I have two solutions to propose.

1. After removing oneself from a bounty, the next bounty offered would always be something different. The same bounty would not be offered twice after being removed. However, completed bounties could still be offered again. It only makes sense. If you walk in to the Adventure Guild and ask to be removed from an assignment, it would be rather daft to offer you the same job you just quit.

2. Antimana potion: A potion created through alchemy that temporarily transforms your magical essence into anti-mana. The upshot of this is, your magic would then become effective on anti-mana creatures, such as the Vvrael and other magic-immune beings. The catch is, your powers would also become useless on normal creatures. The potion duration would be short, but long enough to complete a single bounty (20 minutes maybe). This would be a logical, balanced, in-character solution to the problem.

~ GtG and minions

I like both of Arietta's suggestions.

-- Robert

"Wyrom isn't interacting with me, I think he is AFK scripting."

<Hard as this might be to imagine Taverkin, possibly not everyone shares the opinion that this was a small oversight in the original coding? Sometimes actual design and intent go into the <design of this game (despite many of your posts on these forums suggesting otherwise).

<I've stated my opinion and suggestions as they relate to this topic so I'm done with this thread with this post. It's certainly not a large issue for me either way but I definitely don't like <the trend of applying the 'Easy button' to games in general these days. It's why many of today's games aren't very interesting to play and why I still continue to play and support Gemstone <after many, many years of play.

I'm not sure I understand how removing a task that cannot be completed due to skill requirements is akin to making the game easier. Is waiting 15 minutes a "challenge"? I'm not trying to be difficult here. I honestly don't understand the resistance, at least based on what you and others are actually saying here. I can guess at some ulterior motives that aren't being mentioned, of course.

<I'm all for convenience, but this isn't just a convenience issue even though you like to paint it with that brush. Is it a reasonable request to bring up for discussion? Of course it is. Is <it an obvious, no brainer, bug fix? I don't think so. Maybe it should be changed and maybe it shouldn't, and maybe the change shouldn't be the first knee-jerk suggestion that is posted. <Hence, the discussion.

I may have missed where anyone has suggested anything other than maintaining the status quo? You claim there's a purpose to giving magic-immune creature tasks to characters with no weapon skill. Could you elaborate on what that purpose might be? I'd like to understand under what circumstances this is a benefit to the game that should be maintained.

~Taverkin

>>And I'm fairly certain that if you went around asking folks to tag along and watch you kill Vvrael destroyers, you'd find at least a few who wouldn't be interested.

Hmm. . . I think I might not have made clear enough the suggestion - specifically to not allow a second (or more) task in sequence of this type. That's what Daid's responding to in his post - the first one can still happen, but not a second or third. I even tried to set it apart by calling it an alternate suggestion. For reference, this is exactly what I said about the suggestion in post 234.

An alternate suggestion might be to simply force the last task completed / turned in being retained, and not offer it again immediately. No more 'two or three times' for any task. Of course, for those who luck out into the gem task two or three times in a row - that suggestion sounds offensive because it affects their game enjoyment.

This has been modified to ignore successful, but limit turned in tasks - which I think is a bit weaker in general, but it has found some support.

>>And I'm fairly certain that if you went around asking folks to tag along and watch you kill Vvrael destroyers, you'd find at least a few who wouldn't be interested.

Yes, but - I think we confused the issue a bit - you would still get all the experience of keeping the other critters off my back (normal hunting mechanics), and if I had invited you along, whether you hit something or no, the grouping should give you a slight bonus if you have no other active bounty. Even without that modest change - you turn in the bounty after I've accepted the group part of it, and you're not waiting 15 minutes. . .are you? But. . .

>>You do realize that if the request were implemented, grouping up for tasks would still be an option, right?

Yep, I think the alternate suggestion I made was simply overlooked. But that (the alternate suggestion) was the suggestion I wanted you to review / acknowledge. After all, you did ask for a suggestion besides grouping, and so I complied.

>>You are making this into a battle between group hunting and solo. Why? I say again: Go ask some pure casters if they'd like to watch you kill destroyers. Then go ask them if they'd like to join you for a task they can participate in. The OP's request does absolutely nothing to detract from group hunting. Again, relevance?

I'm going to leave this one alone until after I'm sure you've caught up on the alternate suggestion side. I'm not turning it into a battle between group and solo - but I am damn sure not interested in making it 'easier to solo' than it is, either. That will be a battle I'd undertake. Still, until we're caught up on the alternate solution, I'll leave the grouping scenario alone to limit confusion.

>>I'm not sure I understand how removing a task that cannot be completed due to skill requirements is akin to making the game easier.

Not specifically my post you were responding to, but I'll weigh in with my opinion, because Robert's points resonate with me significantly (see earlier point about 'easier to solo'.) This game is about strife, not ease. This game is about consequence of decision, not avoidance of decision. This game is about living, not coasting. These each can mean different things to us, the players. To me, however, preventing one from having to decide (for any reason) makes it 'easier' to play. Extend that a bit, preventing one from having to suffer the consequences (which can include time spent) of a decision makes the game easier. I might go as far as to suggest that it would be 'unfair' to warriors to have to draw down against 10 bounty critters where wizards only have to draw down against nine (Daid's slippery slope) and so how would we make it 'fair' again? Right now, anyone can get an 'undesirable' or 'impossible' bounty. Choices exist, decisions get made, benefits and consequences abound. What about that 30th level empath and bandits? Talk about an 'impossible' bounty (remember, I'm leaving grouping out of this discussion, so I'd appreciate your support in that).

>>I may have missed where anyone has suggested anything other than maintaining the status quo?

See above (alternate suggestion, and modifications by GtG).

>>Has the world gone mad?

That's probably the kindest accusation you've leveled at me. ;) Let's revisit this, after we're all caught up on the 'limit' it versus 'do away with it' discussions.

Doug

<Hmm. . . I think I might not have made clear enough the suggestion - specifically to not allow a second (or more) task in sequence of this type. That's what Daid's responding to in his post -
<the first one can still happen, but not a second or third. I even tried to set it apart by calling it an alternate suggestion. For reference, this is exactly what I said about the suggestion <in post 234.

I didn't think you were serious. I mean, cmon Doug. You even pointed out the flaw in this idea yourself! This would only partially resolve the issue, addressing only a single aspect of the problem. Further, it has a fairly significant impact on all creature tasks rather than being localized to the problem area. This seems an awfully convoluted path to a solution, frankly. I have to wonder why you would advance this position over the original request? Does it not more directly address the problem with zero impact on other bounty tasks and with dev resource considerations as the only drawback?

<Yes, but - I think we confused the issue a bit - you would still get all the experience of keeping the other critters off my back (normal hunting mechanics), and if I had invited you along, <whether you hit something or no, the grouping should give you a slight bonus if you have no other active bounty. Even without that modest change - you turn in the bounty after I've accepted <the group part of it, and you're not waiting 15 minutes. . .are you? But. . .

Yes, I'd say it's pretty clear you've confused the issue.

<I'm going to leave this one alone until after I'm sure you've caught up on the alternate suggestion side. I'm not turning it into a battle between group and solo - but I am damn sure not <interested in making it 'easier to solo' than it is, either. That will be a battle I'd undertake. Still, until we're caught up on the alternate solution, I'll leave the grouping scenario <alone to limit confusion.

Help me to understand how the original request makes it easier to solo? You keep saying this, but it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. If anything, the idea would increase opportunities for grouping as a magic immune task will automatically be turned down by any character that is incapable of completing the task and therefore never have the opportunity to be shared with others. Further, it seems to me with regard to the group-up movement, you have bigger fish to fry than Vvrael tasks assigned to casters. No?

<Not specifically my post you were responding to, but I'll weigh in with my opinion, because Robert's points resonate with me significantly (see earlier point about 'easier to solo'.) This <game is about strife, not ease. This game is about consequence of decision, not avoidance of decision. This game is about living, not coasting. These each can mean different things to us, <the players. To me, however, preventing one from having to decide (for any reason) makes it 'easier' to play. Extend that a bit, preventing one from having to suffer the consequences (which <can include time spent) of a decision makes the game easier. I might go as far as to suggest that it would be 'unfair' to warriors to have to draw down against 10 bounty critters where <wizards only have to draw down against nine (Daid's slippery slope) and so how would we make it 'fair' again? Right now, anyone can get an 'undesirable' or 'impossible' bounty. Choices <exist, decisions get made, benefits and consequences abound. What about that 30th level empath and bandits? Talk about an 'impossible' bounty (remember, I'm leaving grouping out of this <discussion, so I'd appreciate your support in that).

Again, this is not a choice. You CAN'T choose to complete this task as a pure with no weapon skill. You can only drop the task. One option. No choice. Unless you consider retiring from adventuring an option, I suppose. But then, the suggestion doesn't preclude this option so even then no choice is being taken away.

And no more slippery slope, please. We can fight future battles at the appropriate time. At this time, let's stick to what is within the scope of the idea being discussed.

~Taverkin



~Taverkin

<Magic immunity is a larger can of worms than it appears. What if I'm a character trained for using fire spells (111, 906, 908); it doesn't seem fair to send me into the Bowels. Although Krag <dwellers are partially magic immune, I found them fairly easy pickings with my sorcerer because Pain worked fine, even if lots of other options (especially for wizards), might not work well.

<It's basically why I think the interest behind this discussion makes sense, but I am arguing it is much much much more complicated than some "simple" fix.


It's only complicated if you broaden the scope. Why complicate it? Do we need to account for all possible variants such as fire-wielding empaths and scroll-wielding warriors? I don't think that we do. But I really don't see the point in assigning tasks to characters who lack the skills to complete them. It's a very small number of tasks that this applies to. There's no need to head down any slippery slopes!

By the way, the thing about non-corp heirloom tasks makes perfect sense to me. I've never understood the point behind non-corp monsters dissipating after their RT is up anyway. That's a weird design and an annoying one!

~Taverkin

>>Yes, I'd say it's pretty clear you've confused the issue.

Yes, I didn't agree with your initial premise, and so it's not anything you wish to spend mental energy on. I get that, now.

>>You CAN'T choose to complete this task as a pure with no weapon skill.

You CAN choose not to do bounties at all (much like the Elf and alchemy). You CAN choose not to accept the task - the entire game is rife with things that cannot be done by one character or profession alone. You CAN choose to spend those agonizing 15 minutes continuing your hunt on a non-bounty basis, as you had for years and years. And you CAN choose to train in weapons, especially where you are in Taverkin's training, to offset this, so you CAN choose to walk the path allowing you to accept the task. You CAN choose to grow in that regard (the training), perhaps setting something else aside to do so. We each of us have these choices. Choices, choices. Again, I understand that this is not your solution, and so you will brook no discussion of it.

>>Help me to understand how the original request makes it easier to solo?

Nope. I perceive that you desire no real assistance with this, you seemingly have decided a path and appear to have no open mind to any other possibilities. I really regret feeling that way, because it is the only real reason to have any dialog at all. You seemingly will brook no discussion short of simply doing away with this type of task. I'm opposed.

>>At this time, let's stick to what is within the scope of the idea being discussed.

With you and your point in this matter pertaining to magic immune creatures, I agree to this at this time. It's sad, really, because it simply means we're done discussing and any potential solution will be bereft of our mutual knowledge and skill. But, we each have our choices to make.

I am opposed to your suggested change, as much as I would like to see something done. The importance of choice is a critical one that I will not see diminished, as your suggestion would tend towards. I will offer no counter suggestions to you, and no further justifications to trouble you with or confuse what you see as the solution. This isn't status quo, I'm suggesting changes myself - but bark along that line to your heart's content. Choice leads to consequence, and the consequence here is I no longer have anything to say in response to your position on this matter than -- no, that's not a solution I believe works.

Doug

(Emphasis mine)

<<Hmm. . . I think I might not have made clear enough the suggestion - specifically to not allow a second (or more) task in sequence of this type. That's what Daid's responding to in his post -
<the first one can still happen, but not a second or third. I even tried to set it apart by calling it an alternate suggestion. For reference, this is exactly what I said about the suggestion <in post 234.

<I didn't think you were serious. I mean, cmon Doug. You even pointed out the flaw in this idea yourself! This would only partially resolve the issue, addressing only a single aspect of the problem. Further, it has a fairly significant impact on all creature tasks rather than being localized to the problem area. This seems an awfully convoluted path to a solution, frankly. I have to wonder why you would advance this position over the original request? Does it not more directly address the problem with zero impact on other bounty tasks and with dev resource considerations as the only drawback?

Here I emphasize my point all along. I do agree that the OP's example here is an extreme case with what may be perceived as a task that is difficult to complete.

>1. After removing oneself from a bounty, the next bounty offered would always be something different. The same bounty would not be offered twice after being removed. However, completed bounties could still be offered again. It only makes sense. If you walk in to the Adventure Guild and ask to be removed from an assignment, it would be rather daft to offer you the same job you just quit.

I agree in some sense about this. But keep in mind I stipulate it is the same exact task, and not, say, the same type of task for a different creature, nor a different task for the same type of creature. This solution is okay as I said, but mostly irrelevant since it's already statistically unlikely. But I take a vastly different concept of partially resolving an issue. The professional guilds can also assign you the same task in a row after turning one down. An empath designed for healing may find that any creature-related bounties cannot be accomplished with their training path. Lots of other examples can be imagined here (I hope! Several have been named...and we keep naming more examples). That's why I keep playing devil's advocate: because the initial scope of this discussion is far too narrow for it to deserve the guilds to be changed.

Coming along and changing the way tasks related to some professions for one creature type (or several, but there's just a handful) also would appear to only "partially resolve the issue, addressing a single aspect of the problem"! The "problem" here is the guild can assign tasks which are perceived as difficult to impossible to complete (though I'm not 100% sure it is a problem, but I'm quoting).

Sorcerers may also be mainly pures, but perhaps using an animate would be a good way to accomplish this task. Again note the emphasis on some professions. How do we distinguish a sorcerer from a wizard, neither of who have weapon training skill, and one which has some means to accomplish the task solo?

>2. Antimana potion: A potion created through alchemy that temporarily transforms your magical essence into anti-mana. The upshot of this is, your magic would then become effective on anti-mana creatures, such as the Vvrael and other magic-immune beings. The catch is, your powers would also become useless on normal creatures. The potion duration would be short, but long enough to complete a single bounty (20 minutes maybe). This would be a logical, balanced, in-character solution to the problem.

This type of solution seems to be more appropriate to the problem I perceive (which is that a pure-trained wizard finds it impossible to harm these kinds of creatures).

---

Check out who's dying any time! https://twitter.com/GSIVDeathLog

>Daid: Pretty sure you have a whole big bucket as your penny jar. You never have only two cents. :p

Ahh, timing is everything. I saw those posts after I put up my response, and actually thought of removing some or all of my previous post, but no - I chose to leave it as it was, and unaltered.

>>You may have missed where I supported a variation on your suggestion.

I didn't miss it. I didn't claim it as a variation of my idea because it's unclear if GtG came up with it independently (great minds) or if GtG tweaked the previous idea. Either way, I don't 'own' the concept based on the way I work. Ideas should be hashed out, challenged, torn apart and rebuilt. They're the stronger for it.

In truth, I'm not completely sure how I feel about GtG's first suggestion. I am strongly inclined to support it (of course!) - but statistical theory holds many concepts about removing the lower end of any curve. I'm not sure of the implications, yet. Still, the idea is a good one to consider! And thank you, Taverkin, for recognizing the idea GtG placed.

I hope my position on GtG's second suggestion is clear, but if not, will be happy to expand.

>>But I don't see how any of it applies specifically to this proposal.

I understand.

>>It does apply to many of the "slippery slope" hypotheticals that have been presented in this thread, but those aren't part of this particular suggestion.

I disagree, and feel it does apply. Daid's thought is it very eloquently placed, in my view, as a major factor in why I feel it applies.

>>Somehow I doubt it.

I'd sincerely (yes, I mean sincerely) appreciate us not obfuscating the discussion with speculation about non-existent situations. It will, I feel, only end badly given where we are.

Doug

Daid said: <<<I agree in some sense about this. But keep in mind I stipulate it is the same exact task, and not, say, the same type of task for a different creature, nor a different task for the same type of creature.>>>

I totally agree.

Doug said: <<<I didn't claim it as a variation of my idea because it's unclear if GtG came up with it independently (great minds) or if GtG tweaked the previous idea.>>>

It was a tweak. Somebody mentioned a potential issue where people who enjoy certain types of tasks wouldn't have the possibility of getting them twice in a row. I merely adjusted the idea to address this.

(To all:) Granted, I don't believe this would be a total solution to the issue at hand. But it seems like a reasonable change to the system that would benefit many, yet have few, if any, major repercussions.

I think my "anti-mana" potion is a better, more complete solution to the specific problem at hand, not only for wizards, but for any pure spell-casting builds.

~ GtG

I never imagined this kind of response that a post of frustration dealing with Magic Immune creatures would create. I however think it's been quite well discussed.

I Understand what you are saying about group hunting Doug, but in plat we have a limited amount of people, that might work in prime but not in plat, and my char hunts with her husband who is a cleric, two magic immune pure casters. Further more even if he could hit the Warlocks or Witches it would do my char zero good, you actually have to hit the creature to receive the bounty points for it's demise.

<There's also the huge realism factor here. The more people that dislike a task, the more it should be assigned from a practical in-game standpoint. Maybe the guild is hinting that a capped wizard learn how to use Haste, because the sorcerers, clerics, and empaths are already turning these down and even more poorly equipped. (I'm not trying to insist this is necessary for training, just musing.)>

I was not speaking of a task I despise, there are tasks that I despise like an escort from Vaalor to Icemule and I turn those down. I have not asked to have those looked at. That is a personal preference to do or not to do.

What I am speaking of is assigning a task to a pure that has no chance of completing the task due to the creatures design. I am not against doing the task I would gladly take it if I was able to complete it. In other words killing witches, warlocks or destroyers in the rift is not a personal preference not to take but an inability to complete. I will leave constructs out, because as you said Doug, you can take a weapon wielder with you to disrupt their anti-magic shield, which I have done and have hunted and completed construct tasks successfully. I however do not have that ability to do so with magic immune critters.

I am also not whining about turning down a task, what I am whining about is having the same type critter assigned multiple times in a row, to a profession that has no chance of completing the given task.

I stand by what I said before, if you have no weapon training you should not be assigned tasks to magic immune critters, same as you are not assigned skinning tasks if you have ZERO skinning skill.



You also see the Shilarra disk etched with the image of a Vathor

"I stand by what I said before, if you have no weapon training you should not be assigned tasks to magic immune critters, same as you are not assigned skinning tasks if you have ZERO skinning skill." -- WinterMyst

Also note that there is an actual difference in scale to these.
- One, you do not get the skinning task AT ALL. Not for kobolds, not for storm giants, not for lesser vruul.
- The other, you continue to get culling (or grizzled, or whatnot) tasks just not for specific creatures.

While I agree that it certainly could be done, it is an entirely different level of coding.

It also provides a degree of granular control over the Guild Tasks that I am uncertain should be in the hands of players.

.

But I'll repeat my previous stipulation: I'm alright with adding more avoidance checks, so long as it does NOT become possible for a person to avoid all-but-one (the single juicy one that they really like).

"Only" took me two hours, but I have moved much of this discussion here: http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Organizations%20and%20Societies/Adventurers%20Guild/thread/1710856

Feel free to continue any discussion here as you like (I'm sure I'll keep reading), but as I said in my previous post, I'm happy to ride the slippery slope with a sled, if it's macroscopic!

---

Check out who's dying any time! https://twitter.com/GSIVDeathLog

>Daid: Pretty sure you have a whole big bucket as your penny jar. You never have only two cents. :p