FALAN
1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/21/2018 11:28 AM CDT
This has been brought up before, but I'm going to do it again since I feel that strong about it. Is there any chance in the world for at LEAST Judgement (1630) and Onslaught (1650) to not target players? Ideally I'd ask the same for 1614 but that doesn't really kill so I'm hoping at least the other two could get considered. Last night, I accidently killed a few people with onslaught to clear a room full of invading critters and while successfully I got rid of them, it came at the cost of at least a few comrades and it was not intestinal. Swarms and swarms of invading critters to be clear. While from one view, they should have been grouped with us, I don't believe it's really that fair for them to die to "friendly fire" as it were. It's not like you can force people to join your group in the room before you do it, but there's so much chaos and screen scrolling that it is difficult to know for sure who is all grouped with you and who isn't because of how many beasties are attacking and doing CMs / ewaving / swinging weapons / etc etc etc.
So... I'm hoping at least 1630 and Onslaught (if not 1614 too) can exclude targeting players so we can enjoy and use this wonderful and very powerful tool in our kit.
Thank you,
Falvicar
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/21/2018 12:45 PM CDT
This is a choice that most all aoe spells face. Especially semi spells as they have less fine tuned magic.
Viduus
Viduus
FALAN
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/21/2018 02:34 PM CDT
Respectfully, I'd like to think that by design that Judgement and onslaught were meant to be used effectively against creatures and not indirectly target players. Just from a paladin / deity point of view... would the Arkati really want to target players with the divine magic?
I mean.. damned if we use it, damned if we don't. Sometimes I half expect somebody to throw a report or say we violated pvp policy or such though Judgement and Onslaught weren't intended to touch those players but to clear the bandits / the invading creatures / etc. Could this please at least get talked about or looked into instead of just making their lives/deeds in our hands when it really it shouldn't be that way?
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
I mean.. damned if we use it, damned if we don't. Sometimes I half expect somebody to throw a report or say we violated pvp policy or such though Judgement and Onslaught weren't intended to touch those players but to clear the bandits / the invading creatures / etc. Could this please at least get talked about or looked into instead of just making their lives/deeds in our hands when it really it shouldn't be that way?
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
KRAKII
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/21/2018 07:26 PM CDT
"This is a choice that most all aoe spells face. Especially semi spells as they have less fine tuned magic." -- Viduus
Is this a statement of specific design intent? (Not just GM Viduus talking about his own viewpoint, but overarching game design by the team.) That semi (AoE specifically) spells are intended to be dangerous to passersby?
Cone used to be PC-lethal, until it (wisely) got changed, after many millions of murder fines. (Ask Dartaghan or Starsnuffer--both Chairmen of respected Houses...--about how much they owed after screwing up some Mass Guards.)
Firestorm got taken away from PCs entirely, moved to the Arcane list where we have to at least find a trinket to trigger it.
.
Since the Semi spell lists have been deemed to be & described as being at the same level of power as the Major Realm lists, why isn't the same level of safety extended to those spells (Depression & Disruption, in addition to these several Paladin spells) as was extended to the Major Elemental?
Is this a statement of specific design intent? (Not just GM Viduus talking about his own viewpoint, but overarching game design by the team.) That semi (AoE specifically) spells are intended to be dangerous to passersby?
Cone used to be PC-lethal, until it (wisely) got changed, after many millions of murder fines. (Ask Dartaghan or Starsnuffer--both Chairmen of respected Houses...--about how much they owed after screwing up some Mass Guards.)
Firestorm got taken away from PCs entirely, moved to the Arcane list where we have to at least find a trinket to trigger it.
.
Since the Semi spell lists have been deemed to be & described as being at the same level of power as the Major Realm lists, why isn't the same level of safety extended to those spells (Depression & Disruption, in addition to these several Paladin spells) as was extended to the Major Elemental?
BRANDTJRT
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/21/2018 09:41 PM CDT
>>Cone used to be PC-lethal, until it (wisely) got changed, after many millions of murder fines
It still is if not using the friendly version with evoke (or vice versa, can't remember which is which). It makes sense to me that the Paladin spells could be set up the same way as 518 or 335, etc?
_ _ _
Myasara says, "Raining rocks down on my city was not the best course of action."
- - -
Nishima put a group of five partially frozen corpses in the Nishima disk.
Several frozen limbs peek out of the disk in a macabre fashion.
It still is if not using the friendly version with evoke (or vice versa, can't remember which is which). It makes sense to me that the Paladin spells could be set up the same way as 518 or 335, etc?
_ _ _
Myasara says, "Raining rocks down on my city was not the best course of action."
- - -
Nishima put a group of five partially frozen corpses in the Nishima disk.
Several frozen limbs peek out of the disk in a macabre fashion.
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/22/2018 05:28 AM CDT
Is this a statement of specific design intent? (Not just GM Viduus talking about his own viewpoint, but overarching game design by the team.) That semi (AoE specifically) spells are intended to be dangerous to passersby?
Mostly personal observation of precedence with a few informal conversations mixed in. Most all semi and minor spells are configured to be more dangerous to ungrouped people. Most all pure aoe spells have some kind of built-in option to improve safety to those not grouped.
I'm not saying it can't change, but given the precedence I wouldn't get my hopes up. In the case of 1630 and 1650, specifically, my conversations in the past have clearly indicated it's choice. Actually 1630 is safer to use because it's instant vs nature's fury's dot, even though rangers are more magic inclined, so it's an even harder sell.
Viduus
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/22/2018 05:37 AM CDT
Respectfully, I'd like to think that by design that Judgement and onslaught were meant to be used effectively against creatures and not indirectly target players. Just from a paladin / deity point of view... would the Arkati really want to target players with the divine magic?
I mean.. damned if we use it, damned if we don't. Sometimes I half expect somebody to throw a report or say we violated pvp policy or such though Judgement and Onslaught weren't intended to touch those players but to clear the bandits / the invading creatures / etc. Could this please at least get talked about or looked into instead of just making their lives/deeds in our hands when it really it shouldn't be that way?
The design forces you to show restraint on these spells in crowded areas. That is a desired balance point. I'm doubtful that balance point will ever go away, but alternatives for accomplishing the same restriction without the deadly effects might be on the table. What I mean by that, 1614 doesn't kill passersby, it just applies a debuff, like ewave. It's enough of a negative to make you reconsider casting it with abandon.
If a suitable penalty were available for safer variations of aoe spells (evoke with less targets for example), then it might be something that could be sold. In the case of onslaught, it would probably require something along the level of the ability to fail and cost energy when you hit a player though.
Viduus
I mean.. damned if we use it, damned if we don't. Sometimes I half expect somebody to throw a report or say we violated pvp policy or such though Judgement and Onslaught weren't intended to touch those players but to clear the bandits / the invading creatures / etc. Could this please at least get talked about or looked into instead of just making their lives/deeds in our hands when it really it shouldn't be that way?
The design forces you to show restraint on these spells in crowded areas. That is a desired balance point. I'm doubtful that balance point will ever go away, but alternatives for accomplishing the same restriction without the deadly effects might be on the table. What I mean by that, 1614 doesn't kill passersby, it just applies a debuff, like ewave. It's enough of a negative to make you reconsider casting it with abandon.
If a suitable penalty were available for safer variations of aoe spells (evoke with less targets for example), then it might be something that could be sold. In the case of onslaught, it would probably require something along the level of the ability to fail and cost energy when you hit a player though.
Viduus
FALAN
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/22/2018 11:23 AM CDT
The whole problem I have with the restraint is you can't force me to group open, let alone force them to join the leader of the main group. Especially when there is a big invasion going on with a room full of bad beasties, is it really right for me to say "* it" and just do it in the name of the greater good? It's both... me as a player and me as a character that has that issue. Unfortunately, there have been a few times where I simply had to cast judgement (specifically) to regain control of the room because of bandits. Some passer-bys just got in the way suddenly though the room was cleared when I had prepped it... That half a second before I casted they entered.. and they dropped like flies. To be fair, I was on an escort quest and already 15 minutes in. If I hadn't, is it right for me to have wasted my time by letting the bandits "win"? Idk. I do my best to give them their deed back shortly or at the very least make sure they get help.. but it really shouldn't be that severe / ugly of a decision to make. The same result would have occurred with onslaught, if not even deadlier to make them not have a chance at all had 1650 been casted already.
I like the idea of the focus or a safer version of the spell even if it means training in lore to unlock it. I could respect that it could have a chance to not be fully safe but that would just encourage to learn more lore to control the spell better. Honestly, I only really care about the 1630 and the onslaught if it came down to it for quality check. Maybe give us the ability to just focus on one target with onslaught and it's what...3 onslaught swings on the same target or just base it off the mstrike ranks and/or certain lore ranks? Maybe give it a base line of 3 percent to always be able to fail and x amount of lore training will let have 97 percent chance to not hit the untargeted players. If you fail it costs x amount of divine energy - but the problem with that is you assume there's energy left. Maybe just make it add an extra minute to the cooldown if that's what it really is going to take to sell a safer version though honestly that saddens me since PvP is usually frowned upon. I'd imagine it wouldn't be that much different on coding it since it would be similar to how mstrike works. You don't see yourself swinging at people that aren't grouping with you with that ability.
So... what will happen should a day come where somebody raises a big stink because they did get killed with onslaught or judgement? Are we suddenly going to lose it or is it going to get nerfed? It's not like we are doing 2k+ damage to a single target with waggling our hands...
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
I like the idea of the focus or a safer version of the spell even if it means training in lore to unlock it. I could respect that it could have a chance to not be fully safe but that would just encourage to learn more lore to control the spell better. Honestly, I only really care about the 1630 and the onslaught if it came down to it for quality check. Maybe give us the ability to just focus on one target with onslaught and it's what...3 onslaught swings on the same target or just base it off the mstrike ranks and/or certain lore ranks? Maybe give it a base line of 3 percent to always be able to fail and x amount of lore training will let have 97 percent chance to not hit the untargeted players. If you fail it costs x amount of divine energy - but the problem with that is you assume there's energy left. Maybe just make it add an extra minute to the cooldown if that's what it really is going to take to sell a safer version though honestly that saddens me since PvP is usually frowned upon. I'd imagine it wouldn't be that much different on coding it since it would be similar to how mstrike works. You don't see yourself swinging at people that aren't grouping with you with that ability.
So... what will happen should a day come where somebody raises a big stink because they did get killed with onslaught or judgement? Are we suddenly going to lose it or is it going to get nerfed? It's not like we are doing 2k+ damage to a single target with waggling our hands...
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
KANDOR
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/22/2018 12:16 PM CDT
Given the amount of bad will we stand to generate hitting other PCs with these spells, I avoid using them whenever possible. Bandit corridors, where I might need them most, are places where rescues can be hard to come by. It's just not worth it. I can die and recover from my own death faster than dealing with the socio-political backlash from a miscast 1630 (or similar) -- even if the other player is understanding.
The way these spells are designed seems anachronic, though. Even if used rarely and with caution, these spells will eventually force two or more players into a confrontation.
The way these spells are designed seems anachronic, though. Even if used rarely and with caution, these spells will eventually force two or more players into a confrontation.
FALAN
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/22/2018 01:53 PM CDT
The way these spells are designed seems anachronic, though. Even if used rarely and with caution, these spells will eventually force two or more players into a confrontation.
That's the biggest reason I'm hoping something gets changed. Somewhat on topic, but a NON SEMI... aka a Pure - wizard specifically... ewaves and hits everybody not in his/her group. So how do they not have control to not hit other players? You can't honestly tell me that spell isn't used as often. Granted, it's not as lethal (except the major ewave) but it does cumuliate RT over and over with each and every cast.. so I can't really buy the "aoe control" bit. It should be working like mstrike where it targets just the NPCs and not the players.
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
That's the biggest reason I'm hoping something gets changed. Somewhat on topic, but a NON SEMI... aka a Pure - wizard specifically... ewaves and hits everybody not in his/her group. So how do they not have control to not hit other players? You can't honestly tell me that spell isn't used as often. Granted, it's not as lethal (except the major ewave) but it does cumuliate RT over and over with each and every cast.. so I can't really buy the "aoe control" bit. It should be working like mstrike where it targets just the NPCs and not the players.
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
KRAKII
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/23/2018 09:55 AM CDT
I agree with the "cast/evoke" choice mentioned up in the thread.
You (GMs in general, not Viduus specifically) want players making choices? The spell should be a 'decision' point for the characters?
- "cast" (what most people think of) is the critter-only 'safe' version, but is at only 90% the damage (-10%) that it is now, for AoE spells.
- "evoke" (new verb added recently [in KrakiiTime©™, so "within the last 6 years or thereabouts"]) which is at +10% damage, but CAN hit PCs who are non-grouped.
THAT's how you make it a decision to be made: putting it in the hands of the CASTER, not in those of the poor bastard who happens to have his "travel" macro walking through the area past the caster for a pico-second.
I disagree that the decision to be made should be "whether or not to cast this mass-effect spell". That's the WHOLE POINT behind mass-effect spells: use them in a crowd. GMs don't want them cast, they should take them out and give other spells ("Your defenses go up a lot while in a crowd", for example, so that we can survive the crowd by living rather than survive it by making them all die).
.
.
And I further disagree that certain professions' spells are inherently less controllable/more dangerous than other spells lists.
Again: put it into the hands of the players & their training. Oddly enough, we already have this convenient series of skills called "Mana Control", lets tie the degree of danger to how well the character can Control Mana.
There are already checks for "seriousness of dedication", for things like Two Weapon (are you fully singled? are you fully doubled?) and so on. Bring it on AoE spells and how well these spells' Mana can be Controlled.
People have talked about spellcasters frequently being a glass cannon (devastating shot, but can't take a hit worth a darn); now they could potentially be loose cannons, as well (likely to go off bang and hurt passersby).
You (GMs in general, not Viduus specifically) want players making choices? The spell should be a 'decision' point for the characters?
- "cast" (what most people think of) is the critter-only 'safe' version, but is at only 90% the damage (-10%) that it is now, for AoE spells.
- "evoke" (new verb added recently [in KrakiiTime©™, so "within the last 6 years or thereabouts"]) which is at +10% damage, but CAN hit PCs who are non-grouped.
THAT's how you make it a decision to be made: putting it in the hands of the CASTER, not in those of the poor bastard who happens to have his "travel" macro walking through the area past the caster for a pico-second.
I disagree that the decision to be made should be "whether or not to cast this mass-effect spell". That's the WHOLE POINT behind mass-effect spells: use them in a crowd. GMs don't want them cast, they should take them out and give other spells ("Your defenses go up a lot while in a crowd", for example, so that we can survive the crowd by living rather than survive it by making them all die).
.
.
And I further disagree that certain professions' spells are inherently less controllable/more dangerous than other spells lists.
Again: put it into the hands of the players & their training. Oddly enough, we already have this convenient series of skills called "Mana Control", lets tie the degree of danger to how well the character can Control Mana.
There are already checks for "seriousness of dedication", for things like Two Weapon (are you fully singled? are you fully doubled?) and so on. Bring it on AoE spells and how well these spells' Mana can be Controlled.
People have talked about spellcasters frequently being a glass cannon (devastating shot, but can't take a hit worth a darn); now they could potentially be loose cannons, as well (likely to go off bang and hurt passersby).
CAVEMANIAC
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/24/2018 07:44 AM CDT
I think without some training investment creating a player friendly version with 90% effectiveness does not create the choice they are going for. However, starting at 50% damage/effectiveness with a chance to train it away (mana control/lore) is a good idea.
KRAKII
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/24/2018 08:21 AM CDT
I was looking at it as more the delta between lethal and not.
(And yes, I'm perfectly alright with the character-lethal one being more powerful than it is/the current baseline: I'm already dealing with Disruption's consequences, which has an extra little kick [15 ranks of ML:Manipulation that gives access to single-target, are instead used to provide damage] in open-cast.)
Paladin spells could even go exactly the same way the Bardic one was done: minimum rank of Lore to allow single-target use (by definition, player-friendly unless you happen to be casting at a PC).
But, yeah. If you want decisions to be made, you put it into the Character Manager, not "do I cast it or not?"
Yes, eventually everyone of that profession who reaches cap will eventually get all of the ranks they need to do it however they want. But that's a long ways down the road.
(And yes, I'm perfectly alright with the character-lethal one being more powerful than it is/the current baseline: I'm already dealing with Disruption's consequences, which has an extra little kick [15 ranks of ML:Manipulation that gives access to single-target, are instead used to provide damage] in open-cast.)
Paladin spells could even go exactly the same way the Bardic one was done: minimum rank of Lore to allow single-target use (by definition, player-friendly unless you happen to be casting at a PC).
But, yeah. If you want decisions to be made, you put it into the Character Manager, not "do I cast it or not?"
Yes, eventually everyone of that profession who reaches cap will eventually get all of the ranks they need to do it however they want. But that's a long ways down the road.
FALAN
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/26/2018 10:39 AM CDT
Well written, Krakii. Hopefully the messages are getting read and not just ignored / pigeon holed.
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
KRAKII
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/26/2018 12:00 PM CDT
So glad you agree!
Now: let's both you & I become GMs, and then we could actually see it done that way... :)
.
.
The point that I'm hoping Viduus (and higher) picks up on is that we already several gates to put decisions behind:
- we (already!) can use different verbs (cast, evoke, channel, charge) that currently do everything from make-mass a single-target spell, to make-single a mass-target spell, to make more powerful (with or without added RT) the effect of the spell...
- we (already!) can get access to different capabilities (bolt vs. CS, single vs. mass) of spells--to include entirely new spells, like minor cold/1709, or minor steam/1707--through Lore trainings...
- we (already!) can get access to additional effects (or greater effects, or more uses of effects) through Mana Control trainings...
Between "use a verb", "require a Lore", and "enable with MC", there's a LOT of ways we could control ALL of this type of spell, beyond just, "Yeah, that's a Semi spell. You're boned. Sucks to be you."
Now: let's both you & I become GMs, and then we could actually see it done that way... :)
.
.
The point that I'm hoping Viduus (and higher) picks up on is that we already several gates to put decisions behind:
- we (already!) can use different verbs (cast, evoke, channel, charge) that currently do everything from make-mass a single-target spell, to make-single a mass-target spell, to make more powerful (with or without added RT) the effect of the spell...
- we (already!) can get access to different capabilities (bolt vs. CS, single vs. mass) of spells--to include entirely new spells, like minor cold/1709, or minor steam/1707--through Lore trainings...
- we (already!) can get access to additional effects (or greater effects, or more uses of effects) through Mana Control trainings...
Between "use a verb", "require a Lore", and "enable with MC", there's a LOT of ways we could control ALL of this type of spell, beyond just, "Yeah, that's a Semi spell. You're boned. Sucks to be you."
FALAN
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/26/2018 01:06 PM CDT
If only.... but I did apply a few times :P
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
FALAN
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/27/2018 10:10 AM CDT
/squish bug
__________________________
- Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet!
* Sevynne just bit the dust!
MENOS
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/27/2018 11:13 AM CDT
I feel that there is at least an argument to be made with respect to 1630. As things stand now, it is unique in often becoming less usable with more lore ranks. A paladin with no summoning ranks will be able to cast it when hunting much more freely as 3 targets are much more common and it always takes critters first. Training in the relevant lore should not make a spell less controlable.
I would like to argue that we should be able to select the number of targets, but that would essentially make it player safe for scripters and more micro intensive for everyone else.
Maybe allow it to be cast with or without the summoning lore effect?
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
I would like to argue that we should be able to select the number of targets, but that would essentially make it player safe for scripters and more micro intensive for everyone else.
Maybe allow it to be cast with or without the summoning lore effect?
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
KRAKII
Re: 1614 / 1630 / 1650 and accidental pvp
07/27/2018 12:12 PM CDT
The GS4 conversion brought this to Bards, too:
- went from single-target Holding Song/1001 and area-effect Mass Hold Song/1008,
to instead
- a single-target Hold Song/1001 with, "You have no choice about affecting more targets because as you train more Songs, it does. Oh, and with higher mana cost to boot, and when there are no more critters in the room to target it will start going after PCs, too."
I have asked--with the ELR and its gift (to Wizards & Sorcerers) of cast/evoke combination to make single-target spells into mass/mass-target spells into single--for that same function to be shared with (several of!) the BardSongs (like Holding [back to single if chosen], Depression [mass to single], Rage [single to mass], Noise [disable spells for JUST that one], and so on)... but as yet, no development love on that front.
- went from single-target Holding Song/1001 and area-effect Mass Hold Song/1008,
to instead
- a single-target Hold Song/1001 with, "You have no choice about affecting more targets because as you train more Songs, it does. Oh, and with higher mana cost to boot, and when there are no more critters in the room to target it will start going after PCs, too."
I have asked--with the ELR and its gift (to Wizards & Sorcerers) of cast/evoke combination to make single-target spells into mass/mass-target spells into single--for that same function to be shared with (several of!) the BardSongs (like Holding [back to single if chosen], Depression [mass to single], Rage [single to mass], Noise [disable spells for JUST that one], and so on)... but as yet, no development love on that front.
