Complex weaponry

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.
58 answers Last reply
More about complex weaponry
  1. 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!
  2. 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."
  3. 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
  4. 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;
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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).
  12. 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...)
  13. 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:)
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    for a very technical reference, I googled and found:

    http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm

    still reading...
  15. 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>
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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."
  22. 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."
  23. 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."
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    [...]
    > for a very technical reference, I googled and found:
    >
    > http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm
    >
    > still reading...
    [...]

    Good stuff.

    Cheers, Nolithius.
  25. 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?
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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?
  34. 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.html
  35. 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."
  36. 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."
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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_impacts.htm
    >
    > 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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?
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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

    --
  48. 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
  49. 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."
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Video Games