Changes to Defensive Spells

Started by Sephiroto, October 22, 2008, 12:33:19 PM

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 All
User actions
October 22, 2008, 02:04:25 PM #25
Quote from: Sephiroto on October 22, 2008, 01:38:22 PM
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.
Welcome all to curtain call
At the opera
Raging voices in my mind
Rise above the orchestra
Like a crescendo of gratitude
October 22, 2008, 02:08:58 PM #26
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.
October 22, 2008, 04:35:29 PM #27
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.
Quote from: H. L.  MenckenEvery normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
October 22, 2008, 04:40:56 PM #28
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...)
October 22, 2008, 05:10:24 PM #29
Quote from: JustAnotherGuy on October 22, 2008, 04:40:56 PM

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.
Quote from: Twilight on January 22, 2013, 08:17:47 PMGreb - To scavenge, forage, and if Whira is with you, loot the dead.
Grebber - One who grebs.
October 22, 2008, 05:15:44 PM #30
Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 22, 2008, 05:10:24 PM
Quote from: JustAnotherGuy on October 22, 2008, 04:40:56 PM

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.
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."

--Alan Moore
October 22, 2008, 06:16:33 PM #31
Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on October 22, 2008, 05:15:44 PM
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.
October 29, 2008, 11:59:42 AM #32
Disengage?

And yes, the spells are defensive in nature too.  Find out IC!
Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: SmuzI come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: VanthSynthesis, you scare me a little bit.
October 30, 2008, 01:26:03 AM #33
QuoteWe 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.
October 30, 2008, 03:19:07 AM #34
Quote from: najdorf on October 30, 2008, 01:26:03 AM
QuoteWe 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.
Was there no safety? No learning by heart of the ways of the world? No guide, no shelter, but all was miracle and leaping from the pinnacle of a tower into the air?

Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse
November 13, 2008, 04:06:14 AM #35
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
She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together. --J.D. Salinger
November 13, 2008, 02:10:43 PM #36
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.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 All
User actions