Shamarah2007-05-27 04:58:23
QUOTE(Krellan @ May 27 2007, 12:44 AM) 412259
no offense but I think anything that keeps you alive with no exp loss is better. It still gives you another chance, unless of course dying strips vitae or makes vitae trigger first before the egg. then it's pointless. But if that's not the case it woudl give you another chance to get out or another chance to kill an avatar, just get a basic insomnia reflex and start tumbling if you can or spore out instantly.
Of course it's better than vitae. But it pales in comparison to Lichdom, or moon altar'd Resurgem.
Krellan2007-05-27 05:11:40
QUOTE(Shamarah @ May 26 2007, 11:58 PM) 412264
Of course it's better than vitae. But it pales in comparison to Lichdom, or moon altar'd Resurgem.
yeah. never disagreed with that. I've only ever said that I'd prefer something for moon users like archliches get rather than the soul rez. Just regular resurgem for the bards/trackers and then something cool for a moon user. if they ever come out with more constructs though hopefully those will be better for glom.
Arel2007-05-27 05:16:53
QUOTE(Krellan @ May 27 2007, 01:11 AM) 412265
if they ever come out with more constructs though hopefully those will be better for glom.
I hope that too, but it would be nice if the one we had was worth building. The admins have definitely been busy with the awesome new stuff we have lately, so hopefully they'll look at the Nest soon.
Viravain2007-05-27 05:47:00
There are no plans for changing Nest.
Shamarah2007-05-27 05:50:54
QUOTE(Viravain @ May 27 2007, 01:47 AM) 412269
There are no plans for changing Nest.
Why can't it at least be considered? It's basically universally agreed that the Nest is by far the worst of the constructs.
Estarra2007-05-27 06:46:14
Not to dispute Viravain, but I'm disputing Viravain.
There have been discussions about plans and suggestions to change DarkNest, which probably we'll revisit when DarkNest gets raised. If it never gets raised, then it's rather irrelevant. Yes, I know, some may refuse to raise it unless they know exactly how it would be changed, but really it's a circuitous argument.
Bottom line! If it's raised, it'll be changed. We won't know the changes until it happens.
There have been discussions about plans and suggestions to change DarkNest, which probably we'll revisit when DarkNest gets raised. If it never gets raised, then it's rather irrelevant. Yes, I know, some may refuse to raise it unless they know exactly how it would be changed, but really it's a circuitous argument.
Bottom line! If it's raised, it'll be changed. We won't know the changes until it happens.
Ashteru2007-05-27 07:06:24
Deal!
(At least for me. <.<)
(At least for me. <.<)
Unknown2007-05-27 07:17:28
I'm confused as to what that means. It could mean one of two things:
1) DarkNest has been changed but no announce post was made. It is up to the players to raise it and see the difference.
or
2) DarkNest may be changed at some point, but you want players to raise its currently worthless incarnation before you will consider changes.
Could you clarify this, please, so I know what to complain about?
1) DarkNest has been changed but no announce post was made. It is up to the players to raise it and see the difference.
or
2) DarkNest may be changed at some point, but you want players to raise its currently worthless incarnation before you will consider changes.
Could you clarify this, please, so I know what to complain about?
Anarias2007-05-27 07:46:47
QUOTE(blastron @ May 27 2007, 01:17 AM) 412277
I'm confused as to what that means. It could mean one of two things:
1) DarkNest has been changed but no announce post was made. It is up to the players to raise it and see the difference.
or
2) DarkNest may be changed at some point, but you want players to raise its currently worthless incarnation before you will consider changes.
Could you clarify this, please, so I know what to complain about?
1) DarkNest has been changed but no announce post was made. It is up to the players to raise it and see the difference.
or
2) DarkNest may be changed at some point, but you want players to raise its currently worthless incarnation before you will consider changes.
Could you clarify this, please, so I know what to complain about?
Just rant about both scenarios, I'm sure you can. I believe in you!
Unknown2007-05-27 09:13:39
Fine, fine, but I'll be brief as I'm headed for bed.
1) Wow, doing something so big and not telling anyone about it is dumb. There's only been a couple instances of this happening (changing the ingredients of health potions to include galingale instead of horehound comes to mind), but none of them have been large to this extent. If you see that nobody in their right mind is going to do something because it sucks, tell people that it no longer sucks so that they'll try it out! Then again, I don't think that this is very likely at all, as my gripes about the administration focus on the lack of professionalism and forward thinking, not their stupidity. I have some faith in you guys!
2) Promising a change down the road to something that sucks is fine. We put up with bardic illusions being identical to mage illusions because we were promised that they would come eventually. However, telling us that we need to show interest in doing the thing that sucks in order for it to be improved goes against basic logic. A player will not do something that hurts his character, and draining both his organization's resources and his personal resources for a lackluster effect will definitely hurt his character. Telling someone that they have to do things that will hurt their character in large ways (and possibly frequently) in order to get the ability to do something better is like telling people that they should jump repeatedly off of fifty-foot buildings in the hopes that someone will eventually do something at some undetermined point in the future to make the fall end in a more pleasant manner. People need to know what they're getting into before they'll do it so that they can judge to see if they actually want to do it.
Compulsive 12 AM EDIT while I drink a glass of water before going back to sleep: Please note that I am not unhappy that a change is being made. I am unhappy with the manner through which the change is being delivered. Sorry if this was unclear, so I guess a more explicitly stated statement should be stated: "Thank you for considering this change, but couldn't you come up with a more effective method of delivery?"
1) Wow, doing something so big and not telling anyone about it is dumb. There's only been a couple instances of this happening (changing the ingredients of health potions to include galingale instead of horehound comes to mind), but none of them have been large to this extent. If you see that nobody in their right mind is going to do something because it sucks, tell people that it no longer sucks so that they'll try it out! Then again, I don't think that this is very likely at all, as my gripes about the administration focus on the lack of professionalism and forward thinking, not their stupidity. I have some faith in you guys!
2) Promising a change down the road to something that sucks is fine. We put up with bardic illusions being identical to mage illusions because we were promised that they would come eventually. However, telling us that we need to show interest in doing the thing that sucks in order for it to be improved goes against basic logic. A player will not do something that hurts his character, and draining both his organization's resources and his personal resources for a lackluster effect will definitely hurt his character. Telling someone that they have to do things that will hurt their character in large ways (and possibly frequently) in order to get the ability to do something better is like telling people that they should jump repeatedly off of fifty-foot buildings in the hopes that someone will eventually do something at some undetermined point in the future to make the fall end in a more pleasant manner. People need to know what they're getting into before they'll do it so that they can judge to see if they actually want to do it.
Compulsive 12 AM EDIT while I drink a glass of water before going back to sleep: Please note that I am not unhappy that a change is being made. I am unhappy with the manner through which the change is being delivered. Sorry if this was unclear, so I guess a more explicitly stated statement should be stated: "Thank you for considering this change, but couldn't you come up with a more effective method of delivery?"
Ashteru2007-05-27 09:20:44
Shush you. 
Just be happy that we'd get a change, I hope we build it.
Just be happy that we'd get a change, I hope we build it.
Shamarah2007-05-27 13:55:40
QUOTE(Estarra @ May 27 2007, 02:46 AM) 412272
Not to dispute Viravain, but I'm disputing Viravain.
There have been discussions about plans and suggestions to change DarkNest, which probably we'll revisit when DarkNest gets raised. If it never gets raised, then it's rather irrelevant. Yes, I know, some may refuse to raise it unless they know exactly how it would be changed, but really it's a circuitous argument.
Bottom line! If it's raised, it'll be changed. We won't know the changes until it happens.
There have been discussions about plans and suggestions to change DarkNest, which probably we'll revisit when DarkNest gets raised. If it never gets raised, then it's rather irrelevant. Yes, I know, some may refuse to raise it unless they know exactly how it would be changed, but really it's a circuitous argument.
Bottom line! If it's raised, it'll be changed. We won't know the changes until it happens.
Okay! Thanks for letting us know, I'll bother Lisarel about building it now.
Xenthos2007-05-27 14:21:23
QUOTE(Estarra @ May 27 2007, 02:46 AM) 412272
Bottom line! If it's raised, it'll be changed. We won't know the changes until it happens.
It "will" be changed? If that's a promise... then maybe we can discuss it, but it's a very significant outlay of resources based on an OOC promise with no further details.
I'm not sure how discussing details ahead of time makes a circuitous argument... :/
Unknown2007-05-27 14:36:20
QUOTE(Estarra @ May 27 2007, 06:46 AM) 412272
I'm disputing Viravain.
Someone's not getting any candy.
And as for building it, I think that making it for commune pride's sake would be enough to do the trick.
Unknown2007-05-27 15:11:16
QUOTE(Xenthos @ May 27 2007, 03:21 PM) 412326
It "will" be changed? If that's a promise... then maybe we can discuss it, but it's a very significant outlay of resources based on an OOC promise with no further details.
It's IC resources. Of which you have a ton. Glom has what, 2.5 mil power now? Take a chance! Constructs are fun! Communal pride, rah-rah.
Xenthos2007-05-27 15:13:10
QUOTE(vale_kant @ May 27 2007, 11:11 AM) 412336
It's IC resources. Of which you have a ton. Glom has what, 2.5 mil power now? Take a chance! Constructs are fun! Communal pride, rah-rah.
We do have a construct, and have defended it about 10 out of the last 11 weakenings now. Hence why I'm unsure as to the reason for the "build it and we'll upgrade it" policy-- we're already involved in the thing and are willing to build constructs that are useful...
Xenthos2007-08-25 02:56:39
QUOTE(Estarra @ May 27 2007, 02:46 AM) 412272
Not to dispute Viravain, but I'm disputing Viravain.
There have been discussions about plans and suggestions to change DarkNest, which probably we'll revisit when DarkNest gets raised. If it never gets raised, then it's rather irrelevant. Yes, I know, some may refuse to raise it unless they know exactly how it would be changed, but really it's a circuitous argument.
Bottom line! If it's raised, it'll be changed. We won't know the changes until it happens.
There have been discussions about plans and suggestions to change DarkNest, which probably we'll revisit when DarkNest gets raised. If it never gets raised, then it's rather irrelevant. Yes, I know, some may refuse to raise it unless they know exactly how it would be changed, but really it's a circuitous argument.
Bottom line! If it's raised, it'll be changed. We won't know the changes until it happens.
It's built. Reminder posted-- and changes are needed. Thanks!
Hyrtakos2007-08-25 03:10:39
has anyone been using it as is? i know it still consumes demigod essence so won't be myself, but i remain curious all the same
edit: for the powers that be: the real dark nest entrance still demands your attention as well. figured i'd group this reminder under the one above
edit: for the powers that be: the real dark nest entrance still demands your attention as well. figured i'd group this reminder under the one above
Xenthos2007-08-25 03:13:51
QUOTE(hyrtakos @ Aug 24 2007, 11:10 PM) 435971
has anyone been using it as is? i know it still consumes demigod essence so won't be myself, but i remain curious all the same
edit: for the powers that be: the real dark nest entrance still demands your attention as well. figured i'd group this reminder under the one above
edit: for the powers that be: the real dark nest entrance still demands your attention as well. figured i'd group this reminder under the one above
I've explored it a bit myself, but really, without access to a stockroom it's not worth buying for a Crow user, either, unless the Crow user plans to die multiple times in one day and doesn't feel like gathering carrion.
(It's less useful for a nonCrow user, by the way)
Unknown2007-08-25 05:22:42
I love the DarkNest. It's not quite as nice as Lich or Resurgem, but it is definitely not 'worthless' - very nice construct. My only gripe at the moment is that the egg only lasts about an IG month, and using 10 power every day because you -may- die adds up.
My suggestions:
Increase the duration the egg lasts (5-10 IG months, please).
Add an EGG RECALL command, or have the egg reset to the owner every IG midnight. Anything to prevent someone from obtaining your egg and then keeping it for the next x days.
My suggestions:
Increase the duration the egg lasts (5-10 IG months, please).
Add an EGG RECALL command, or have the egg reset to the owner every IG midnight. Anything to prevent someone from obtaining your egg and then keeping it for the next x days.
