Bridge Building and Corpse Eating
Old Gamer
building, and I get a log. I go to the river, but everywhere I try to build
a bridge, I am told that the water is too wide! Where does on place the
bridge exactly? What a pain that is!
Also, about eating humanoid corpses...the HTML guide states that eating
humanoid corpses in NOT a chaotic act. Yet if I recall correctly, at one
point I ate a number of Ogre corpses and before I knew it, my alignment was
chaotic! Unfortunately, I didn't realize it until I dropped everything on a
previously friendly altar and was zapped by my angry diety! So, who should I
avoid eating to stay good? Goblins? Ogres? Dark Sages?
Thanks! I am playing in version 1.1.1, btw.
Stephen White
> If anyone can help with this, I would appreciate it! So I learn bridge
> building, and I get a log. I go to the river, but everywhere I try to build
> a bridge, I am told that the water is too wide! Where does on place the
> bridge exactly? What a pain that is!
What exactly are you trying to do when you get that message? You should
stand next to the square you want a bridge on, then [U]se a hatchet like
you did to cut down a tree to get the log. You will then try to build a
bridge section and, if you are successful, be asked where to place it.
A single bridge section will only cover one square of water, so you will
need several to cross a river. Most likely you will fail though unless
your bridge building skill is good. You need to train with Yyriggs and
also practice some before you will be able to get a decent skill value.
> Also, about eating humanoid corpses...the HTML guide states that eating
> humanoid corpses in NOT a chaotic act. Yet if I recall correctly, at one
> point I ate a number of Ogre corpses and before I knew it, my alignment was
> chaotic! Unfortunately, I didn't realize it until I dropped everything on a
> previously friendly altar and was zapped by my angry diety! So, who should I
> avoid eating to stay good? Goblins? Ogres? Dark Sages?
I don't think you recall correctly, sorry. Eating most humanoid
corpses, including ogres, is not a chaotic act, despite the "You
feel uneasy" message. I have personally verified this. Only
certain corpses will draw your alignment towards chaos when
eaten, most notably undead like Wights and Spectres. None of the
three you listed above are counted as a chaotic act. I think the
guidebook mentions which ones are.
--
NOTE : The FROM email address of this post is used for SPAM ONLY.
Email sent to this address will remain unread.
Stephen Mackey
>Also, about eating humanoid corpses...the HTML guide states that eating
>humanoid corpses in NOT a chaotic act. Yet if I recall correctly, at one
>point I ate a number of Ogre corpses and before I knew it, my alignment was
>chaotic!
It's not the ogre corpses, it's something else you did. Have you been
attacking or stealing from peaceful monsters? Wearing an amulet of chaos?
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"And with that out of the way, I'm sending your Christmas present, you rotten
bastard."
-Jen D.
sqweek
> If anyone can help with this, I would appreciate it! So I learn bridge
> building, and I get a log. I go to the river, but everywhere I try to build
> a bridge, I am told that the water is too wide! Where does on place the
> bridge exactly? What a pain that is!
Unfortunately, you can't build a bridge in the wilderness :(
Bridge building will only help you cross rivers/lakes you encounter in
dungeons
Sam Blanning
"Stephen Mackey" <kark...@aol.com> wrote...
> Old Gamer said:
>
> >Also, about eating humanoid corpses...the HTML guide states that eating
> >humanoid corpses in NOT a chaotic act. Yet if I recall correctly, at one
> >point I ate a number of Ogre corpses and before I knew it, my alignment
was
> >chaotic!
>
> It's not the ogre corpses, it's something else you did. Have you been
> attacking or stealing from peaceful monsters? Wearing an amulet of chaos?
>
John C.
Attacking shopkeepers? Doing chaotic quests? Finding a assiociation room of
hostile White Unicorns?
-John
--
"The Arch-Lich flips the birdie at you!
You are like totally dead man!
Do you want me to tell you about the junk you're carrying?"
-The finger of death attack from nethack.
John C.
[Sam Blanning wrote]
>>
>>
>>"Stephen Mackey" <kark...@aol.com> wrote...
>>> Old Gamer said:
>>>
>>> >Also, about eating humanoid corpses...the HTML guide states that eating
>>> >humanoid corpses in NOT a chaotic act. Yet if I recall correctly, at one
>>> >point I ate a number of Ogre corpses and before I knew it, my alignment
>>was
>>> >chaotic!
>>>
>>> It's not the ogre corpses, it's something else you did. Have you been
>>> attacking or stealing from peaceful monsters? Wearing an amulet of chaos?
>>>
>>Wielding a weapon of vampirism? Wearing armour of chaos?
>
>Attacking shopkeepers? Doing chaotic quests? Finding a assiociation room of
>hostile White Unicorns?
>
>-John
>
Dammit! I hit enter by acident when copying your name, Sam. Sorry about the
attribution.
Old Gamer
"sqweek" <sqwee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.187862916...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Well that sure explains it! I thought that I could build a bridge across the
river the runs across the wilderness map! Silly me! I guess it mentions that
somewhere in the manual...or the spolier list...or possibly the game
requires a certain innate level of intelligence that I can only hope to one
day achieve! Thanks for your help, sir!
sqweek
Har, actually the reason I know that is because I tried it when I
started playing adom too ;) I don't recall seeing it in the manual
anywhere...
DarkFox
"Old Gamer" <ch...@city.com> wrote in message
news:JFOP9.377000$GR5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
wilderness is what is dumb. I reckon that one change might make characters
actually consider using/training the bridge building skill sometimes.
Sam Blanning
"DarkFox" <Dar...@SPAMuscm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote...
> I think the fact that you *can't* build bridges in the
> wilderness is what is dumb. I reckon that one change might make characters
> actually consider using/training the bridge building skill sometimes.
>
river in the middle, seperating the early game from the mid-game. On a
normal game of ADOM, each wilderness square is about 76 normal squares from
left to right, subtracting the boundaries. Each log can make one bridge
square. It would therefore take 76 logs to bridge one wilderness square. The
'status' of wilderness squares isn't saved when you leave them: drop an
item, press '<', press '>', and the item is gone, so you'd have to bridge
the entire thing at once or your bridge sections would disappear.
So you'd have to acquire 76 logs, bring 76 * 800 = 60800s of weight to the
river, and then make 76 successful skill checks on your Bridge Building
skill.
Or you could go round the river, or swim over it.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Intelligence? I think the fact that you *can't* build bridges in the
> wilderness is what is dumb. I reckon that one change might make characters
> actually consider using/training the bridge building skill sometimes.
Even assuming that a square (., =, #, what-have-you) is only two feet
wide, a screen is going to be 152' wide and 32' high. This is a very
small measurement, actually--given the dragons and hippogriffs and such
that fit, five or ten feet might be more reasonable, but we'll say two
feet.
I cannot conceive of a reason that *isn't* dumb for one person with a
hatchet to be able to build a bridge across this immense expanse of water,
all without ever getting their feet wet. 'Cause you know, you build the
bridge section on dry land and then place it over the water square.
Speaking as someone whose characters all cherish the bridge building skill
and train it like mad.
Love and coffee,
Frances
DarkFox
"Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:av1o4j$9pq$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
one...
The underwater staircase takes up one wilderness square. Therefor, building
a bridge over a wilderness square would require bridging a gap of 1
character square. Since we know that two tiny dogs cannot fit into this same
space, we can hypothesise that the bridge would have to be about a foot
long, so why doesn't our hero just step over the water anyway?
I'll be honest, I look at the map, I see a river running down the middle of
it, which is obviously running from a mountain chain. I'm guessing that
river would be at most about 20 feet wide, which is perfectly reasonable for
a character and about, ooh, lets say 4, huge logs to bridge his way across,
protecting his items and keeping himself afloat.
DarkFox
"DarkFox" <Dar...@SPAMuscm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:av21vj$n2b$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
advise me on training it without spending lots of skill points and/or time?
I have tried swamp bridge building, but the skill doesn't seem to go up. Do
you need the manual to even gain a point from applying the skill, or is the
manual only necessary for levelup skill increases to bridge buildings.
Finally, I notice this topic is about corpse eating too. Stomacemptia herbs
recently allowed me to raise my character's strength attribute to 42 just
from eating ogre/giant corpses. Alowing yourself to starve *past* the early
starving marks tends to drop your strength as low as half of it's usual
level. I'm sure if I found a good room of fire giants or fomorian giants
(which seem to be the best strength trainers, though stone giant are pretty
good, and as common as you want them to be), I'd raise it even higher.
Stephen White
> > I'll be honest, I look at the map, I see a river running down the middle of
> > it, which is obviously running from a mountain chain. I'm guessing that
> > river would be at most about 20 feet wide, which is perfectly reasonable for
> > a character and about, ooh, lets say 4, huge logs to bridge his way across,
> > protecting his items and keeping himself afloat.
I think the easiest way to resolve the issue of "is the river small
enough for a PC to bridge" is to RFE the possiblity, and let TB
decide if he wants them able to or not. I think it should take a
fair amount of logs though, certainly more than one.
> Oh, I should add, as someone who regularly uses bridge building, can you
> advise me on training it without spending lots of skill points and/or time?
> I have tried swamp bridge building, but the skill doesn't seem to go up. Do
> you need the manual to even gain a point from applying the skill, or is the
> manual only necessary for levelup skill increases to bridge buildings.
As far as I can tell, the manual seems to be necessary to make any
improvement at all. I spent a long time building bridges without
the manual, probably over 200 squares in swamps all told, and didn't
get a single increase.
> Finally, I notice this topic is about corpse eating too. Stomacemptia herbs
> recently allowed me to raise my character's strength attribute to 42 just
> from eating ogre/giant corpses. Alowing yourself to starve *past* the early
> starving marks tends to drop your strength as low as half of it's usual
> level. I'm sure if I found a good room of fire giants or fomorian giants
> (which seem to be the best strength trainers, though stone giant are pretty
> good, and as common as you want them to be), I'd raise it even higher.
Hmmm... sounds good. How is death by starvation handled now that
gradual reduction of stats is in place? Can you still die on any
given turn spent at Starving! status, or only when you have
starved for a certain number of turns or something?
--
Internet chatrooms - where the men are men, the women are also men,
and the children are police.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> Even assuming that a square (., =, #, what-have-you) is only two feet
>> wide, a screen is going to be 152' wide and 32' high. This is a very
>> small measurement, actually--given the dragons and hippogriffs and such
>> that fit, five or ten feet might be more reasonable, but we'll say two
>> feet.
>> I cannot conceive of a reason that *isn't* dumb for one person with a
>> hatchet to be able to build a bridge across this immense expanse of water,
>> all without ever getting their feet wet. 'Cause you know, you build the
>> bridge section on dry land and then place it over the water square.
> Oh come on. These size comparisons are farcical. Ok ok, hoe about I give
> one...
> The underwater staircase takes up one wilderness square. Therefor, building
> a bridge over a wilderness square would require bridging a gap of 1
> character square.
No. The underwater staircase can be fuond in a single wilderness square;
that does not mean that the wilderness square is a single character square
large.
> I'll be honest, I look at the map, I see a river running down the middle of
> it, which is obviously running from a mountain chain. I'm guessing that
> river would be at most about 20 feet wide, which is perfectly reasonable for
> a character and about, ooh, lets say 4, huge logs to bridge his way across,
> protecting his items and keeping himself afloat.
This might be a good time to point out that those "huge logs" are only 40
kilos heavy. That's not a lot of wood, and I cannot see four of them
being enough to provide a solid structure for crossing twenty feet of water.
Given the amount of time you spend building them, the apparent difficulty
of building them, and the weight they can support, it seems reasonable to
assume that a bridge section is not just a chunk of floaty log. It takes
40 kilos of wood to bridge one character square (if you're skilled).
With a starting character with 100 speed, it takes about 34 seconds to
move from one character square to another inside Rynt's house, and just
over an hour to move from one road square to another on the map. Leaving
aside the question of 'feet' and moving to 'paces', this suggests a
wilderness square is at least 100 paces across, and you only see a tiny
bit of it when you go down (which would also explain why it's not possible
to revisit the same place and pick up stuff you've dropped).
Even if a river only takes up a third of that, and even if you're playing
a hurthling with really short paces, I really doubt you're going to be able
to bridge it with a hundred and sixty kilos of wood.
Love and coffee,
Frances
DarkFox
> "DarkFox" (Dar...@SPAMuscm.fsnet.co.uk) writes:
> > "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> hatchet to be able to build a bridge across this immense expanse of
water,
> >> all without ever getting their feet wet. 'Cause you know, you build
the
> >> bridge section on dry land and then place it over the water square.
> > Oh come on. These size comparisons are farcical. Ok ok, hoe about I give
> > one...
> > The underwater staircase takes up one wilderness square. Therefor,
building
> > a bridge over a wilderness square would require bridging a gap of 1
> > character square.
>
> No. The underwater staircase can be fuond in a single wilderness square;
> that does not mean that the wilderness square is a single character square
> large.
wilderness location *containing* the underwater staircase, in the same way
that the quickling tree, cave entrances, etc, take up a wilderness square,
but merely *represent* something smaller than a whole square of wilderness?
That's exactly how I have always thought of things. So, that wilderness
square that is dark blue could merely represent a wilderness location
*containing* a river, not necessarily a river that is the width of an entire
wilderness square? Exactly how I thought of things...
> > I'll be honest, I look at the map, I see a river running down the middle
of
> > it, which is obviously running from a mountain chain. I'm guessing that
> > river would be at most about 20 feet wide, which is perfectly reasonable
for
> > a character and about, ooh, lets say 4, huge logs to bridge his way
across,
> > protecting his items and keeping himself afloat.
>
> This might be a good time to point out that those "huge logs" are only 40
> kilos heavy. That's not a lot of wood, and I cannot see four of them
> being enough to provide a solid structure for crossing twenty feet of
water.
>
> Given the amount of time you spend building them, the apparent difficulty
> of building them, and the weight they can support, it seems reasonable to
> assume that a bridge section is not just a chunk of floaty log. It takes
> 40 kilos of wood to bridge one character square (if you're skilled).
>
> With a starting character with 100 speed, it takes about 34 seconds to
> move from one character square to another inside Rynt's house, and just
> over an hour to move from one road square to another on the map. Leaving
> aside the question of 'feet' and moving to 'paces', this suggests a
> wilderness square is at least 100 paces across, and you only see a tiny
> bit of it when you go down (which would also explain why it's not possible
> to revisit the same place and pick up stuff you've dropped).
I wouldn't bother bringing time into things to be honest, time is cleaarly
vastly acelerated in ADOM to make it a reasonable in-game issue. How long
does it take you to swing a sword? Or walk from one wall of a room to the
other?
What is amazingly clear to me, is that neither you or I has a clue about:
a. How thick the wilderness river is.
b. How much wood crossing it safely should require
We don't even have a grasp on time or wieght in ancardia, because this is a
computer game where these things are distorted to improve gameplay. That is
my entire point. You have to stop being so picky about 'realism' in a world
whose dimensions are so different and warped from our own (200s large
rations are a good example), and just look at what would make the game more
enjoyable. Trudging around the central river is a necessary part of the
game, but a character who is willing to train himself as a bridge carpenter,
despite mediocre (at best) in-game advantages for doing so, should, IMO, at
least enjoy the luxury of being able to build a bridge over a river, saving
himself some time in the wilderness.
To be honest, I can't think of a single carpenter out of the 3 I know who
would be unable to transport himself and a bunch of items across a large
river, given simple trade tools and a few logs of wood, without drowning or
getting the items drenched. I think it would be cool in the game, might make
me want to use bridge building from time to time.
DarkFox
"Stephen White" <fake_email_address@fake_domain.com> wrote in message
news:9132117121847218.NC-1...@usenet.plus.net...
> "DarkFox" wrote:
>
>
> > > I'll be honest, I look at the map, I see a river running down the
middle of
> > > it, which is obviously running from a mountain chain. I'm guessing
that
> > > river would be at most about 20 feet wide, which is perfectly
reasonable for
> > > a character and about, ooh, lets say 4, huge logs to bridge his way
across,
> > > protecting his items and keeping himself afloat.
>
> I think the easiest way to resolve the issue of "is the river small
> enough for a PC to bridge" is to RFE the possiblity, and let TB
> decide if he wants them able to or not. I think it should take a
> fair amount of logs though, certainly more than one.
I agree with that lot wholeheartedly.
> > Oh, I should add, as someone who regularly uses bridge building, can you
> > advise me on training it without spending lots of skill points and/or
time?
> > I have tried swamp bridge building, but the skill doesn't seem to go up.
Do
> > you need the manual to even gain a point from applying the skill, or is
the
> > manual only necessary for levelup skill increases to bridge buildings.
>
> As far as I can tell, the manual seems to be necessary to make any
> improvement at all. I spent a long time building bridges without
> the manual, probably over 200 squares in swamps all told, and didn't
> get a single increase.
I had the same experience. If you have the book, though, will this 'swamp
training' increase your bridge building skill?
> > Finally, I notice this topic is about corpse eating too. Stomacemptia
herbs
> > recently allowed me to raise my character's strength attribute to 42
just
> > from eating ogre/giant corpses. Alowing yourself to starve *past* the
early
> > starving marks tends to drop your strength as low as half of it's usual
> > level. I'm sure if I found a good room of fire giants or fomorian giants
> > (which seem to be the best strength trainers, though stone giant are
pretty
> > good, and as common as you want them to be), I'd raise it even higher.
>
> Hmmm... sounds good. How is death by starvation handled now that
> gradual reduction of stats is in place? Can you still die on any
> given turn spent at Starving! status, or only when you have
> starved for a certain number of turns or something?
Stages of starvation:
1. Just hit 'Starving'.
Your STR (and some other attributes, but I'll focus on STR) drops by
about 5 points.
2. Starving for 20 turns:
After this amount of time with the reduced stats, your stats will beging
to decrease each passing turn, until your strength is on about half of what
it is naturally.
3. Starving until stats stop dropping, at about 50% strength
This stage is quite close to death. You will survive long enough to eat
a corpse, provided you don't linger too long beforehand.
Can I just stress that this strategy, which I posted about 2 weeks ago (but
was ignored, bad choice of title? disinterest? not sure..) Is amazingly
useful. When given the ogre tribe quest, I trained my wizard's strength to
31 by the time I'd finished them off. My current level 22 fighter, having
just cleared a greater vault of giants, has, with his girdle of G strength
and orb of fire, a strength of 66. He suffers from the large cranium and
'very light' corruptions too.
I really can't advise stomachemptia abuse enough
Abyssal Squid
DarkFox sez:
> >As far as I can tell, the manual seems to be necessary to make any
> > improvement at all. I spent a long time building bridges without
> > the manual, probably over 200 squares in swamps all told, and didn't
> > get a single increase.
>
> I had the same experience. If you have the book, though, will this 'swamp
> training' increase your bridge building skill?
I can say from experience that if you practice it enough, you WILL get
experience from it without the manual, but it takes ages. I had a ranger
who had saved Yrrigs and not taken the manual (at that point, I hadn't
figured that you could put skill points to it if you had the book), and I
tried training it. It took a great many successful applications (and even
more failures), but I managed to get it up to 40 or so in the forest. For
the record, you don't have to "a"pply it next to water in order to train it,
you just won't get any effect, besides the training.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> "DarkFox" (Dar...@SPAMuscm.fsnet.co.uk) writes:
>> > "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> >> I cannot conceive of a reason that *isn't* dumb for one person with a
>> >> hatchet to be able to build a bridge across this immense expanse of
>> >> water,
>> >> all without ever getting their feet wet. 'Cause you know, you build
>> >> the
>> >> bridge section on dry land and then place it over the water square.
>> > Oh come on. These size comparisons are farcical. Ok ok, hoe about I give
>> > one...
>> > The underwater staircase takes up one wilderness square. Therefor,
>> > building
>> > a bridge over a wilderness square would require bridging a gap of 1
>> > character square.
>> No. The underwater staircase can be fuond in a single wilderness square;
>> that does not mean that the wilderness square is a single character square
>> large.
> So you're saying that the light-blue wilderness square merely *represents* a
> wilderness location *containing* the underwater staircase, in the same way
> that the quickling tree, cave entrances, etc, take up a wilderness square,
> but merely *represent* something smaller than a whole square of wilderness?
Yep.
> That's exactly how I have always thought of things. So, that wilderness
> square that is dark blue could merely represent a wilderness location
> *containing* a river, not necessarily a river that is the width of an entire
> wilderness square? Exactly how I thought of things...
It doesn't have to take up the entire square, but presumably it's a
significant feature of that square--notable on a map and a pain to cross.
Even if, as you suggested, it's only twenty feet across, the idea of four
logs being enough to bridge it really doesn't work.
Actually, the time seems about right to me--if anything, a little slowed
down. I'd say it takes me slightly less than 32 seconds to swing a weapon
(which is what it just took my test orc assassin), but on the other hand,
when I fence, I know I'm not really going to die, so I may be more quick
as I can afford to be less careful.
> What is amazingly clear to me, is that neither you or I has a clue about:
> a. How thick the wilderness river is.
Thick enough to show on the map and be more likely to drown you than a
single square of a regular river.
> b. How much wood crossing it safely should require
More than you can manage, since the game doesn't allow you to do it.
> We don't even have a grasp on time or wieght in ancardia, because this is a
> computer game where these things are distorted to improve gameplay.
I disagree. I think they're simplified to some degree, but they really
don't seem to be distorted or unrealistic.
> That is
> my entire point. You have to stop being so picky about 'realism' in a world
> whose dimensions are so different and warped from our own (200s large
> rations are a good example), and just look at what would make the game more
> enjoyable.
Putting something that I find really implausible in the game would make
the game less enjoyable for me.
Someone equipped only with a hatchet and a (suggested) very small number
of logs building a bridge across a very noticeable river, and giving that
bridge enough permanancy to appear on the worldmap along with established
villages and ancient monuments, strikes me as really implausible.
(And a ten-kilo ration that keeps you going for a few hours as you bleed,
slaughter monsters, run around, and bounce up and down through cavernous
levels of death strikes me as quite reasonable. Remember, ADOM stones are
only 50 grams.)
> Trudging around the central river is a necessary part of the
> game,
You can just go through it. Even without Swimming, a moderately tough
character (say, not your average elf, but orcs and hardy humans should be
fine) who's completed the village quests can probably make it.
> but a character who is willing to train himself as a bridge carpenter,
> despite mediocre (at best) in-game advantages for doing so, should, IMO, at
> least enjoy the luxury of being able to build a bridge over a river, saving
> himself some time in the wilderness.
I disagree, but I think we've already established that. :)
> To be honest, I can't think of a single carpenter out of the 3 I know who
> would be unable to transport himself and a bunch of items across a large
> river, given simple trade tools and a few logs of wood, without drowning or
> getting the items drenched. I think it would be cool in the game, might make
> me want to use bridge building from time to time.
I can't imagine a carpenter being able to build something that would cross
a noticeably large river (I'm using your example of 20 feet) and stay
there permanently with only a hatchet and a few logs of wood.
That said, I can't imagine a carpenter who wouldn't be able to transport
himself and his items across a large river either, given a few logs and
basic tools, but ADOM doesn't yet allow for raft-building.
Hrm, possible RFE: change Bridge-building to Carpentry, allow for the
option to build a raft out of a log and cross a wilderness river without
actually building a worldmap permanent bridge?
Love and coffee,
Frances
DarkFox
>
> Actually, the time seems about right to me--if anything, a little slowed
> down. I'd say it takes me slightly less than 32 seconds to swing a weapon
> (which is what it just took my test orc assassin), but on the other hand,
> when I fence, I know I'm not really going to die, so I may be more quick
> as I can afford to be less careful.
What exactly are you swinging? A car?
I'm pretty sure I could start up my car and 'swing' it in your direction in
30 seconds. Try about 5 seconds, tops.
> > What is amazingly clear to me, is that neither you or I has a clue
about:
> > a. How thick the wilderness river is.
>
> Thick enough to show on the map and be more likely to drown you than a
> single square of a regular river.
Ok, about as likely to drown you as, say, two regular river squares? And you
can't bridge that?
You can build bridges for quite a distance in adom, in dungeons, there isn't
a limit to how long a bridge can be.
> > b. How much wood crossing it safely should require
>
> More than you can manage, since the game doesn't allow you to do it.
Thomas hasn't included every feature he wanted to, there are many he hasn't
thought of. I believe that's the point of his RFE database.
> > We don't even have a grasp on time or wieght in ancardia, because this
is a
> > computer game where these things are distorted to improve gameplay.
>
> I disagree. I think they're simplified to some degree, but they really
> don't seem to be distorted or unrealistic.
*Completly* distorted. I think Thomas himself admitted that, for example, he
made rations more heavy than people, or battle axes, because he wanted to
emphasise the need and difficult of carrying food. Try to accept that ADOM
isn't *all* about realism, consistency and atmosphere, it's about gameplay
too, and has been designed that way.
> > That is
> > my entire point. You have to stop being so picky about 'realism' in a
world
> > whose dimensions are so different and warped from our own (200s large
> > rations are a good example), and just look at what would make the game
more
> > enjoyable.
>
> Putting something that I find really implausible in the game would make
> the game less enjoyable for me.
> Someone equipped only with a hatchet and a (suggested) very small number
> of logs building a bridge across a very noticeable river,
How big do you think the rivers in mountain passes are? How is it so
blatantly implausible to you?
> Hrm, possible RFE: change Bridge-building to Carpentry, allow for the
> option to build a raft out of a log and cross a wilderness river without
> actually building a worldmap permanent bridge?
I was thinking of some kind of pulley, or stilts and stones, type system,
but a raft goes well too eh?
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> Actually, the time seems about right to me--if anything, a little slowed
>> down. I'd say it takes me slightly less than 32 seconds to swing a weapon
>> (which is what it just took my test orc assassin), but on the other hand,
>> when I fence, I know I'm not really going to die, so I may be more quick
>> as I can afford to be less careful.
> What exactly are you swinging? A car?
A schlager, actually. On the one hand, that's in a pleasant setting where
I'm not trying very hard to kill my opponent; on the other hand, if I
actually *were* trying to kill my opponent, and he me, I suspect I'd be
far more careful about actually swinging (as it tends to leave you open).
> I'm pretty sure I could start up my car and 'swing' it in your direction in
> 30 seconds. Try about 5 seconds, tops.
When cars are implemented, that will be a concern.
>> > What is amazingly clear to me, is that neither you or I has a clue
>> > about:
>> > a. How thick the wilderness river is.
>> Thick enough to show on the map and be more likely to drown you than a
>> single square of a regular river.
> Ok, about as likely to drown you as, say, two regular river squares? And you
> can't bridge that?
(I think I recall hearing something like 5, actually, but that was months
and versions ago.)
> You can build bridges for quite a distance in adom, in dungeons, there isn't
> a limit to how long a bridge can be.
True, and fair point.
>> > b. How much wood crossing it safely should require
>> More than you can manage, since the game doesn't allow you to do it.
> Thomas hasn't included every feature he wanted to, there are many he hasn't
> thought of. I believe that's the point of his RFE database.
Go mad. I'm not saying you shouldn't; I'm explaining why I wouldn't.
(Well, I've left out my stick-in-the-mud tendancies, but hey. :) )
[time and weight]
>> I disagree. I think they're simplified to some degree, but they really
>> don't seem to be distorted or unrealistic.
> *Completly* distorted. I think Thomas himself admitted that, for example, he
> made rations more heavy than people, or battle axes, because he wanted to
> emphasise the need and difficult of carrying food.
Thomas has set an ADOM stone at 50 grams. How many ten-kilo people do you
know, that you're going around saying "rations are heavier than people"?
> Try to accept that ADOM
> isn't *all* about realism, consistency and atmosphere, it's about gameplay
> too, and has been designed that way.
Yes. Which is why I'm willing to say that rivers are larger than you can
bridge, since the game doesn't allow you to do it. When the games allows
you to do it, the rivers will no longer be larger than you can bridge.
Ancardia is, to some degree, defined by ADOM's game mechanics.
>> Putting something that I find really implausible in the game would make
>> the game less enjoyable for me.
>> Someone equipped only with a hatchet and a (suggested) very small number
>> of logs building a bridge across a very noticeable river,
> How big do you think the rivers in mountain passes are? How is it so
> blatantly implausible to you?
Big enough to slow you down and nearly drown you. :) That said, I expect
a mountain river which is marked on a map to be a noticeable feature of
the terrain. Call it eighty feet, call it twenty feet, call it several
rivers passing through the same square: whatever it is, it's a river that
matters.
It's implausible to me that one person can carry enough logs to build a
permanent feature on the world map, and it's implausible to me that one
person can build a permanent feature on the world map in less than... hrm.
Call it a month.
>> Hrm, possible RFE: change Bridge-building to Carpentry, allow for the
>> option to build a raft out of a log and cross a wilderness river without
>> actually building a worldmap permanent bridge?
> I was thinking of some kind of pulley, or stilts and stones, type system,
> but a raft goes well too eh?
Submit it? :)
Love and coffee,
Frances
DarkFox
> (swinging) A schlager, actually. On the one hand, that's in a pleasant
> setting where
> I'm not trying very hard to kill my opponent; on the other hand, if I
> actually *were* trying to kill my opponent, and he me, I suspect I'd be
> far more careful about actually swinging (as it tends to leave you open).
I think the simple 'you wing, they wing' model is a little innacurate for a
sword fight model. I can say that when I used to do kendo (which was a long
time ago, admittedly), weapon swingingg was done in much less than 5
seconds, never mind 32.
[time and weight]
> > *Completly* distorted. I think Thomas himself admitted that, for
example, he
> > made rations more heavy than people, or battle axes, because he wanted
to
> > emphasise the need and difficult of carrying food.
>
> Thomas has set an ADOM stone at 50 grams. How many ten-kilo people do you
> know, that you're going around saying "rations are heavier than people"?
I suspected that the reason corpses lost weight when they were cooked was
because they had the bones, and un-edible parts, removed. That would mean
that un-cooked corpses were full bodies, and they tend to weigh about 120s,
which is less than a large ration at 200m.
If you think that 6kg is about right for the corpse of a bad guy you just
took down, then I suppose that time and weight would *not* seem distorted to
you. My money's on the notion that they are, still.
> >> Putting something that I find really implausible in the game would make
> >> the game less enjoyable for me.
> >> Someone equipped only with a hatchet and a (suggested) very small
number
> >> of logs building a bridge across a very noticeable river,
> > How big do you think the rivers in mountain passes are? How is it so
> > blatantly implausible to you?
> It's implausible to me that one person can carry enough logs to build a
> permanent feature on the world map, and it's implausible to me that one
> person can build a permanent feature on the world map in less than... hrm.
> Call it a month.
Just thinking (I've said most of what I want to in terms of the discussion
as is)... Maybe it'd be a better idea to allow players with the bridge
building skill to cross the river, by perhaps using a log, but not leave a
permanent feature on the map. A makeshift bridge than could easily be pulled
down by the next gnoll warband that comes along or what have you, or just a
raft as was mentioned earlier...
> >> Hrm, possible RFE: change Bridge-building to Carpentry, allow for the
> >> option to build a raft out of a log and cross a wilderness river
without
> >> actually building a worldmap permanent bridge?
> > I was thinking of some kind of pulley, or stilts and stones, type
system,
> > but a raft goes well too eh?
>
> Submit it? :)
Naa, there's far better RFEs for thomas to be working on (I still can't
believe the tiny girl quest reward, the 'lead', was declined). Still, worth
remembering just in case the RFE database becomes neglected in future (as if
that will ever happen)
R Dan Henry
<Dar...@SPAMuscm.fsnet.co.uk> declared:
>Just thinking (I've said most of what I want to in terms of the discussion
>as is)... Maybe it'd be a better idea to allow players with the bridge
>building skill to cross the river, by perhaps using a log, but not leave a
>permanent feature on the map. A makeshift bridge than could easily be pulled
>down by the next gnoll warband that comes along or what have you, or just a
>raft as was mentioned earlier...
A log and an axe will get you a dugout canoe. I'd say one log needed,
because you aren't trying to make a permanent stable structure.
--
R. Dan Henry, Creative Heretic
rdan...@earthlink.net
sqweek
>
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:avc6qd$77$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (swinging) A schlager, actually. On the one hand, that's in a pleasant
> > setting where
> > I'm not trying very hard to kill my opponent; on the other hand, if I
> > actually *were* trying to kill my opponent, and he me, I suspect I'd be
> > far more careful about actually swinging (as it tends to leave you open).
>
> I think the simple 'you wing, they wing' model is a little innacurate for a
> sword fight model. I can say that when I used to do kendo (which was a long
> time ago, admittedly), weapon swingingg was done in much less than 5
> seconds, never mind 32.
I think Frances is suggesting that walking into a monster isn't simply
swinging at it - it involves parrying and feinting and such.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> Thomas has set an ADOM stone at 50 grams. How many ten-kilo people do you
>> know, that you're going around saying "rations are heavier than people"?
> I suspected that the reason corpses lost weight when they were cooked was
> because they had the bones, and un-edible parts, removed. That would mean
> that un-cooked corpses were full bodies, and they tend to weigh about 120s,
> which is less than a large ration at 200m.
I always assumed that cooked corpses lost weight because the heating
process boiled off some water or shrivelled up some bits. That would mean
that the uncooked corpses were just the raw edible bits, not the entire
corpse.
> If you think that 6kg is about right for the corpse of a bad guy you just
> took down, then I suppose that time and weight would *not* seem distorted to
> you. My money's on the notion that they are, still.
I think six-odd kilos is okay for the intact edible parts of the guy I just
took down.
Pretty much any physical creature you kill with a sword is going to leave
physical remains, and yet not all of them leave a corpse (a.k.a. "little
food symbol"). Therefore, the corpse is the edible bits of the physical
remains, which are not always present. The corpse is not the entire body.
Mind you, this does make Food Preservation rather macabre. "Mustn't stab
him through the stomach, I'll rip the bowels open and contaminate the
giblets!" is not a line I envision going through the head of most heroic
hurthlings.
>> >> Hrm, possible RFE: change Bridge-building to Carpentry, allow for the
>> >> option to build a raft out of a log and cross a wilderness river
>> >> without actually building a worldmap permanent bridge?
>> > I was thinking of some kind of pulley, or stilts and stones, type
>> > system, but a raft goes well too eh?
>> Submit it? :)
> Naa, there's far better RFEs for thomas to be working on (I still can't
> believe the tiny girl quest reward, the 'lead', was declined). Still, worth
> remembering just in case the RFE database becomes neglected in future (as if
> that will ever happen)
Funny. I still haven't gotten a response on bugs I submitted in 1.0.0,
not even to say that they made it into the database. (Did you know
weaponsmiths can destroy artifacts? Truth.)
I'll submit it, then, after a proper pre-RFE.
Love and coffee,
Frances
DarkFox
> I think six-odd kilos is okay for the intact edible parts of the guy I
just
> took down.
> Pretty much any physical creature you kill with a sword is going to leave
> physical remains, and yet not all of them leave a corpse (a.k.a. "little
> food symbol"). Therefore, the corpse is the edible bits of the physical
> remains, which are not always present. The corpse is not the entire body.
maybe it's the fact that it's called a corpse, from which the persons
profession can be recognised, and whose head can be removed and put on a
pole. I suspect you're making facts to justify adom's lack of realism,
rather than just accept that corpses are really light things in ancardia, in
the same way that my elven archer just took 1 minute and 5 seconds to fire
an arrow from his bow, while standing still.
> Funny. I still haven't gotten a response on bugs I submitted in 1.0.0,
> not even to say that they made it into the database. (Did you know
> weaponsmiths can destroy artifacts? Truth.)
Heh, good point. If anyone in the game should be able to destroy an item of
immense age and power, well, what the hell, I'd say the weaponsmith is the
one suited to the job.
Can you still destroy the phial of caladrial by dipping the right items?
(from what I remember it involved either a potion of cure corruption, or a
corrupting artifact).
> Love and coffee,
> Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> I think six-odd kilos is okay for the intact edible parts of the guy I
>> just took down.
>> Pretty much any physical creature you kill with a sword is going to leave
>> physical remains, and yet not all of them leave a corpse (a.k.a. "little
>> food symbol"). Therefore, the corpse is the edible bits of the physical
>> remains, which are not always present. The corpse is not the entire body.
> maybe it's the fact that it's called a corpse, from which the persons
> profession can be recognised, and whose head can be removed and put on a
> pole.
In the case of raiders and outlaws, I always figured it was only the head.
Tywat presumably recognizes them when you bring him the corpse, so the
head bit makes sense, and brains are edible.
> I suspect you're making facts to justify adom's lack of realism,
> rather than just accept that corpses are really light things in ancardia, in
> the same way that my elven archer just took 1 minute and 5 seconds to fire
> an arrow from his bow, while standing still.
Yeahyeah. I suspect you're clinging to the idea that corpse weights are
an example of ADOM's lack of realism because it'd hurt you to admit you
might be wrong, so let's just leave our suspicions of each other aside,
shall we? :)
>> Funny. I still haven't gotten a response on bugs I submitted in 1.0.0,
>> not even to say that they made it into the database. (Did you know
>> weaponsmiths can destroy artifacts? Truth.)
> Heh, good point. If anyone in the game should be able to destroy an item of
> immense age and power, well, what the hell, I'd say the weaponsmith is the
> one suited to the job.
> Can you still destroy the phial of caladrial by dipping the right items?
> (from what I remember it involved either a potion of cure corruption, or a
> corrupting artifact).
No idea, never tried--never even tried drinking it.
Love and coffee,
Frances
DarkFox
> "DarkFox" (Dar...@SPAMuscm.fsnet.co.uk) writes:
> > I suspect you're making facts to justify adom's lack of realism,
> > rather than just accept that corpses are really light things in
ancardia, in
> > the same way that my elven archer just took 1 minute and 5 seconds to
fire
> > an arrow from his bow, while standing still.
>
> Yeahyeah. I suspect you're clinging to the idea that corpse weights are
> an example of ADOM's lack of realism because it'd hurt you to admit you
> might be wrong, so let's just leave our suspicions of each other aside,
> shall we? :)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to bring offense into it. There's no nice way of
saying 'stop trying to cling to the idea that adom is realistic'. I am,
however, *most* interested to hear about it if you really do think that the
times taken in adom are realistic, in the same way that item weights
supposedly are, and that's not sarcasm BTW, I like things that help me make
adom more believable, in the same way I like things that make skills more
useable
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> > I suspect you're making facts to justify adom's lack of realism,
>> > rather than just accept that corpses are really light things in
>> > ancardia, in
>> > the same way that my elven archer just took 1 minute and 5 seconds to
>> > fire an arrow from his bow, while standing still.
>> Yeahyeah. I suspect you're clinging to the idea that corpse weights are
>> an example of ADOM's lack of realism because it'd hurt you to admit you
>> might be wrong, so let's just leave our suspicions of each other aside,
>> shall we? :)
> Sorry, I wasn't trying to bring offense into it. There's no nice way of
> saying 'stop trying to cling to the idea that adom is realistic'.
But my point is that I'm not "trying to cling" to anything. I've said
before that if I have to ignore or distort something I know to convince me
of an idea, I tend to dismiss that idea. But I don't need to perform
mental gymnastics to believe that ADOM's weights and times are pretty
correct, so I'm not "clinging" to it, I just see it as reasonable.
> I am,
> however, *most* interested to hear about it if you really do think that the
> times taken in adom are realistic, in the same way that item weights
> supposedly are, and that's not sarcasm BTW, I like things that help me make
> adom more believable, in the same way I like things that make skills more
> useable
Yes, I do. I do think ADOM times are pretty realistic, I do think ADOM
weights are pretty reasonable. Now you've heard it. :)
Does it take less than thirty seconds to swing a sword or fire an arrow?
Sure.
Would it take thirty seconds for an amateur to steady themselves, decide
where to attack, swing, parry their opponents attack if applicable, recover
themselves, and be ready for the next stabbing or slashing? Sounds
reasonable.
Does it take less time for a non-amateur? Naturally. That's what weapon
marks and class powers are good for.
Love and coffee,
Frances
DarkFox
> Would it take thirty seconds for an amateur to steady themselves, decide
> where to attack, swing, parry their opponents attack if applicable,
recover
> themselves, and be ready for the next stabbing or slashing? Sounds
> reasonable.
Well, I was testing a human throwing rocks through the air, but I think even
in a fight against a living creature, taking almost a minute between each
attack despite being 'aggressive' is unreasonable. I have done Kendo in the
past, maybe it varies with fencing, and obviously it does with real combat,
but saying over 30 seconds per attack is reasonable just sounds ridiculous
to me. We'll just have to accept the fact that we have different techniques
on a fight. When fighting (unarmed combat), it used to take me absolutely
*no* more than a second to throw an attack, and be ready for another.
Usually it was much less..
John C.
>"Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:avuv57$d7t$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Would it take thirty seconds for an amateur to steady themselves, decide
>> where to attack, swing, parry their opponents attack if applicable,
>recover
>> themselves, and be ready for the next stabbing or slashing? Sounds
>> reasonable.
>
>Well, I was testing a human throwing rocks through the air, but I think even
>in a fight against a living creature, taking almost a minute between each
>attack despite being 'aggressive' is unreasonable. I have done Kendo in the
>past, maybe it varies with fencing, and obviously it does with real combat,
>but saying over 30 seconds per attack is reasonable just sounds ridiculous
>to me.
In fencing, counting the time I take trying to find a weakness in my enemy,
begin the initial swing, be parried, swing my weapon to defend myself and parry
an enemy swing, and so on until I either strike my opponate, he strikes me, or
we both back off and prepare for the next attack (and note, that is *attack*,
not a *swing*. A swing on average, not counting the time spent on
premeditation, takes about 0.2 seconds to do) takes about ten seconds to
fifteen seconds. Now, if I were new to fencing, carrying ~50k on my back,
wearing restraining and uncomfortable clothes, and my life were at stake I can
see how it would take 32 seconds to attack. Remember, an ADOM is not swing by
swing, it's attack by attack.
Malte Helmert
> DarkFox wrote:
>
>>Well, I was testing a human throwing rocks through the air, but I think even
>>in a fight against a living creature, taking almost a minute between each
>>attack despite being 'aggressive' is unreasonable. I have done Kendo in the
>>past, maybe it varies with fencing, and obviously it does with real combat,
>>but saying over 30 seconds per attack is reasonable just sounds ridiculous
>>to me.
>
> In fencing, counting the time I take trying to find a weakness in my enemy,
> begin the initial swing, be parried, swing my weapon to defend myself and parry
> an enemy swing, and so on until I either strike my opponate, he strikes me, or
> we both back off and prepare for the next attack (and note, that is *attack*,
> not a *swing*. A swing on average, not counting the time spent on
> premeditation, takes about 0.2 seconds to do) takes about ten seconds to
> fifteen seconds. Now, if I were new to fencing, carrying ~50k on my back,
> wearing restraining and uncomfortable clothes, and my life were at stake I can
> see how it would take 32 seconds to attack. Remember, an ADOM is not swing by
> swing, it's attack by attack.
Yes, but this doesn't explain why it also takes 30 seconds to throw a
rock at a giant who is standing in melee range, or a minute to drop the
weapon in your hand. :-)
I strongly agree with DarkFox (or who was it?) that time and weight are
"off" in ADOM in many regards (a weapon can rust after it was exposed to
water for thirty seconds?), because this is a game and not a simulation
of reality. This isn't a problem though -- just hop over to
r.g.r.development for one of the many discussions of "gameplay vs.
realism" and why it is a good idea to ignore the latter every now and then.
Malte