AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

This thread's getting boring.

This thread nearly made me cry.

Galenson wrote:

This thread's getting boring.

True, I only read it for Tormak's replies, but those are getting scarce... so the fun factor is lost.

Colonah, I think you are just flogging a dead horse with this thread..... I'd suggest you just call for a lock before there is any more stupidity (and rule-breaking)

Maybe ask again with a new thread in 'Things To Change', or something, perhaps?

Brown Blur wrote:

Colonah, I think you are just flogging a dead horse with this thread..... I'd suggest you just call for a lock before there is any more stupidity (and rule-breaking)

Maybe ask again with a new thread in 'Things To Change', or something, perhaps?

I disagree.

Theres a resounding "No" to NPC's followed by a "Oh Ranger Blinds, now thats an idea worth exploring".

Even if its a mechanical impossibility.

MoshingChris wrote:

Brown Blur wrote:

Colonah, I think you are just flogging a dead horse with this thread..... I'd suggest you just call for a lock before there is any more stupidity (and rule-breaking)

Maybe ask again with a new thread in 'Things To Change', or something, perhaps?

I disagree.

Theres a resounding "No" to NPC's followed by a "Oh Ranger Blinds, now thats an idea worth exploring".

Even if its a mechanical impossibility.

Hence the 'start again with new thread'......hopefully minus the negativity and insults we have seen here......and I thought you, Chris, for one, after having pointed out the 'wrongness' of the recent topic re Cordor, would have had the same opinion of the flaming in this one. Ummm....thats a bit clumsily put, sorry....just meant I thought you might have made mention about all the negativity! :wink:

I certainly don't agree with the negativity, but this topic wasn't started on the premise of giving other peoples RP a blasting, while that topic just screamed left right and flame me.

My only interest in this topic was purely theoretical, insofar as I don't see Silvanus or other nature dieties giving Rangers/Druids a -Further- constant source of extra help in performing their duties.

Blinds, Lookouts, Hides, even Towers i don't have any objections to. They are PC funded, constructed things, that only give a slight advantage in PvP. However i don't think that those seats that they are talking about will work the way they want them to, or they will look aesthetically horrible with a Rangers legs and arms splaying out from inside a tree.

I'm also not sure how much disco can actually do on the Z axis on that tileset in terms of platforms et al. If it were me i would have requested the possibility before actually entering into the RP, because if it is truly mechanically impossible to do as requested the RP will stall and stagnate.

MoshingChris wrote:

.....but this topic wasn't started on the premise of giving other peoples RP a blasting, while that topic just screamed left right and flame me.

True....

Yeah, I have my doubts myself about the feasibility of such, but its worth putting forward, to check, without all the clutter of..........'debate'.........around it...

I think some of the debate is worthwhile. Just not when it disinegrates into insults!

Though I think BrownBlur has a good idea with taking it into another topic that is more specific to the blinds and approaches the idea with more format and idea for feasability and such.

This entire page is complaining about the thread, as opposed to how last page ended starting a constructive discussion on the watchtowers.
With the matter of the NPCs settled, this could have continued to become a constructive topic about blinds (indeed still can).

I would suggest to those that find this topic 'boring' and felt the need to say as such spam one the would find interesting in Off Topic.

As for starting a new thread, it's up to you ... people on this one have stated some support for blinds in the last pages, but if you start anew you may be away from the stigma of the NPC request.

Although, I do agree with Moshing, although there is definitely a negative approach to this thread after the previous pages of solid objection.

Note: Just woke up after nightmare-filled night t find I missed my chemistry lecture. If I sound grumpier than normal, that'd be why.

I'm uncertain of making another post would be construed s double posting since the blinds were a part of the topic listed. *smiles softly*

Since the OP repeated the words feasibility in it as did most of my following replies, this thread -was- asking about the IC/IG RP being able to be implemented by the design engine. Again...huge word failure on my part which made it seem like it was asking for the ubers to go in nao, nao, nao!

Sadly despite an attempt at careful wording mixed with heavy excitement, it seemed to have been taken as a request mainly for the NPCs. Hmm..that would be my word choice reaching critical failure I think. I know that NPCs are able (mind, able, not going to be) to be put in however it was only half of the original topic. They may not be added but they're doable via toolset.

IG/IC rationality of them might be debatable. Everything from DM time to take over one to memory/data space alloted for them for the server. That's accepted.

Also even if the blinds aren't able to be done via the toolset, some current tree monkeys will still RP climbing and sitting in the local trees around since that's what also sparked the OP. Items make RP easier to convey sometimes but imagination still has to dream up the items. *beams* If the thread stops being entertainment, maybe it would offer a place for others who hadn't gotten a chance to post from IG to do so.

Elevated platforms that are accessed via the Grove Treetops area will tick the boxes needing ticked, and with that newfangeld Hemp Rope the folk on top of them can get to the forest floor quickly. If you need to get back up, you'll have to go back round via a bajillion NPC guards, which is tiresome for the treehuggers, but needs the whole DM rigmarole for treeburning undead-fiddling PCs.

Making them look like anything but ugly blocks of raised ground is another story. My toolset terrain knowledge is both feeble and pre-1.69, so I dunno.

Well, terrain wise I believe it's not possible to create a raised piece of standable terrain in the middle of the air, simply because of NWN's fear of things overhead. It's why the wiltun gate is unable to be walked under.

As for placeables, well if you can get the PC to stand on a placeable, you may beable to teleport the PC onto a raised placeable, possiably. I think I have seen that before.

Yarp, I mean a block of terrain rising from the forest floor level, which isn't a treetop blind at all, but it has (what I assume is) the desired function of giving a humungous tactical advantage to PC defence.

Just as long as they're totally featureless, and something is homebrewed to the effect that the grass that grows on them glows slightly, then Shadowdancers will automatically lose that stupid twunty "let's give the grieferprick class a great tool for exploity assclowning" Jump widget forever if they hop up there with one.

I was thinking it along the lines of those 'sit' triggers (whatever you call the bloody things that glow blue when you hit tab) except translated along the vertical if possible.
That way it's more of a lookout thing.

*comes back after looking at the map in mind*

Fogwood beyond Endir's point in the Dense forest!! There are trees there with visual platforms that are little more than attachments but...not sure how the Dev team did it...

These are what first inspired the idea on a previous run through. The are from the Amian game, not my toolset remakes.

This one is interesting but I couldn't see it working well in Amia forest. Though it would do well in something like a ranger enclave.

This one possibly but where I could see invisible seats in the air, it's more of a struggle for placing something like this. Heck...even a way to stand on top of the witches hut would have been neat.

Really not sure I could see something like this working or how he did it. Just that it's neat.

The bottom ones (similar to at the Grove) have the disadvantage of doing the opposite of what a blind would do - you would be less able to help and less able to see.

And I'm pretty sure the top two a monster would still attack you easily enough. Also I don't think that little bench on the tree is able to be stood on. It's kinda built into the tree's design. Either that or it's a floating plc.

Last edited by Sven on Wed, Jul 29 2009, 8:55 AM, edited 1 time in total.

The idea Ruce proposed offers the best advantage tactically so far I think. Although, it probably wouldnt look too good.

I suppose it could be RPed that archdruids summoned or the rangers made mounds of earth for tactical advantage instead of blinds being built?

Edit: unless of course, its possible to have *both* the look of the blinds and the tactical advantage - which thus far doesnt seem to be the case.

The reason I supported treehouses / blinds was that anyone could be using it - the argument behind archdruids raising Earth for rangers sounds like handing over the area to the group in question.

Agreed on that point, though the same could be said for the building of blinds.

However, the main thing I guess is that the group in question is rping a solution to the recent attacks in the forest. Im assuming they would want a small tactical advantage to fire arrows from etc. But so far it seems like a case of "either or".

Aesthetic or practicality. The summoning of mounds was a suggestion should they choose the latter.

In the first two pictures it's as simple as a balcony placeable having been put into the tree. It's non-walkable and I doubt you could be "seated" up there due to how the z-axis works.

The small building/shed in the tree at the next two pictures should be a placeable as well.

The one in the treetops is a tile-design, and I don't think it's walkable.

Same with the last picture.

Mr Mago wrote:

Zante wrote:

This would assure that the RP hub of the forest, around the crystal would be free and protected

Not, it would assure that a selected group of people would be allowed to have their forest picnics without having to worry about the IC intentions of other characters and the encounters which come with them.

Seriously, wtf is this mentality with Amia?

We're adding NPCs all over the place, in hopes to preserve RP. Am I the only one who considers that reverse logic?

If we want to create and foster RP, then the NPCs should be taken out of the equation unless we have bucketloads of DMs that can frequently possess them in ways that interact with the PCs.

Why are the Defenders of Kohlingen never defending Kohlingen? Because they don't have to. There's a frigging NPC army standing by 24/7 just in case any creature of foul intentions would get near.

Why are there never any attacks on Ultrinnan? Because there's NPC guards of dh00m that put the Law Knights of Cordor to shame, constantly "protecting" the city.

Why haven't the Kelemvorites cleansed Tarkuul? Because the 231593 undead NPCs standing outside, for no apparent reason, would whoop their ass in less than two rounds.

Winya is impossible to access, unless you're a goody-goody elf. Hell. Evin Bendir Dale has its own army of hins, which makes it impossible to have an impact on.

The only thing that all of these NPC guards do, is stagnate RP.

The alternative to NPC guards constantly present, would be PC guards. Which there are, except, right now, they're doing a fictional job of guarding what already can't be taken, assaulted or otherwise forcefully influenced.

Imagine if all the NPCs were removed.

There would be a -need- for Kohlingen Defenders, who would actually Defend and guard Kohlingen, stirring up activity in an otherwise holier-than-thou ghost-town.

There would be a need for PCs to join the Winya Militia, in order to protect their elven settlement.

There would be a need for the Bendir Dale militia, the Tarkuul Militia etc etc.

PCs would get to influence each other, and each others settlements. PCs would be needed to fulfil the tasks which are already expected of them, yet they never do, since there's no need for it.

What's the worst case scenario?

At times when there's few PC guards on... sure, then the evil doers of Amia can seize the moment and attack Kohlingen. Heck, they could even hold it long enough to perform some dark... vile... ritual, including sacrifices... and BLOOD!

Soon enough, enough Defenders would arrive, and with them, every other do-gooder on Amia, at which the evil doers would get a sinister beating and be thrown out.

Wait... is that what they call dynamic conflict RP?

Right now, we have a (censored) of PCs from various faction belongings, with various attitudes and dogmas, being in conflict with each other, in various places... except for the obvious ones, being the faction areas.

The conflicts of Amia are acted out, through PvP, by random occurances and in random areas, rather than being part of long term goals and ambitions, as well as co-operative plans and forces.

Those who might cry that "No NPCs guards would leave to mass PvP! We're not an arena server!" should take a serious look around, and notice the already massive amount of PvP that occurs everywhere, with the exception of faction areas, while still being part of RP. Progressive RP.

Perhaps I just need enlightenment. Enlightenment of what this server is really about.

Is it a social server, where everyone's expected to live happily ever after in peace?

Because that's what Amia has been struggling to become, and it's almost there.

We just need these extra golems in Amia Forest to make paradise in Faerûn complete.

AMEM TO THAT BROTHER!
I agree 100% with you mate, but if taking out the guards is impossible, at least remove most of them, and as the other guy up there said, these few ones could be powerful enough to avoid the berserker players.

Sometimes i think amia has become a server which popularity is the only thing which drives people <_>

but again, AMEM TO THAT SIR!

Well, personally, I'd prefer we aimed for something between impenetrable fortresses and a constant, lame capture-the-flag dynamic.

A Kohlingen that is conquered and reconqured each Friday is even more stupid than a Kohlingen that is rarely attacked, IMO.

Kjetta wrote:

Well, personally, I'd prefer we aimed for something between impenetrable fortresses and a constant, lame capture-the-flag dynamic.

A Kohlingen that is conquered and reconqured each Friday is even more stupid than a Kohlingen that is rarely attacked, IMO.

Agreed.

Uberuce wrote:

Yarp, I mean a block of terrain rising from the forest floor level, which isn't a treetop blind at all, but it has (what I assume is) the desired function of giving a humungous tactical advantage to PC defence.

Just as long as they're totally featureless, and something is homebrewed to the effect that the grass that grows on them glows slightly, then Shadowdancers will automatically lose that stupid twunty "let's give the grieferprick class a great tool for exploity assclowning" Jump widget forever if they hop up there with one.

*goes wide-eyed*

THE CLIFFS!!!

What if...um..just a single square or earth was extended beside one of the stone cliffs in the forest? That could be walked up on by a tiny transition spot so that someone could stand on that plot of land at the top!

It would still be high enough to be a 'blind' but not using the trees but the cliffs being scaled. Such as the ladders that go up to the camp spots both in Bender dale as well as between the map entrances to the mylocks!

Uce you can be a source of inspiration. There are spots along the cliffs that still overlook the roads and entrances as well as the node and grove. It can't be that much different to scale a tree as a wall. *offers apologies now to professional/hobbyist lumberers, rangers or climbers*

For the trees....aahhh.....very sorry to hear it possibly can't be done in the limitations of the design engine. Bummer.

If I can be honest, you'd be best off making it useable by anyone that succeed's a tumble or dex roll. As I can't see any reason why everyone couldn't use climbable ledges.

Actually, balcony plc's, and even the "raft" plc, are walkable, if you place them at the right height, flush with walkable terrain. I've used them in that manner in one of the underdark areas on B.

Depending on exactly *how* the hemp rope is scripted, it might be possible to make "blinds" (platforms) that could be walked upon, up in the trees of the forest. While I can easily design a platform in trees, I do not possess the hemp rope script, and so cannot test this.

That would however, be the only way to do it. Waypoints will not read a plc as walkable ground, thus they deposit you onto the nearest walkable ground, underneath the waypoint itself on the forest floor.

Edit: Also, the forest tileset does not allow for raised terrain, so it is not possible to raise a section of land to "emulate" scaling a cliff or such. The way the tilesets are limited like this is extremely frustrating in many instances.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If I can be honest, you'd be best off making it useable by anyone that succeed's a tumble or dex roll. As I can't see any reason why everyone couldn't use climbable ledges.

I can. It's a computer game and the terrain is used by designers to restrict player movements in order to impose further tactical considerations.

In this case, it's to give the defending faction a place to toss (some) spells and arrows at meleers in safety, and if the attackers have their own ranged attacks , to Raise dead snipers with unusual ease.

Uberuce wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If I can be honest, you'd be best off making it useable by anyone that succeed's a tumble or dex roll. As I can't see any reason why everyone couldn't use climbable ledges.

I can. It's a computer game and the terrain is used by designers to restrict player movements in order to impose further tactical considerations.

In this case, it's to give the defending faction a place to toss (some) spells and arrows at meleers in safety, and if the attackers have their own ranged attacks , to Raise dead snipers with unusual ease.

Sure, but if an attacking force overun's the postion shouldn't they be able to use that postions to their advantage? Or if the postion is left unmanned shouldn't it beable to be used? These are the risks you take when creating a fortified postion in my opinion. While it may help hold back a force, if it is taken in tact it can be used against that force.

The point of the entry route being via the Grove is to make that exceptionally hard, but should it be managed: yes.

I thought he idea was not to simply just give Amia forest over to their control i.e. let t be available to use for everyone.

That's just daft.

Oh, in that case can the drow have defences extended into the Hollow Caverns?

I have a couple of ideas for the Banite temple entrance as well, as well as the Skull Crags.

War Knights would like better control of the Swamps and Outlying Kohlingen Area's to while we are at it. :twisted:

poor Disco now he has to leech all those "factions" of a few billion gold as construction costs if he gets around doing this

Uberuce wrote:

The point of the entry route being via the Grove is to make that exceptionally hard, but should it be managed: yes.

*lifts finger* ...no please?

Yurell wrote:

I thought he idea was not to simply just give Amia forest over to their control i.e. let t be available to use for everyone.

Yes please.

Thank you Uce...but as mentioned, not all of the nature factions are of the Grove or even of the Glade. A good portion are still independent.

If something can be done like Cori mentioned, that would be very nice and it's taken that it would be used by more than just those who are rangers and druids.

I can name at least 2-3 PCs that also climb trees in the forest for craps and chortles. Whatever of this is mechanically feasible (yes I do love that word. *hugs it*) would be marvelous since there are two or three places on B that such would be asked for in a few months.

Last edited by Moonangel on Thu, Mar 04 2010, 16:54 PM, edited 1 time in total.

TormakSaber wrote:

If there are consistently PCs here to guard the area, then NPCs are not needed. Congratulations, you're doing your job!

TormakSaber wrote:

Except the grove defenders are there to defend *the Grove*, and you are there to do the rest, as PCs?

TormakSaber wrote:

It doesn't matter that the NPCs aren't invincible. You will have the power to paralyze any interaction with the utterance of "don't metagame the guards."

...given the rather obvious consensus of this topic, why is the forest being defended by caravan npcs now?

WonWon wrote:

Amidst the recent regrowth of the area, an amount of darkly clad individuals have taken station, watching over the goings on with a wary, combat-readied gaze, occasionally being seen working closely with personnel affiliated with the Grove of Oakmist Vale, though otherwise providing little in regards to obvious activity. Excluding the quick elimination of individuals when a fight decides to break loose

While they lack any symbols of affiliation, there's one common denominator between all of these mysterious individuals;

Their left eye has been removed with surgical precision.

Oh i don't know Moonangel. . .plot maybe.

Thats five seperate celebrities who've mentioned this to me, and my answer to all bar one is -WELCOME TO PLOT-.

MoshingChris wrote:

Oh i don't know Moonangel. . .plot maybe.

Thats five seperate celebrities who've mentioned this to me, and my answer to all bar one is -WELCOME TO PLOT-.

Which would be fine... if past attempts to enlist help and do the same thing were not turned down for the occ reason of ''not having NPC's do the PC's job''. Which is exactly what's happening now, only it's no longer an issue.

Eary being both the grove's ranger captain currently in charge of the faction and the dm running the black caravan plot is just a coincidence I am sure.

I also find it a coincidence that you manage to stay on this forum, hacking your IPs to get past a ban, while the forum... likewise... gets hacked.

...Interesting that, isn't it?

Addendum; Eary's only the Ranger Captain, and therefore has absolutely no authority outside of teaching Rangers how to do their jobs. He still defers to the ArchDruid (Malandria)

There's no need for cheap shots on WonWon and his characters.

But... with the Black Caravan suddenly guarding Amia Forest, the area has effectively turned into No PvP Cordor... with extra trees and less street-corner cyb0ring.

Seems like an "IC" solution to what has been a conflict hotspot, that's no longer desired.

It's actually just bad timing, coincidentally. I don't mind giving this bit of detail out, even if it's raw OOC; just to clear some dramas.

The BC's been looking at the Forest (The Trummels, or the West, primarily. Away from the Central Area) for a while, and the actual word-out to do something about it was sent to my Caravanner PCs on the 15th of Febuary (before any of the recent stuff 'blew out').

Unfortunately, said players had lives, and couldn't get to it straight away. Resulted in a delay.

The current situation is quite likely 'temporary', and as the Caravan Soldiers aren't in game module wise, I don't expect them to be paid much attention to in regards to situation handling unless a DM is actually there, with one, controlling them.

Of note; Eary's remained completely out of the Caravan discussions, and defers all of his 'opinion' to another PC that isn't played by myself. His only comments on the matter are condensed to (as expected of a very much fight-happy elf) - "Let's fight. Caravan or Not; Let's fight."

As much as I'd like to claim to be a leet hakzor, my actual hacking skills amount to using a proxy like anonymouse.

Not much hacking involved there I'm afraid.

WonWon wrote:

It's actually just bad timing, coincidentally. I don't mind giving this bit of detail out, even if it's raw OOC; just to clear some dramas.

The BC's been looking at the Forest (The Trummels, or the West, primarily. Away from the Central Area) for a while, and the actual word-out to do something about it was sent to my Caravanner PCs on the 15th of Febuary (before any of the recent stuff 'blew out').

Unfortunately, said players had lives, and couldn't get to it straight away. Resulted in a delay.

The current situation is quite likely 'temporary', and as the Caravan Soldiers aren't in game module wise, I don't expect them to be paid much attention to in regards to situation handling unless a DM is actually there, with one, controlling them.

Of note; Eary's remained completely out of the Caravan discussions, and defers all of his 'opinion' to another PC that isn't played by myself. His only comments on the matter are condensed to (as expected of a very much fight-happy elf) - "Let's fight. Caravan or Not; Let's fight."

Alright. Kind of makes sense.

The only problem with the solution though... is... whenever a fight breaks out, people can go with the "Oi. You're metagaming the Black Caravan guards!".

If they do; reference the above post directly, and say the DM running the Caravan directly said "They're only there if a DM puts them there".

Uhm.

I was just told that a Banite had been shot at in Amia Forest (by the Black Caravan), for apparently no reason at all.

And that he was told that the Banites were banned.

So... what's up with that?

Hidden Golems and Ranger Blinds/Towers

Who is online