Nioca

What if, in addition to the normal review, they also could specify additional pre-set tags at the beginning/end of the review? Things like Combat Heavy, Linear, No Combat, Dungeon Crawl, and so forth. Nothing indicative of quality (that's what the part of the review and the score is for), just indicative of its attributes. Some of these could also be specified by the designer. Then, in the first post of the scenario's thread, the number of times a tag appears is counted up, giving you a general idea of what the scenario contains. In scenario lists, tags that get marked off a few times (or once if by the designer) appear next to the scenario to give you an idea of what it contains.

Writing reviews shouldn't be difficult, though. Others may just want to post a short review, and not spend the better half of an hour typing something up. Also, short reviews are not bad; notice how much information you got in with your hundred words. It's things like four word 'This scenario really sucks' or one word 'Awesome' reviews that we're trying to avoid, and making people write entire dissertations on scenarios probably won't bring in any more reviews. Besides, it'd be a minimum. Nothing stops you from adding more. This is also one hundred words. Would you say it's uninformative?

It is in the Necromancer's best interest to contact me as soon as possible.

Wait a second! Now that the Assassin's Leather has been replaced, what artifact is the Adventurer after?

Sounds good.

I'm guessing so. It's just not announced publicly. And, perhaps, a suspicion isn't sent out till after the death is reported.

Seems interesting. I approve.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan At the moment, I'm trying to find how high a Beggar's HP (among other stats) needs to be to consistently defeat an Elite Soldier. For starters, I use this definition: Code: begindefinecreature 179; import = 3; // Beggar cr_name = "Dennis"; cr_default_courage = 100; cr_default_script = "dennis"; cr_level = 50; To check the HP, I had this in the dialog: Code: begintalknode 100; state = 1; nextstate = -1; question = "KILL! DESTROY!"; text1 = "OK"; action = END_TALK; code = print_num(get_stat(8, 35)); set_flag(2, 11, 1); erase_char(8); activate_hidden_group(2); break; However, when I played the scenario, I got this error: Quote: Error: File corruption caused too-high skill. Skill being reset to 0. Can correct it manually with editor. Originally Posted By: Dintiradan Well, now I'm unable to increase HP itself. I'm using the cr_what_stat_adjust and cr_amount_stat_adjust. I'm doing it as the docs tell me, and I'm not editing more than six stats. Pretty sad when the writer of the tutorial can't get things to work. First off, for checking health, try using the calls specifically designed for this task. I've never hit problems reading health using the get_health() and get_max_health() calls, and I've used it for creatures up to level 100 with boosted HP. Strictly speaking, you can still do it your way, but this way is simpler and less likely to make Blades and the universe implode. Secondly, your method of boosting HP is wrong. You can cr_what_stat_adjust all you like, you're still not going to adjust any secondary stat (like health, willpower, spell energy, etc.). Those are determined entirely by the creature's primary stats. Instead, try using cr_hp_bonus, which does pretty much what the name suggests. Also, checking the health of non-existent creatures is a sure way to get some funky results. I'm not sure if that's an issue here, but make sure any health-checking calls are made after the creature exists.

Just checked: Yes, items max out at 30000 as well.

I don't know, I didn't check. I'll get back to you on that one.

So, I decided to do some digging into the dark and shadowy realm of shops and shopkeeping. Just how do those cheery fellows decide just how badly they want to gouge their customers? So I performed a few tests, and came up with this: Code: # | BUY | SELL0 | 60% | 35%1 | 80% | 32% 2 | 100% | 30% 3 | 130% | 27% 4 | 180% | 25% 5 | 220% | 23% 6 | 280% | 20% The first column is what the designer set the buy or sell price to. The second is the cost relative to the base cost of the item for purchases. And the third is how much they'll buy it back for. As you can see, selling's a bit of a racket. At best, you can only get 35% of the item's actual value. At worst, you get a meager 20%. That means a 2400 gold sword will only net you, at best, 840 gold and, at worst, 480. Buying, thankfully, isn't quite as bad. At least, not till it gets to the "Exorbitant" setting. That same 2400 gold sword could be purchased for as little as 1440. On the other hand, as it reaches the end of the scale, you could wind up paying as much as 6720 gold. Ouch. I realized that, with this, I could determine a bit more. Namely, the base costs of spells and skills. So, I ran further tests and compiled the results into one massive table. Code: # | X MAGE SPELL | VALUE PRIEST SPELL | VALUE POTION RECIPE | VALUE 1 | x1 Bolt Fire | 50 Healing | 40 Healing Potion| 50 2 | x3 Light | 30 Curing | 40 Curing Potion | 100 3 | x5 Call Beast | 75 War Blessing | 50 Hasting Potion| 150 4 | x9 Spray Acid | 75 Terror | 50 Energy Potion | 200 5 | x13 Haste | 75 Repel Spirit | 75 Strength Potion| 250 6 | x19 Slow | 80 Smite | 100 Graymold Salve| 300 7 | x25 Ice Lances | 100 Summon Shade | 125 Balm of Life | 350 8 | x33 Unlock Doors| 90 End. Barrier | 75 Healing Elixir| 400 9 | x41 C. Illusions| 150 Unshackle Mind| 100 Hasting Elixir| 450 10 | x51 Far Sight | 150 Move Mountains| 150 Energy Elixir | 500 11 | x61 Lightning | 150 Mass Healing | 100 Rogue's Elixir| 550 12 | x73 Capture Mind| 300 Mass Curing | 150 Strength Elixir| 600 13 | x85 Simulacrum | 300 Radiant Shield| 175 Bliss Elixir | 650 14 | x99 Dis. Barrier| 250 Divine Fire | 200 Restore. Brew | 700 15 | x113 Summon Aid | 200 Control Foes | 200 Protection Brew| 750 16 | x129 Forcecage | 200 Cloud of Blade| 250 Heroic Brew | 800 17 | x145 Fireblast | 300 Return Life | 300 Invul. Potion | 850 18 | x163 Arc. Summon | 500 Retribution | 500 19 | x181 Arc. Shield | 500 Restoration | 500 20 | x201 Arcane Blow | 500 Divine Host | 500 21 | x221 22 | x243 23 | x265 24 | x289 25 | x313 26 | x339 27 | x365 28 | x393 29 | x421 30 | x451 31 | x481 32 | x513 33 | x545 34 | x579 35 | x613 36 | x649 37 | x685 38 | x723 39 | x761 40 | x801 41 | x841 42 | x883 43 | x925 44 | x969 45 |x1000 Phew. Anyway, most of it should be pretty self-explanatory. However, the first columns might be a little confusing. That's how much the spell's base cost gets multiplied by for that specific level of the spell (or skill). Basically, a buying a level 1 Bolt of Fire will cost 50 coins. That same bolt of fire at level 10 will cost 2550 gold. At level 25? 15650 gold. And that's assuming you're buying at average prices! Basically, the cost for any spell is this: Code: (BASE COST*LEVEL MULTIPLIER) And that cost is then adjusted by the shop's prices. Thankfully, there is a ceiling to the prices. The price of a spell will never exceed 30000 gold. So, theoretically, you could keep buying spells indefinitely (in practice... not so much). Furthermore, the ceiling is apparently determined before the shop's price adjustment takes affect. If the shop has its prices set to 80%, the cost will never exceed 24000. If set to 60%, it never exceeds 18000 gold. This doesn't work in reverse, thankfully, so if the prices are adjusted by 280%, the cost will still be 30000 gold. Now, one last note: as you may have noticed, the table lacks any reference to the cost of skills in a shop. That's because the base cost of ALL skills is set to 150. So Strength, Luck, Gymnastics, Blademaster, First Aid, and all the others go for the same price.

Something like this? EDIT: Changed into a link.

Except can you really say that the "handful that shouldn't" are actually harming the review system in any way? While there are obviously some reviewers that are better than others, the worst a bad reviewer does is add nothing. Those little plain-old one word "Bad/Good/Okay" followed by a score reviews do add something, however small. It helps further establish what the reviewers think of the scenario on a scale of quality, and while that may not be all that useful to the designer, it is very useful to the player when it comes to not wasting time with low-quality scenarios. I think we'd all like every review to be sufficiently sized and detailed. But if it came down to having one or two detailed reviews per scenario, or a dozen one-word and a score reviews, I'd take the latter. I can always ask the reviewer what they did and didn't like about my scenario after the fact. But in any case, I don't see how that's an issue. The average reviewer on the CSR right now tends to make reviews of sufficient length and detail. One problem we do have is that we don't have enough reviewers, and I can't see how turning away new ones would resolve that issue. Thuryl: I can see where you're coming from, but that also poses a problem of having the review page cluttered with four pages of debate (think BoR). Why not just have a discussion page right next to it for that sort of thing? Keeps the review page clean and tidy, plus has the added benefit of allowing debates over the scenario.

First off, since I was sent a link to download via PM, it might not occur to Duck that my report is waiting in his inbox, not his PM box. Secondly, because I can.

I fired off a report via e-mail.

I'm in. [scrub]

No, my problem isn't that the Craftmaster isn't balanced (and I think it is), but that it's yet another role chasing after artifacts. It winds up pulling the artifacts away from non-artifact-based players, and it adds even more turbulence to already-coveted items. It's possible to wind up with over a third of the players just trying to get an artifact or three just to fulfill their goals.

Except that means he'd have to get ahold of all five artifacts, thanks to his victory condition. I suppose having it just lose its power in the Craftmaster's possession would work, though. To be bluntly honest, I'm not to enamored with the changes to the Craftmaster in the first place. It brings the total number of roles with artifacts as a goal up to 6 (3 of which are guaranteed to be in the game, meaning that if the Craftmaster plays, a minimum of 4 roles are after artifacts). And the Craftmaster has to get a bare minimum of three artifacts just to satisfy his goal, and that's assuming he doesn't screw up. But that's just me.

Well, giving it to a random party doesn't seem like a good idea. It winds up dropping an artifact into some random person's hands for little reason, and it could wind up screwing over tons of people on nothing more than a stroke of luck. On the other hand, it could be extremely easy for the Craftmaster to just hand it off to an ally and then get it right back. Frankly, I'm partial to the idea of having the artifact destroyed when it's power is used up. As in, removed from the game, never to return (until next game). It'd keep things from getting shifted drastically because someone got lucky, it'd keep it from staying in the Craftmaster's grasp, and it'd also provide incentive to be careful when it comes to handing off artifacts.

Sorry for the double post, but I figured this warranted a separate post. An item idea: Null Crystal (Base Value: 30) - Creates a nullifying field around the user. Any item used on, around, or by the user will fail. To elaborate: If someone targeted the null player with an item (Fury Crossbow, Wand of Death, Poison Potion, etc.), that item would fail. If the null player attacks or is attacked by someone who has an item's effects active (Box of Traps, Heroic Brew, Ironskin Balm, Warding Crystal, Skribbane), that item's effects are canceled out and removed. If an item activates defensively during an attack, that item will fail. If the Flaming Sword, Fury Crossbow, or Assassin's Leather are used/active during a battle with the null player, its effects will be nullified. The wielder will default to a normal attack, even if the artifact is used defensively. The Assassin's Leather will not protect a player from poison in the presence of a null player. If the null player uses an item, that item will fail, even if it's targeted on someone else. If a player uses Chitrach Eggs, the null player is immune to its effects so long as the field is active. Clover Boots, the Holy Symbol, and Null Crystals are completely exempt from the null effects. Ability-bestowed statuses, attacks, and effects are not affected. The idea here is to counterbalance the numerous items that enter play. Probably a bit overkill, but it could easily be scaled back to just items that activate around the player.

Originally Posted By: *i With respect to new roles in general, I've been holding off on doing that because we have plenty of existing roles that probably need to be balanced and tested. True. However, seeing a few entirely new roles in the game would be nice, and it's doubtful that the original roles will ever be totally balanced. Quote: With US operative, the victory condition alternate is simply too easy and players will just default to the identifying. They can't just default to the identifying; they can only do the identifying when one of the players they protect dies. Here's an alternative alternative, though: If the player dies, you receive the dead player's victory conditions, AND have to take out the person who killed him. So even if the player dies, you're still on the hook for netting what would have been a win for that player, and avenging his death. Quote: While it's interesting to need to be hired, I think 30 coins is a bargain for outright learning someone's role. You may have noticed that there are very few things that actually outright tell a role these days. 60 coins, then? Or just remove it outright?

Role idea. Complex, and difficult for the player handling it, but I think it could add an interesting dynamic: Unspecified Services Operative Nationality: Avernum Skill: Stealth Attack: Physical Immunity: None Ability: In return for an item or 15 coins, can be hired by one player to investigate another player's skill, immunities, nationality, or attack. For 30 coins or an item of equal (or greater) value, can be hired to investigate a player's role. Both the Operative and the person who hired him will learn the chosen information. Such an exchange counts as a trade, and the operative can perform an unlimited number of these per day. However, the Operative cannot actively use this ability. The Operative can only receive coins and items; he cannot give or trade them. Goal: Ensure three selected players win by the end of the game. Of these players, one is guaranteed to be a/an Anama/Darksider/Gladwell, and one will be an enemy. For each target player who dies, you must correctly identify the roles of three random players to the moderator instead. The three players' goals will not have unresolvable conflict, nor will their victory conditions mandate your death. You are automatically enemies with anyone who is an enemy with your target players. If you attack one of your target players, they will always win first strike against you. The odds of you being a Darksider and/or Gladwell random target are three times greater than normal (3/13 and 3/16, respectively). Notes: Is a target of the Empire Spy and Adventurer.

Is this still going on? Anyway, TWO is no longer a 24 hour scenario. So... yeah, I'm out of the contest. Probably for the better though.

EDIT: Whoops. Nevermind.

I've sent off a report. Nice work!