Twilight Forums

For future notice, that sorta post belongs in the Creative Ideas thread.

Just thought of something while I was begg^H^H^H^Hrequesting buffs in chat. Wolf automatically replaces Buffalo and vice versa. It would be nice if there was some way to decline one buff or the other. Perhaps an account option to automatically refuse one or the other.

It would suck to lose thousands of minutes of buffalo for an hour of wolf because someone was trying to be helpful (or trying to grief you).

edit: Now that I think about it, it would probably be easier to just make it autofail when you cast one on someone who has the other.

Cristiona wrote:Wolf automatically replaces Buffalo and vice versa. It would be nice if there was some way to decline one buff or the other. Perhaps an account option to automatically refuse one or the other.

Having just lost 3000 turns of water buffalo so that I could get 180 of wolf, I'd really like to have this looked into. It was just done as a joke, but I still paid for those buffs and am a little less than amused by this.

Things were straightened out, but... yeah. Some kind of override would be nice.

And, another 12,000 minutes flushed down the drain. This needs a fix.

I will. But, uh, can I ask ya not to buy multiple thousands of an unsafe buff in the meantime?

Well... it's more to reduce busy work. Buffalo does about 40% of the work for me in Delta. It's easier to buy a long-term buffing contact than to scrounge every day.

Neither of those two options is even remotely possible with the current game setup. Sorry.

Valera wrote: Eh..... I'm not sure if they'd be -worth- implementing, but I don't see how it'd be impossible with the present game setup... You'd just have to add a new column to the table, with IDs linking to it, no?

No, it's much worse than that. Basically leads to a near-infinite duplication of items in the DB, one for each individual instance of the item in question. No good, for a lot of reasons.

Yeah, I'm really pretty sure that it's not possible. If nothing else, the KoL folks have been thinking about this for 4 years and denying its possibility the entire time.

Also, what you describe is the normal inventory system. A separate entry of X of item 1 would just show up as more of item 1. I'd have to have an item 1001 that is a duplicate of item 1, for that single player (if it's really unique). And then 1002 for the next player. And 1003 is a duplicate of item 2 for player 1. And a duplicate of item 2 for player to is item 1004, and ...

And then if I update item 1 (description, properties, etc.) I'd need something that would search out every item that's cloned from item 1 and make the same change. No good. Really.

I'll argue with you more tomorrow. But your example neglects two critical things:

1) Where is it noted who possesses the rented ones? What if, of those 30, 5 are rented to me, 10 to you, and 15 to another 10 individuals. One field, "rented", doesn't begin to cover it.
2) How does the person renting the items know which of item X are owned and which are rented unless they're NOT exactly the same as item X? How does that display in their inventory? What prevents them from selling the rented item? It's gotta be a separate item.

Request for new Talisman:

Honorable Amulet

"There's nothing wrong with this amulet. It radiates power like a talisman, but it's a bright and holy energy. Sort of like if a halo were turned into a talisman--bright and holy. You could use it, but it could result in your being beat up. Again, kind of like wearing a halo."

Talisman
Autosell value: 1000

-50% Strength
-50% Intellect
-50% Reflexes
+50% XP per combat

And yes, I realize the image is crap... it's just for effect.

Mmm... that would be tempting...

Ryme said it's a no-go... Ah, well.

Ryme, when ya gonna nix the black "stroke" around the boomstick gif? You'll probably have to reduce the radius of the outer glow though...

Make monsters deal slightly less damage as they lose HP? Same goes for players.

I'm trying to think if such a mechanic is accounted for anywhere, but I can't see anything.

Well, you only really need to /L each one once, but yeah. Can't imagine making that would be too hard, and it'd certainly be useful.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

STORES

If not stores, could we at least have access to the historical sales data of all items? (And not just ones we happened to sell)?

Lxndr wrote:If not stores, could we at least have access to the historical sales data of all items? (And not just ones we happened to sell)?

I think this would be too much on the DB. Not even KoL has this kind of feature.

MagiNinjA wrote:

Lxndr wrote:If not stores, could we at least have access to the historical sales data of all items? (And not just ones we happened to sell)?

I think this would be too much on the DB. Not even KoL has this kind of feature.

For what it's worth, Coldfront provides this feature for KoL.
As for TH, we already know the DB stores this data, since it displays it to each seller individually. I'd be honestly surprised if the TH database can't handle it.
KoL at least provides a snapshot what people are actually asking for items. The AH doesn't do this at all.

Weld/assemble multiple...

Cristiona wrote:Weld/assemble multiple...

That would be awesomeness!

poetfox wrote:As it is now, I keep having to click in and out of the store when I forget how many I have.
Just one little thing that annoyed me. Otherwise, I'm quite happy with the PvP system.

Agreed on the lamba token count in a more visible location.

Otherwise I'm fairly happy with poetfox in PvP as well

Attacker Defender Winner Rank Change Date Prizes
poetfox Malk-a-mite them -2 2008-11-21 12:49:28
poetfox Malk-a-mite you +3 2008-11-21 12:40:15
poetfox Malk-a-mite you +3 2008-11-21 12:37:34

Corrupt Shadow wrote:

Cristiona wrote:Weld/assemble multiple...

That would be awesomeness!

Thirded. I just assembled about 100 random things, and that's a lot of clicks.

4th'd. Multi-making the Castle farming items sure would be convenient.

5thd. The weld/assemble page reloads very slowly after making something. For ultimate laziness, a "make as many as possible" option would be nice too.

Hannahmaus wrote:or ultimate laziness, a "make as many as possible" option would be nice too.

2nd'd