On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:38:32 -0600, Richard Kettering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I said before; I don't care about this enough to argue if you > choose something contrary to my opinions, but... > > My preferences for a name are: > 1] Holy > 2] Mystic > 3] Dispel
I don't like the name 'white damage' unless we are going to color code other damage types to match. (Say 'red' for fire and 'blue' for cold.)a The name just doesn't seem to fit in with the other names. I don't like 'mystic' because that is close to the special attack type 'magic'. Dispell seems to imply more of a change than is going to happen. Also, it seems more like a name for a weapon special ability than a damage type. I think that holy brings along with it an expectation that it affects evil particularly well. So with that name I would expect it to do extra damage to necromancers, but not to mages. Also if there is a 'holy' type, I would expect some sort of 'anti holy' type. Right now the 'drain' special is kind of used that way. But perhaps a Lich's touch attack should have extra effectiveness versus Palidins. So, I think I am aggreeing that the 'holy' name doesn't really match the effects of the damage that well. But I am not particularly fond of any of the names suggested here. (I should go back to the thread and see if I like any of the names suggested there.) Are you guys sure you want to keep 'holy' as a damage type instead of a special? I would expect a Palindin's holy sword to still be a 'blade' even though it might have extra effect on undead. Maybe some refactoring is needed? There could be one attribute for how the damage is delivered, such as blade, impact, pierce, ball (as in fire), beam (of say light). And another attribute for the essence of the attack, such as metal, wood, fire, cold, good, evil. _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
