I was reading over in Moon Mage land about how the new buff standards will affect predictions once the magic changes go live. Should we expect Link to see the same kinds of things (20% soft cap, no hard cap, only the most powerful buff takes effect, not affected by Sphere of Influence, no reduction in potency when used on someone else if that ever were to become possible)? In particular I'm concerned about how the ability to stack several Links in the same skill will be affected. Previously this was a valid way to use the ability, but I'm gathering that in the new system only the most powerful buff to a given skill will take effect. I obviously don't know what the numbers look like for sure, but my impression is that a typical individual Link doesn't provide much of a buff at all, hence the ability (and need) to stack them in order to see a noticeable improvement.
Does it make sense for this ability to still be heavily dependent on the skill difference between the participants under the new buff standards and in a world where one can learn (via teaching) from someone with less skill? It effectively makes the ability less powerful as your skills improve, which seems a bit backward. Do the "you must stay in the same room as each other" and "you can't use this in combat" restrictions still make sense?
I find myself almost never using the ability, which is a bit of a shame since it has quite a bit of potential. This is partly because I don't seem to encounter situations calling for a buff very often, and partly because I'm usually by myself when I do. It's also a bit cumbersome to set up, with the whole "the other person has to accept it" thing.
Thanks,
-Life Sustainer Karthor
LAMBL
DR-MELETE
Re: Link and 3.1
11/26/2013 09:17 PM CST
Looks like the core mechs will handle a lot of it. I may tweak things some just to make the calcs fit better in the new scheme. We'll see.
I can't give you risk-free, automatic 20% buffs to any skill in game, though, for what I'm sure are obvious reasons. Prediction has risks and costs which link lacks.
Link makes up for this by requiring another person and being unusable in combat -- if I removed either of those restrictions I would have to introduce some sort of risk or cost to balance it out.
Melete
We must expect posterity
to view with some asperity
the marvels and the wonders
we're passing on to it;
But it should change its attitude
to one of heartfelt gratitude
when thinking of the blunders
we didn't quite commit.
I can't give you risk-free, automatic 20% buffs to any skill in game, though, for what I'm sure are obvious reasons. Prediction has risks and costs which link lacks.
Link makes up for this by requiring another person and being unusable in combat -- if I removed either of those restrictions I would have to introduce some sort of risk or cost to balance it out.
Melete
We must expect posterity
to view with some asperity
the marvels and the wonders
we're passing on to it;
But it should change its attitude
to one of heartfelt gratitude
when thinking of the blunders
we didn't quite commit.
LAMBL
Re: Link and 3.1
11/27/2013 09:14 AM CST
Yeah I suppose that makes sense. I still think requiring a specific other person (one with many more ranks than you in the skill in question) in order to see much benefit is a bit excessive though. At that point you might as well just ask them to do whatever it is for which you need the buff for you (unless you're just trying to use a scroll or something). It seems to me that requiring any old person would be enough of a restriction without having to consider the skill difference.
It also seems like combat usage would greatly expand the usefulness of the ability without getting out of hand (you still need another person). Would you be open to brainstorming alternative costs to replace the "no use in combat" restriction?
Thanks,
-Life Sustainer Karthor
It also seems like combat usage would greatly expand the usefulness of the ability without getting out of hand (you still need another person). Would you be open to brainstorming alternative costs to replace the "no use in combat" restriction?
Thanks,
-Life Sustainer Karthor
DR-MELETE
Re: Link and 3.1
11/27/2013 06:18 PM CST
>>It also seems like combat usage would greatly expand the usefulness of the ability without getting out of hand (you still need another person). Would you be open to brainstorming alternative costs to replace the "no use in combat" restriction?
Definitely. Though any major changes would have to be properly proposed, &c &c &c.
Not definitely promising massive changes to link, but if we get a cool idea I'll propose it and chuck it into my to-do list. Link is so 1999-a-riffic and janky that it'd really do with a full rewrite. My to do list is sort of ridiculous at this point, though, and probably contains more things than I could ever accomplish, so even it being on there somewhere does not guarantee I'd get to it any time soon, even for simu values of soon. Having the healing rewrite and X3 really settled down will be awesome though...we'll see!
Melete
We must expect posterity
to view with some asperity
the marvels and the wonders
we're passing on to it;
But it should change its attitude
to one of heartfelt gratitude
when thinking of the blunders
we didn't quite commit.
Definitely. Though any major changes would have to be properly proposed, &c &c &c.
Not definitely promising massive changes to link, but if we get a cool idea I'll propose it and chuck it into my to-do list. Link is so 1999-a-riffic and janky that it'd really do with a full rewrite. My to do list is sort of ridiculous at this point, though, and probably contains more things than I could ever accomplish, so even it being on there somewhere does not guarantee I'd get to it any time soon, even for simu values of soon. Having the healing rewrite and X3 really settled down will be awesome though...we'll see!
Melete
We must expect posterity
to view with some asperity
the marvels and the wonders
we're passing on to it;
But it should change its attitude
to one of heartfelt gratitude
when thinking of the blunders
we didn't quite commit.
LAMBL
Re: Link and 3.1
12/02/2013 12:03 PM CST
Cool, I'll try to come up with some possibilities then. These are in no particular order, and any given one may or may not be "worth" enough to do the job, but it couldn't hurt to have ideas out there I guess. Sorry in advance if any of them are particularly absurd or far-fetched.
-Make Links tie up a Manipulate slot. So you could have one Link and one Manipulation, or something. Not sure how meaningful this would be, since any creature against which you need an extra skill buff is probably going to be limited to one Manipulation anyway just due to difficulty.
-Create a metaspell that adds a "can sustain Links in combat" effect to the Aggressive Stance (or maybe Mental Focus) spell. This effectively just adds a spell slot cost, since you probably have the spell up anyway if you need combat-related buffs.
-Extra concentration costs (I think Link already costs more than zero to maintain, right?) when engaged.
-You already need to keep yourself from having much injury to the head (and nerves?) while Linked. Maybe also require that the person with whom you are Linked remain similarly healthy, lest the Link break.
-Create a spell to "lock in" the effect of a Link for the spell's duration. This allows you to take the buff with you away from the other person (and into combat if you want), with all the appropriate costs associated with casting a spell. You could only take one skill at a time with this. I guess this would effectively be like making a "buff one skill of your choice" spell that has an extra step at the front end. If you still want to keep the "requires someone else on hand" aspect of it, make it a battle spell so you'd have to disengage, re-Link, and re-cast it often due to the short duration. Or maybe it would be better as a ritual spell so that it takes a boatload of mana, which would cut into your ability to cast your regular buffs. Thematically it seems like a good candidate for a ritual I guess.
That's about all I've got in the short bit of time I had to think about it. If I come up with any more I'll add them to the pile.
Thanks,
-Life Sustainer Karthor
-Make Links tie up a Manipulate slot. So you could have one Link and one Manipulation, or something. Not sure how meaningful this would be, since any creature against which you need an extra skill buff is probably going to be limited to one Manipulation anyway just due to difficulty.
-Create a metaspell that adds a "can sustain Links in combat" effect to the Aggressive Stance (or maybe Mental Focus) spell. This effectively just adds a spell slot cost, since you probably have the spell up anyway if you need combat-related buffs.
-Extra concentration costs (I think Link already costs more than zero to maintain, right?) when engaged.
-You already need to keep yourself from having much injury to the head (and nerves?) while Linked. Maybe also require that the person with whom you are Linked remain similarly healthy, lest the Link break.
-Create a spell to "lock in" the effect of a Link for the spell's duration. This allows you to take the buff with you away from the other person (and into combat if you want), with all the appropriate costs associated with casting a spell. You could only take one skill at a time with this. I guess this would effectively be like making a "buff one skill of your choice" spell that has an extra step at the front end. If you still want to keep the "requires someone else on hand" aspect of it, make it a battle spell so you'd have to disengage, re-Link, and re-cast it often due to the short duration. Or maybe it would be better as a ritual spell so that it takes a boatload of mana, which would cut into your ability to cast your regular buffs. Thematically it seems like a good candidate for a ritual I guess.
That's about all I've got in the short bit of time I had to think about it. If I come up with any more I'll add them to the pile.
Thanks,
-Life Sustainer Karthor
