Ideas and Improvements thread

Malayn

Ok so after some varied discussion and looking at things we know there are some things to make changes to.  This is a thread for ideas, improvements, and suggestions.  I will, obviously, start.

I will note the reasoning for each change, or explain something if need be below it.  As a note I like this new system for it's simplicity, and give changes trying to fit the scheme as well as make it easier for all parties.

New things first!

* The biggest change.  Affliction weight.

Right now the system is a very direct, do an affliction they gain levels based on the skill, curing removes 1 level.  I propose we change it to giving an affliction every 10 weight, with a skill designed to give 1 affliction causing 10, one causing 2 to give 20 weight, etc. Curing should cure -5- at a time, but herb balance should be 2 seconds, meaning you cure only a little slower than you get afflicted and buying time can help.  Why bother with this?   It allows fine tuning some things, for instance under the current system I have no idea how warriors would work.  Under this you could have each rapier do say 5 to 7 weight based on precision, with puissance and power moves increasing weight being dealt. There is some other reasons for this as well.... which follows!

* Scale to groups.

When multiple people are engaging you scale the amount of damage(s) AND affliction weight being dealt. It still adds up over time but if you do it properly it is not as bad. EX:   At 1 person you take full weight, at 2 you take 80% (160% of one person), at 3 you might take 70% (210% of a single person) and so on, meaning that large groups have motivation to vary their targets a bit.  We have a lot of group combat and the current system will result in incredibly fast ganks at the moment.

* Remove afflictions such as aeon.

Aeon is often its own branch of curing to deal with, and no one really likes being in an aeon lock as they sit and wait for curing to finish.  In groups this affliction is just ridiculous and there are too many sources of it.  Change this afflictions effect or replace with another affliction.  Currently aeon is used to back up curing. Under these revisions we could simply make aeon reduce the weight being cured in a specific tree.

* Put all afflictions in GMCP.

This would mean that anyone who understands GMCP could have all afflictions handled via GMCP.  This includes cloaked afflictions.  Yes, I know that seems to make no sense at all.

Example packets (names may need adjusting for ease):
Char.Affliction { "name": "AuraLevel1",  "weight": 10/50}

Char.Affliction {"source": "Demon"}        Any "unknown" would come up as a source only. 

Optionally Affliction could relay your new total weight instead of weight gained.  This would all include the normal GMCP stuff like being able to request your diagnosis.

* Change skills such as dodging, foresight, timeless body, etc to be a chance to reduce weight in an affliction related.

Skills intended to dodge everything right now would reduce the weight being dealt.  This helps with the suggested dodging nerf so that it works on non damage skills as well!  Timeless body and other affliction shrugging should act in a similar manner.

* Create some unique goals for each guild (i'll explain).

This is the idea of burnable afflictions.  For instance a wiccan might build up an affliction line that currently does mana drain (succumb would effect this chain of course) and then could use another skill to remove the affs from the person and cause a burst of mana drain.  Telepaths might have something along the lines of being able to remove 8 levels of -mental- afflictions from a person to cause 5 levels of a select tree or induce a comatose state (you can see, but your curing becomes questionable at best for curing mana/ego).

* Some of the trees need changing a bit, and we might need a couple more, pending.

Things like reckless as level 1 means it is never cured, aeon would be perma (even if kept, this would be a perma cure penalty).  Some chains are very strong, some are very weak, which we want to regulate a bit!  Along with this some trees might disappear.... hearing I am looking at you and your perma perfectfifth.

* Remove focus.

Balance curing to not require these, they are just more skills people need to enter combat.

* Add a pseudo affliction: Toxicity.

This is given primarily by allheale and builds up over time with a very long cooldown, which it cures itself on.  This allows an emergency button for novices or such, or a higher risk last ditch cure, but with a side effect which is currently up in the air. The mechanic is new and I do not want to suggest a flat out weight reduction, although making you take a little more weight, or suffer more damage, etc could be in order.  Perhaps give guilds a skill to burn the toxicity from you in exchange for a burst off effect, but this causes the issue of using it to cure and then getting reafflicted. 

* Change illusions to require equilibrium and balance and consume equilibrium. 

Illusions are currently a major hurdle for system makers to code for, often requiring heavy coding to ensure they are properly detected and handled.  This would also lower the requirement of having your skill level in "arts" high, which currently helps with illusions protection.

* Considerably scale back stuns and blackouts.

- Stuns like shieldstun tend to just be spammed and make it far too easy to back up curing when they can get 3s+ durations.  Blackout has a similar issue, especially when we have ents doing 8s blackout hits, which was more than enough to insta someone behind in various guilds. I can present a list of skills and changes to move some away from blackout or even just scale them back.  

I might be forgetting some things as it is very early in the morning. I will update if things come up (and post a note about this).  We will need to add the stand alone afflictions to the cure scroll at some point, and that is possible.  If anyone wants/needs me to write up possible trees let me know and I can crank some out.  I have not fully fleshed out EVERYTHING for each class, so some stuff is subject to change.  The goal was to simplify combat, improve access to combat, create a balanced system, and still allowing skilled play.  Call this a first draft.

Enjoy, and bring on feedback, I would love to see changes that work for everyone, as there is some holes to fill with the present version.

(I intentionally am not posting "modified skillsets" as that is a HUGE undertaking ;_;.  If you want to do a pseudo write up of what you might like to see though, I am interested! I am also using a clan to organize information and start gathering people to talk about the overhaul, since I hear very little other than on one clan.)

Ssaliss

I must say I like pretty much all of this. I have to note though, that sending afflictions through GMCP requires the change to illusions to go through, otherwise people using GMCP would have a distinct advantage over those who don't, which should never really be the case.

Rami

Quest NPCs should not be killable. There is nothing more annoying than going through the headache of bashing/questing only to find the NPC related to paying for other corpses or one that completes a quest has been killed. 

Karlach

Disagree that they shouldn't be killed, however I'd like to add a caveat.

I wish they didn't reset progress to zero on respawn. Killing them sure, but when some quests take several hours of progress on one NPC, it's entirely too simple to counter grief.

Rami

It's just extraordinarily annoying, and makes me not even want to attempt it. Quest NPC killing can start chain reactions too. Questor gets to the end of this elaborate quest only to find the last step is suddenly gone, after all that time wasted. In retaliation, the pissed off player returns the favor. 

Personally, I think that it would save a ton of frustration to just make them immortal in a sense. Conflict can be had anywhere and under any circumstance. There are far too many opportunities to engage in conflict other than something as frustrating as this. 

Riluna

Pretty sure that Esty wouldn't even consider making quest npcs unkillable, with the existence of the paranoia mechanic. You'd have to negate 1/5 of influencing to make the intent of that change happen.

I like most of Malarious' ideas, though. Except that I like focus cures, though I'm considering that from the POV of a mana killing class.

And is aeon really that bad, as long as it is curable? I totally agree with the inherent problems if aeon is uncurable/permanent, but is it really necessary to remove it altogether?

Malayn

Quick replies:

- Quests aren't really part of the overhaul, though if you only saw the topic name I suppose that would lead you to assume this is the place to post it!  I agree with Mork, they wont remove killing denizens, but I think timers and such shouldn't reset.

@Riluna: I wouldnt mind focus except if you keep it you have to balance to it being available then affliction rates have to be higher, and not having focus means you can't compete. We could get around this if focus was a really low skill across the board, but it is easier to try not to deal with such things.   Aeon is not super bad, but the problem was stated in another thread:  There are far too many sources of it, where you end up constantly being in aeon and stuns. As a class with aeon you would focus instead of new mechanics allowing you to burn afflictions for effects or simply maintain a mana draining aff (I forget which tree does that right now).  Under the overhaul we could in theory have aeon and sleep be binary affs, but that is a discussion to have at large, and I would daresay that aeon could be its own topic.

Moi

I really do like the change to make affliction weights out of 50 instead of out of 5. GMCP affliction messages, demilitarizing illusions and (re)moving focus are both wonderful ideas as well. I'm not so sure about the allheale change, and the specifics of the dodging and group combat changes should probably wait until the other classes are finished, but overall I like it very much.

Estarra

Affliction weight.

It's an interesting thought but while it may allow for finesse, it seems overly complicated to me. The idea is to simplify.

Scale to groups.

Maybe it's something we can look at later but it would derail us too much right now to consider.

Remove afflictions such as aeon.

Myself and other combatants have often commented that dealing with aeon is a true test of a combatant, especially when passive effects are in a room, which is why we liked room aeons so much, pitting both combatants with the same disadvantage. Anyway, I don't think aeon itself needs to go, though it can move around on the affliction level so it's considered the 'worst' effect.

Put all afflictions in GMCP.

Not something we'll consider at this time.  Maybe in the future.

Change skills such as dodging, foresight, timeless body, etc to be a chance to reduce weight in an affliction related.

Yes, I'm already considering changing dodging so it dodges partial damage rather than all damage/effects. Haven't gotten to consider anything else.

Create some unique goals for each guild (i'll explain).

You're talking about base skill design which is something we do look at.

Some of the trees need changing a bit, and we might need a couple more, pending.

Absolutely make suggestion on tweaks to the affliction trees. Not sure we need to add more but feel free to suggest them. Keep in mind we want to reduce the number of afflictions, not add to them.

Remove focus.

That is something we are considering.

Add a pseudo affliction: Toxicity.

I don't think I understand this.

Change illusions to require equilibrium and balance and consume equilibrium. 

Illusions have their own balance so you can perform an illusion but not one after the other. They are meant to be able to chain to other actions so I think putting them on eq/bal would be too much of a nerf.

Riluna

It's an interesting thought but while it may allow for finesse, it seems overly complicated to me. The idea is to simplify.

Simpler than what we have now is wonderful, but is it your goal to make it simplistic? There's a distinction there that can be made, I think. Things can be simpler than we're dealing with now while still having some complexity. Enough complexity for that finesse of combat retains a lot of the Lusternian feel, I think, while the very nature of the afflictions being organized into these skill trees in this manner does a lot to make things simpler and more approachable.

Lusternia was still complex when it started, and there was clearly something appealing about the system. Do you want to get rid of all/most of it, or do kind of a nip/tuck, @Estarra? Understanding that might help to refine ideas into something you're actually looking for.

Enyalida

Affliction weight/counters becoming part of the system is something that needs to happen, a lot about the realities of the system as it stands now doesn't match up with the stated intent unless a change like that goes through.

EDIT2: I go into the benefits as I see them of a system like this in my post on the other thread here. The only significant difference is that I suggest a bigger range of weights to allow for better pacing and balancing. 

EDIT: And honestly, it doesn't really complicate the system. For newer combatants, it will suffice to know that "This herb cures this track, this attack raises this attack: it may take several hits to gain a high tier effect." Only more experienced combatants will worry about the exact numbers, ratios, and strategies required to really use the system to its limit, which is perfectly alright. Having thing reduced to tracks, and having any given herb only cure a single track, instead of randomly curing an effect out of a great many is a huge simplification already.

Daraius

Non-com here. Feel free to ignore me.

What if only levels 1 3 and 5 of the affliction tree had their own unique effects? Would that give you the breathing room to finesse curing and affliction balances, and let you move some effects to their own trees (more affliction tracks, but not necessarily more afflictions)?

Enyalida

Estarra said:

Scale to groups.

Maybe it's something we can look at later but it would derail us too much right now to consider.

The problem is that once the entire overhaul is coded in, it will be exponentially more work (I think) to go back and patch it to fix groups, and even then it will just be a bandaid solution. As far as I can tell, the Lusternian group combat complaints are the largest and most commonly mentioned gripes related to Lusternian combat, by a long margin. An overhaul like this is an excellent opportunity to fix issues from the ground up!

Add a pseudo affliction: Toxicity.

I don't think I understand this.

Basically, he's proposing a downside to using allheale, to cut down on the number of free/random healing balances available across the board. As you sip allheale, you progress along a unique, time-only cured affliction track, with some penalty for abusing allheale. That way, you can use it to get out of a tight spot, or fix yourself and run if your cures run out, but you can't lean on it too hard, which can break things (like aurics, for instance).

Change illusions to require equilibrium and balance and consume equilibrium. 

Illusions have their own balance so you can perform an illusion but not one after the other. They are meant to be able to chain to other actions so I think putting them on eq/bal would be too much of a nerf.

The intent is to give it a total 'nerf'. That is, nerf it to the point where it is not used in combat at all, turning it into an excellent RP device but removing an unnecessarily frustrating meta-barrier to combat. If you're looking for quick and easy ways to make combat more simple, this is the first stop, and it's a good idea - I'd even say his suggestion doesn't go far enough. 

Estarra

I'm not crazy about the suggestion to 'scale to group' insofar that I think it could be gameable. How do you determine who's a combatant in a room and who isn't? By whoever attacks you? Couldn't you get a few friends to attack you and suddenly you get the benefits and they don't? Does it just count up number of players in a room and applies nerfs to everyone in that room? I'll note that I've suggested ways to narrow group combat before and the response has been unenthusiastic! For those who may gripe about group combat, there are those who rail against changing it so it's not exactly a universal complaint. I've always been of a mind, if multiple people 'gank' you, then it seems logical that you wouldn't stand much of a chance. There is strength in numbers in whatever IRE realm you're in.

I think it's premature to look at allheale now since we haven't even gotten to it in the overhaul yet.

If the point is to give illusions a total nerf so they're not used in combat at all, what would be the point of the skillset? Why would anyone take it? (Other than being an rp skillset.). Would non-illusion skills be enough to stand on their own?

Neos

The base illusions skillset is comprised largely of defenses, while the specializations are focused on more real effects. If I wasn't on a tablet I'd track down a post made by @Lerad that summarises the issue with illusions perfectly. I have 0 issue with basic illusions, improved and programmed illusions to go the way of the dodo on regards to combat use. Abilities should always have a use, they should not work based on random factors that can't be controlled, like whether someone has coded to ignore I or not.

Malayn

In no order:

- Illusions: You would not use active weaving in combat, you could still use claws, phantoms, wounds, etc from the skillset.  It is specifically intended to remove them from the equation and perhaps even make them stopped by not being masochistic.  This way you can use them for RP but not effect systems or combat.

- Allheale: Purely pre-emptive, there are other skills that behave the same way, and some are construct powers even.

- Weight:  I think someone else said it, but you would only really need to track the affliction itself, the specific weight is less influential. 9 weight is not the same as 10, so you have no affliction right now, but someone else hitting will still work.

- Adding trees:  We would move some afflictions to other trees and make trees generally more minor at low levels. Like how the wounding areas have things like bleeding task, bleeding task 2, etc. I like to look at trees as generally meaning severity, not more affs per se.

- Gaming the system: Avechna already tracks this, make it not track those of your own organization.  I would think the simplest method is a timer of say eq/bal used + 1.5s to give you a window to attack again. So people attacking quickly afterward continue to count, but your friend cannot just randomly hit you.  This could also be an issuable offense of course, but ideally we want automated systems that are reliable enough to not need em.  This would be clear abuse of the system though.

- Aeon: Dealing with aeon is not a measure of a combatant, that comes down almost entirely to curing, which you have no control over outside of the triggers set up. No one on M&M deals with aeon any better than anyone else on it, so that does not tell you much about a persons abilities.  If desired it can be kept without breaking too much, but we need less sources of it, because right now it is rampant and alot stops it (though the things that stop it take longer under the new system I think).

- Groups: I think it is a matter of how you handle it. They are the single biggest issue when skills do not check for this.  Check logs of combat for domoths for instance, most of them are just spamming destruction. Before that it was spam haegl as a druid and let wiccans toad. Nothing gets weaker or worse so it takes very little time to kill someone, meaning no one ever really gets to show real skill. Why bother to use my swords when destruction kills in groups 20 times faster?

I aimed for skill based combat without breaking groups.  Weight is more complicated if you want it to be (you are free to track exact weight, or just the aff when gotten).  One key factor was the ability to use afflictions differently between guilds, some can destroy affs to deal more, some use them for damage, others might get a bonus for the target having the aff. Lots of possible options and we do not even have a list of the binary affs (which I wouldn't mind seeing being rolled into other things if that isn't already planned).  Give me a direction and watch me go ^____^ I am an ideas person.

Neos

Here's the post: http://forums.lusternia.com/discussion/comment/18936/#Comment_18936

Moi

Would non-illusion skills be enough to stand on their own?

Absolutely.

Mages already get their elementalism specialization and psionics, runes or dreamweaving. Even if the afflictions given by Phantom, Claws and Mirage are unimpressive (which they probably won't be: mental affliction trees are really good in the overhaul), there's easily enough room in the tertiary and primary skills to ensure that mages remain combat viable.

Currently glamourist bards do not use custom illusions in combat and I do not expect this to change in the overhaul. It looks like they'd be building afflictions in the occular tree and a random second affliction tree based on colour. That seems like it could be viable to me.

Dramaturgist bards are going to need significant changes regardless of what is done with illusions, as over a dozen of their affliction skills are subsumed into 5 affliction trees. Even assuming that the administration just the most simple change possible and lets Dramaturgy scenes do some rate in the Addiction, Delusions, Nerves, Neurosis or Circulation affliction trees and subtext lets you pick a second tree, that could easily be strong enough that dramaturgy bards wouldn't need illusions.

I am fully confident that not only could the game can be balanced without combat illusions existing, but that doing so would be easier than trying to retain combat illusions in the new system.

Samyaza

Have they made any mention of changes to armor, yet? It would be pretty cool to see archetypes that have leather as their "best" option, have it actually be an option.

Synkarin

Malarious said:

- Aeon: Dealing with aeon is not a measure of a combatant, that comes down almost entirely to curing, which you have no control over outside of the triggers set up. No one on M&M deals with aeon any better than anyone else on it, so that does not tell you much about a persons abilities.  If desired it can be kept without breaking too much, but we need less sources of it, because right now it is rampant and alot stops it (though the things that stop it take longer under the new system I think).

This is patently false, with m&m's customization, each person is able to cure aeon to their preferred methods. I'd say the opposite is true, everyone cures it differently and thus some are more efficient while others are less efficient, and thus it tells you about people's understanding of mechanics in general.

Feyda

Samyaza said:

Have they made any mention of changes to armor, yet? It would be pretty cool to see archetypes that have leather as their "best" option, have it actually be an option.

One set of chainmail pls.

Malayn

So everyone on MM cures aeon differently? Or everyone cures the same but some guilds have specific options to also deal with it?

Ignoring, of course, that you are still talking about reflexes, which is not personal ability to deal with it, which was my point.

The only times I see that come up is limited instances, like myself. I used to send shield when Narsrim would aeon, so he had to void while my curing was continuing, but that is a very specific instance against aeon, and does not work if they used the shield breaker tarot before hand. 

My point is that aeon does not generally define a combatant as extra skilled, it tends to fall to curing to prevent problems, it is not handled manually and thus is not a part of a players ability.

Rivius

Aeon isn't a problem 1v1. It's in groups where it can be kept up fairly easily, and depending on who is hitting you and how many of them they are, anyone can go down quickly regardless of curing. 

Iasmos

Synkarin

Malarious said:

My point is that aeon does not generally define a combatant as extra skilled, it tends to fall to curing to prevent problems, it is not handled manually and thus is not a part of a players ability.

See, this point confuses me because you just said you would do something manually against Narsrim. I manual stuff in aeon all the time if I need to depending on the situation. Relying on reflexes in aeon, which doesn't matter as much 1v1, can definitely get you killed in groups because it's predictable and thus stoppable. If you throw things in there that mess with the status quo, you can disrupt afflicting long enough to cure out/escape whatever.

Simply put, relying on reflexes alone says quite a lot about a person's combat prowess and skill.

Malayn

I am not sure where your intent is going.

Do you support having aeon or support removing aeon?

Narsrim was one specific instance, and it did not happen reliably (proning could stop shield, so this, of course, never happened in groups). 99% of the time, you just wait for curing to pick up aeon.

I had a whole thing to post, but I figure summarizing is easier:

- Cure rates are changing, as it is afflictions stack very very quickly.  I assume the stack rate will be going down. Even so, aeon will present a 1s cure delay which backs you up even faster, or in groups just kind of knocks you out.

Addendum to my suggestion list:

* Considerably scale back stuns and blackouts.

- Stuns like shieldstun tend to just be spammed and make it far too easy to back up curing when they can get 3s+ durations.  Blackout has a similar issue, especially when we have ents doing 8s blackout hits, which was more than enough to insta someone behind in various guilds. I can present a list of skills and changes to move some away from blackout or even just scale them back.  

Malayn

It occurs to me, what we really need is polls back.

The admin intent was to simplify combat and systems to increase number of active players by lowering it as a barrier to entry, as well as increase combatants for the same method.

The player intent was to fix the imbalances in the system and make a system more readily workable with the actual means of conflict.

I would love to see polls asking about:

- Is the overhaul balanced and functional?

- Do we need a smaller division (weights)?

- Do we want illusions gone from combat use?

- Should we scale for groups?

I have my expectations on most of those, and I am not dead against aeon, although the tree it is in still makes it stupid powerful.  I do not want to touch any trees if we are bandaging, because weights bring a different standard to things, otherwise I could tell you a list of changes to skills and their trees right about now.

Jaxeus

Just an idea, not sure I like it.

Perhaps the music skills could be consolidated a little. Offer three music specializations that any guild can choose from but have different messages for the more powerful abilities. This would be similar to celestians and nihilists but the skills would be identical, only differing in messaging. It would cut down a lot on the work needed to balance and rework the music skills. It would also simplify combat since new players would only have to learn to fight against three music specializations vice six.

This same approach could be brought to the knighthood specializations. I personally wouldn't cry if two were removed. Maybe allow freedom in which weapon to use like if axelord were dropped then allow pureblades to use axes if they chose.

Munsia

Jaxeus said:

Just an idea, not sure I like it.

Perhaps the music skills could be consolidated a little. Offer three music specializations that any guild can choose from but have different messages for the more powerful abilities. This would be similar to celestians and nihilists but the skills would be identical, only differing in messaging. It would cut down a lot on the work needed to balance and rework the music skills. It would also simplify combat since new players would only have to learn to fight against three music specializations vice six.

This same approach could be brought to the knighthood specializations. I personally wouldn't cry if two were removed. Maybe allow freedom in which weapon to use like if axelord were dropped then allow pureblades to use axes if they chose.

I'm against this, as I am with the overhaul. Lusternia's appeal for me is the diversity...

Enyalida

Really? Of the IRE's, each guild is less diverse than in other games.

EDIT: But no, that makes no sense. @JaxeusThe only class that works like that are warriors, and it's kinda silly. Wish they had more unique specs, but there just aren't enough warrior good affs to go around.

Winnae

I think it would be cool if using power manipulated a state called "powerlevel" that makes your character more vulnerable in return for the boost to their offense.

For example, a knight or monk can hit harder by using power, but they might also injure their own bodies in return for hitting harder.

A class that gives spiritual afflictions would spiritually endanger themselves, such as a nihilist having their demon trying to turn on them, an illuminati might partially lose control of their shape shifting and so-on.

The whole idea of using power for abilities never quite lived up to its promise in my opinion, it limited the number of attack rotations which were possible which was helpful to the system I think, but it did not really get the blood running to use power so much as a "now I have to wait X seconds to try my next play" feeling.  If there is a risk/reward mechanic to using it, it might be possible to bait people into using their power which might add a new layer of strategy to the game.

So, this might be a linear effect per-ability or "powerlevel" might go up over time as you use more power, which could help draw down long fights.