Miguel Ghobangieno wrote:
> move_allow * would just add some more control over
> movement permissions so that one can more easily set
> what cannot and what can pass over the tile; more
> granularity.
>
> Theoretically, after this is added, spells can be
> created (such as build bridge, which coul
move_allow * would just add some more control over
movement permissions so that one can more easily set
what cannot and what can pass over the tile; more
granularity.
Theoretically, after this is added, spells can be
created (such as build bridge, which could set
move_allow walk on the affected wa
Miguel Ghobangieno wrote:
>(though I would caution against giving players themselves a pass wall spell)
>
As I understand it, with what Mark is saying, walls would have to
explicitly be set to allow passwall.
Alex Schultz
___
crossfire mailing list
cr
I like this idea very much (though I would caution
against giving players themselves a pass wall spell),
I creates a granular permissions system that is
appealing.
--- Mark Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thinking a little little about transportation
> objects (boats, horses, etc) and
>
Thinking a little little about transportation objects (boats, horses, etc)
and
came to the realization that at some level, a move_allow field is needed.
The basic idea is that move_allow would override any move_block. The case
I'm
thinking about here is boats - players normally can't mov
5 matches
Mail list logo
