Shattered Kingdoms

I'd rather the gate anchor spell about 1,000 times more than having nothing, but I'd rather immortals get itchy with an ability to disable skills 500 times more than having that entire concept gone.

I'd take a lesser evil. Every IMM has favorites, but the system is way, way more transparent than it has been in the past. You'd underestimate how much so.

I have already experienced the joy of killing a PC and then being 'cursed' for something random later that day by the immortal who happened to be playing that character. Giving immortals more discretion to disable skills and the pbase approving it is a moronic idea.

This definitely wimps sorcerers and priests, yes. But there are now gate anchors at the Spire which didn't exist when you played, and gate anchors at plenty of locations around the map. What area in the mud right now is so inaccessible that a gate anchor is a necessity?

Yes, it is a moronic idea, but much less moronic than the system being lost. I'm not disagreeing with you whatsoever on your point of its idiocy, I'm simply contributing a lesser evil as a compromise to the best idea I can come up with.

I couldn't think of many areas off hand. The four island attractions (sea caves, paithans [old, that is], Radi, spire) were a larger consideration of mind, as is perhaps the necropolis [unless the entirety of it has no-transport removed, I hated dying as a necro first exploring the necrop and having to reattain the jade icon every f*&ing time, before I found out which room(s) were summonable to for gate anchors]. D'Astae camp would be annoying, as would access to Cain Techt. They may have changed to the point my arguments are moot, but I don't want some dumbassed builder making an area without considering (or, in fact, considering, and making it just uber annoying because they think annoying = challenging) these things and wasting my time with unfun things as opposed to fun things.

My largest consideration is levelling, and general travel time/convenience if wipes happen, more than specific areas that are butchered by the inability of gate convenience.

Oh, and whoever put a gate anchor at the base of the spire needs some help. Seriously. I'd have sooner redesigned portions of it and given people a run for their money again rather than opening the floodgates even farther than they already were. What were they thinking?

They decided it made more sense than having a shopkeeper sitting in the middle of the desert for all of time.

General travel time is only noticeable because of winds. Without very high mph winds traveling to radi and others is a joke. I don't think that anyone actually levels in any of these locations..and there is no reason to if they do. IC Gate anchors at the spire are a better idea than permanent shopkeepers.

Exactly. Just curse everyone who uses a gate anchor without pretending to discover him first!

people should really be allowed to play how they want. If someone wants to level in the Jungle.. they should be able to. Although it may not be the best idea.. the choice should be open.

What does that have to do with gate anchors? Are people incapable of flying there?

Not sure what this means. I haven't even gotten started making changes to the weather yet. Just finished my survey on Friday.

If we're really talking about what "makes sense" in character, it doesn't make sense that you can only open a gate to a "room" if a "named" NPC or player is there.

If we were playing a tabletop rpg or writing a novel, I would say it makes sense for a character to be able to open a gate to any point he is familiar with in the world, regardless of who happens to be standing there. The "target" thing seems more like a coding limitation since it would be hard to allow players to type in the room they wished to gate to.

Anchors would be a great addition to the game though, adding a completely IC way of maintaining the historic functionality of gate and resolving recent problems.




Ideally, a character would not be restricted to a single beacon per person. It would work like rift as far as duration, limits per room, dispel magic and concentration required.
In order to prevent abuse by attempting to mimic traditional gate targets with new beacons, the prefix "XX" could simply prefix all beacon names.
Anyone with access to detect magic would be able to see the name of the beacon.

By "absolutely borked," I meant before weather gained the ability to blow you in the opposite direction and didn't tire you out nearly as much. You could spam a direction and it'd just be a bit before you muscled through the "The wind is too strong" or whatever message you got.

This was right around the time change weather went from "better/worse" (i think those were the keywords?) to what it is now, if I recall right. I shouldn't have said applied to the ocean, I would have said "applied painful realism to flight/travel." I get a little ahead of myself with defaming adjectives, sometimes. I meant to be a little more constructive than that.

Drifter, it kind of makes sense as far as gate being anchored to a person or object. Transportation magic in SK is fickle - if you don't have a soul/magical essence/make up your "anchoring metaphysical ideal"/etc in a room, you don't have something to anchor your magic on. A room needs life/an above average presence of life/magic. Consider gate not so much attached to space as it is to life, and I think it makes a little more sense.

When you turn gate into something that targets space, you end up with rift. Beyond hugely anchoring magical beacons (portal stones), it's impossible to target.

A character restriction to 1 beacon would be something to prevent abuse/800 anchors being around, and I think it should have a duration to be on par with actually summoning a named NPC to be an anchor, but not be excessive/permanent.