The huge amount of afflictions will still remain, and continue to be daunting to newbies though. That was the motivation for cutting down all the caster afflictions, was my impression: reduce afflictions and therefore the staggering amount of work needed to learn the ins-and-outs of combat.
I still say this is mostly a red herring. Once you make a system to handle a specific cure it is fairly trivial to add another affliction to the list. It isn't so much the affs that are daunting as it is affs which need special handling (aeon, pre-applying for heartburst, apply and wait, etc). But moreso than that, what is daunting to newbies are having to deal with all the insta-kills, in the sense of. "Oh this aff sets up for this kill if I don't run now I may not be able to survive." This last is what makes it take ages and ages for anyone to make a system here.
That is, however, the motivation for the overhaul, both its previous incarnation, and its current implementation.
Secondly, I would disagree that it is a red herring - because part of the reason why there is resistance to the removal of afflictions in the first place is because all of them have a certain role and effect. Learning every single tiny intricacy is not needed for entry into combat, but learning the general idea for most certainly is, and that prospect has always been a daunting one for newbies. If the afflictions were "trivial" to handle just by being added into a list for a system, then one, there won't be newbies (or non-combatants) who would be troubled by it, and two, there won't be any resistance to removing those "trivial" afflictions, anyway. As a matter of fact, we are facing both situations. To look at it from another perspective, even with a proper system, learning combat IS daunting. You really don't just add afflictions to a system and call it a day if you want to get into combat.
I personally do think removing large swathes of the physical affliction list will simplify things a lot, and therefore lose some complexity which perhaps holds the charm for many players. Whether we want that or not is what Estarra is asking - I'm not sure if there is an argument to be made for the stance that the amount of afflictions don't have an effect on newbies trying to get into combat, though.
That is, however, the motivation for the overhaul, both its previous incarnation, and its current implementation.
Secondly, I would disagree that it is a red herring - because part of the reason why there is resistance to the removal of afflictions in the first place is because all of them have a certain role and effect. Learning every single tiny intricacy is not needed for entry into combat, but learning the general idea for most certainly is, and that prospect has always been a daunting one for newbies. If the afflictions were "trivial" to handle just by being added into a list for a system, then one, there won't be newbies (or non-combatants) who would be troubled by it, and two, there won't be any resistance to removing those "trivial" afflictions, anyway. As a matter of fact, we are facing both situations. To look at it from another perspective, even with a proper system, learning combat IS daunting. You really don't just add afflictions to a system and call it a day if you want to get into combat.
I personally do think removing large swathes of the physical affliction list will simplify things a lot, and therefore lose some complexity which perhaps holds the charm for many players. Whether we want that or not is what Estarra is asking - I'm not sure if there is an argument to be made for the stance that the amount of afflictions don't have an effect on newbies trying to get into combat, though.
When I say it is *mostly a red herring* I mean that I don't believe that the bar to new players when it comes to affs is mostly or even largely the number of affs. The large majority of affs are trivial to code for (as in if you can code any aff curing you can code for most affs curing). Yes, it may take a bit more time, but it isn't a bar in the sense that more difficult cures may require coding skill not possessed by most gamers.
Amateurish coding systems can keep you alive in Achaea while the equivalent system here will get you killed far more often and will lock up far more often. This is why, I drew a distinction between difficulty in handling afflictions. The number of total affs is less a problem then the number of affs which require unique and difficult handling -- the later are far more likely to be actual bars to entry. The difficulty of making systems is less about number of affs then it is about coding to handle an aff (to clearify, coding to cure is generally the bulk of the coding problem).
When server-side curing is added that will remove the main bar for entry to starting to play. However, I still believe that 'caution states' (at a loss for a better term) are a huge barrier and not likely to be greatly impacted by any of the proposed changes.
By 'caution states' I mean all the various (and often one off) 'conditions' that you have to track in Lusternia that if you fail to track get you killed. These form a sort of meta-aff and as a set tend to be poorly or near-completely undocumented in the game. Of course they exist in other games, but they exist in far greater numbers here and they are IMO what drives away more players.
As a note, some of the "meta-aff" effects you're talking about are a direct result of the flat number of affs in the game - some afflictions do indeed have "trivial" mechanical effects but which become dangerous, and therefore require more advanced thought, or "caution" as you call it, and complexity to handle, in very specific situations and in very specific combinations - and while I cannot claim to know the design intentions of every aff in the game right now, it's entirely possible some of these "combinations" are an unintended side effect of those affs simply existing alongside one another. Lowering the flat number of afflictions in the game will already contribute to removing some of these effects and make the system easier to understand and learn.
Secondly, by distilling the large number of afflictions into a more centered, core set of afflictions, many of the "special case" afflictions which are complex and pose a difficulty to learning combat will also have to become candidates for removal as well. After all, part of the problem, as you say, is exemplified when you compare us to other IREs - we have more causes of those "caution states" than other IRE games, with some afflictions playing this role. By removing a number of those afflictions that require players to learn and be aware of the fact that they are now in some kind of intangible (not mechanically apparent) danger, we therefore lower the bar needed for players to learn combat.
In short, lowering the number of affs WILL definitely contribute to alleviating the problems you speak of as well - it is not a red herring, or even "mostly" a red herring. It IS a possible solution, if not the entire cure. The only thing that is of a concern isn't whether lowering afflictions will help (they will), but the concern of whether removing afflictions will over-simplify the system until it is no longer fun. This would be Rivius' stance, and one I agree is something we should consider as we ponder the possible choices available to us. I do agree that warrior dynamics can be very fun for those who enjoy it - the layers of RNG and wounds and afflictions and cures make it a very complex game, and as warriors have always shown, they have the potential to stack on really devastating PVP effects. However, at the same time, this very complex dynamic which is the bedrock for warrior combat is also (supposedly) contributing to the barrier of entry, and addressing that is one of the goals (I think) we want to work towards.
Given how important this concern is, we should be concentrating on, and thinking about, how much we want to simplify the system, and the dangers of over-simplification. I don't think, at this point, arguing about the act of lowering the number of afflictions is productive to everyone's common goal. Lowering the amount of afflictions is, in my opinion, a step that needs to be taken, regardless of whatever we finally decide on, even if it be maintaining the current system of wound building and RNG (also something I can't really justify supporting, since RNG is so frustrating, and has been cited many times in the past as being frustrating even by current warriors).
@Lerad it is okay to disagree with me. If you want clarification for something I say, please ask. If you think a comment is off-topic for a thread you can just ignore it. When you say: I don't think, at this point, arguing about the act of lowering the number of afflictions is productive to everyone's common goal. There's a difference between saying I don't think it'll make much of a difference and not to do it. It does have other benifits, influding but not limited to should make some things easier to balance.
Lastly on this, your view is by far that of the majority. I'm not in the minority, but so far in the minority that I may be alone in my view. The information we have on this seems skewed to me (we all are of the group 'plays the game' and not of the group 'won't play the game'). So my experience with players who want to make their own system is that it isn't really the list of affs and list of cures that cause them to give up, but more that even after they finish a basic curing system they realize they have just about as much if not more work to do getting all the remaining combat lines and figuring out combat. I think there are other reasons that impact who plays then number of affs, and even more so than combat in general. I get that those who play the game mostly for combat see this as the problem. Either way time will tell, though no matter what the changes are it seems difficult to believe that when serverside curing is introduced it won't have an impact that dwarfs the other changes...the number of those who would want to code their own system has to be trivial compared to those who would use something set up for them.
But more back on the solution. If you want to simplify knights, why not combine the extra body-parts? Combine gut and chest into torso.
As a side note, if you notice, I never really did make much comment about system building - my arguments (in the last few posts) have always centered around the learning of combat. We're both talking about the same thing: the learning of combat, not really the building of systems, as the major barrier of entry to combat for a new player. And lowering the flat number of afflictions will most definitely make a difference in that respect, and quite a big one, in my opinion. To say it won't make much difference (that it is mostly a red herring) is what I am disagreeing with.
Combining gut and chest is definitely something that is a good idea as well, from a purely numerical point of view. As a monk, I don't have as much experience as a warrior with how having two "torso" parts affect combat strategy and mechanics, but I've always felt the two give fairly similar affs, with gut affs usually being more important than chest ones, is my impression, at least. Perhaps it'll make it harder for a warrior if we combine the two, since chest being less "important" on first sight makes it a prime choice for warriors to start building wounds from, and drawing stance/parry away from the other bodyparts. But if there's not much difference, combining them will also help, probably.
I like proposal 1 over proposal 2, and I'll assume the kill methods available in proposal 1 are comparable to other kill methods in the game. However, I would like to propose a 3rd option, which might make monks and warriors less similar, but also simplify the afflictions. Like proposal 1, attacks will do a set amount of "wounding level", and you will have both "bruising", and "open wounds". However, unlike proposal 1, having a specific bruise or open wound level won't have any effect on its own. Instead, those levels will only affect which pre-existing affliction can be triggered. Specialisation such as Cavaliers, or Axelords, or a monk specialisation who's weapon is neither clearly only blunt or cutting, will then also be able to give specific afflictions based on a combination of "bruising" and "open wound" levels. i.e. at least 3 levels of bruising and 4 levels of open wounds, with a hit to the head, might give some post-overhaul mental affliction. From the perspective of the person getting hit, they will have to deal with three issues. What is their current bruise level, what is their current cutting level, and do they want to risk being open to some other affliction that they already otherwise have to be able to cure. (This might also open up the possibility of not being able to permanently cure that affliction until the bruising or open wound level has been reduced.)
The trick then would be finding the right affliction to match the pre-existing skill, but if someone is able to point me to the final list I should be able to do that easily enough.
Sorry! Back from all the stuff, have an essay to do today and this week is a pitch competition but I will try to get something out to make sense. Anyway here is some feedback:
Proposal two is preferred over one, as one has a lot of potential problems and we are trying to use sets of affs with two different designs. Monks are designed for afflictions (locks, stacks, tahtetso insta) where warriors are designed for attrition (build wounds, affs didn't matter). The proposed wounding overhaul would either merit very fast building of afflictions and considerable problems (where 5 hits is hitting 5 levels, and things like slit throat were listed at aff level 3). I don't like either idea for affs where getting level 5 removes levels 3 and 4 (Your nose is cut off but your throat and tongue suddenly feel better), or where giving 5 reapplies 3 and 4 (your nose has been cut off, so your throat and tongue cut open too).
Wound levels are complicated as they currently stand, but they are not hard to understand and I would propose leaving them in place to prevent other issues like warriors scaling too fast, but then we run into other issues. Monks, as stated, are based on the afflictions they deal and do almost no wounds. We would either be looking at making monks different in how they function (this will result in a redesign, and we would love to work with you if this is the path you want), as they would need to start using the wounds system but somehow differently than warriors. Otherwise, we would need to be able to give specific affs regardless of current wound level (as now essentially), and leave our wounding as is. This gets more complicated the more options are presented, as things like curing priority and such come up and now we have other issues.
Can I offer a first step of proposing removals of specific afflictions? Things like collapsedlung are powerful, but also cause problems because of its smoking effect. Every monk guild has at least 1 special aff, many have more (nekotai have 7 pinched nerves, 7ish grapple effects that hinder curing, etc). Things like trembling (from ninja) have already been addressed, while scrambled brains I don't think went away (could be wrong easily on this one, havent kept track well). Chest pain is required unless we are changing how they function but then things like hemiplegy might be able to go away since not vital, just a spam hinder aff for them and useless to many others.
Sorry it isn't more well written or cohesive but I wanted to get something down, and potentially spur more discussion in some manner to get us a better finite result. I am available if anyone has questions on monks or wants to throw out ideas, I can be your pessimist (aka try to shoot things down) if you want to test the potential problems.
Monks actually do build wounds too, and it benefits them because of the damage amplification. It is just that we build less wounds, though our health pressure usually means a smart monk can snowball wounds very quickly once a certain threshold is reached. Seems like more people prefer proposal 2, huh. Cool.
Another way of looking at it would be like this: Precise conversions are not exact, as I wasn't certain what some of the afflictions do, nor was I paying attention to ailment synergy etc. But you get the basic idea.
(working on pasting the table)
New Ailment
Effect
Replaces
Blunt Trauma, Arms
Broken Arm
Broken Wrist, Fractured Arm,
Blunt Trauma, Legs
Broken Leg
Dislocated Leg, Crushedfoot, Mangled Leg
Blunt Trauma, Head
Concussion
Broken Skull
Blunt Trauma, Torso
Crushed Chest
Crushed Chest
Blunt Trauma, Gut
Ruptured Stomach
Pinched Nerve, Numbness,
Open Wound, Arms
Severed Artery, Arms
Pierced Arm, Severed Artery, Lacerated Arm
Open Wound, Legs
Severed Artery, Legs
Cut Tendon, Severed Artery, Lacerated Leg,
Open Wound, Head
Slit Throat
Crushed Windpipe,
Open Wound, Torso
Opened Chest
Punctured Lung, Punctured Chest,
Open Wound, Gut
Open Gut
Burst Organs
addiction
addiction
Shattered Jaw, Broken Jaw,
confusion
confusion
Missing Ear ,
hallucinations
hallucinations
Furrowed Brow, Eye Pecked
recklessness
recklessness
Broken Chest,Sliced Thigh,
stupidity
stupidity
Scrambled Brain
clumsiness
clumsiness
Cracked Elbow, Shatteredankle, , Sliced Bicep,
epilepsy
epilepsy
Short Breath, Chest Pain
paranoia
paranoia
Snapped Rib
sensitivity
sensitivity
Pinched Nerve, Numbness, Collapsed Arm Nerve, Collapsed Leg Nerve
disloyalty
disloyalty
Gashed Cheek, Broken Nose,
healthleech
healthleech
Sliced Tongue, Bleeding Forehead, Scalped, Clotted Leg
Did you just list paralysis are a replacement for an amputated limb? O_O
Aeon replaces mangle and pierce? What the Nil.
@Estarra Is 10 the hard goal or can we have some more than that? Like removing/replacing some afflictions isn't all that hard, but as you want to remove more we start getting things disappearing. Twisted and dislocated for instance are almost the same thing, pierced limb and hemiplegy is similar enough to be rolled in, etc. I don't know about being able to remove 90% of all physical affs though. Thoughts and feedback? Could we consider some affs specifically to avoid having a redesign or something extensive for monks? Either monks become another warrior type or we have to keep the affliction delivery instead of wounding design.
Did you just list paralysis are a replacement for an amputated limb? O_O
Aeon replaces mangle and pierce? What the Nil.
Its been a long time, and I was abstracting things out, but isn't paralysis and amputated limbs both something which delay curing, while mangle and pierce reduce the ability to do actions?
I don't really care which affliction replaces which, the main point was showing a hypothetical example of mapping the final effect of a physical ailment to the mental, internal or spiritual affliction that it is similiar to. If there is no clear mapping, I would suggest replacing the ability to one that has a clear mapping. I think the idea that a physical ailment causes mental or internal ailments isn't that far fetched.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but I want to go to sleep and this is as far as I've gotten...
I am having a hard time weighing in on these proposals because it is not clear to me how warriors will achieve kills. If I had to make my best guess under the proposed scheme, it would be: Set up the timed instakill by causing a curing lock in disabling both arms (cannot apply ice) or by preventing opponent commands by unconscious and shieldstun.
There is no class that has to rely upon sticking a timed instakill as the only viable kill method within their primary skill; the closest might be Ninjakari, but they have good vitals pressuring tactics as well. And so I imagine that any proposed solution should include kill methods similar to the current Cavalier Skewer, where there is some affliction and wounding requirement for an insta.
I like the general concept of Proposal 2, but again I don't see the end kill goal and am not optimistic about any of the proposed affliction tables (from Estarra's proposal or player comments).
So I thought about this from a warrior perspective and came up with my own version. I'm not good with balancing numbers, but I just wanted to try to put something together as a concept. And I think that the afflictions would mesh with current the monk design, but I can't really comment on proposed mechanics. So here it is:
Wounding will still exist but will be pared down to four general levels: none 0-1, mild at 2-7, heavy at 8-19, and critical at 20+ wounds. You incur 1 wound per normal weapon hit, or 3 wounds per 2-power weapon hit (numbers should be doubled for the two-handed weapon specs like Pureblade).
Restorative ice will have a baseline cure time at 1.5s, though some afflictions will have a delayed cure. Each application of ice will cure either 1 wound or an affliction on the body part specified. In this scheme, I am in favour of the curer being able to choose whether the wound or the affliction is cured, and that the highest affliction on that body part would be cured first. I would also like to suggest changing Discipline Restoration or adding a different skill to heal wounds for a power cost.
Convert armour stats to the dmp system (cutting and blunt):
Shield 2/6, Leather 1/8, Scale and Greatrobes 2/8, Chain and Tattoo armour 3/8, Plate 3/10, Masterarmour 6/10.
Remove stance and rebounding. Change parry to be 100%, unless afflicted by clumsiness (reduces parry to 50%?). Parry will still be bypassed with the power-based weapon attacks. Parry will not be stopped by prone.
For each weapon attack, the warrior may either wound the target or cause an external affliction. Each external affliction will have a minimum wound requirement on a specified body part. If giving an external affliction for the one-handed weapon specs, the warrior will not cause wounding with the hit. For two handed specs, the warrior may either give the normal wounding (2 wounds) or 1 wound and the external affliction or hit multiple body parts (like current Cavalier hefted swings).
When a wound is given, the effects below are given cumulatively. So if a cutting hit gives wounding on a heavy-damaged leg, the target gets both sprawled and clumsiness.
Note that LungBlow and Wind are effects, not afflictions.
FracturedSkull: Periodic blackout and prevents use of focus skills. (delayed 4s cure)
ChestWound: Causes additional damage when hit with any physical attack. (instant cure)
SeveredSpine: Prevents most actions like paralysis. (delayed 4s cure)
OpenGut: Causes bleeding and sprawl every 3s if uncured. (instant cure)
BurstOrgans: Causes death in 12s if uncured. (delayed 4s cure)
BrokenLimb: Prevents actions that require the limb, such as attacks or movement. (instant cure)
DamagedNerve: If legs, sprawls and prevents standing. If arms, forces unwield and prevents refilling pipes. (delayed 4s cure)
DisabledLimb: Prevents many actions that require the limb, such as standing, movement, and tumbling. When cured, the new limb has a DamagedNerve. If both arms are disabled, you cannot cure. (delayed 4s cure)
Effects for cutting specs (Mild, Heavy, Critical):
Head - Bleedx1, Confusion, Unconsciousness
Chest - 1s blackout, Bleedx3, damagex5
Gut - Bleedx1, Paralysis, Impale [need to writhe to perform most actions]
Arms - Clumsiness, Bleedx3, 3s stun
Legs - Sprawled, Clumsiness, Bleedx5
Effects for blunt specs (Mild, Heavy, Critical):
Head - 1s Blackout, Bleedx3, 5s 33% amnesia on all actions
Chest - Damagex1, Paralysis, 3s Stun
Gut - 1s Stun, Vomiting, Sickening
Arms - Clumsiness, Damagex2, Spasms that cause damagex1 every 1s for 3s
Legs - Sprawled, Clumsiness, Knocks off balance 3s
In this scheme, kill methods will include health vital pressuring, sticking the BurstOrgans timed instakill, double disabledarm (can't cure), chaining debilitating effects (stuns etc.), or some kill skill(s) with affliction and/or wound state requirements as unique to each spec (e.g., current Cavalier skewer). The warrior will need to strategize around the opponent's parry and curing strategy and keeping an offensive balance between wounding and doing external affs.
The weapon specs will be unique by the effects that can be achieved (cutting vs. blunt), in the one-handed vs. two-handed style, and in the kill methods that will require some combination of affs/wound states like Cavalier skewer.
Kaimanahi, I like your suggestion, but I think it has to be limited to 10 cureable ailments. Your current list has 13-15 depending on how you count them. Also, I don't think they are looking at making changes to armor,rebounding,stances etc at this time-- but hopefully I'm mistaken.
I actually think removing rebounding was at least brought up as a question, so it's not as if it's completely off the table.
There were plans at a point to make rebounding a skill in combat rather than a smokeable herb, which would also remove the need for smoking faeleaf completely as the other reason for its existence (cloud coils) no longer exists either.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Kaimanahi, I like your suggestion, but I think it has to be limited to 10 cureable ailments. Your current list has 13-15 depending on how you count them. Also, I don't think they are looking at making changes to armor,rebounding,stances etc at this time-- but hopefully I'm mistaken.
There are ten afflictions, though three of them may affect any of your four limbs.
And I think that it is important to consider everything, including stance and rebounding, as it affects the balance of the class and whether to dial up or down the wounding thresholds and severity of any afflictions/effects. I feel that removing and simplifying these mechanics to be more straightforward and transparent (especially removing RNG) will greatly improve the ability to balance the class and to learn it. I have also attempted to reign in outliers and class disparities (see currrent warrior vs warrior fights).
I'd also rather just eliminate the layers of rng. They hurt warriors most 1v1 (where they are arguably weaker) and do relativly little in groups, where warriors can captilize on health and wounding pressure from allies, not to mention hinders that flat remove layers.
I am having a hard time weighing in on these proposals because it is not clear to me how warriors will achieve kills. If I had to make my best guess under the proposed scheme, it would be: Set up the timed instakill by causing a curing lock in disabling both arms (cannot apply ice) or by preventing opponent commands by unconscious and shieldstun.
There is no class that has to rely upon sticking a timed instakill as the only viable kill method within their primary skill; the closest might be Ninjakari, but they have good vitals pressuring tactics as well. And so I imagine that any proposed solution should include kill methods similar to the current Cavalier Skewer, where there is some affliction and wounding requirement for an insta.
From my perspective, Nekotai Finalsting is that way (and gets cured by antidote instally, so the situation is arguably worse). Of course, Crotamine is out and if 1301 goes through then obviously that no longer applies, but this has been the status of Nekotai for a really long time. Figure out a way to time blackout, or otherwise hinder antidote curing (lock?) in order to stick Finalsting, at a cost of 10p. I empathize heavily, and would like to avoid that outcome for warriors at all cost, but saying it doesn't exist elsewhere is not the entire truth. Again, from my perspective, Nekotai do not have a whole lot of kill methods in their primary skill outside of cutting your face and either hoping you bleed to death, your health goes below 0, or you aff to death (somehow?). That's not to say we aren't strong in other areas - Great aff potential, cure hinder potential, lock potential, grapples - but I don't see those things as "viable kill strategies" anymore than you picking up a katana and stabbing someone repeatedly until they fall over.
More related to the buff overhaul, I'm not sure that your numbers for armour makes sense. For instance, monk perspective, why would I take tattoos over plate? Maybe the Trans Tattoos ability on a monk needs some changing from where it is, but at least those mock numbers don't make sense to me, as there'd really be no reason to have Trans tattoos. You can't have tattooarmour in kata and any armour as it is, but as long as armour is better, then the entire skill is sort of irrelevant. Just a slight aside.
I'm more or less on board with your afflictions, but I'm curious how you think it would work for monks - we're here too! I assume you don't think that monks should give wounds as well, and work the same way, otherwise it'd just be the same class. Something like - Taking Nekotai for instance - Angknek (mild) Angkai (Heavy) and Angkhai(critical) might work, but then there'd really be no difference between Nekotai and Shofangi, e.g. (arbitrarily a "cutting" class, using knives) other than some of the other flavor skills like Oothai, perhaps (Some of which may not even be staying?) or Scorpionblood, etc. Also, do we even want monk specs to be able to reliably give out afflictions at the rate you suggest? Without affecting ka/momentum costs, if I got to five I'd be able to potentially hand out two critical afflictions at once, and for 5p, I could do all sorts of nasty stuff with poisons, or modifiers. Just some food for thought to move the discussion, I guess.
I'm fine with Kaimanahi's basic proposal and especially the charts for what the effects (ailments) would be (both original proposals were just placeholders really as we were more focused on mechanics).
But I'm wondering if we can't use Kaima's ailment chart and work it in with Proposal I. Despite the articulate dissension about the change in bleeding, I still think bruising and bleeding respectively associated with blunt and cut attacks would ultimately be a good mechanic. I also like having two 'wounding' types (one for bleeding and one for bruising). Finally, to be clear, I want to remove healing potion as an applied cure for wounds and only have ice be the cure (whatever we do).
Yeah, I didn't count Nekotai Finalsting because it's slated to get changed per that Envoy report, but I appreciate your comment in that it is a frustrating kill strategy. When most of Lusternia combat is in groups, I think those types of kill methods are even worse. There's a reason why current disembowel is never (practically) used!
Regarding armour, I was just throwing numbers out there to demonstrate the concept, but I was under the impression that the advantage of tattoo armour was that it gave you additional dmp or effects in accordance with the buffs/resistances your tattoos give you. Also to note, only warriors can wear plate. So, generally, I would like armour to only affect the blunt/cutting dmp and maybe PvE if that hasn't been addressed by the new dmp system. Tweak the numbers so it makes sense that you're trading off elemental dmp (from greatrobes proofs, tattooarmour?) for physical dmp, and not have it actually affect wounding rates to get rid of those outliers.
Yeah, so again, I don't know the intimacies of every monk class in order to make many intelligent comments. As I understand in the current system, monks do not really rely upon wounds to cause afflictions, and at least to me that's always meant that they've been an easier and more deadly class to play than warriors. But, I'm not sure if monks should do wounding, because I'm not sure how it would play out in group scenarios and as you said it does take away some of the uniqueness of the class. So maybe you have to expend some power to cause external afflictions, or maybe there is some momentum requirement or other mechanic as is at present. The cutting/blunt effects were my spin on how to revamp warriors, but I was considering that each kata spec could have its own set of effects, maybe with emphasis to pressure vitals like ego and mana as well. Then your kill methods might become some combination of affliction, bleeding, and/or vitals states (as opposed to the warrior version of affliction and wound states), maybe something akin to the present DeathTouch.
I was hoping Malarious or Lerad might jump in to weigh in on that sort of stuff, but I just wanted to introduce the general concept from a warrior perspective to see if that might be a path forward.
I also think it would be interesting for classes like the -woods who have physical themes to get some more offense that could mesh into this system. Yeah, I see you @Enyalida.
I think this would be another great thing to implement into the Overhaul arena and allow people to test things out thoroughly.
I like the idea, but I see potential issues that I'm not sure are really issues, so being able to test it out thoroughly would be good. Things like just focusing on arms to give a 3 second stun, bleedx3 and clumsiness and have one handers just build bleeding up super quick via arm hits. Numbers and things may need tweaked, but being able to put it through the ringer in the overhaul arena would allow it to be polished in an appropiate manner.
Just to clarify, only the wound effects are cumalitve and not the external affs right? So if you chose to give burstorgans, it wouldn't be burstorgans, a 3 sec stun and opengut, just burstorgans?
I'm fine with Kaimanahi's basic proposal and especially the charts for what the effects (ailments) would be (both original proposals were just placeholders really as we were more focused on mechanics).
But I'm wondering if we can't use Kaima's ailment chart and work it in with Proposal I. Despite the articulate dissension about the change in bleeding, I still think bruising and bleeding respectively associated with blunt and cut attacks would ultimately be a good mechanic. I also like having two 'wounding' types (one for bleeding and one for bruising). Finally, to be clear, I want to remove healing potion as an applied cure for wounds and only have ice be the cure (whatever we do).
The thing that I had the most trouble with, regarding the bleeding and bruising mechanic, was that it seemed difficult to balance. For context, I am thinking about this from a 1v1 and group combat perspectives. In all other classes of the game, general afflictions and vitals pressuring stacks. If I'm trying to drain mana to get an absolve kill, that also helps a monk who's trying to get a DeathTouch kill. But wounding has been this mechanic that has been specific to warriors (and monks to a smaller extent), to the point where if you find yourself in a group combat situation as the only warrior, you're better off just web spamming than actually trying to build wounds by yourself. When I started to play other non-warrior classes I realized just how much easier it was to make an impact and to synergize with others, and to be honest if I had my way in this current system I'd never be a warrior again. The fact that you cannot do anything significant until you build wounds is extremely frustrating and impractical when combat happens fast in groups.
So I think by splitting wounding into a bleed and bruise wounding system you're even further creating a disparity, and it makes balancing more difficult because you will either have everyone in the game take up the same weapon spec/style or it will become overwhelming to have to try to cure both. I would rather have a singular system that encourages balances across physical classes and gives them the opportunity to contribute to combat outside of doing a little bit of bleeding and damage here and there.
Could you maybe expand upon why you think bruising/bleeding would be a good mechanic?
@Synkarin yes I agree the numbers and effects need to be tweaked, but I tried to put it in at least some working order. I think having parry be 100% would help alleviate some of the concerns where you might expect someone to just go train on one limb. And yes to your question regarding the external affs; I did not intend for them to be cumulative.
So, here's the deal with tattoos armor. Right now, as a trans tattooist, I believe I get 84/84 or 82/82 armor. Flexed at the moment, so can't double check. Defensive DMP from tattoos is doubled, offensive DMP is not (granted, this is likely to change with something come overhaul buff system). Personally, I'd like to see some of the other tattoo powers have expanded things with kata users, but I haven't brewed anything up in my brain yet.
As I understand for wounding and monks, a few things do require some wounds built up. I believe that Ninjakari have wound minimums that they require, and possibly the starkick from Tahtetso does as well. Wounds, of course, amplify the damage that we cause, though with our wound building rates having someone prone/sensitive/boosted damage form modifier is more valuable in 1v1.
From what I was reading in Estarra's proposal 1, it seems to me that momentum would get drained if we wanted to cause an external affliction in your new system. In addition to the effect, it appears it would cause some limb damage as well depending on the momentum level, etc. I do agree though, that it seems more likely that each kata spec would have their own set of effects. At least, that'd make since, since we're all half cut/half blunt except for Tahta.
I like the idea of blunt doing one type of wounding (bruises), and slashing doing another (wounds), but I'm worried about the implementation. It gives good flavour to the different weapon types, and if they gave the right type of affliction, I think it could be useful. But personally, every effect I can think of for bruising and bleeding, would either make the subsystem too powerful, or too useless, except for flavour.
But what I do think would be nice, is if the type of wound, (bruise or wounding) was directly correlated to the type of effect. Thus making axelords, I think, slightly more desirable since they would, along with cavaliers, give both types. Ofcourse, it might make bonecrushers the least desirable unless they become seen as "too powerful" again, as they were in the beginning.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I would note that I don't oppose the bruising/bleeding mechanic so long as the "bleeding" mechanic doesn't interfere with the current bleeding in game. It may get confusing calling two different things by the same name though. It's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that replacing bleeding with this mechanic across the boards will result in Nekotai, Telekinetics, Shadowdancers, Ninjakari, Nihilists, Harbingers, and Blacktalon at the bare minimum to rework skills that have been balanced around a stable bleeding mechanic for 8+ years. 10 guilds for half the specs available for 6 guilds? The cost benefit here is off kilter. Then the question is what can you replace bleeding mana drain with that is comparable? Afflictions? The drain from focuses provided by curing afflictions is helpful but does not come close to replacing bleeding A new mechanic? Undermines the goal of the overhaul to simplify mechanics and reduce volume of mechanics and afflictions. Just more flat mana drain? Boring, IMO, and with some siginificant group balancing challenges.
3 second stun, for the record, is excessive even at critical namely because it can be repeated without a power cost. When looking at the critical wound abilities, we have to really be cognizant of the fact that these attacks can be repeated over and over and over at warrior speeds, so they have the potential to be wildly more powerful than a caster equivalent that would cost power and is limited by general 3 second equilibrium times.
Hmm, what if "open wounds" increased damage sensitivity by 5% per level, and "bruising" increased healing time by 5% per level? Or is that still too weak on its own to be much use to anybody? i.e. 20% extra damage at level 5, and 0.5 second increase to use a curative at level 5. (And yes, I'm purposefully, suggesting things which I think in general, would synergize better with the opposite weapon type, so that it becomes handy in group combat, but not so powerful one on one)
Comments
I still say this is mostly a red herring. Once you make a system to handle a specific cure it is fairly trivial to add another affliction to the list. It isn't so much the affs that are daunting as it is affs which need special handling (aeon, pre-applying for heartburst, apply and wait, etc). But moreso than that, what is daunting to newbies are having to deal with all the insta-kills, in the sense of. "Oh this aff sets up for this kill if I don't run now I may not be able to survive." This last is what makes it take ages and ages for anyone to make a system here.
Secondly, I would disagree that it is a red herring - because part of the reason why there is resistance to the removal of afflictions in the first place is because all of them have a certain role and effect. Learning every single tiny intricacy is not needed for entry into combat, but learning the general idea for most certainly is, and that prospect has always been a daunting one for newbies. If the afflictions were "trivial" to handle just by being added into a list for a system, then one, there won't be newbies (or non-combatants) who would be troubled by it, and two, there won't be any resistance to removing those "trivial" afflictions, anyway. As a matter of fact, we are facing both situations. To look at it from another perspective, even with a proper system, learning combat IS daunting. You really don't just add afflictions to a system and call it a day if you want to get into combat.
I personally do think removing large swathes of the physical affliction list will simplify things a lot, and therefore lose some complexity which perhaps holds the charm for many players. Whether we want that or not is what Estarra is asking - I'm not sure if there is an argument to be made for the stance that the amount of afflictions don't have an effect on newbies trying to get into combat, though.
Amateurish coding systems can keep you alive in Achaea while the equivalent system here will get you killed far more often and will lock up far more often. This is why, I drew a distinction between difficulty in handling afflictions. The number of total affs is less a problem then the number of affs which require unique and difficult handling -- the later are far more likely to be actual bars to entry. The difficulty of making systems is less about number of affs then it is about coding to handle an aff (to clearify, coding to cure is generally the bulk of the coding problem).
When server-side curing is added that will remove the main bar for entry to starting to play. However, I still believe that 'caution states' (at a loss for a better term) are a huge barrier and not likely to be greatly impacted by any of the proposed changes.
By 'caution states' I mean all the various (and often one off) 'conditions' that you have to track in Lusternia that if you fail to track get you killed. These form a sort of meta-aff and as a set tend to be poorly or near-completely undocumented in the game. Of course they exist in other games, but they exist in far greater numbers here and they are IMO what drives away more players.
Secondly, by distilling the large number of afflictions into a more centered, core set of afflictions, many of the "special case" afflictions which are complex and pose a difficulty to learning combat will also have to become candidates for removal as well. After all, part of the problem, as you say, is exemplified when you compare us to other IREs - we have more causes of those "caution states" than other IRE games, with some afflictions playing this role. By removing a number of those afflictions that require players to learn and be aware of the fact that they are now in some kind of intangible (not mechanically apparent) danger, we therefore lower the bar needed for players to learn combat.
In short, lowering the number of affs WILL definitely contribute to alleviating the problems you speak of as well - it is not a red herring, or even "mostly" a red herring. It IS a possible solution, if not the entire cure. The only thing that is of a concern isn't whether lowering afflictions will help (they will), but the concern of whether removing afflictions will over-simplify the system until it is no longer fun. This would be Rivius' stance, and one I agree is something we should consider as we ponder the possible choices available to us. I do agree that warrior dynamics can be very fun for those who enjoy it - the layers of RNG and wounds and afflictions and cures make it a very complex game, and as warriors have always shown, they have the potential to stack on really devastating PVP effects. However, at the same time, this very complex dynamic which is the bedrock for warrior combat is also (supposedly) contributing to the barrier of entry, and addressing that is one of the goals (I think) we want to work towards.
Given how important this concern is, we should be concentrating on, and thinking about, how much we want to simplify the system, and the dangers of over-simplification. I don't think, at this point, arguing about the act of lowering the number of afflictions is productive to everyone's common goal. Lowering the amount of afflictions is, in my opinion, a step that needs to be taken, regardless of whatever we finally decide on, even if it be maintaining the current system of wound building and RNG (also something I can't really justify supporting, since RNG is so frustrating, and has been cited many times in the past as being frustrating even by current warriors).
number of afflictions is productive to everyone's common goal. There's a difference between saying I don't think it'll make much of a difference and not to do it. It does have other benifits, influding but not limited to should make some things easier to balance.
Lastly on this, your view is by far that of the majority. I'm not in the minority, but so far in the minority that I may be alone in my view. The information we have on this seems skewed to me (we all are of the group 'plays the game' and not of the group 'won't play the game'). So my experience with players who want to make their own system is that it isn't really the list of affs and list of cures that cause them to give up, but more that even after they finish a basic curing system they realize they have just about as much if not more work to do getting all the remaining combat lines and figuring out combat. I think there are other reasons that impact who plays then number of affs, and even more so than combat in general. I get that those who play the game mostly for combat see this as the problem. Either way time will tell, though no matter what the changes are it seems difficult to believe that when serverside curing is introduced it won't have an impact that dwarfs the other changes...the number of those who would want to code their own system has to be trivial compared to those who would use something set up for them.
But more back on the solution. If you want to simplify knights, why not combine the extra body-parts? Combine gut and chest into torso.
Combining gut and chest is definitely something that is a good idea as well, from a purely numerical point of view. As a monk, I don't have as much experience as a warrior with how having two "torso" parts affect combat strategy and mechanics, but I've always felt the two give fairly similar affs, with gut affs usually being more important than chest ones, is my impression, at least. Perhaps it'll make it harder for a warrior if we combine the two, since chest being less "important" on first sight makes it a prime choice for warriors to start building wounds from, and drawing stance/parry away from the other bodyparts. But if there's not much difference, combining them will also help, probably.
Like proposal 1, attacks will do a set amount of "wounding level", and you will have both "bruising", and "open wounds". However, unlike proposal 1, having a specific bruise or open wound level won't have any effect on its own. Instead, those levels will only affect which pre-existing affliction can be triggered. Specialisation such as Cavaliers, or Axelords, or a monk specialisation who's weapon is neither clearly only blunt or cutting, will then also be able to give specific afflictions based on a combination of "bruising" and "open wound" levels. i.e. at least 3 levels of bruising and 4 levels of open wounds, with a hit to the head, might give some post-overhaul mental affliction.
From the perspective of the person getting hit, they will have to deal with three issues. What is their current bruise level, what is their current cutting level, and do they want to risk being open to some other affliction that they already otherwise have to be able to cure. (This might also open up the possibility of not being able to permanently cure that affliction until the bruising or open wound level has been reduced.)
The trick then would be finding the right affliction to match the pre-existing skill, but if someone is able to point me to the final list I should be able to do that easily enough.
(working on pasting the table)
New Ailment
Effect
Replaces
Blunt Trauma, Arms
Broken Arm
Broken Wrist, Fractured Arm,
Blunt Trauma, Legs
Broken Leg
Dislocated Leg, Crushedfoot, Mangled Leg
Blunt Trauma, Head
Concussion
Broken Skull
Blunt Trauma, Torso
Crushed Chest
Crushed Chest
Blunt Trauma, Gut
Ruptured Stomach
Pinched Nerve, Numbness,
Open Wound, Arms
Severed Artery, Arms
Pierced Arm, Severed Artery, Lacerated Arm
Open Wound, Legs
Severed Artery, Legs
Cut Tendon, Severed Artery, Lacerated Leg,
Open Wound, Head
Slit Throat
Crushed Windpipe,
Open Wound, Torso
Opened Chest
Punctured Lung, Punctured Chest,
Open Wound, Gut
Open Gut
Burst Organs
addiction
addiction
Shattered Jaw, Broken Jaw,
confusion
confusion
Missing Ear ,
hallucinations
hallucinations
Furrowed Brow, Eye Pecked
recklessness
recklessness
Broken Chest,Sliced Thigh,
stupidity
stupidity
Scrambled Brain
clumsiness
clumsiness
Cracked Elbow, Shatteredankle, , Sliced Bicep,
epilepsy
epilepsy
Short Breath, Chest Pain
paranoia
paranoia
Snapped Rib
sensitivity
sensitivity
Pinched Nerve, Numbness, Collapsed Arm Nerve, Collapsed Leg Nerve
disloyalty
disloyalty
Gashed Cheek, Broken Nose,
healthleech
healthleech
Sliced Tongue, Bleeding Forehead, Scalped, Clotted Leg
aeon
aeon
Mangled Leg , Pierced Leg,
pacifism
pacifism
Mangled Arm,
dysentery
dysentery
Disembowel,
paralysis
paralysis
Amputated Leg, Amputated Arm, Sever Spine
vomiting
vomiting
Collapsed Lung,
haemophilia
haemophilia
Cracked Kneecap, Dislocated Arm, Clotted Arm
rigormortis
rigormortis
Twisted Arm, Twisted Leg
sickening
sickening
Severphrenic
I don't really care which affliction replaces which, the main point was showing a hypothetical example of mapping the final effect of a physical ailment to the mental, internal or spiritual affliction that it is similiar to. If there is no clear mapping, I would suggest replacing the ability to one that has a clear mapping.
I think the idea that a physical ailment causes mental or internal ailments isn't that far fetched.
Also, I don't think they are looking at making changes to armor,rebounding,stances etc at this time-- but hopefully I'm mistaken.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
More related to the buff overhaul, I'm not sure that your numbers for armour makes sense. For instance, monk perspective, why would I take tattoos over plate? Maybe the Trans Tattoos ability on a monk needs some changing from where it is, but at least those mock numbers don't make sense to me, as there'd really be no reason to have Trans tattoos. You can't have tattooarmour in kata and any armour as it is, but as long as armour is better, then the entire skill is sort of irrelevant. Just a slight aside.
But I'm wondering if we can't use Kaima's ailment chart and work it in with Proposal I. Despite the articulate dissension about the change in bleeding, I still think bruising and bleeding respectively associated with blunt and cut attacks would ultimately be a good mechanic. I also like having two 'wounding' types (one for bleeding and one for bruising). Finally, to be clear, I want to remove healing potion as an applied cure for wounds and only have ice be the cure (whatever we do).
So I think by splitting wounding into a bleed and bruise wounding system you're even further creating a disparity, and it makes balancing more difficult because you will either have everyone in the game take up the same weapon spec/style or it will become overwhelming to have to try to cure both. I would rather have a singular system that encourages balances across physical classes and gives them the opportunity to contribute to combat outside of doing a little bit of bleeding and damage here and there.