Then wait until it wears off and tumble, it's not rocket science.
If you think that is sound advice, you are underestimating how much time that is. This only makes it look like you really have no idea what it's like to deal with this in groups.
It's max 6 seconds, when if you include the context statement Shuyin lead with 'If you're getting shut down and not dying then just tumble out. They will have to focus you or refocus their ents then.' it makes perfect sense. You're not dying, you can afford to wait until it's worn off.
Saying that tumbling w/ sluggishness/ectoplase leaves you in a worse spot than before isn't close to be true either. Tumbling buys you time, it force reaction to the attackers, which reduces their attacks and buys you time to catch up on curing. They need to change from afflicting to anticipating movement which means to 1) stay on balance and not apply more pressure and 2) move to target to gust back or set up empress (which are completely situational depending on the exact situation) which again is more time spent not applying pressure, and buying you time to cure up. Yes, sometimes it doesn't work, but that's true for anyone. Sluggishness/ectoplasm only come into play if you want to try and tumble again, or move out after curing up a bit, the only time it'd affect your ability to cure is if you're in a greenlock or cleanselock, in which case, tumbling shouldn't be a priority anyway and curing that should be.
When it comes to sleep locks being non viable without aeon, I simply have evidence to the contrary( as Rivius observed).
I feel like you're using "viability" with a broad brush, here. If you continue doing the sleep method over and over, you might eventually luck out (it is by no means assured, making it essentially a total gamble with a very low possibility of success). As such, to most of us, we would consider this to mean it is not viable. You are better off aiming for a method with a higher chance of success. You can increase the sleeplock's rate of execution by implementing aeon, which does make it what we generally consider to be "viable".
I once killed a Paladin way back when I was a little lowbie in the Skarch Desert after fighting him for something like 30 minutes. He ran out of endurance, because I collapsed his lungs repeatedly, and eventually he couldn't do anything any more. Yes, it happened, but I do not consider it a viable strategy; at any point during that, he could have run, or just not attacked until the collapsed lungs healed (saving his endurance). The odds of collapsed lungs leading to a 1 on 1 kill against a warrior are so abysmally low that, no matter the fact that it happened, it would just be silly to keep trying it over and over.
Viable simply means attainable and capable of working. I have not made any comments about the success rate or if it is the preferred method to use. If there is a different community specific definition being used that went over my head, I apologize for the confusion on my part.
I have a quick story that demonstrates my perspective. Crunch was considered a "non viable" kill method for Shofangi. That is, until Asmodea was able to repeat it until it was successful against Thoros in the arena simply by doing it over and over. It was , by definition, viable. Absolutely obtainable demonstrated with hard evidence. Not timely or preferable, of course, but definitively do able. So when I say sleep lock is viable without aeon, specifically because it can be repeated as infinum as I noted earlier, I mean it is "capable of working."
I've seen a wide spectrum of success rates.
How many people would be upset if sleep lock was removed along with aeon?
I think an interesting way to look at what is viable or not is to think about the impact of removing the possibility. If nobody or few would notice, then to me it's a good candidate for simplification.
How many people would be upset if sleep lock was removed along with aeon?
I think an interesting way to look at what is viable or not is to think about the impact of removing the possibility. If nobody or few would notice, then to me it's a good candidate for simplification.
You mean besides all of Hallifax (for Aeon) and the moondancers (for sleep locks)? Or are we going to say that those people don't matter? Either way, three out of four Hallifax guilds will need reworking for entire skillsets, as will the moondancers. I do believe it was mentioned more than once that guild reworks will not be covered in the overhaul.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
How many people would be upset if sleep lock was removed along with aeon?
I think an interesting way to look at what is viable or not is to think about the impact of removing the possibility. If nobody or few would notice, then to me it's a good candidate for simplification.
You mean besides all of Hallifax (for Aeon) and the moondancers (for sleep locks)? Or are we going to say that those people don't matter? Either way, three out of four Hallifax guilds will need reworking for entire skillsets, as will the moondancers. I do believe it was mentioned more than once that guild reworks will not be covered in the overhaul.
I wasn't asking a rhetorical question If Moondancers would not mind the removal of Aeon, but would mind the removal of sleeplocks, then that would mean to me that sleeplocks without Aeon is viable. If they would rather have sleeplocks removed without Aeon, then it's a good indication it's not viable. I was proposing that to see how viable a strategy is, look at how many people get upset if it's altered/removed.
Guild reworks will not be covered in the immediate forseeable simplification of the affliction/cure system. I do believe guild reworks will have to be considered in the long term, however, if not immediately after the afflictions are succesfully pared down. No matter how you look at it, streamlining away so many afflictions is going to affect, and demand, a change in the way many classes operate. And if "enjoyable combat" is going to be one of the goals of the ultimate ideal we're aiming for, aeon and sleeplock should both be looked at long and hard, is my opinion. They make Lusternian combat about as enjoyable as using sandpaper for toilet paper. We're nowhere near that stage yet, anyway.
Guild reworks will not be covered in the immediate forseeable simplification of the affliction/cure system. I do believe guild reworks will have to be considered in the long term, however, if not immediately after the afflictions are succesfully pared down. No matter how you look at it, streamlining away so many afflictions is going to affect, and demand, a change in the way many classes operate. And if "enjoyable combat" is going to be one of the goals of the ultimate ideal we're aiming for, aeon and sleeplock should both be looked at long and hard, is my opinion. They make Lusternian combat about as enjoyable as using sandpaper for toilet paper. We're nowhere near that stage yet, anyway.
I'm not disagreeing. I'd love to see a fair amount of guilds poked at myself, but let's be fair... the overhaul was looking at redoing guilds in the first place and was turned over into this new iteration.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
The overhaul will necessitate a look at some guilds, absolutely, but not in the usual sense. It will be less of the typical "special report," and more to bring them back in line to what they were before the change. The Overhaul has never been about redoing guilds (I'm not really sure where that came from), but the fundamental system Lusternia's PK is built upon. It is not about making PK enjoyable just for the handful that already enjoy it but for everyone, including those brand new to the system. Aeon has popped up somewhat recently in the mainstream forums discussions, so while I acknowledge it can be problematic, I do take a lot of the commentary with grain of salt. It was never the game ruining monster in the PK circles I ran around in and throughout my time I never had much issue with it on my own. Not to say the complaints aren't valid, or that it can't be improved upon, simply that finding balance often requies a wholesome view rather than a snapshot of what is being complained about right this second. Not even 2 months ago it was the buff system that was ruining the game. In my time, it's been stun, blackout, choke, trueheal, demesnes, treelife bypassing protection, supermob raids, nexus weakenings, monks, bonecrushers, axelords, warrior damage weapons, etc etc etc that has been professed to ruin Lusternian pk in one form or another. Again, not so say aeon, or those things I listed didn't have their issues. Aeon is something I'd much rather see each guild address through the envoys (or as a community), it's a big change to up and remove it from the game after all these years.
The reopening of the Envoys once the ball is rolling is a fantastic opportunity to address concerns for any given class or mechanic. If aeon is making pk as enjoyable as sandpaper on you bum, there are players literally invested with the power to bring about change. It's just not something I'm inclined to take a hatchet to based on a recent forums movement.
I'm not going to rehash my arguments about aeon. Aeon has not been a complaint that has only recently popped up, though. Aeon has been a mainstay in IRE combat, across IRE games, for most of the existence of said games, and throughout all of its incarnations and in all of the games including in Lusternia, it has been the subject of debate. This is not some "fad of the month" thing with which comparisons to things like "nexus weakenings" or "supermob raids" can be compared. Aeon has been complained about, debated about, and outright redesigned in some cases, for RL years.
Aeon has always been at the top of literally every single affliction priority system ever coded, in every instance aeon has existed. That alone speaks volumes of its effect on combat, and if there's anything that has polarized debate more than aeon, it would be room aeon. My opinion on aeon has never changed through all my time playing and PVPing in all the IRE games I have experience with, and when the topic came up about it in this thread, and in the atmosphere of the overhaul (where the chance to do something good about things might exist), I took the opportunity to talk about it, is all. Like I said, whether the admin want to grab the same opportunity to do something about aeon is their choice.
Something tells me that so long as I post, someone will disagree with me. Let me be as neutral as possible:
Aeon is not currently under any consideration for change in the overhaul. I encourage you to bring it before the envoys once reports have resumed if you, or any others, believe it to be a serious balance concern.
There are players nominally invested with the power to change things through the Envoy system, but in a very limited and highly conservative fashion. This makes a certain amount of sense, but I don't have very much trust that the envoy system is equipped or prepared to handle things like Aeon or other overarching concerns. The best place to do that are special-report type broad looks.
I appreciate your "new" stance- it comes across as far less hostile and more constructive. That said, I do have to disagree with the statement that during your time, Aeon has "not been a significant issue". I remember the huge Choke arguments, leading to a complete redesign of the skill, followed by its removal entirely. Choke was, essentially, an upgraded aeon. Every complaint, every issue with choke was at its root core caused by how aeon functions and impacts those affected. There were two significant differences: 1) The curing method, and 2) Who was affected. Choke removed the cure aspect, and paid for it by affecting the caster (originally the whole room).
It took away what Lerad stated as the main way to deal with aeon: sit there and wait for your system to cure it. Other than removing the cure, it did nothing to make the aeon effect any stronger or more powerful, so I find it a strange argument to say that you have not heard complaints about aeon while listing choke as one of your complained-about-subjects.
I can understand an argument stating that it is too complicated to get into at this point (though from my end, it seems like this would be the best time to do it, instead of when the whole new system is built around its existence- and as such, at least worthy of consideration even if in the end it is decided to leave aeon in place as-is). The part of your case I cannot understand is the one stating that it's never been brought up as a serious issue and / or we're making it up, because... well. I've been here a long time myself, and I assure you that it is nothing new. :P
Shouldn't the Envoys be able to suggest a list of things that are allowed to be done during Aeon, to make it more fun?
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you changed Aeon to allow 2 or 3 things to happen before "overriding" your previous commands wouldn't it make it more interesting?
Aeon and some of the other problems, ( like basic demesne mechanics) are so entangled and central to the shape of combat that the best time to look at them is during major change. You need to pour the foundations according to the final construction. There are some things you just can't change without fundamentally shaking the foundations, so it makes sense to account for them when pouring.
Aeon is not half the problem that Choke was, even after it was nerfed.
This overhaul is going to happen, and it'll be in very small increments. You guys sound like your whole world is going to come crashing down in an instant, and that's just not true.
We're running down some rabbit holes here. For my part, aeon is aeon. Aeon is not choke. I'm not implying I am talking about both when I speak about aeon, nor am I assuming players actually meant choke and aeon when they presented reports about only choke on several occasions. From my perspective, I can only treat them as similar yet seperate things. I cannot assume players actually meant both. I hope that makes sense.
The envoys are the same group that submit special reports as the group that submits monthly reports. They are all endowed with the same ability and special reports are viewed with equal scrutiny by the administration as monthly reports. Addressing aeon on our side is simply a time constraint right now to find a solution, test it, then implement it game wide on top of everything we have going on. As has been reiterated to me repeatedly, aeon is "big deal." It will require a lot of work. Addressing it guild by guild through reports is a simpler way to break it down, to allow players to find a solution that addresses their guild's unique requirements, and inevitably slow release the changes over time. Or if the envoys can come to an agreement on a universal mechanic to address every guild. Whatever the case may be
If the desire is to let envoys change aeon, we would be looking at broad changes that effects it as an aff.
The solution would depend on the concern.
Synkarins idea above would greatly diminish aeon to some extent, fixing the issue of forced to top of the list.
Having it break if too many attackers fixes it for groups but does nothing in solo combat, which is what I prefer. If you change how it works solo you open the floodgates to that envoy then also slotting multiple changes to account for this. Suddenly moondancers want higher passive damage or faster sleep tics, or reduce casting time of succumb so they can focus on sleep more. (In theory you could send wake, and then stack all your cures... and repeat the stack every second until wake works).
While Saesh has an opinion, as we all do, consider the implications of fixing something. You are not asking for changing aeon, you are asking for the changes that follow, which is why Saesh doesn't want to touch aeon during the overhaul.... though that is the ideal time to do it.
Aeon is not currently under any consideration for change in the overhaul. I encourage you to bring it before the envoys once reports have resumed if you, or any others, believe it to be a serious balance concern.
Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but this really bothers me. System building, rather than balance. Without aeon, Firstaid get you into a game. Without aeon, a player can start augmenting Firstaid with fairly simple triggers and do so at their own pace.
Aeon is unique in how it breaks simple systems.
Arguably, removing aeon would do more for making combat entry easier for the masses who won't buy player systems than all the other planned aff and curing changes.
We are not prioritizing system building over balance, we have repeatedly acknowledged the need to balance as we build the new system.
I will say it again, our time is not infinite. As a result, we are attempting to not change mechanics that would necessitate immediate massive class rebalancing and consume inordinate amounts of time. This does not mean we are adverse to addressing balance concerns, such as aeon, when the time is appropriate. This does mean that this is not the proper channel to address those concerns.
I will also note that though I have noted my disagreement of some of the poster's perspectives on things like aeon and sleep lock, I am not attached to either of these, nor any mechanic for that matter. I think there is some confusion there, that I have divulged my opinion/perspective as a reason to not address these concerns. This is incorrect. I have engaged in this discussion because I believe in the discourse and transparency of the system rather than to wield my perspective as a bludgeon with which to dictate the rules of balance.
My perspective, no matter what it is, is secondary to the greater concern of balance. I may not agree that aeon is as game breaking and influential as it is said to be by individuals in this thread. That does not mean I am opposed to to addressing it, even removing it, if there is a reasonable consensus that the game will be better for it, whether it is game breaking or not.
Comments
I once killed a Paladin way back when I was a little lowbie in the Skarch Desert after fighting him for something like 30 minutes. He ran out of endurance, because I collapsed his lungs repeatedly, and eventually he couldn't do anything any more. Yes, it happened, but I do not consider it a viable strategy; at any point during that, he could have run, or just not attacked until the collapsed lungs healed (saving his endurance). The odds of collapsed lungs leading to a 1 on 1 kill against a warrior are so abysmally low that, no matter the fact that it happened, it would just be silly to keep trying it over and over.
I think an interesting way to look at what is viable or not is to think about the impact of removing the possibility. If nobody or few would notice, then to me it's a good candidate for simplification.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
I was proposing that to see how viable a strategy is, look at how many people get upset if it's altered/removed.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
The overhaul will necessitate a look at some guilds, absolutely, but not in the usual sense. It will be less of the typical "special report," and more to bring them back in line to what they were before the change. The Overhaul has never been about redoing guilds (I'm not really sure where that came from), but the fundamental system Lusternia's PK is built upon. It is not about making PK enjoyable just for the handful that already enjoy it but for everyone, including those brand new to the system. Aeon has popped up somewhat recently in the mainstream forums discussions, so while I acknowledge it can be problematic, I do take a lot of the commentary with grain of salt. It was never the game ruining monster in the PK circles I ran around in and throughout my time I never had much issue with it on my own. Not to say the complaints aren't valid, or that it can't be improved upon, simply that finding balance often requies a wholesome view rather than a snapshot of what is being complained about right this second. Not even 2 months ago it was the buff system that was ruining the game. In my time, it's been stun, blackout, choke, trueheal, demesnes, treelife bypassing protection, supermob raids, nexus weakenings, monks, bonecrushers, axelords, warrior damage weapons, etc etc etc that has been professed to ruin Lusternian pk in one form or another. Again, not so say aeon, or those things I listed didn't have their issues. Aeon is something I'd much rather see each guild address through the envoys (or as a community), it's a big change to up and remove it from the game after all these years.
The reopening of the Envoys once the ball is rolling is a fantastic opportunity to address concerns for any given class or mechanic. If aeon is making pk as enjoyable as sandpaper on you bum, there are players literally invested with the power to bring about change. It's just not something I'm inclined to take a hatchet to based on a recent forums movement.
Aeon has always been at the top of literally every single affliction priority system ever coded, in every instance aeon has existed. That alone speaks volumes of its effect on combat, and if there's anything that has polarized debate more than aeon, it would be room aeon. My opinion on aeon has never changed through all my time playing and PVPing in all the IRE games I have experience with, and when the topic came up about it in this thread, and in the atmosphere of the overhaul (where the chance to do something good about things might exist), I took the opportunity to talk about it, is all. Like I said, whether the admin want to grab the same opportunity to do something about aeon is their choice.
Something tells me that so long as I post, someone will disagree with me. Let me be as neutral as possible:
Aeon is not currently under any consideration for change in the overhaul. I encourage you to bring it before the envoys once reports have resumed if you, or any others, believe it to be a serious balance concern.
It took away what Lerad stated as the main way to deal with aeon: sit there and wait for your system to cure it. Other than removing the cure, it did nothing to make the aeon effect any stronger or more powerful, so I find it a strange argument to say that you have not heard complaints about aeon while listing choke as one of your complained-about-subjects.
I can understand an argument stating that it is too complicated to get into at this point (though from my end, it seems like this would be the best time to do it, instead of when the whole new system is built around its existence- and as such, at least worthy of consideration even if in the end it is decided to leave aeon in place as-is). The part of your case I cannot understand is the one stating that it's never been brought up as a serious issue and / or we're making it up, because... well. I've been here a long time myself, and I assure you that it is nothing new. :P
I don't understand. How is the envoy system not equipped or prepared to address aeon?
We're running down some rabbit holes here. For my part, aeon is aeon. Aeon is not choke. I'm not implying I am talking about both when I speak about aeon, nor am I assuming players actually meant choke and aeon when they presented reports about only choke on several occasions. From my perspective, I can only treat them as similar yet seperate things. I cannot assume players actually meant both. I hope that makes sense.
The envoys are the same group that submit special reports as the group that submits monthly reports. They are all endowed with the same ability and special reports are viewed with equal scrutiny by the administration as monthly reports. Addressing aeon on our side is simply a time constraint right now to find a solution, test it, then implement it game wide on top of everything we have going on. As has been reiterated to me repeatedly, aeon is "big deal." It will require a lot of work. Addressing it guild by guild through reports is a simpler way to break it down, to allow players to find a solution that addresses their guild's unique requirements, and inevitably slow release the changes over time. Or if the envoys can come to an agreement on a universal mechanic to address every guild. Whatever the case may be
Aeon is unique in how it breaks simple systems.
Arguably, removing aeon would do more for making combat entry easier for the masses who won't buy player systems than all the other planned aff and curing changes.
Sigh.
We are not prioritizing system building over balance, we have repeatedly acknowledged the need to balance as we build the new system.
I will say it again, our time is not infinite. As a result, we are attempting to not change mechanics that would necessitate immediate massive class rebalancing and consume inordinate amounts of time. This does not mean we are adverse to addressing balance concerns, such as aeon, when the time is appropriate. This does mean that this is not the proper channel to address those concerns.
I will also note that though I have noted my disagreement of some of the poster's perspectives on things like aeon and sleep lock, I am not attached to either of these, nor any mechanic for that matter. I think there is some confusion there, that I have divulged my opinion/perspective as a reason to not address these concerns. This is incorrect. I have engaged in this discussion because I believe in the discourse and transparency of the system rather than to wield my perspective as a bludgeon with which to dictate the rules of balance.
My perspective, no matter what it is, is secondary to the greater concern of balance. I may not agree that aeon is as game breaking and influential as it is said to be by individuals in this thread. That does not mean I am opposed to to addressing it, even removing it, if there is a reasonable consensus that the game will be better for it, whether it is game breaking or not.