Elke

If it remains with gaining a chunk of XP after finishing an invance: What about different XP and making it meaningful? Gather the XP generated by each player for attack, defence, ranging, summoning and magic and calculate the percentage of each of these skills used on the overall skill gained. Then grant a bonus which is, say, skill level * percentage * 100 for each of those five skills. If I trained ranging or magic - why would I get a huge a/d bonus?

I believe such poll will be heavily biased, biased by the (few) hardcore players which are very chatty and have a strong opinion. Yet that may not be representative of the overall playerbase which is less likely to raise their opinion and who might simply silently leave. The gear requirements are easy to fulfill by established players. But they definitely are severly off-putting to new players. With XP bonus gone, it also doesn't matter whether anyone does anything. People get XP by fighting anyway, so without any bonus, it's fair and square. Thus Aislin raises IMHO some very good questions, especially as fighting XP is something gotten by easily, more easily than anything else, even without invances. Probably the most interesting suggestion is kapbepucm's which allows to happily test which alternative is more popular. The idea to start the invances scripted at a random time sounds appealing to me, too.

Not necessarily. There are areas on maps that are no longer accessible (for example, the other cave on the DP coal cave map (unless this is one of the really secret secrets to which you were referring earlier)). These could be used. That's still accessible.

I know. Yet still, while the programming work is done as the current state can be (nearly) released (and sure, that's by far the main work), it requires: - adding (and reviewing?) the changelog you posted to the repository and possibly some small version-specific changes to readme - tagging the release and creating the appropriate download packages for all versions from the same code base; possibly creating installers etc which usually are only built for releases - updating all (official) download locations and links - writing announcement(s) Sounds all easy enough, even is all easy enough, but combined this also is not done in 5 Minutes Thus or yet I voted for 'yes, new version' - I'm a fan of ship early, ship often. Code sitting unused in repos doesn't help anyone.

Developer time is a scarce and limited ressource which does not easily scale. One could argue it's better spent on readying version 2.0 and improving gameplay. Yet for the reason hussam gave and the lengthy list of bug fixes I still voted 'yes'.

I suggest gain or loose experience equal to [ (att+def+mag+phys+coord+hitpoints+armour)_opponent - (att+def+mag+phys+coord+hitpoints+armour)_player ] as percentage of the XP necessary to gain your next OA. Values are the values as modified by gear. That would allow PK without problem and make attractive if you attack people superior to your level and deter preying on victims instead of opponents. EDIT: It only makes sense disallow negative values for players who did not deal the first blow (i.e. minimum XP gain of 0 instead of -oo) as to disallow depriving players of XP if they are not aggressive.

No cap on attributes might be interesting. But I do believe that buying additional levels in *each* attribute should become increasingly expensive in the same way that getting an additional level gets increasingly expensive. For instance raising an attribute by one could cost one PP more than the previous one cost. And everyone would get like 10 (or 15) PP per level gained. It would have the additional advantage that strength does not increase linearily with OA levels.

Have a look at http://greypal.el-fd.org/cgi-bin/querybot-dev for what bots offer. Join channel3 (market channel) ingame to see what others (bots and players) offer. You can also query. Mind the 5-minute rule for consecutive postings there. Also see http://schmurk.corner.free.fr/el/market.php but mind that not every account there is regularily updated.

http://el-wiki.net/Astrology is pretty extensive. And to my knowledge and experience quite accurate in the explanation.

@@6 is a bad indicator really. Those who don't like to combat are most likely not there and vice versa.

I'm not sure it makes too much sense. People interested in that, will read-up on pickpoints. People not, will not. And even with knowledge of the encyc you can't properly judge the relative importance and strengths of the single attribs and nexus for this or another character type you envision to build.

That's the very important thing which makes all the difference. It's nice if someone cares and even may lead to nice conversations or even a new friendship. Yet another message from another bot... means nothing and is annoying. I can have bot messages as many as I want and more in @3

Try to fend-off someone within arm's reach with a daggar if all you have is a two-handed thing like halbert. I found those tries usually end with a death of the halbert bearer.

Finding those two packages is not fatal in itself, but the check in line 83 borks... https://paste.openttdcoop.org/show/2289/ is the patch I use to make it compile. cmake itself doesn't barf on it for me, but the resulting config doesn't work without that patch for me (likely due to changes in gcc 4.7 wrt earlier gccs).

More interesting probably would be the gcc version you use; my bet is on gcc 4.8 as it introduces a few new things in this direction. Or possibly the LD version (given the link you provided) it could then be amended to like #if (GCC_VERSION >= XXX) LDFLAGS += -lX11 -lstdc++ #endif (provided that GCC_VERSION is defined already in the makefile)

That's how it is *now* But 28 levels above recommended need not make it failsafe. Alchemy doesn't work that way either. Why should magic?

What do you need buffs to kill panthers and skeletons ? and if this is how you feel we should be able to make dragon armor at early Manu levels as well so noobs can make them selves awesome armor to help them in 40-60 invance Good example. But the other way: You CAN make dragon armour at level 1. You simply will fail very often, thus it will be inefficient. For the same reasons the spells should work at low levels - but fail often. Another example on those lines are that you can always harvest everything regardless of your level - it simply will take ages. Thus the spell cooldown could depend on the level difference for instance as well.

ad 2) From outside? What purpose does that serve? ad 3) Definitely yes ad 4) I've the 2nd lowest perception possible. Finding stuff or NPCs is not an issue. Quests in general are not too difficult. Just, there could be more :-) Also like small discoveries like a few gc, a BR or SR or similar in chests, drawers, ... that would be fun and give more incentive to try stuff. ad 5) Not sure that's needed. But there's little going on which targets newbies. 120+ invances and instances... The situation improved and improves with the new newbie quests. ad 6) maybe ad 7) why? what's the purpose? what if I want to re-visit the dialogue? ad 8) why? ad 9) That would make any mixing skill even less attractive. It rather needs prices on NPCs such that the NPCs would make a profit or at least no big loss if they bought the ingredients from other NPCs for the stuff they sell. That would allow for a more robust economy.

Fully ack. Introducing pots for nexus would imbalance the PP system even more towards fighters and de-valuate the PP already put into nexus.

Looks rather like some kind of bug. Incidentially that's 2**32, thus uint32, per minute passed since log-on.

That's a nice suggestion, especially wrt showing caps of remaining mobs. Wrt price adjustment: personally I favour to increase their longevity instead of reducing their production costs.

I quite like the idea of team-play spells along the lines you suggest. The current remote heal is feable compared to the power of the restore spell (why can't I heal others similarily effective as myself?). Thus while it definitely helps, it's underpowered in this comparison. I'm not too sure about putting up the *level* requirements for casting all these new spells too high. It's nice, if people can cast it even at lower levels. But I definitely would want to add a decent level dependence so that levelling for the purpose to become a mage the group wants to have is something one wants to do :-). E.g. there need not be a high entry level for the +accuracy spell - its effectiveness is defined by magic level anyway. But sure enough there are some spells which might want to see a higher level - like the cursed arrows, which btw. is a nice idea. Suggestions for further spells: * Remote shield (also in the form of heat / cold / radiation shields). They also could have a lower required magic level, but like +1 protection / 20 mag levels or so. * Blind enemy. This would be a very high-level spell which would work like a disengagement ring usage on the enemies it attacks. It could be a(nother) use for an Enriched Energy Essence. * enchant weapon (with cold/heat/magic damage). For extra damage of the weapon the bearer uses. also in the form of +1 / 20 mag levels or so.

There is no Gwinny. http://game.eternal-...php?user=gwinny (and before people think the wrong thing: not me, but I met her ingame as a nice person) nvm.

The invance 6080 is good as-is. Keep it unchanged.

What gap is being closed, if you can buy XP?