// thus on Sun, 17 Aug 1997 01:37:58 -0700, Jason virtually wrote:
Jason> Personally, I've never been a big fan of this method. One of the
Jason> methods I've been kicking around is a combination of both.
Jason> Something to the effect of:
Jason> You hit so-and-so hard, only tickling him.
Jason> Well, something to that effect.
Maybe something like...
You "graze"
"lightly hit"
"hit"
"hit hard"
"hit rather hard"
"hit very hard", foo which "he hardly notices"
"slightly wounds him"
"wounds him"
"wounds him badly"
"severely wounds him"
"seriously maims him"
"completely cripples him"
"completely annihilates him"
I wrote such a function two nights ago. I would prefer such a system as
well. It stands to reason that you know how hard of a hit you think you
did, and you can also notice how hard it seems to affect the opponent.
Although it gives two scales to figure out "stats", it also just seems to
make sense.
d.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST