Slaying immunity

[Salk]

Hello DavidW!

 

May I suggest to move slaying immunity from "Smarter X" to the "Increased Staying Power for X".

 

This because an added immunity has not much to do with making the monster any smarter, while it'd suit better the idea of making it more resistant to damage.

[Jarno Mikkola]

You realize how ɟ hard it is to code a case that doesn't have "Increased Staying Power for X" with the player having 7 Instant Slaying weapons, or should they not be taken into account? -That's not smart.

[Salk]

You realize how ɟ hard it is to code a case that doesn't have "Increased Staying Power for X" with the player having 7 Instant Slaying weapons, or should they not be taken into account? -That's not smart.

 

Really, Jarno...

 

Most of the times I read your arguments (not only in this particular forum or topic) I am not really able to understand them. Maybe I am just "not smart" enough...

[Jarno Mikkola]

or should they not be taken into account? -That's not smart.

Really, Jarno...

 

Most of the times I read your arguments (not only in this particular forum or topic) I am not really able to understand them. Maybe I am just "not smart" enough...

What's the problem, you do not know what smart is?

And by taking them into account I mean that the prioritized targeting it prioritized to kill the greatest thread that can easily be taken out...

[Shaitan]

You know the Imp is the Imp

 

If it is easily doable for DavidW I agree with Salk. However it is of no consequense to me as I use both components of SCS2.

[Salk]

You know the Imp is the Imp

 

You're right but I speak only common.

 

Nice to know that you agree with me though. I know nothing about coding but I believe that it might just be a matter of moving a piece of code from one component to the other.

[Jarno Mikkola]

If it is easily doable for DavidW I agree with Salk. However it is of no consequence to me as I use both components of SCS2.

Not without stupid consequences.

 

I know nothing about coding but I believe that it might just be a matter of moving a piece of code from one component to the other.

Yeah, it might be, but the consequences of that action are: The dragon goes after your mage that has multi layered protection field on top of horrors other things, because it 'thinks' it's immune to the slay effect of the Planetar you send to hunt it, but it's not. And the end result is, you have gained a lot of your spells back while the Planetar cut the dragons head of, all with one character.

[Salk]

The dragon goes after your mage that has multi layered protection field on top of horrors other things, because it 'thinks' it's immune to the slay effect of the Planetar you send to hunt it, but it's not. And the end result is, you have gained a lot of your spells back while the Planetar cut the dragons head of, all with one character.

 

No offense, but I'd rather wait for DavidW to speak about how and if this would work.

[Galactygon]

I am for instant slaying - for pure realism. I have slaying effects set the creature's hit points to 1 in addition to the death effect, so that creatures not killed outright have their hitpoints set to 1, so thet triggers their death dialogue. I am guilty of hiding this feature in SpellPack.

 

This is easily doable in a seperate component. Just be careful not to target undead, and to add the spell to SPPR409.spl's list.

 

-Galactygon

[Ardanis]

The dragon goes after your mage that has multi layered protection field on top of horrors other things, because it 'thinks' it's immune to the slay effect of the Planetar you send to hunt it, but it's not. And the end result is, you have gained a lot of your spells back while the Planetar cut the dragons head of, all with one character.

Theoretically, you're right. But IE's scripting language is too lowlevel and lacks many functions useful for combat scripting (like area-targeting) for SCS to be that smart. It doesn't take potential vorpal threat into account - read AI in SSL format, it is highlevel enough to be human-readable..

[DavidW]

The dragon goes after your mage that has multi layered protection field on top of horrors other things, because it 'thinks' it's immune to the slay effect of the Planetar you send to hunt it, but it's not. And the end result is, you have gained a lot of your spells back while the Planetar cut the dragons head of, all with one character.

Theoretically, you're right. But IE's scripting language is too lowlevel and lacks many functions useful for combat scripting (like area-targeting) for SCS to be that smart. It doesn't take potential vorpal threat into account - read AI in SSL format, it is highlevel enough to be human-readable..

 

Theoretically you could do some of this in IE scripting language, but it's correct that I don't.

 

I don't care where the slay-immunity thing goes. (Though I think the case for omitting it is terribly weak given that ToB dragons have it.) Whoever shouts the loudest can have their way.

[Shaitan]

Whoever shouts the loudest can have their way

Back to kindergarten eeh?

[Salk]

(Though I think the case for omitting it is terribly weak given that ToB dragons have it.)

 

I didn't know that vanilla ToB dragons acquire immunities that vanilla SoA dragons don't have (I find it an annoying inconsistency and I will make a note for myself to have it removed - it should be easy enough for me too).

 

But I was speaking more generally of eventual immunities that are added by other Smarter Monster X components.

[Jarno Mikkola]

The dragon goes after your mage that has multi layered protection field on top of horrors other things, because it 'thinks' it's immune to the slay effect of the Planetar you send to hunt it, but it's not. And the end result is, you have gained a lot of your spells back while the Planetar cut the dragons head of, all with one character.

Theoretically, you're right. But IE's scripting language is too lowlevel and lacks many functions useful for combat scripting (like area-targeting) for SCS to be that smart. It doesn't take potential vorpal threat into account - read AI in SSL format, it is highlevel enough to be human-readable..

What do you mean? That a .cres Gender identifier(whatever it's for the Planetar) cannot be categorized as higher priority for targeting than a .cre that has multiple Spell Traps? Which can then be skipped(by not extending the .bcs file) during the building of the dragons AI cause it's immune to the Planetars Instant Death attack, by .cre file bases.

 

I didn't know that vanilla ToB dragons acquire immunities that vanilla SoA dragons don't have (I find it an annoying inconsistency and I will make a note for myself to have it removed - it should be easy enough for me too).

Tougher monsters have tougher immunities, Easy.

And no, it's not that Firkraag in ToB game has immunity to it, but that Draconis has one, so DavidW was thinking and so is adding the immunity to Firkraag.

[DavidW]

(Though I think the case for omitting it is terribly weak given that ToB dragons have it.)

 

I didn't know that vanilla ToB dragons acquire immunities that vanilla SoA dragons don't have (I find it an annoying inconsistency and I will make a note for myself to have it removed - it should be easy enough for me too).

 

I'm glad you agree it's an inconsistency! (even if I'm likely to resolve it the other way around from your preference)

 

But I was speaking more generally of eventual immunities that are added by other Smarter Monster X components.

 

I don't understand, sorry.