the each message it doesn't quote the message.
I don't know why Google people did it that way..

> Then they just think you're dumb.)

So I'm dumb, too.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 10:18:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Dnia Thu, 12 May 2005 00:38:24 -0400,
Twisted One napisal(a):

> R. Dan Henry wrote:
> Are you going to be the next into my plonk file?

Count me in too, please.


--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
`The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:39:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Krice wrote:

> There was this one game where you could choose from attack types
> and different weapons had their own set of attack types like swing,
> chop and parry. I think that game also simulated the weight
> differences of the weapon quite well. Let's see if I can remember
> that game.. hmm.. oh, yes, it was called Dungeon Master:) 

"The Bard's Tale", from the C64, had different attacks, IIRC. I never
played,but watched my 13 yr old brother do so-I was bored at the time
and wanted something with more graphics-how my taste has changed.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:42:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> for a very technical reference, I googled and found:
>
> http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impact...
>
> still reading...

So, the author generally describes and prefers the chop, over the slash

("draw cut").
he focuses much on the "pivot points" corresponding to variable impact
points on the blade, and how the pivot point is usually near the
handle.


the pivot point seems to be the point where it is easiest to handle the

sword impact-your hand there can almost continue its motion
undisturbed, though this seems like an over simplification-your wrist
must rotate your hand around this point more degrees than at any other
point-IMO, too much of this might sprain the wrist.


It seems more logical to me to make the pivot point somewhat closer to
the wielder than the hand-that is, to aim the impact point a little
lower on the sword, so that the hand can push against this reactionary
rotation, holding the blade to the target; of course, this might just
be the way that a "hack" gets stuck in its target, I don't know.


by inference then, the "pivot point" around a similarly modelled axe
blow would be much closer to (or probably beyond) the end of the handle

near the wielder- forcing the reaction rotation back into the wielders
hands-which would push against the handle harder and force the head
deeper.

this resource focuses on the effects of impact, NOT on the physics of
the body propelling the weapon beforehand. I imagine the dynamics of a
two-handed swing are somewhat different than those of a one-handed
swing.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:43:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Dnia 12 May 2005 01:09:38 -0700,
tongHoAnh napisal(a):

> The Sheep wrote:
>> Dnia Thu, 12 May 2005 00:38:24 -0400,
>> Twisted One napisal(a):
>> > R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> > Are you going to be the next into my plonk file?

>> Count me in too, please.

> Stop this all, pls. At least he is already speaking in a polite way.

I'm also speaking in a polite way. And I'm serious.
It's not much work. Just lowering my score to something like -9999 should
suffice.

It's a good defense against someone who doesn't hate microsoft, likes
interfaces commonly used in linux, thinks MacOs i nice and well designed,
uses and creates www-based applications and, in addition, actually has
something to do with roguelike games development, and has an annoing habit
of contradicting people in public when he things they are wrong.

Please.

--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
`The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 2:20:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

>> If enough of us did it, Paul would run out of time to dance to our
>> tune.
>
> Who?

Do you like hearing your name repeated twice every time you're mentioned,
Paul Derbyshire?
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

R. Dan Henry <danhenry@inreach.com> wrote:

> Copy and paste of my list of possible weapon qualities (as usual, this
> list carries as caution against using all items on the list at once):

Dan, do you have a copy of all your lists online somewhere? I find them
incredibly helpful. (Especially when trying to overdesign something...)

--
Jim Strathmeyer
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:35:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

R. Dan Henry wrote::

> On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:02:58 +0200, Hansjoerg Malthaner
> <hansjoerg.malthaner@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>
>>You attack the minor problem while you ighnore the big problem here.
>
> No... David attacks the big problem (Idiot Boy, the compulsive troll),
> while certain others make excuses for his five year epic of disrupting
> roguelike newsgroups and pick on a bit of relatively trivial response
> -- and ignore the still larger problem that people keep *replying to
> Idiot Boy's whining, therefore encouraging him* and, yes, telling him
> to stop *does* encourage him. The *only* thing to do with a troll is
> to *stop replying*.

I'm sorry. My sentance above was a try to to protect you, because David
was attacking your sig for formal reasons (5 lines instead of 4 I think).

The minor problem was your former signature.

I'm sorry that I hurt you if I reply to TwistedOne. I don't reply to
many of his messages, so I hope it's not too bad. I try to write my
answers in a manner that doesn't create flames. I admit lately I'm very
OT, I broke up with game development and I'm in a phase of change. I'm
still here becuase of the habit of being here, and the nice people here,
almost friends in quite some cases.

--
c.u. Hajo
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:35:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Hansjoerg Malthaner <hansjoerg.malthaner@nurfuerspam.de>:
>I'm sorry. My sentance above was a try to to protect you, because David
>was attacking your sig for formal reasons (5 lines instead of 4 I think).

Er, what? I described it as McQ-compliant; 80x4 or less. Which it was. As
far as I'm concerned, almost anything goes in a McQ-compliant .signature -
unjustified personal attacks, no, but making Paul dance for our amusement
seems fully justified at this point.

What I'm saying is that RDH has done nothing wrong. Only Paul is
responsible for Paul's actions.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Thursday, May.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:49:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> R. Dan Henry <danhenry@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Copy and paste of my list of possible weapon qualities (as usual, this
>>list carries as caution against using all items on the list at once):
>
>
> Dan, do you have a copy of all your lists online somewhere? I find them
> incredibly helpful. (Especially when trying to overdesign something...)

I second that. You've created some very insightful and extensive
lists, which are a bit of a must-have for every game designer.


--
SoulEaterRL... Coming soon!

http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm

--
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:41:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

David Damerell wrote::

> Quoting Hansjoerg Malthaner <hansjoerg.malthaner@nurfuerspam.de>:
>
>>I'm sorry. My sentance above was a try to to protect you, because David
>>was attacking your sig for formal reasons (5 lines instead of 4 I think).
>
> Er, what? I described it as McQ-compliant; 80x4 or less. Which it was.
[...]
> What I'm saying is that RDH has done nothing wrong.

Ok. Obviously I misread or misunderstood the message completely.

--
c.u. Hajo
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:18:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Er, what? I described it as McQ-compliant; 80x4 or less. Which it was.

What is McQ?

> As far as I'm concerned, almost anything goes in a McQ-compliant
> .signature - unjustified personal attacks, no, but making Paul dance for
> our amusement seems fully justified at this point.

Making who dance?

If, as it seems, McQ is a technical standard, then it is technically
true that "anything goes" inside its constraints. This is like how a DVD
full of horrendous hate propaganda and libelous nonsense can be fully
compliant with the DVD spec -- and how being fully compliant with the
DVD technical specifications will not prevent you having your ass sued
off if you distribute your hypothetical disc of doom. :) 

There's also the matter that making personal attacks is poor etiquette,
making automated personal attacks is worse etiquette, and continuing to
make personal attacks at someone after intentionally deafening yourself
to anything they say is extraordinarily bad etiquette.

[Snip further references to this "Paul" person whose relevance here
escapes me.]

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
!