| this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #49578] |
Mon, 11 January 2010 21:55  |
Kirbea (retired)
Messages: 30
Registered: December 2009 |
the Beast Queen
|
|
|
It can be proven on the forums, I just can't find it. My whole argument was why did fastolph auto fix this cheaters request? ON another post sionas outted himself as a cheater, true story. Can we undo what corrupt fastoplh did already?
Sionas wrote,
"How strong does a wind have to be to do damage underwater?"
Um there is a tiny fish that uses his jaws to litterally create an air pocket underwater so strong it stuns its victims instantly. The speed of the air pocket was clocked faster than the speed of sound. Yay discovery channel. So why can't windwall work if a little fish can do it?
And wrote,
"When you're underwater, wouldn't flying make you rise to the surface, and then above the surface... Not many birds down here."
Why did this statement make is so you can't use a flying potion while on the surface of water? I dunno dudes, if I was Superman, i could fly up down left or right, just because I'm flying doesn't mean I'm going up. HOLY CRAP! Super man could fly down too! Are you going to tell Superman that he can't fly down and into an ocean???? Good luck because superman would punch you in the face and instead of your head just tearing off you would fly out of earth's atmosphere and looking down on earth shake a fist at him. Then die. LOL jokes aside but seriously why did these get insta-changed?
Sionas the cheater also wrote,
"When you're underwater, wouldn't flying make you rise to the surface, and then above the surface... Not many birds down here."
Wouldn't that make you rise above the surface, and then miles into the air until you burn to ash from the earth's atmosphere?
this change was assadyne and should be changed back. completely corrupt change, like if you need someone to kick fastolphs ass IRL just talk to our resident experts in killing who can kill in one punch. Just change it back.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #49589] |
Tue, 12 January 2010 06:08  |
Vinnesh (retired)
Messages: 580
Registered: May 2009 |
Hope of the Magi
|
|
|
My problem is less fly being uncastable on water and more the water-based rooms not being flagged properly.
There are two types of water-rooms. Just as there are two types of flood room. One is surface water. Good for river tops, sea tops and the like. Enough water present for spells like Deluge and Tsunami, but still skyfacing water. The second is an Aquamancer-strenghth Flood Room, or Underwater areas. Under the sea, the Morkoth Temple, River Bottoms and the like would classify into these areas. Being able to cast fly on oneself in these rooms would fall under the realm of this change here.
Also, as a side note, I think if windwall knocks you out of the sky (for those who are naturally affected by Fly) it should keep you down for a tick.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #50649] |
Sun, 07 February 2010 20:53 |
Kathelin (retired)
Messages: 15
Registered: January 2010 |
the Elemental Hero
|
|
|
I agree with you on this one...
Bad change! It makes almost no sense at all.
If you have fly, and go under water, it doesnt strip your fly from you. Why not? You cant fly under water. But that wasn't what got changed...
If you're on the ocean in a canoe... Why cant you quaff a fly potion or cast fly... You're not in the water, you're certainly not UNDER the water... there's absolutely no logical reason a fly potion or spell wouldn't work. NONE!
I can understand possibly the change if being "under water" effects your skills or spells...
...
...
...
But we all know it doesn't.
Take a halfway, and I'm giving some credit on even giving it "halfway," legitimate argument on something and see changes... Shit. I've been arguing actual logical things for years and haven't seen a bit of reasonable change. Go figure.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #50699] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 16:13 |
Sanada (retired)
Messages: 239
Registered: April 2009 |
the Elemental Hero
|
|
|
|
Classic example of where realism screws up game mechanics. Fantasy realm beats realistic logic. Else we wouldn't be playing this game =P
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #50711] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 01:35 |
Sorniara
Messages: 79
Registered: July 2009 |
the Heroine of Magical Transference, Evil Queen of Clan dr'Rhillzznae
|
|
|
Fly not working under water is just wrong. Not being able to cast fly or quaff a fly potion under water is more wrong. Not being able to cast fly or quaff a fly potion above the water is so wrong I don't have a good enough word for it. Excuse the rough wording, but this change was a terrible screw-up, IMHO. More than one character of mine almost got killed because of it, not being able to quaff a fly potion where I should be able to. The only place I shouldn't be able to do that is a no-magic room. Even if the imms finally decide that fly should not work underwater (I think it should), I should still be able to quaff that fly potion and put the spell on my affection.
This is such an obvious and harmful bug, I can't comprehend why it hasn't been fixed/patched for so long. Should be a 2-minutes fix? Yes, I know the imms are busy, but please take a look into this issue sometime?
As to windwall not working under water... I think it makes sense since there's not much air there and you need a lot of air to hit with a wall of wind. Unless you're a giant elementalist farting at the enemy, it sounds a bit difficult.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52669] |
Tue, 20 April 2010 21:30 |
Fastolph
Messages: 1773
Registered: March 2006 |
the Steward of Thievery, Mastery, and Perfection
|
|
|
Corrupt Fastolph?
This is hilarious. I'd like to review the original thread (if someone could provide a link) to figure out what exactly WAS the logic behind the change. Listening to pissy diatribe (belly-aching, bitching, whining, you name it) isn't the reason I'd change something back. I'd change something back if it were done in error - for the benefit of worthwhile non-pissy, belly-aching, bitching, whining, (etc) players.
I'd dare you to find me in real life and kick my ass. Don't squeal when you find my size 15 steel-toed boot lodged in your intestines when I get my turn.
Fastolph - And, no, you can't have my butter knife.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52672] |
Tue, 20 April 2010 23:50 |
Xirliik (retired)
Messages: 57
Registered: October 2009 |
the Anti-Hero of Death
|
|
|
While there is a point to this thread, insulting Fastolph shouldn't be one of the themes.
Grow up.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52673] |
Tue, 20 April 2010 23:55 |
Torel
Messages: 40
Registered: March 2010 |
the Hero of Holy Healing
|
|
|
|
You're an imm Fastolph, you should be used to idiots by now...hehe. Shouldn't have even responded to it, much less dragged it up from months ago to do so. Except to point out that fly not being castable on water doesn't seem to make much sense, which I agree with...drives me crazy. Anyway, ignore the idiot and thanks for your hard work on the game, most people do appreciate it and you.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52674] |
Wed, 21 April 2010 00:14 |
Fastolph
Messages: 1773
Registered: March 2006 |
the Steward of Thievery, Mastery, and Perfection
|
|
|
Dragging it up was not the point. Casually attempting to understand the "state of affairs", so to speak, by looking into bug reports was what had happened. And, yes, I'm used to idiots. And, no, the players seem to not have gotten used to my weariness in dealing with idiots. I haven't, don't, and won't tolerate rhetorical or actual threats on any immortal, including my little hobbit self.
As to the point of fly - is anyone familiar with the discussion thread on this? I *remotely* remember this. But, recall, I haven't been active in over a year, and I'm old - so what more can be expected of this hobbit?
Fastolph - And, no, you can't have my butter knife.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52678] |
Wed, 21 April 2010 00:56 |
Gribault (retired)
Messages: 11
Registered: March 2010 |
the Knight Hero
|
|
|
As I recall, someone posted on the forum that it didn't make sense to be able to fly or cast fly underwater. The imms agreed and implemented the inability to cast fly while underwater and also included that you can't cast it while on top of water as well.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52680] |
Wed, 21 April 2010 06:26 |
Vinnesh (retired)
Messages: 580
Registered: May 2009 |
Hope of the Magi
|
|
|
|
Which brought me to the point I had made about the difference between the room types not being recognised with this blanket change to Fly. On top of water, you should be able to fly out and over it. Under water,,, not so much.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52699] |
Wed, 21 April 2010 21:17 |
Fastolph
Messages: 1773
Registered: March 2006 |
the Steward of Thievery, Mastery, and Perfection
|
|
|
| Gribault wrote on Wed, 21 April 2010 00:56 |
As I recall, someone posted on the forum that it didn't make sense to be able to fly or cast fly underwater. The imms agreed and implemented the inability to cast fly while underwater and also included that you can't cast it while on top of water as well.
|
See - wasn't that simple? It sounds as if it's a bug. Not some conspiracy to screw over players. 
Fastolph - And, no, you can't have my butter knife.
|
|
|
| Re: this was the logic behind making fly uncastable on water [message #52700] |
Wed, 21 April 2010 21:29 |
Fastolph
Messages: 1773
Registered: March 2006 |
the Steward of Thievery, Mastery, and Perfection
|
|
|
Fixed for next gatekeeping.
Fastolph - And, no, you can't have my butter knife.
|
|
|
Login
Home
