Changes to Defensive Spells

[Sephiroto]

While we're all boiling over the changes to barrier, we might as well consider revise combat for characters who have defensive spells active.  It's not right for them to be able to walk in and hit you to initiate combat so that the defensive attributes of their spells affect the person they're attacking unless the defensive attributes of the spell effect can not be seen with the naked eye. 

If someone enters the area and I can look at them and tell that they are a magicker because they have magick stuff all around them, I'm more likely to run than to try to kill them because they slapped at me or half-assed swung some obsidian longsword at me.

This totally fictitious example should explain what I mean:

The dude with swords swirling around him arrives from the west. 

You think: "Oh shit!  Run!" 

The dude with swords swirling around him walks up to you and hits you. 

You hit him back.  Bam!  His swords cut your hand off. 

You think: "Aaah!  I didn't even want to hit you!"

[NoteworthyFellow]

I don't think this is a problem with the way defensive spells work as much as it is a function of the way combat works.

If you want to look at it "logically," though, and using your current example, the man with the swords swirling around him had to get close enough to hit you, so logically, you're already close enough to have been hit by the swords.  That's how I'd RP it in this scenario: maybe you didn't really want to hit him back, but he got so close that the swords hit you, not vice-versa.  This makes a little more sense with a couple of the actual examples of this sort of spell, but I won't give any specifics--I gather you'll know what I mean.

[Sephiroto]

Yeah, I know.  I just meant to point out that presently there's a lot of room for code abuse by having magickers purposefully initiate combat with other players and injuring or killing them with -defensive- spells.  That's lame.

[Nusku]

There are probably a number of ways in which we could change this. Off the top of my head:

- We could make it so that PCs don't automatically fight back when engaged in combat. You would have to actually type "kill/hit" in order to engage your own character in the fight. Downside: If you get attacked and you're afk or disconnected or something, you won't fight back.

- We could add a flag that you can set that determines whether or not you want to auto-engage in combat. If you have "nofight" or whatever set, you would have to type "kill/hit" in order to engage yourself in combat. Downside: same as above, if you have your flag set. This is probably a better idea than the above, since people can set it to their preference, but would anyone use it?

- If you don't want to fight back you can use the disengage or flee command. Yes, there's a possibility you'll throw a hit or two before you get the command in, but it gives you full control over your reaction a second or two after the fight begins.

I suppose a conditional "don't-fight-back-if-opponent-is-using-Super-Suit-of-Swords(tm)" flag is possible, but not really practical. What are some other suggestions on how you would change your proposed scenario around?

[musashi]

While I have utterly no experience with magick in the game of any kind, I agree with NF that in-game, the way that would play out in my head is that they just got close enough for their "defensive" spell to start kicking my ass.

In in-game terms ... I would actually go so far as to look at that magick as offensive, not defensive, regardless of the way it appears in a coded sense. I mean to say ... to my character, if a mage can summon up an aura of fire that wraps around them and lashes out at anything they will it to so long as they're close enough ... that sounds like some pretty offensive magick.

[musashi]

- We could add a flag that you can set that determines whether or not you want to auto-engage in combat. If you have "nofight" or whatever set, you would have to type "kill/hit" in order to engage yourself in combat. Downside: same as above, if you have your flag set. This is probably a better idea than the above, since people can set it to their preference, but would anyone use it?

Would anyone use it to avoid a magicker with a suit of swords flying around him? I would think probably not ... would anyone use it in other less "I got ambushed" type situations? Oh hell yes! As has been stated in the past, being able to ... I dunno ... as a Byn Sergeant just block the young private's clumsy strikes for awhile while you give him pointers before deciding to whack him in the face with your sword would see quite a bit of use I'll wager.

[Fathi]

What are some other suggestions on how you would change your proposed scenario around?

Have certain defensive spells wear off or have a delay before the script is triggered if the person affected by the spell is the one who initiates combat?

To be honest, I have never seen this abused or even heard of it being abused. I'm not sure it warrants being changed on the level of some much more pertinent issues. But you asked for feedback, so there ya go.

[NoteworthyFellow]

- We could add a flag that you can set that determines whether or not you want to auto-engage in combat. If you have "nofight" or whatever set, you would have to type "kill/hit" in order to engage yourself in combat. Downside: same as above, if you have your flag set. This is probably a better idea than the above, since people can set it to their preference, but would anyone use it?

I've often wanted something like that, but you're right, people might not use it enough to warrant its existence.

Perhaps a variant of this, however, maybe a "caution" flag.  There could be various caution levels.  Perhaps at "caution 1," your character won't hit back against law enforcement, templars, that sort of thing, if they initiate combat.  "Caution 2" would extend to anything that is visibly capable of causing you harm--for example, a dude with swords swirling around him.  "Caution 3" might be the extreme example, where you won't ever hit back, but there'd be an advantage to this, I imagine, in that you don't run the risk of incurring a hit delay when you might prefer to flee as fast as possible.

To be honest, I have never seen this abused or even heard of it being abused. I'm not sure it warrants being changed on the level of some much more pertinent issues. But you asked for feedback, so there ya go.

Honestly, though, I agree with this, and I'll add: any magicker types that I know of who can use such defensive spells that cause damage on-touch have much, much more efficient ways to kill someone than tricking them into touching that defensive spell.

[Sephiroto]

LoD lost a character to a defensive spell once before.  Although it was LoD who initiated combat, the same thing would have happened if the person who he attacked had hit him instead.  I see that scenario as potential abuse of defensive spells.  The staff should know what event I'm talking about.

[jhunter]

I don't see any reason for a change. Mainly due to the reasons others have stated. In the situation given it can be explained in a way that makes sense. Also, if they're capable of the "defensive" magick being that dangerous to you, it's likely they're capable of doing much more than that anyway. Lastly, I've never encountered any problem with it from either end.

[musashi]

Again, doesn't that seem like, from a practical standpoint, a very close-range offensive spell rather than a defensive one?

I mean, I would define defensive as (it protects me) and offensive as (it harms you).

Or are you saying it's defensive because it stays up without the need for a specific target?

[Marauder Moe]

Don't these effects represent a hazard of proximity rather than a hazard of violent intent?  Would you expect that if you gave them a hug instead of an attack you should remain unharmed?  (These are rhetorical questions, I'm not looking for an answer.)

If you wish to distance yourself from someone trying to do you harm, there is a command for that.  Otherwise, it seems fair to me that you should endure the dangers of being within arm's reach of them.

[Sephiroto]

I can't adequately answer your question without telling you how the spell works except to suggest that you think of one of Newton's Laws.  The one about equal and opposite reaction.

[jhunter]

LoD lost a character to a defensive spell once before.  Although it was LoD who initiated combat, the same thing would have happened if the person who he attacked had hit him instead.  I see that scenario as potential abuse of defensive spells.  The staff should know what event I'm talking about.

I know what event you're talking about.  Yes, I suppose it is possible. If you're intentions are to get away then you should be gone before they can do that to you anyway. It's much easier to run away from others in this game than it is to pursue others.

[Sephiroto]

So I suppose it's okay if I walk into a room and insta-kill your character too?  I mean, if you see me walking in with all my badness you should just run away too, right?

[jhunter]

Again, doesn't that seem like, from a practical standpoint, a very close-range offensive spell rather than a defensive one?

I mean, I would define defensive as (it protects me) and offensive as (it harms you).

Or are you saying it's defensive because it stays up without the need for a specific target?

I'd say it's defensive because it deters you from being near me. It makes me safer keeping you at a distance and limiting what you can do to harm me. Whether or not it is a danger to you or a shield from you to do it the purpose is the same.

[staggerlee]

LoD lost a character to a defensive spell once before.  Although it was LoD who initiated combat, the same thing would have happened if the person who he attacked had hit him instead.  I see that scenario as potential abuse of defensive spells.  The staff should know what event I'm talking about.

Taking things that aren't an issue and blowing them out of proportion in order to create contention... it's a clever flaming ruse I guess, especially when you can tie it to other posts about changes to  magick code and what is and isn't acceptable to discuss on the gdb.  It makes it really hard to take the issue seriously though.

[jhunter]

So I suppose it's okay if I walk into a room and insta-kill your character too?  I mean, if you see me walking in with all my badness you should just run away too, right?

If I stood there with some flashing magick-surrounding being coming at me and didn't run the fuck away. It's my own fault. I either didn't go with my basic fear of such things or was frozen by my fear of such things. I wouldn't blame the other person if I lost my pc because I didn't choose to flee the area. It's like seeing a mek enter the room with you...you gonna just hang around and see what it wants?

[brytta.leofa]

I'm sorry to be a pest, but I think we've crossed the obliqueness threshold here.

[Sephiroto]

Taking things that aren't an issue and blowing them out of proportion in order to create contention... it's a clever flaming ruse I guess, especially when you can tie it to other posts about changes to  magick code and what is and isn't acceptable to discuss on the gdb.  It makes it really hard to take the issue seriously though.

It's an issue to me.

[FantasyWriter]

LoD lost a character to a defensive spell once before.  Although it was LoD who initiated combat, the same thing would have happened if the person who he attacked had hit him instead.  I see that scenario as potential abuse of defensive spells.  The staff should know what event I'm talking about.

Taking things that aren't an issue and blowing them out of proportion in order to create contention... it's a clever flaming ruse I guess, especially when you can tie it to other posts about changes to  magick code and what is and isn't acceptable to discuss on the gdb.  It makes it really hard to take the issue seriously though.

Having a pretty good idea of the spell he is talking about, I understand the concern, I ALMOST lost a character to it before.
The problem is if using a 'defensive spell' working around the system and forming a offensive tactic using a 'defensive' spell.
Should it be considered OOC? We will never know because we can't talk about spells on the GDB. 
Therefore there is noway of letting future offenders know that it IS or IS NOT considered OOC abuse.


I think it is a perfect example of why we need a way to discuss things that aren't discussable through the GDB.

[jhunter]

The thing is, you have to step back and take a look at it. Is it really OOC in that situation for someone to use it in that fashion? I'd have to say partially yes and partially no. I cover myself in a suit of spikes and charge at you to get you the hell far away from me it makes sense. If I somehow use the code to make you throw yourself on the spikes then no.
My point is, I can see how it can be seen as OOC because of the fact that, if attacked, you will auto-attack right back. I can also see how it is something that can be dealt with because you can just simply get away from them.
I guess, if something were to be done that the only change I can see is make it so that if you go on the attack while (damaging) defensive spells are up it negates the spell. I thinik that non-damaging defensive spells should remain unchanged however.

[NoteworthyFellow]

LoD lost a character to a defensive spell once before.  Although it was LoD who initiated combat, the same thing would have happened if the person who he attacked had hit him instead.  I see that scenario as potential abuse of defensive spells.  The staff should know what event I'm talking about.

Taking things that aren't an issue and blowing them out of proportion in order to create contention... it's a clever flaming ruse I guess, especially when you can tie it to other posts about changes to  magick code and what is and isn't acceptable to discuss on the gdb.  It makes it really hard to take the issue seriously though.

Having a pretty good idea of the spell he is talking about, I understand the concern, I ALMOST lost a character to it before.
The problem is if using a 'defensive spell' working around the system and forming a offensive tactic using a 'defensive' spell.
Should it be considered OOC? We will never know because we can't talk about spells on the GDB. 
Therefore there is noway of letting future offenders know that it IS or IS NOT considered OOC abuse.


I think it is a perfect example of why we need a way to discuss things that aren't discussable through the GDB.

I don't know of the exact spell you're talking about, necessarily, but I'll go back to the original sword-shield example.  I think rushing someone with swords surrounding you is a perfectly valid tactic, if a little direct, dirty, and risky.  Again, I don't think it matters if the target hits back: those damn swords are going to hit you just because the guy is close to you.  Period.  I'm not asking that the code reflect that, but I will say that the way the code currently works can be interpreted to reflect that.

It's only OOC abuse if you find yourself thinking, "If I hit <target>, they'll have to hit me back and die!" and that's the only reason you do it.  I think it's perfectly IC for your character to think, "Look.  I've got swords all around me, and those things are going to cut any motherfucker that get close to them.  So, if I rush up on him, the swords will help me take him down.  This, I can use to my advantage."

[Nyr]

LoD lost a character to a defensive spell once before.  Although it was LoD who initiated combat, the same thing would have happened if the person who he attacked had hit him instead.  I see that scenario as potential abuse of defensive spells.  The staff should know what event I'm talking about.

Taking things that aren't an issue and blowing them out of proportion in order to create contention... it's a clever flaming ruse I guess, especially when you can tie it to other posts about changes to  magick code and what is and isn't acceptable to discuss on the gdb.  It makes it really hard to take the issue seriously though.

Having a pretty good idea of the spell he is talking about, I understand the concern, I ALMOST lost a character to it before.
The problem is if using a 'defensive spell' working around the system and forming a offensive tactic using a 'defensive' spell.
Should it be considered OOC? We will never know because we can't talk about spells on the GDB. 
Therefore there is noway of letting future offenders know that it IS or IS NOT considered OOC abuse.


I think it is a perfect example of why we need a way to discuss things that aren't discussable through the GDB.

Player request > player complaint > I think this guy/gal is abusing this or that/etc and here's why (add logs/evidence/opinions) > submit

It is not the responsibility of players to deal with complaints about players themselves.

[FantasyWriter]

Obvious Clarification:

This thread is not about a spell being OOC or not.

This thread is an example of us not being able to discuss rather a spell is OOC or not.

We have to use vague examples that can't express the true nature of the issue.


Edited to add: Staff can't exactly make a staff announcement that says, " 'Flaming shield of deadly swords' is not suppose to be used offensively, this is OOC abuse of the code."

[Nusku]

So I suppose it's okay if I walk into a room and insta-kill your character too?  I mean, if you see me walking in with all my badness you should just run away too, right?

I most certainly would.

Regarding the situation with LoD: the particular spell in question has evolved some since that incident. If you have a specific suggestion or comment about that spell, or any other specific spell, I suggest emailing mud. You can also email me directly with any concerns, and I will look into them. If you have something that concerns you that you want reviewed, the GDB is not the best communication medium for that. I can't promise that we will necessarily change anything or that you'll necessarily be aware of anything that does change, but I'm perfectly happy to review any magick-related concerns you might have. I have a few myself, I play the game in addition to staffing, and I'm always on the lookout for things that could use improvement to make gameplay better.

But let's try to keep the GDB clear of too much information; that's what email is for, folks.

[Sephiroto]

It's not about our ability to discuss it, Fantasy Writer.  It's about OOC exploitation of defensive abilities by creating that offensive situation.

So like Nyr says we should use player complaints in the request tool if we think someone uses this exploitation on us.  Then maybe some change will happen.

[Mood]

If some sort of 'no-engage' flag was added, I'd like to see the ability to keep a barrier up while being attacked, if you aren't actively fighting back. This would allow players to avoid the problems hinted at in the barrier thread.

[JustAnotherGuy]

I honestly like the idea of a nohit flag, but something more like a total defense flag.  Someone that is using all their effort to be defensive when attacked.

Or...  why not have both? 

Nohit - You don't attack, you don't defend.

Defend - You don't attack, you put all your effort into defending.  (This would be great for the AFK person, but who in their right mind would go AFK where they can be easily attacked? But... that would mean someone would have to be smart...)

[FantasyWriter]

Nohit - You don't attack, you don't defend.

Defend - You don't attack, you put all your effort into defending.  (This would be great for the AFK person, but who in their right mind would go AFK where they can be easily attacked? But... that would mean someone would have to be smart...)

The 'defend' command sounds like a really good idea, it would be very useful IC for trying to RP sparring sessions where one character is drastically superior to the other combat wise.

[NoteworthyFellow]

Nohit - You don't attack, you don't defend.

Defend - You don't attack, you put all your effort into defending.  (This would be great for the AFK person, but who in their right mind would go AFK where they can be easily attacked? But... that would mean someone would have to be smart...)

The 'defend' command sounds like a really good idea, it would be very useful IC for trying to RP sparring sessions where one character is drastically superior to the other combat wise.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  There could be several levels.  Take it all from nohit:

nohit off -- Behaves like it does now: your character will hit back when attacked.
nohit defend -- Your character receives a small bonus to defending as they are putting everything they have into not getting hit.
nohit passive -- Your character will remain completely passive when attacked.

[JustAnotherGuy]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  There could be several levels.  Take it all from nohit:

nohit off -- Behaves like it does now: your character will hit back when attacked.
nohit defend -- Your character receives a small bonus to defending as they are putting everything they have into not getting hit.
nohit passive -- Your character will remain completely passive when attacked.

There we go, I like that formatting.    Glad you guys like, I personally think it would be a great option and something many would use.  Just like you said, great for sparring and the likes.

[Synthesis]

Disengage?

And yes, the spells are defensive in nature too.  Find out IC!

[najdorf]

We could add a flag that you can set that determines whether or not you want to auto-engage in combat. If you have "nofight" or whatever set, you would have to type "kill/hit" in order to engage yourself in combat. Downside: same as above, if you have your flag set. This is probably a better idea than the above, since people can set it to their preference, but would anyone use it?

it will be my favorite flag.

[IntuitiveApathy]

We could add a flag that you can set that determines whether or not you want to auto-engage in combat. If you have "nofight" or whatever set, you would have to type "kill/hit" in order to engage yourself in combat. Downside: same as above, if you have your flag set. This is probably a better idea than the above, since people can set it to their preference, but would anyone use it?

it will be my favorite flag.

I'd use it - I really think there are a lot of potential applications for it.

[Armaddict]

Man, after reading this thread, I just came up with a -totally- cool way to kill other PC's and be able to blame it on them.

/sarcasm

[UnderSeven]

These suggests are kind of crazy.

Nohit and all that seems over the top just to avoid defensive spells.  Let me make a couple modest proposals.

1> If the spell is purely defensive, then should it really work at all when the attack initator is the one with the spell?  Could make it so the spell only works when the magicker is being attacked, but if attacking it doesn't do anything.

2>  What if the spell delays the first time it actually works?  So a magicker typing attack someone is going to have to wait a while, to give the person who is being attacked a chance to decide, do I really wanna fight this guy?  And meanwhile the defensive spell isn't doing anything, that magicker gets hacked up for picking a fight like that which they probably shouldn't have.

I think the above suggestoins would be a perfect 'fix' for this 'problem'.

I use single quotes because I'm widely unaware of whats what here.