| Author | Thread: Armless golems |
NecariaPosts: 505 Location: Rildesjan Magus Age: 122 years old Clan: OASIS | Message #8795 Posted: Jul 29, 2008, 10:44 pm |
| As it currently stands, attacking with an armless golem gets you no xp, attacking an armless golem also gets you no xp, both of which are fine, however defending with an armless golem does get you xp. I think that should be changed. |
|
| Tariana Posts: 162
Location: Broukendale
Magus Age: 118 years old
| Message #8801 Posted: Jul 29, 2008, 11:33 pm |
| But attacking is something you choose to do. Defending is something that someone else makes you do, and sometimes you can't help that your defending golem isn't complete--like maybe someone else just beat up on it some. |
|
NecariaPosts: 505 Location: Rildesjan Magus Age: 122 years old Clan: OASIS | Message #8806 Posted: Jul 29, 2008, 11:57 pm |
This is true, however people are choosing to put out armless golems. It gives you xp, it gives the attacker nothing, and it's inexpensive, so it makes a nice deterrent. Yes occasionally someone might knock off both arms without disabling your golem and then hit you again, making you lose out on an attacks worth of xp, but I don't really consider that a big deal. Would give people more motivation to stick 2 arms on their golems anyway since quite a few seem to be one armers these days.
The problem it would fix is people intentionally leaving armless golems out. If there's another solution I'd have no complaints, but this seemed the simplest one. Also from a consistency standpoint it makes sense that if some armless golems don't give xp, then all armless golems shouldn't.
*edit* I suppose an alternative simple fix would be to make armless golems considered disabled.Last Edited: Jul 29, 2008, 11:59 pm |
|
| CommComms Posts: 392
Location: Daylsfeld
Magus Age: 127 years old
| Message #8810 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 12:20 am |
| The trade off is that if you put out an armless golem and someone really wants in they have nothing to lose by smashing its face in and waltzing on by. |
|
| Sconibulus Posts: 664
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #8812 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 12:30 am |
| Why not make it so an armless golem automatically sets experience to 0, rather than lowering it to 0 if above. |
|
NecariaPosts: 505 Location: Rildesjan Magus Age: 122 years old Clan: OASIS | Message #8813 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 12:31 am |
| If you're putting out an armless golem, I really doubt that's much of a concern to you. It's basically just leaving a note that says "Screw you" on your workshop door. But it doesn't really refute any of my previous points. |
|
| CommComms Posts: 392
Location: Daylsfeld
Magus Age: 127 years old
| Message #8815 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 12:57 am |
| Necaria said:
It doesn't really refute any of my previous points.
Your previous points consist of: "I think that should be changed"
An armless golem is an economical alternative to putting an actual defense up when you don't have anything to defend or nobody to defend from. It doesn't say "screw you" so much as it says "come in if you want, but it's not worth it."
The main reasons people get attacked are: 1. scavenging golem parts. 2. experience. 3. to raid resources. 4. Because someone has a grudge.
An armless golem removes the first two of these reasons, and lessens the viability of the third. That makes it a legitimate defense that prevents casual raiding without forcing one to put out a stronger/armed golem that would fall prey to people looking for parts or experience.
I guess you're entitled to your opinion here, but I haven't seen any evidence that there's a "problem" to be fixed. |
|
NecariaPosts: 505 Location: Rildesjan Magus Age: 122 years old Clan: OASIS | Message #8818 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 1:08 am |
| I was more specific in my second post. I personally would say that a golem that can't fight at all being a "legitimate defense" for any reason is ridiculous. At any rate, the only reason it doesn't give experience is so people can't attack each other or themselves with alts, for what is essentially free xp. Turning that into a viable defense doesn't seem intended to me. Shrug, it's just a suggestion, but I stand by my statement that it seems problematic to me. |
|
| Endovior Posts: 172
Location: Nournsland
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #8898 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 6:07 pm |
CommComms said: Necaria said:
It doesn't really refute any of my previous points. Your previous points consist of: "I think that should be changed" An armless golem is an economical alternative to putting an actual defense up when you don't have anything to defend or nobody to defend from. It doesn't say "screw you" so much as it says "come in if you want, but it's not worth it." The main reasons people get attacked are: 1. scavenging golem parts. 2. experience. 3. to raid resources. 4. Because someone has a grudge. An armless golem removes the first two of these reasons, and lessens the viability of the third. That makes it a legitimate defense that prevents casual raiding without forcing one to put out a stronger/armed golem that would fall prey to people looking for parts or experience. I guess you're entitled to your opinion here, but I haven't seen any evidence that there's a "problem" to be fixed.
Quoth the man who has a level 5 armless flesh guarding his workshop.
"There's no problem, because although I'd lose horribly in a fair fight, I like abusing this situation to gain free XP"?
I agree with Necaria: a golem that cannot attack should not be considered a legitimate defense, and thus should be treated as if disabled. |
|
| Sconibulus Posts: 664
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #8899 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 6:17 pm |
| I'm not sure armless should count as disabled, I had a golem for a while that was intentionally armless to ensure that it would back up whenever possible, before I got premium. Weaponless could well be incapable of stopping a raiding golem however, or it could stay at a gain of 0 experience for the attacker, regardless of what golem is used. I don't think we would care very much if to get that annoying flesh golem out of the way we could attack with a heavily armed exotic. |
|
| CommComms Posts: 392
Location: Daylsfeld
Magus Age: 127 years old
| Message #8911 Posted: Jul 30, 2008, 8:30 pm |
Endovior, if you're going to try and insult me, please also try to throw in some cleverness and class. If it were up to me, there'd be nothing out there, and if I bothered to put up a decent golem some 8-9 people would jump on it within 12 hours.
It comes down to if Ark agrees with your opinions or not. As it is, flesh golem defenders are an annoying inconvenience that help prevent casual attacks, but do little against a determined attacker. I personally think they're fine, if you don't then propose a convincing argument to the contrary. |
|
| Panacea Posts: 167
Location: Broukendale
Magus Age: 123 years old
| Message #8979 Posted: Jul 31, 2008, 12:15 pm |
Of course armless golems can mount a legitimate defence.
"What are you going to do, you've got no arms."
*proceeds to headbutt the invading golem ineffectually until his legs are cut off.* |
|
HalfteaPosts: 1307 Location: Darghelm Magus Age: 139 years old Clan: ADV | Message #8984 Posted: Jul 31, 2008, 1:41 pm |
There is also the point that armless golems aren't necessarily defenseless.
The Iron Flametoungue and Screaming Mask I believe are head-mounted only weapons, so just because they don't have arms, doesn't mean they are defensless.
I know you can look to see if they have items equipped, I just think writing code that takes away the defending XP for an armless golem unless a head weapon is equipped (and loaded) might be more trouble than this comparitively minor problem.
But hey, I don't really PvP all that much so I could be wrong. |
|
| Tariana Posts: 162
Location: Broukendale
Magus Age: 118 years old
| Message #8995 Posted: Jul 31, 2008, 4:52 pm |
| Panacea said:
*proceeds to headbutt the invading golem ineffectually until his legs are cut off.*
Oooh! Good point!
The problem isn't that there's XP for armless golems. The problem is that golems aren't allowed to headbutt! |
|
NanashiPosts: 1115 Location: Asylum Magus Age: 126 years old Clan: OTAKU | Message #9012 Posted: Jul 31, 2008, 7:06 pm |
| "Get over here! I'll bite your kneecaps off!" |
|
| Dreamweb Posts: 87
Location: Hans Mina
Magus Age: 117 years old
| Message #9225 Posted: Aug 3, 2008, 4:35 am |
| Will... a armless golem is already disarmed, let the golems without legs be put out to so they can be both disarmed and defeated. |
|
| deathpunk Posts: 154
Location: Nournsland
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #9232 Posted: Aug 3, 2008, 5:56 am |
| Dreamweb said:
Will... a armless golem is already disarmed, let the golems without legs be put out to so they can be both disarmed and defeated.
that pun would be cause for war if we weren't already in the middle of one...
but on the topic i think thats its fine to give the defender xp, but that you should zero out the attacker's even if they use something that would normally lose experience |
|
| Poseidon Posts: 241
Location: Shuul
Magus Age: 119 years old
Real Name: Jack Website: Click HereEmail: kingclown00@hotmail.com | Message #9258 Posted: Aug 3, 2008, 2:09 pm |
| Yeah that sounds fair. If they want to put up armless defense, fine. They can get their xp, but at least make it so I dont lose xp to them. |
|
| Endovior Posts: 172
Location: Nournsland
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #9516 Posted: Aug 5, 2008, 6:52 pm |
| Agreed. Armless defense involves a fair degree of chicanery already, so let's reduce that. |
|
| |
| |
