Burns

That's not how i read that, as it would only turn attackers advantage into defenders advantage on the freeze front. When he said 'all freeze' and 'all antifreeze' i read it as all freeze of both parties apply before all anti-freezes, and anti-freeze still works even when frozen. As for wasted space, 2 hollows and 3 angiens makes 3 unfrezeeable angiens, and that's a certain goodbye to whatever you wanted to add to our little skirmish. And then another hollow, just to humiliate your corpses. Even a system that heavily favors the attacker is a lot better than disabled freeze.

It's absolutely not balanced, it renders freeze completely useless because double and triple-af is rather easy to get. Pack 2 reins or 3 hollows in a rit and you're completely unfreezeable.

Happy Wookieday!

Moved as requested

Why, maybe i'm sitting here with a wrong concept then... I didn't think it would matter how or by whom a character is or was played, as it is the signature of that fictional character you want on that doc, isn't it? Sure, you can argue who's to sign as Shade Sentinel when several people played it, but at the end of the day, the doc would say Shade Sentinel, not the name of the person who wrote the signature? You'd just need to figure out who established the role, or who played it at the time the title was awarded... I mean, if Grido was to sign a title for somebody, he wouldn't do it as <whatever his name might be>, the guy from UK, but he does so as Grido, the King of Golemus. In the same sense, i can't see shade sentinel being played by different people over time as a hurdle for his signature on a title.

No matter how high ranked a citizen might be, s/he'd still be a citizen, and lower than the monarch. That wouldn't work for me. I think it would depend on the land. For Necro, it'd probably make sense to have a signature from Shade Sentinel. In lands where leadership gets elected, maybe it could be 'For the people of xx'?

http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/1756-broken-pattern-gazeebo/ type something every once in a while, problem fixed argueably, it might be more convenient to not get idled while you're playing with the broken pattern, but that'd go under nice-to-havefeatures rather than bugs.

Can you add reputation to account settings? So people can choose to not show their rep, like they can choose to disable comments on their profile? I don't think having a judge over reputation, in one way or another, is a good system. I can take any post in this thread and cook up a highly valid reason for positive or negative rep on the fly, don't even need to bother thinking about it before i get called out on it. And as long as the reason is valid on a personal level, telling somebody that the reason is invalid to the judge would mean they are invalidating you as a person, which sucks. It's a different matter to say that they lied about the reason, but without personal contact, there's no way to tell if that's the case. You can gift-wrap any reason to look presentable enough to pass for true feelings, add in the language factor and you're good to go with any sort of nonsense. Maybe the system can be altered to not work indefinitely? For example, rep points that are older than 6 months don't get counted for your forum rep? Or maybe it can be changed so every user can only give 50 positive or negative points to one person at a time, and when s/he adds the 51st negative point on a new post, the oldest negative point gets removed (or doesn't get counted for overall rep anymore, which would be even better imo)? I honestly don't know the technical boundaries here :/

Apparently this thread has outlived it's purpose (which is the nice way to say that it was pointless all along) and will thus be removed from the Public Council board. I'll let it linger in the off-topic section for a while, maybe somebody feels the urge to analyze MD players based on their color preferences or something... Sooner or later it'll probably be removed all together.

Activated it again, next time tell me when you need my toys :P

Perhaps you meant 'servant'? I don't quite understand that explanation, either <.<

{ "title": "Chief Voidling", "recipient": "Granos", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": null } }, { "title": "Ardent Knight", "recipient": "Burns", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": "Shadowseeker" //shouldnt it be the other way around? SS granted, mur confirms? } }, For the first, it's NOT chief voidling, and the longer you leave that on the list, the likelier it'll end up on the doc, which will lead to Granos hating me for eternity, so please fix that :P For the second, i'm not sure how it technically worked about the tag, but as far as i know mur didn't play any part in that one, he gave tools to shadow to use as he saw fit. Adding the tag and desc. might have been akasha, i can't remember for sure, but the flag and the 'rights' to the tag, if you like, was shadow alone.

{ "title": "Chief Voidling", "recipient": "Granos", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": null } I was just throwing out what he should get it for, i don't think he'd appreciate the term 'Chief Voidling' on his doc :)) He still goes by Seeker of the Void :)) { "title": "Protector of Golemus", "recipient": "MRD", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Grido", "confirming authority": "Burns" } I don't think it would be right for me to confirm the title of somebody who got to this position way before i ever did anything remotely interesting. I think i wasn't even in Guerilla by the time MRD got his own ally already. Maybe yrth and grido would work, or mur and yrth/grido. I don't think that should be me.

That would require somebody to code the reward specifically for that purpose, and it would likely be a unique thing. The intention of the lair treasure is that Mur could put items he had already made as rewards, but not needed yet, in there and give them out semi-automated, without having a coder involved, only somebody who hands out the charms.

I'm sure Ivorak loves to work through a bit of spam, but at least make an honest attempt to answer the question he posted: Who else should be on the list? It's not about how to call roles, whether or not "etc." is a good reason to grant titles, and how people can go about getting titles. Try to stay on topic. Removed a few posts prior to this. If you think your post was a valid contribution, and i just read it wrong, message me and we can work it out. Also, as it happens, i think Granos, the Chief Voidling, should be on that list, if you count him for active currently.

I'd like to point out that we've never made any claim on the part of grabbing our tools. Anybody who wishes so can come and grab our tools, they'll not be hindered. It so happens that some of our tools are in a place that's not publically available, and only some people have access there. Golemus citizens, who are the majority of the people with access as it happens, fall under the full rule of the golemus land leader, and at no point does the announcement claim that a land leader mustn't rule over his/her subjects in regards to public tools.

You'll probably want to clarify these rules. There are some things in the drachorn cave that you most likely don't want used, but which are technically from an actual location in the game. Maybe it's easier to say 'no coloreds, no drachorns, no angiens'?

Probably not the most elegant solution, but here's a little magic to have a quest restricted by id without having the guy who coded the item do anything when new people need to be added: @vx=mds_storage('xyzparticipants', 'aoau'); @vb=@storage[@vx]; if(@vb == null) {@vb = array();} if (isset(@input['add'])){ array_push(@vb, @input['id']); @storage[@vx]=@vb;} if (in_array(uv('id'), array(53832, 131999))){//array with the people who can edit the list foreach(@vb as @vv) echo "@vv, ";//print the current list echo @content[x];//show the 'Add'-button } if(in_array(uv('id'), @vb)){echo @content[y];} //shows the text to people on the list <form method="post" action=""> Enter ID here: <input name="id" type="text" /><br /> <input name="add" type="submit" value="Add"/> </form>

A key that opens gates, as in reducing the lunatic amounts of gate costs in GG, Necro, MDA to 1 for a while.

Maybe you'll want to read the headline of the off-topic section again, it's neither troll threads nor non-MD, it's "conversations that have gone awry", so a thread that switches from World Cup to Brulant's signature is pretty much the definition of our off-topic section :))

I like what sounded through on Chewie's post, maybe the kings could sort of decree that the land is at war with some other land, and can set out guards for the gates. Like, if somebody from that paticular land passes through the scene with the gate, they can 'grab' him (and his trace, so you don't win that game by default when you got google fiber) and they get thrown back out to the other side of the gate. In my mind, that should only work at the specific gate-scenes, not when somebody teleports inside or uses a backdoor. For example, if GG was at war with East, and Chewie comes through the Bridge of Ages, any GG who is at that scene can 'grab' him and he gets returned to the Gates of Ages. If he comes through the maze, or by a teleport spell or similar, and thus avoids the guards at Bridge of Ages, he could only get removed from the land with a spell, or with the Land Cleanser, as always. Same procedure with Marble Dale Park - Gates of Marind Bell, Well of Tears - Howling Gates, Awii's - MDA Gates, you get the idea.

It seems we're drifitng a little, let's keep this on track, shall we?

Moved the most vital parts of the discussion, scroll up to see, moving always makes a bit of a jumble out of posts because they are saved in order of time and can't be sorted afterwards.

I'd like it lands could have alliances amongst each other. For example, while they are friendly with each other, your land loyalty from one land gives you an advantage when moving on that friendly land, and when hostile, the loyalty hinder your movements. Right now, there's no choice, all lands are always hostile, but the effect doesn't show for anybody over 100 EI... which is almost everyone, i tend to forget that all those lands actually hate me for being from golemus :)) And lands should help you upgrade creatures, too. Maybe while you're part of a land, the creatures found in that particular land have 10% less heat/wins/age required for upgrades or something like that (sorry dst, no goodies for you :P)

I think i don't quite understand the question. Are we talking technical features, like a land chat? Or stat bonus revised? Or leadership decisions-wise, like throwing people to jail and stuff?