Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

We just need a new battleground for assassinations ... the dead end street the assassin cornered the victim in!

I suggest:

battlemaps/drkalley.d3m
battlemaps/clifedge.d3m
battlemaps/latrine.d3m

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

That's true. And the turn limit is necesary to avoid game-staling(for example a assasin witn spam-skellie trying to kill a mage with spam-skellie, both with reinvigoration)

But still, the ATTACKER should flee if turn 50 is achieved. That do not happen with VotD, and it is wrong.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I actually addressed a solution for this within another thread. What should be done is the assassin should be placed on the defenders side of the battlefield and the defender on the attackers side of the battlefield. This means the commander/mage would have to run past the assassin while retreating.
If the commander does successfully retreat it still ends up in a different province if one is available plus any units under its command would have been left behind. This provides an effective assassination while still being logically and historically accurate.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I'm not sure why the current assasination is so 'historically and logically' inaccurate though. As vfb suggested an assasination could be taken to represent a scenario where the assasin has attacked a victim where the victim is cornered, with no possibility of escape.

A problem is that assasinations take place in a province that has no neighbours, and neighbours is a function of the map file. Which is why they die when they flee. It is not trivial to add neighbours ingame, and I very much doubt that JK would want to fiddle with it. It is the sort of change that is likely to introduce new bugs and problems. I guess that goes for switching positions on the battlefield as well.

Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

It's historically inaccurate because there have been assassination attempts in history where the target has fled successfully! Within dominions it's impossible and thus historically inaccurate.


I understand it's very very unlikely we'll see a change within the current game. The issue is important to mention in hopes of providing a more logical and historically accurate game events for future versions(Dom_4) and any other project(s) Illwinter may be working.

Since the retreat is the result of a turn limitation it's not death from fear or death from being lost in the dreams. A target which is killed because of a turn limitation is wrong and illogical.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Is this an official point of view from developers? I mean, the spell is working as it is supposed to work (attackers do not rout at turn 50, and defender die in turn 75)?

I'm asking becouse that might be an easy and clean solution for me. If that is *how* the spell is supposed to work, i have exactly ZERO problems with it. I might find it a spell too good for it research cost, but i also find thunderstrike too god for it research cost, and wont ban it from my game. My grief is that, as i understand it, the attacker not disolving in turn 50 was unintended.

So if VotD is offically working as intended, my problem with it vanishes.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I guess this work this way because the VotD is placed in a province. Then the victim is teleported there. As the dead are allready in place theyr are considered the defenders. In order to change the defender attacker situation it might be that you would have to have created 2 provinces. 1 where a commander is teleported. 1 where the dead starts. Then move the dead would have to move from their province to the province of the victim. I think it is possible that this would not be accomplishable without major changes to the turn sequence and turn resoluation. Which I know from experience that JK is extremely reluctant to do. Once again because it is the sort of situation that is very liable to break old things and introduce new bugs.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I dont think so. In my battle report, the dead are in the left side of the screen. My SC does the first movement. And on turn 50, i get a "the army of Ryleh is routed" message. Just that the undead do not rout at all (or vanish like golems do)

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Well it is working as intended, it is not bugged.. Perhaps it would be desirable that the dead where the attackers. Or that the dead not count as kills or what have you. But those things are not trivial to accomplish. There has been debate abnout this spell since dom 1 days. And JK has resisted all attempts to convince him to change it in either of those ways.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Death because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong for any game.

period

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Ok, I was just speculating. Truth be told. The game trys to rout both sides before it kills off.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Thanks. That finish all my grief with this spell, period http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

PS: i still would like it worked other way around, but if it is WAD, it is not an exploit to kill anyone with it. So I'm fine with it.

PS: i still believe the attackers are the dead. They get the "rout" message. They just do not disolve like golems do.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

In response to NTjedi

It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I understand the turn has to end. However to kill because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong. A commander/mage powerful enough to survive 50+ rounds during an assassination deserves to live... based on history and logic.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I dont get it. How is so? I mean... the turn 50 attackers "should" retreat. Even attackrs that do not retreat (like golems) die. However, in this spell, the attacker do not retreat or die. How is it that this is there to make sure turns end? Wouldnt the turn ends regardless if the attackers could retreat or vanish, like golems do?
EDIT: answered before your edit, didnt know you were speaking to nt jedi. My question remains, though.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I agree with that. Actually, anything that would have a turn limitation is bad.

Solutions : you could :
- add a cumulative 1 damage from fatigue every turn beyond 50 (this has its own issue, I'm not too much in favor of it),
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun),
- or anything else.

The fact that it doesn't make sense that the dead multiply when killed in a dream could be logical in a "dominion" sense, I mean, he did kill them again and could dream of them again. The fact that people just die suddenly when a turn limit is passed ? That cannot make sense.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

That does not work. Two combatants with spam skelleton and enough reinvigoration can fight forever. Two lighting inmune combatants with lighting damage whips cant kill each other, ever. The game HAS to have a hardset turn limit. The cummulative fatigue might work, but so does the regular turn limit. The only doubt is what happens when a unit that reach its own turn limit rout, does not rout.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

The keywords are "restart" and "others could join".

Restart means that the limit is still here. However, at your next turn the fight starts again. Therefore there could be a 2000 turn battle, over 40 game months (if no one joins, the limit is 50 turns per game month, and no one joins).

It could require (a lot of) work from the devs, but I don't take that in consideration when I propose things, because I have no clue of whether it's hard to do or not.

Please reconsider what you wrote in regard to what I wrote. With what I say, there are ways to finish the battle.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

The battle would still not resolve in the examples Triqui gave. As far as the fatigue goes, are you suggesting the fatigue rises after the turn limit until the participants die? If that is the case, the outcome would be exactly the same as the current turn limit system.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

So when the battle ends, who hold the province? Who can rais the taxes, or recruit there? Where does the attacker goes? What about assasinations? would they last for several months or years? It is just not viable. At the end of the turn, resolution must be done. Either the attacker won, and has the province, or lost, and defender hold it. Otherwise you are just provoking much more complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle.

Cummulative fatigue is a posibility, but might lead to a situation where both armies fall asleep and both armies "die". who win then? attacker? defender? Draw and the province become indie?

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I'm sure the community could brainstorm ways of improving assassination battles to make more sense, I've provided several good starting examples. Unfortunately we're not going to see anything changing with Dominions_3.

Hopefully assassination battles will be improved within DOM_4 to be more logical and historically accurate.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

It is not likely to be a dom4 in the foreseeable future.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I realize we won't see a DOM_4 for at least 4 years... maybe 10 years, but based on the success of DOM_3 I believe it has a good chance of happening.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

All of this is details and possibilities. There are a dozen solutions to this, and that's not my game. I can however, tell you a system that makes sense, of course :

The province enters a contested state where no one controls it, nor change the tax, nor recruit in it, assassination targets anyone not of your nation (I assume the assassin is able to see the difference between his own race and the other ones), the contested province could stay that way for years. Both armies would be in the province too, and the contested state would prevent you from giving them orders.

That is ONE solution among many that make it work. It could require too much changes to game mechanics. I propose it anyway, who knows, maybe it'll be there for dominions 4.

The very point of the proposal I made is to change the fact that there is a winner in that fight. As far as provoking more "complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle" that is what every single change to the fight system does, so obviously, this one would also cause some.

For the fatigue system : just make it so the damage is taken unit per unit in order of initiative, or taken attacker first, then defender, solves the problem.

With all due respect, I really don't get why you put a point of stopping any thoughts of an answer that work to point the "impossibilies" that are easily bypassed, and have multiple solutions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Can't you just try to say "that won't work unless you do this and this ? maybe this would solve the problem too ?" instead of purposely blocking the discussion with "that doesn't work". That's how discussions advance. Ho, and don't take it personally. Other people on forums do this. I never understand why.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

EDIT : somethings that didn't make sense.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I dont think that makes any sense from a thematic point of view. Two warriors fighting in the same province for years with no rest? That destroy my suspension of disbelief.

I still it does not make sense from a game design point of view. Games HAVE rules to avoid infinite cycles for a reason. Chess have a rule to end the game if there is a perpetual check situation for example.


Becouse of a science principle called "occam razor". It *^might^* be possible to get a solution that avoid every possible danger and exploit in a perpetually stalled province (imagine a battle like that in someones capitol...). The point is.. WHY bothering with it? Finishing the battle at a point (turn 50) is easier and cleaner. The only problem is when some unit does not behave as it is supposed in the turn limit (like not retreating at turn 50). Otherwise, it is a thousand miles ahead a better solution than putting a province in some weird limbo for several months.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Here is a quick fix for you guys so you will not have to deal with Vengeance of the Dead. Copy what I have typed below into a new notepad document, "save as", "all file types" novotd.dm. This mod takes VOTD out of the game. Go into preferences, choose mod options, select this mod.

#modname "No VotD"
#domversion 3.15
#description "This mod eliminates VotD"
#version 1.0
#selectspell 660
#school -1
#end

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I think JO has just said that it works as it is intended, so my grief with the spell vanishes completelly. It is not that i dont like the spell or i dont like to lose SC. My problem was that, in my opinion, the spell was working buggy. If it is not, i dont have any problem with it, as i dont have any problem with mind hunt. I might like the spell more working differently, but as long as it work WAD, I'm comfortable with it.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Triqui :
Reinvigorisation and regeneration could make a person involved not sleep during a whole month. It's magic. Once again, you see a block where there is none.

About the fact that "Finishing the battle at a point (turn 50) is easier and cleaner.", in your opinion maybe. In my opinion, it's messing the game up, because somehow, as was said by someone else : "why do all troops stop to fight at 5pm and golems stop at 8 pm ?".

The Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is the right one. In case you don't know, it's not always true, that is the very definition of a "principle". Check wikipedia if you do not trust me, especially the "Controversial aspects of the Razor" section. Also, I personally do not care at all about the simplest solution. I propose solution(s) that make sense in a certain mindset, and whether it's complicated or not is not taken into consideration. Then whoever is in charge decides to implement it or not. That's also the reason why I do not try to destroy the solutions of other people because they do not make sense to me.

"Otherwise, it is a thousand miles ahead a better solution than putting a province in some weird limbo for several months."
That is what "contested" means. It's not a weird limbo... and it's done in other strategy games too. I really do not see what is shocking you, but, I respect your opinion. It's not like I'm going to convince you to like it. I can only show you that it can work.

Again, I say that the solutions I proposed here are only proposals. I'll contradict you if you're saying that they don't work when they do, but if your prefer another one, feel free to take time to think about it and post your solution. It's far more productive and useful than wasting your time by trying to destroy the other solutions that works, only because you do not like them.

Once again, I do not mean harm. It's just something that I don't understand in people behaviour. Bashing a solution that works instead of finding another one that also solves the problem seems like a waste of time to me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

The mod gives you the option to create new MP games without VotD if you like. I am also willing to create a mod that eliminates everything that you guys are deeming exploits in other threads:

Vengeance of the Dead
Mists of Deception
Sickle whose Crop is Pain
Twiceborn

I can't mod out the retreating after casting enchantments or prevent people from hexediting files.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

That your solution "works" is (quoting you know) ONLY YOUR OPINION. I firmly believe your "solution" does not "work" at all for the reasons i mentioned before.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Problem is that twiceborn is not an exploit per se. It is a useful and cool spell, that some specific nations/units can exploit to gain an extra adventage (a limited form of inmortality) through a bug. i preffer just to sign a gentleman pact about not using twiceborn on demons.

VotD is WAD, so no problem with it, and i dont have a problem with the sickle. MoD is already banned in most games i think.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Your "arguments" are, I quote you :

Unless I somehow forgot how to speak english properly, what you said is : "It would probably work but involves lots of changes."

Am I wrong ? I will have to relearn English all over again if I am though. That would be a pain.

For your information the system that I speak about already exists in other games : an example would be planet ground fighting system in MOO3. This game has issues too, but whatever, they are off-topic.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Yep, you'll have to relearn English, or i'll do. Becouse we read the sentence completelly different. What i said is:

While it *might* be possible to find a way your solution works (which it still DOESNT, hence the "might", which is even marked with *^ ^* to stress it), it is not worth the effort.

Shortly, in my opinion, your solution does not work. It *might* (or might not) be possible to find a way that it *could* work in an hypothetical future, but it is not worth the effort (once again, in my opinion)

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Triqui... reread with a cool head what you just wrote later on please...

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

And there's a rather simple solution - replace these undead with another type of chaff, not mindless. Incredibly brave, like morale 30+, but not immune to rout. Make a special 'avenging soul' creature for VotD, maybe make it slightly tougher to compensate. Problem solved - on turn 50 souls flee, victim wakes up victorious.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Done. I stand on what i said.

Your solutio, as you has proposed, does not work.

I believe that, with enough effort, you could find a way it could work (or not). Currently it doesnt.

That effort is pointless, becouse even if you find a way it works, it is still inferior to the hardcap turn limit.

So i dont see why we should spend a lot of hours trying to make a way your proposal *might* work in a future, just to get a 2nd rate solution that is still, in my opinion, inferior to the hard cap limit.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

This sounds like a simple fix to me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I think the problem is not that they are mindless. The problem is that they are leaderless. Golems are mindless i think, but vanish on turn 50.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

I think that I put triqui in a mood where he will just refute any solution that works.

I like your solution foodstamp, it certainly the simplest found so far.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Nope, i would refute any solution that DOESNT work. Like yours :p

Kuritza solution might work, but i think the problem is not that they are mindless, it is that they dont have a leader. So changing them to non-mindless wont work, unless you make a leader for them.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

As I recall they are all leaders.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

You have refused the solutions because you do not like them, not because they fail to achieve the wanted result : "getting rid of the unlogical kills caused by time limitation", which cause the problem here. Maybe I should have stated the objective of the solutions I proposed before. I simply thought that vengeance of the dead before the time limit causes no problem, and that the combinaison with the time limit causes the problem. Therefore I set out to destroy any way I can that time limit.

As I said, this system I propose exists in other games and but a copy of something that works. But let's examine more closely how does the system I proposed work ? Here is an example.

Player1 is in possession of province called A.
Player2 is in possession of province called B.
Both attack a province called C.

Month 1 :
The attack ends up because of the time limit (let's say 50 turns). With the system I propose, the game saves all parameters (fatigue, position...) once the 50 turns end.

As far as I know, the game calculates the battle turns one after the other (that's what the turn counter and review of battle suggests), and passes every units one after the other in order of initiative, so restarting a fight means getting a new turn, and getting reinforcements would basically work like a summon. In short : restarting a fight every turn just means saving all parameters somewhere it can be taken again (which the game does at the end of every battle turn anyway) and running a new turn.

I might be wrong on that point of course, but it doesn't matter much. Even if it doesn't work that way, enabling a battle to restart just means storing informations and reloading it, before resuming the battle script.

Month 2 :
The province is in contested mode. That means the things I've written above are in effect (no one controls the provinces, both armies are in the province, no one can recruit and so on). I know that it currently doesn't exists, and that currently the provinces always have a controller. That's the very reason that cause the system to be a solution : it changes the game. That seems pretty obvious, if you do not change anything, the problem will not solve itself.

But the problem is not here anymore : since reinforcements can arrive during turn two, the battle results, locked before the reinforcements, don't have the same result. It could be anything from another lock to a victory on either side. Let's take the example of the 2 mages that skelly spam during the first month. During the second month, one of them is joined by a few priests that spam banishment, while the other is left alone. One mage wins.

Since other units can join the battle, the situation where there was a "infinite" battle never occurs unless both player want to. That shouldn't happen because it's bad for both players to block the game that way. Another idea to place here is fatigue : after all, the characters have been fighting a whole month. Well, months in dominions seem to last 1 day anyway, since there can only be 1 battle in an entire month and without magic help, the battle happens always during a single day (the sun never sets) and always during the day. Items that enable you to spend the entire "month" without sleeping are therefore nothing special, especially since it could be a side effect of using those items at all. For all I know, those items are put off so the people can sleep on usual days.

Another proposition that could be added for this idea : adding a cumulative malus to fatigue when the battle lasts for more than a month, to simulate the stress of battling for long. A special affliction or malus to morale might also work. That would be good for balance reasons.

Now, tell me, what in the concept I propose is so flawed that it doesn't "work". I hope that this time I won't get stupids answers like "you change the game" or "it's not going to be this way because it requires too much work", because it's off-topic. The only way I can put those arguments in single terms would be : saying that you can't sit on a chair with 4 legs, because the current chairs have a single leg and it's too complicated to make chairs with 4 legs. That's the reason why this argument (the only one you have put, apart from the fact that you don't like it) has no weight in my opinion. In simple terms again, you can sit on both.

I'm interested only on the concept, not the realisation. What is it, in that system, that does not "gets rid of the unlogical kills caused by time limitation", which is the objective of that change ? I truly wish to know that.

By the way, if others than triqui could also try their luck and point out something that doesn't work, I'd be glad to hear it. After all, I could really be wrong, but since the only counter-argument that was opposed was off-topic... Thanks in advance.

In the case of VoTD, this change would mean that the victim of that spell would be locked in a nightmare for a few game months when the spell penetrates the spell resistance, and he would then come back (if he is powerful enough to beat all the ghosts of course), rather than die.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

The problem is that you dont seem to understant where the problem lies. The only problem is vengeance of the dead, not the turn limit, period. There are NOT unlogical kills caused by time limitation anywhere in any other moment. At turn 50 the attacker RETIRES (not die) and in turn 75 the defender retires if the attacker havent done so (he might be paralized for example). They dont die, so there is no "unlogical kills" needed to be solved. You are messing with an akward solution that requires to change the game mechanics (like no recruiting, or taxing, a province) to solve a problem that does not exist. The only problem is that, during VotD, the attacker does not retreat as it is supposed to do, period. So fix the VotD, not the entire game



It would need an entire encyclopedia, but i will state just a few.

In your example you conveniently made the fighters attack a third uncontrolled (Since both attack it) province. What if one of them is attacking a province controlled by another player? The province go "uncontested", as you said. Fine. Now we have a capitol from one of the players "uncontested".

More problems: it _IS_ perfectly possible to produce an infinite battle, even with reinforcements. Several SC builds can be done that they cannot die in 50 turns. That will, still, stale the game forever.

The whole "no need to sleeep item" is a complete non-sense. First, not every character would have it equipped before they enter in a locking battle, mainly becouse they might not know that the battle will be locked. If you mean that everybody has such items "freely", well, then you have just erased Vengeance of the Dead from the game (As the spell attacks you while you sleep, its a nightmare).

Your proposal is complicated, absurd, destroy the suspension of disbelief, is unthematic, do not really resolve the problem of VotD (one month sleeping? ), it's akward and weird, will provoke more bugs and problems, it still might produce infinite loop battles (VotD with a SC that only does poison damage -the UD are inmune- and has more than enough regeneration and protection to be unkillable in 50 turns, just to point an easy one), do not have any single adventage over a hard cap turn limit, is hard to implement, and is just copied from a different game that has completelly different basis.

In short, it sucks. I'm sorry if i burst your bubble, but the idea you thougth was so awesome, is not so awesome.

Feel free to answer or not, i wont waste more time to restate that your idea is not worth it, the hard cap limit is 1000 times better.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

So the souls do not suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50 because they are all leaders? Mindless also never rout, so it seems VOTD is working as designed otherwise they would not have made the souls all leaders.

Oh well I'd prefer if there was only one or two leaders so the souls would all suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50. I guess the developers can argue thematically that this is a dream and therefore can justify time out kills.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

/beatsadeadhorse.

Dude Triqui, you are being a condescending weenie.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

That's the reason why I asked for the input of others, since he seems to be the only one to see impossibilities where there is none.

Yes, so what is the problem exactly if no one controls the capital province ?

. That's the very reason I also suggested a fatigue mechanism for battle that last months, as a balance mechanism...

Also, you seem to forget that Dominions is not made from one single province but a lot of them. The war around would go on, even if 3 or 4 provinces are blocked.

Sigh... as is magic or in the most part all fantasy or science fiction games. I mean, gods walking the earth ? battles that are always fought during a single day in daylight ? If you are to remove all that doesn't make sense, you are going to remove just everything. It's to the devs to decide whether it make sense or not.

As far as I know, it might make sense to them that all troops fight in a single day in daylight in a month and all attackers rout at 5 pm and troops that can't rout die at 8 pm.

Who do you think you are ? All those point are for the game creators to decide, not you ! As far as I know, it's not written "johan osterman" nor "Kristoffer O" in your name tag. You simply do not know whether the solution I propose is whatever you call it, because it's not your decision, and AFAIK, it's not anything you (or I) can know about...

Again, I don't care if you think it sucks. I don't care about it being awesome. I don't care if it's complicated. The only think I'm interested in is whether it works, or not.

Since you seem bent on the idea that it doesn't, and I think the opposite, I asked for other people to point out which one is right.

Sad to see that only a few care ! Well, of course, after a page of discussion, I would also be reluctant to join and write some more...

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Be civil, please.

Rathar: I would have preferred if you said "Dude Triqui, you come out as unreasonably condescending", or something similar. The weenie part is unnecessary.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

Here's a question for ya kasnavada, what happens when a third nation attacks a contested province?

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

The game currently doesn't support 3 way fights. The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

Ideas : instead of having two sides, you would have the first two 'first' sides fighting each other and having the third one coming from the side. Or, to keep a closer "layout" compared to what exists now, from the back of one of the nations involved (the 3rd attacker could chooses which one ? as a bonus ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif). Or something else.

Re: vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+
 

My apologies, I trust you will understand what I mean when I say that my impulsive original statement did not include such words as weenie but rather worse terms for the male genitalia.

Anyways..

It has seemed to me that this idea in general and the topic that there are certain "way messed up bugs if you take advantage of them" has been dominating the airwaves recently.

Personally, I think that as long as you spell out the 'Rules' ala Velusion(Really simplistic, common sense structure imho) style then anything goes. Use common sense.

If someone uses a "known" bug then say "uh, thats a known bug. Would you like to reconsider? Due to x,y and z?"

We aren't using Napoleonic law folks.. At least most of us!? Be less quick to judge your neighbors. Give people the benefit of the doubt. If they lie, you get the karma!

At any rate!..

I think that VOTD should peak at actual "in game" souls I.E. those which have been slain during the "normal" game phase. This increase due to slaying the dead is BS!" "Total BS!" he said.