Search Results
Searched for posts by Ischaldirh in all forums

Showing results 301 - 310 out of 903 total
Modify your search
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:15 pm
Is there a way to specify if an *item* is resistant to a type of damage, without transferring that resistance to someone wearing the item?
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:38 pm
Serin-Delaunay wrote
That's my interpretation too. I think the player is protected from damage by AV, but physically it might make more sense to make personal damage reduction dependent on material flexibility, as flexible materials could absorb more of the energy of the sound waves. Material strength would play a bigger part in object breakage (and probably does already).

Then again, similar arguments could probably be applied to a lot of damage types, depending on how one interprets "strength" and "flexibility" as material properties.

All in all it sounds more complicated than it's probably worth? Idk.
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:03 am
Ernomouse wrote
Absolutely. A fully padded helmet impairs your hearing at least as much as your vision.

Thought about this some more. I don't think it actually makes any sense. The Enner's awful voice doesn't hurt you because you hear it, it hurts you because it's awful. Otherwise it wouldn't be smashing your gear. You could be deaf and still die from the Enner.
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 pm
fejoa wrote
They should also protect from sound damage type.

Maybe a little bit.
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:41 pm
There is currently no drawback to wearing a full helm, vs a normal helmet. All other armor items involve some sort of trade-off - using a metal armor piece causes you to take a hit to dex, agi, or both. Now, realistically, wearing a big helmet definitely impairs your vision/hearing. So how about if full helms cause a penalty to perception?
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:13 pm
4zb4 wrote
I also like the idea of, say, any character being able to approach a God and instantly being fried for so much as looking at them the wrong way without proper preparation.

I'll give you that.

I also suggest that if we're going to continue this line of thought - I do have some ideas on it beyond "Don't" - we start a new thread. I know that moderators can move posts about, but my mod powers have rusted from disuse. So I'll leave it to someone else.

Okay. Suppose you do implement an ultra-ending, with a score multiplier (and difficult level) beyond even the High Priest ending. I suggest, then, that the god to be challenged be Cruentus, god of war and blood. Slaying the previous god would be a fitting way to ascend to that title. (Plus, the PC is already somewhat Kratos-like.) Aside from which, being one of the "lesser" gods, it's slightly more feasible that a mortal might be able to take him on.

As an added thought, you might give a lesser score multiplier (and ending) simply for being slain by Cruentus. Perhaps if Cruentus kills you, you get an ending where he recognizes your prowess (you were able to reach and battle him, after all!) and he transforms you into one of his Angels? or Archangel?

Hmm, I could see a whole chain of score multipliers - if you reach Cruentus' realm, but are slain by his angels (who else would populate his realm?) you get a x2. If you reach, but are slain by, his archangel Gladius (I mean, who else would be the miniboss?) you are transformed into an angel for a score multiplier of x3. If you slay Gladius, but Cruentus kills you, he turns you into his new archangel for a score multiplier of x5. Defeating Cruentus himself would allow you to become the new God of War and Blood for a score multiplier of x7.

Alright. I've convinced myself. This would be awesome. However, the angels in Cruentus' realm ought to be buffed substantially, as should Gladius. Merely getting there would have to be extremely difficult as well, and involve shedding a *lot* of blood. Preferably innocent blood. Probably also require some fetch quest, and some shenanigans with an altar of Cruentus.
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:08 pm
I suppose I could see an ending where you become the avatar of a deity - effectively becoming their impersonation on the physical realm... Or perhaps gaining divine immortality and some sort of demi-god status. Or even maybe carving out a new spot in the pantheon and becoming the God of Edible Fruits or whatever.

But actually facing - and slaying - an immortal, divine being? I dunno. I just don't see it.

But then, I'm also not developing this game. The only reason my profile says "Developer" is because I contributed a few lines of code 10 years ago (acid shield, and one other item - amulet of elemental protection perhaps?).
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:53 am
Personally I don't like the idea of endings where you ascend to godhead, or fight gods. Seems a little too grand for IVAN, which to me at least has always had a gritty "normal" feel to it. I mean, the original ending rewards you with nothing more than your own freedom, after all. And you were never meant to be an epic hero, like in ADOM or the like - you start a naked banana grower after all...

I dunno. I think in general IVAN doesn't need more endings, just more (and more interesting) things to do before ending. After all, IVAN 050 had exactly two dungeons; 057 has three. ADOM has dozens. Crawl's dungeon has loads of sub-dungeons within the single main.

Eh, I suppose it also depends on where you want to take development... what kind of game you want to turn IVAN into.
Posted by Ischaldirh, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:19 am
This is actually amusing to read. If there qre no shops, is There any point in keeping extra loot?
Posted by Ischaldirh, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:12 am
I'm surprised they're not simply immune. Being divine beings and all.