Change Opponent Change (specify opponent?)

[maxid]

There are already some IG workarounds for this that aren't hard at all to figure out-- most have been listed already.

Or how about streamlining the process for more realistic Rp opportunities?  That's also fun.  Especially when the workarounds are imperfect.

[Synthesis]

If you only turned auto-attack off for mass effect spells, a mage with such a spell could conceivably annihilate an entire room full of PCs before anyone could respond.  As opposed to now, where he'll get instantly gang-banged into a pulp, unless he's really the sort of badass who deserves to be able to nuke an entire room full of PCs.

I think that's fair.  If you're a 50+ day warrior-mage who's maximally prepared, it's acceptable that you could utterly destroy an entire hunting party.  It is not acceptable if you're a 10 day mage who's done nothing but spam-cast his way to mon Fart of Doom and happens to have full mana, a fast internet connection, and a good macro.  Hell, even now, relatively newbish  mages can get away with some pretty ridiculous powerful stuff.

Of course, if there were a coded intra-room grid, you could recode area-affect spells to only affect a particular set of grid-spaces around a target instead of an entire room, which would leave your buddies safe as long as they weren't in the zone of effect.  (Hell, as long as we're throwing out wild ideas, I might as well get the intra-room grid in there, right?)

[maxid]

There are some severe lags between the typing of cast 'mon un fart of doom' the echo of a spell starting, and the effect of the spell.  For it to happen enough times to kill an entire hunting party, they'd have to be almost entirely afk, in order to not be able to type kill sdesc, and get some hits in.

[X-D]

There are some severe lags between the typing of cast 'mon un fart of doom' the echo of a spell starting, and the effect of the spell.  For it to happen enough times to kill an entire hunting party, they'd have to be almost entirely afk, in order to not be able to type kill sdesc, and get some hits in.

Entirely untrue. GDB rules prevent going farther on that though.

And, it's not so much that people don't know how to play scary mages (well, it somewhat is, the people who have been playing for a while, and have some mages under their belt are able to use their ooc knowledge of the mechanics to buff their mages faster than newb mages, but that's another thing entirely) it's that pcs break out of the game world, and strut around/outright hunt groups of mages alone, and the code gives common people certain advantages.

Playing a scary mage has nothing at all to do with code.

Playing a powerhouse mage takes no real mage experiance, My very first PC was a mage and arguably one of the scariest things to hit the game. Player OOC knowledge had nothing really to do with it. Since I had none. Common sense had a lot to do with it.

Break out of the game world? Huh? So the fully maxed and beyond warrior/sorcerer with 100 days of play is "breaking out of the game world" if he hunts a small group of elementalists alone? Wait now, is that not what Tek and Muk and others have done?

So, you're against a code that allows for people to logically, icly decide not to hit a specific person, but not against a code already in place, under nosave combat?

Correct, I believe that even in the confusion of combat and magick fire, smoke pain, screams dust and blood that it is possible somebody could decide to not fight at all, far more realistic then thinking somebody is going to have perfect senses and control while in combat surrounded by screams, smoke, fire, blood pain etc etc etc.

[maxid]

Entirely untrue. GDB rules prevent going farther on that though.

Yes, it is possible for an uber mage to be able to cast quickly.  This fits into your belief that an ubermage SHOULD be able to do this.

Playing a scary mage has nothing at all to do with code.

Playing a powerhouse mage takes no real mage experiance, My very first PC was a mage and arguably one of the scariest things to hit the game. Player OOC knowledge had nothing really to do with it. Since I had none. Common sense had a lot to do with it.

Your one-time, unprovable, entirely anecdotal evidence, when you played your first magicker several years ago doesn't really do anything except muddy the water on this discussion.

Break out of the game world? Huh? So the fully maxed and beyond warrior/sorcerer with 100 days of play is "breaking out of the game world" if he hunts a small group of elementalists alone? Wait now, is that not what Tek and Muk and others have done?

No, that would be perfectly fine.  However, a lone mundane raider, or a group or 2-3 mundane people tracking down and systematically killing magickers with little to no fear is entirely unrealistic, according to the docs.

Correct, I believe that even in the confusion of combat and magick fire, smoke pain, screams dust and blood that it is possible somebody could decide to not fight at all, far more realistic then thinking somebody is going to have perfect senses and control while in combat surrounded by screams, smoke, fire, blood pain etc etc etc.

I'm ok with this.  Which is why I am ok with there being no autoattack on roomeffect spells.

Also, there are some (more than 2) room effect spells that wouldn't leave any residue in the room, to confuse attackers, what about them?

[X-D]

Your one-time, unprovable, entirely anecdotal evidence, when you played your first magicker several years ago doesn't really do anything except muddy the water on this discussion.

Oh, it is quite provable...assuming the lone remaining staffer from the time remembered. And of course it was one time, you can only be a newb one time. And it does not muddy the waters it goes straight to your just as unporvable and incorrect point that to make a powerhouse mage you must have this vast store of OOC game knowledge.

No, that would be perfectly fine.  However, a lone mundane raider, or a group or 2-3 mundane people tracking down and systematically killing magickers with little to no fear is entirely unrealistic, according to the docs.

True enough, if it ever happened. Not something I have seen though. And how exactly do you know they are lone and mundane?

Also, there are some (more than 2) room effect spells that wouldn't leave any residue in the room, to confuse attackers, what about them?

Attack spells? No, there are none that wouldn't...but again, we are hedging deeply into being against the rules on speaking of such things on the GDB.

[maxid]

Oh, it is quite provable...assuming the lone remaining staffer from the time remembered. And of course it was one time, you can only be a newb one time. And it does not muddy the waters it goes straight to your just as unporvable and incorrect point that to make a powerhouse mage you must have this vast store of OOC game knowledge.

My point was only that vast OOC knowledge assists in the playing of a mage.  This is not unprovable, it's common sense.

True enough, if it ever happened. Not something I have seen though. And how exactly do you know they are lone and mundane?

It happens, often.  And I know because of various IC times when the idea has been suggested, by other mundanes, who shrugged when my character looked horrified, and went on to do it anyway.  As well as other, far more IC sensitive ways.

Attack spells? No, there are none that wouldn't...but again, we are hedging deeply into being against the rules on speaking of such things on the GDB.

Then you haven't played that many magickers.  There are, for a /fact/ at least 2 that wouldn't leave residue.  Disorientation, perhaps, but no residue, making you unable to see who you are attacking.

[X-D]

Heh, so, those two would not leave smoke, fire or dust? Um...no. They would.

[maxid]

I'm not going to have a 3rd grade argument with you.  You are incorrect, if you'd like to figure out how..

Find out IC.

[Delstro]

Well, maybe there is a problem with room affecting spells?

What if instead of them affecting the whole room, they were limited to say... the first three people at level one, four at two, six at three, etc...?

[maxid]

How would you decide who are the 'first three' etc?

[Delstro]

From the bottom, or top of the list.

Considering the top is going to be closer to you than the back, for the most part.

[maxid]

From the bottom, or top of the list.

Considering the top is going to be closer to you than the back, for the most part.

By what logic?  I could be almost a league away from someone in the wild, but less than 2 feet from them in an apartment, depending on the size of the room.

[Qzzrbl]

There are already some IG workarounds for this that aren't hard at all to figure out-- most have been listed already.

Or how about streamlining the process for more realistic Rp opportunities?  That's also fun.  Especially when the workarounds are imperfect.

Or we could just leave it as it is and use the simple workarounds for situations like this that don't happen all that often at all.....

If were a truly -realistic- "rp opportunity", one that calls for you do potentially blow a friend to smithereens, you'd probably let him know first, or ask him to leave the room or something.

It's not exactly realistic to say, "Hey, sit there and take this room-affecting magical attack that may or may not kill you.... But don't swing back at me, kay?"

And I certainly hope this buddy of yours isn't mundane-- 'cause it's stuff like the scenario above that desensitizes people to the scaryness of magick in the first place.

::Edited to add:: I'm really not trying to be difficult or argumentative.... It's just there's stuff you can do currently in the game to prevent being attacked.

Nosave combat for one.

It keeps your buddies from attacking you when you attack them. That's why nosave combat was implemented in the first place. 

[jstorrie]

+1 vote from jstorrie on 'change area-of-effect spells to not trigger autoattack.' I think single-target spells and ranged combat should stay as is for reasons of balance, though.

[jstorrie]

Your one-time, unprovable, entirely anecdotal evidence, when you played your first magicker several years ago doesn't really do anything except muddy the water on this discussion.

Trust me, maxid: you're the only one here who doesn't believe him.

[Synthesis]

+1 vote from jstorrie on 'change area-of-effect spells to not trigger autoattack.' I think single-target spells and ranged combat should stay as is for reasons of balance, though.

Balance? So...it's okay for the area effect spell that can inflict literally infinitely more damage than a single targeted spell to be free from the auto-attack consequence, but not the single targeted spell?

If we were balancing things, it would be exactly the opposite.  I.e. the spell with the greater potential for wreaking havoc would have the more deadly consequences to the caster.

I forgot about 'nosave combat' earlier.  With the combination of 'nosave combat' and 'disengage,' I really don't see what the problem is.

All you have to do is:

> ooc nosave combat on real quick bro, shit is about to get real

> cast 'mon un like a boss'

> disengage

[X-D]

Specially since disengage, nosave and mercy are all zero delay commands.

[Majikal]

When discussing room spells etc you also got to take into account mounts as well. When it starts raining balls of flaming shit or frogs your beetle might be a bit pissy etc, I'd dislike the idea of some mage riding around on their mount doing the nasty things they can do with their beasts just shrugging it off. There are IG workarounds, auto-attack may not always be the most ic reaction to any of these but that's what nosave combat and disengage are for.

Mages are like wet paper? That makes me giggle.

[Cutthroat]

I would rather see staff go through all the attacks and spells that are possible and set them as either 'ranged' or 'melee'. Melee attacks and spells would initiate auto-attack, provided nosave combat is off. Ranged attacks and spells would not initiate auto-attack with PCs, and NPCs will experience a short delay before they start to attack.

This makes sense for the (I hope) obvious reason - it is very convenient to start attacking someone who is right in front of you, and you should be locked into battle with someone who is attacking you in close range (i.e., have to flee). But you the player should have to tell your character to start attacking someone who is theoretically far away (kill person, or run, <direction>).

[Synthesis]

I would rather see staff go through all the attacks and spells that are possible and set them as either 'ranged' or 'melee'. Melee attacks and spells would initiate auto-attack, provided nosave combat is off. Ranged attacks and spells would not initiate auto-attack with PCs, and NPCs will experience a short delay before they start to attack.

This makes sense for the (I hope) obvious reason - it is very convenient to start attacking someone who is right in front of you, and you should be locked into battle with someone who is attacking you in close range (i.e., have to flee). But you the player should have to tell your character to start attacking someone who is theoretically far away (kill person, or run, <direction>).

This would pretty drastically affect the balance of power (such as it is) in favor of mages.  Do you really think they need to be any scarier?

[X-D]

This would pretty drastically affect the balance of power (such as it is) in EPIC favor of mages.  Do you really think they need to be any scarier?

[Delstro]

I really don't see how a magicker can affect an entire room, but that is another discussion.

[Cutthroat]

In my opinion, it would allow someone targeted by a mage to escape a lot more easily. But I'm not particularly invested in this discussion in either direction.

[Synthesis]

In my opinion, it would allow someone targeted by a mage to escape a lot more easily. But I'm not particularly invested in this discussion in either direction.

It would make it a -little- easier, not a lot.  In my experience, getting away from an aggressor is already quite easy.  Not going to change the equation much, there.