Madnath

Members
  • Content Count

    1033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Madnath last won the day on June 20

Madnath had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1227 Rare

1 Follower

About Madnath

  • Rank
    Mayor

Accounts

  • Chaos
    Jugemu jugemu gokou
  • Independence
    no surikire kaijari
  • Deliverance
    suigyou no suigyoumatsu
  • Exodus
    unraimatsu fuuraimatsu
  • Celebration
    kuu neru tokoro ni
  • Xanadu
    sumu tokoro yaburakouji
  • Release
    no burakouji paipo paipo
  • Pristine
    paipo no shuuringan
  • Epic
    shuuringan no guurindai
  • Acc1
    guurindai no ponpokopii
  • Acc2
    no ponpokonaa no
  • Acc3
    choukyuumei no chousuke

Recent Profile Visitors

2215 profile views
  1. There are a lot of rules that aren't and can't be enforced by code, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make that the case when we can and when it'd work. Oversights can and will happen. This is something known as risk mitigation. We've already had code in the thread that'd most likely make this work. A single line of code to prevent something that would require GM investigation, and a lot of awkwardness and potential bans? That seems like a damn good trade off for me. I am not going to argue against a suggestion that works to enforce rules that exist for a reason.
  2. When did I do that? I am positive I raised the distribution of loot as one of the key factors that slayings go private for, which is true. And fixing that would remove one aspect of slays happening privately. But guess what? Not relevant to this thread. I'm also not going to try and go "HA look at past post from ages ago" as an awful attempt at deflecting being called toxic for a bad post that has no relevancy for this thread. I'm going to ask again that we stop trying to take our personal feelings about private slays into this thread, we understand that this suggestion is there to ENFORCE the rules we MUST abide by. This post has said no stance or statement for or against private slays. Please stop bringing your issues with that in here.
  3. It's not adding to the rules though. It's a code change that doesn't even need to be listed in the rules. And for the second point, nothing. Nothing is next. We wait to see if devs change uniques. You're trying to back up you're saying with weird "suppose this happens" that are unlikely to happen. Which are, again, not something in the scope of this thread. I'm fine with you not agreeing but the reasoning for it is totally beyond what's being talked about currently.
  4. Not really, if they're not stealthed it's an entirely different circumstance I don't plan to cover with this. The scenario you're talking about is something to directly issue against current slay rules, not what I'm proposing. I get your point, it's just not the right place to push against it. Living local isn't the same as being stealthed. Living local is just a part of the game, even if it's unlikely to have a slay in local range of a deed. Stealth is a deliberate action in order to conceal your prescence that prevents actions.
  5. 1) We don't know and can't tell, because they wouldn't show on Niarja. But given I've been to a few slays where someone has tried to "be afk" above the location for the intention of "asking to take part" it's not very unlikely. We also have "Reveal settlement" which would make the more obvious or likely slay deeds to be more easily found 2) See above 3) Anyone who attempts to do a private or impromptu slay. Your viewpoints on if private slays should be a thing are invalid here, because that's not the point of this thread. It's to fix an easy to do loophole and a possible exploit. 4) Totally irrelevant. This is a conversation about fixing a likely loophole/exploit, nothing to do with bank balance. Your initial post only holds ground if people advertise where a private slay is taking place, which people never do, regardless of if the rules prevent people crashing it. Uniques also have a tether, which while it can be a bit... wonky, largely prevents just taking it "somewhere more remote" This isn't about being able to control everything, this is about fixing something that can be abused.
  6. Your entire point is for disabling dragons until a better mechanic is in place, which is way behind the scope of this thread. People living in a local range to a slay, which by the way, isn't exactly common in the first place, wouldn't be affected. If you missed the title of the thread, it's for STEALTHED characters only. If you live local, there's no reason you'd be stealthed on your own deed. Something which, by the way, becomes redundant if part of the slay group just tries to /tell you. Something not so easily done if you just put your unknown priest or alt into the edge of the local range for the dragon and stealth them. You and Sheffie are both getting the wrong idea and are fighting a battle not even being made against your scenarios.
  7. You, this conversation you're making isn't productive to anyone. This is a suggestion to make it so rules aren't so easily broken, or exploited. You're arguing that people should be able to abuse a part of the system in order to profit. Which is frankly, disgusting. I know I tend to toe the line in chat with the rules, but it shouldn't be an accepted thing to allow exploiting. Your entire point has been based on hating private slays and a chip on your shoulder about them. A chip, which has absolutely has nothing to do with keeping things fair and legal as per game rules.
  8. Please keep irrelevant parts of the conversation out of this thread. This isn't a place to whine about uniques, how they are, what you want to see and the like. This is a suggestion to stop people from crashing slays they aren't invited too, something that'd help stop people breaking rules and doing illegal actions as per game rules. I don't care if the chip on your shoulder is really a boulder. Not the place for it.
  9. Just like the title says, it'd really help to ease player paranoia and help keep slayings fair if stealthed accounts in local range of the slay don't get loot from any unique slayings. I can't really think of any downsides to this, and it'd certainly stop any possible calls for a GM to come and take action against someone if you ride past someone and they unstealth. For those not aware, if you're stealed near a private slaying of a unique, you will get loot you're not meant to get. Nobody advertises the location of a unique slay, and if someone lives private, in the past I've found they're usually invited if they're online at the time. Just because you "travelled there" or whatever doesn't mean you get to crash it. If you host a party and make a Facebook event for your friends to be able to organise things and times, does that mean it's an open invitation for everyone to join up and crash it? Of course not. Crashing these slays is against game rules, and until a "solution" is done to make uniques different, we should be making steps to prevent exploiting and abusing the system. You don't get to pick and choose which rules don't fly in this game.
  10. After chilling in his Twitch chat, I can pretty confidently say that I'm fairly sure this is one of the better deeds to be part of not just on the server, but the cluster. I see him constantly chatting with both alliance, village and his Twitch chat. I fail to see why anyone would take issue with streaming. If you see this thread and miss the "I STREAM HERE LINK" in bold and bright text, then I really don't think there's enough indication in the world for you. Anyway, would recommend. Me and Zuelatek don't always see eye to eye on our opinions and visions for the game, but it's admirable to see someone so invested in trying to see new changes for the game. It gets the worthless Madnath seal of approval.
  11. that's exactly it, juice is bugger all difficulty compared to the tea so the test is really not accurate at all.
  12. WOW! All this just for showing up on time at the spot shown on the map?
  13. Please Close

    WOW! All this just for showing up on time at the spot shown on the map?