Player Input to Development

Questions and suggestions for additions or changes to these topics

Moderators: Ehlanna, Stormbringer

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby Adonai on Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:44 pm

Right now, a magical class fighting a non-magical class is not a fight, it's just plain bullying. :roll: Only if des likes you.
Let the warriors clamor after gods of blood and thunder; love is hard, harder than steel and thrice as cruel. It is as inexorable as the tides, and life and death alike follow in its wake.
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:03 am

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby Weissteufel on Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:45 pm

I would like to clarify that my overall suggestions were for enchantments and how they work mechanically. It was never my intention to turn this thread into another debate about Magical vs physical classes. The comparison was used as an example to demonstrate my thoughts on armor ratings and traditional RPG roles, and that is all. While I understand the responses to my suggestions, I believe we have gone off of the rails from Naomh's original intent of gathering feedback on enchantments, specifically.
Robert Blackwood - High Human Mercenary
Telchar - Dwarven Artisan

User avatar
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:03 am

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby Balard on Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:26 am

On Topic:
What i think should happen, say with the permanent stat enchantments, maybe allow us to get them on our legs for agility, arms for strength, body for resistance, neck/head for intelligence something like that, it would kinda make sense in a way as it is enhancing your body to make you stronger

But for me since i don't use a lot of enchantments in combat, it is a bit hard for me to say what should be changed to make things better and i am curious to see how this pans out and how it would effect people.

Off Topic:
@Farvel Saying a physical class gets bullied against a magical class, it is wrong completely, plus for a Warlord it is +5 for whichever stance i take against magical or physical opponents or if i go for attack, but regardless of that, i have knocked a fair few magical users on their rear with my blade and my shield, so to say physical classes get bullied it is so not true, They got to worry about stamina, they got to worry about spell slots, so basically them 2 already cut into a good chunk of stats where as i don't have to worry too much about either.
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Western Australia

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby Farvel on Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:05 pm

Balard wrote:for a Warlord it is +5 for whichever stance i take against magical or physical opponents or if i go for attack

Farvel wrote:Or +30 against physical attacks, if they choose the Physical Armor spell instead (or any elemental equivalent spells, every class has them). And that, along with:
- the armor rating itself
- spells that make the warrior take automatic damage for even trying to hit the caster
- spells that cut opponent's attack/defense rolls by 30% or more (some whose duration lasts until the end of the fight)
- stun spells that make recovering stamina a breeze
- spells like "mirror image" that reduce the changes of even attacking the right target to 1/6 (!)
- etc.

That +5 you get is meaningless against all of the above. :wink:

As for the rest, it's been coverd ad nauseum before, over and over. Most people are in it for the fun and don't care much about stats, and how to develop their characters for combat, and that's perfectly fine, combat is not what this game is about. So saying "I've defeated characters A, B and C" is pretty much meaningless.

Math is math, you can't "agree" or "disagree" with it. Randomness can be averaged out and predicted. Casinos consistently make money close to 100% of the time, even though every single round of every single game in there is random.

P.S. - It's quite telling that a player who's been in the game for just a few months has already figured out the major imbalance there is. :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:16 am

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby miyuka on Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:19 pm

This is player input to dev, not player complain about their thoughts on mechanics. It's a tired old argument/debate that you can have anywhere else but in here. Stay on topic or don't post at all.
User avatar
High Council
High Council
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Georgia USA baby!

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby Joshua_Jericho on Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:00 pm

Okay, more wide-ranging review since I can't sleep :D. Yay 3 AM! I appreciate some of these changes are pretty broad - I'm just spitballing here without thought of application.

Firstly, I'd suggest we re-categorise. Types of enchants available currently.

  • Castable spells (Battle, OOB, anywhere) Charges or Slots.
  • Permanent spell-like effects (Battle, OOB)
  • Ship enchants
  • Stat enchants
  • ATK/DEF enchants
  • Focus enchants

I'm gonna come back to castables and spell-likes, glossing over for now.

Ships, stats, focus I think are all pretty good. Ships I wouldn't know much about but they seem to do their thing pretty well, stats work nicely - but I think I'd rephrase them into being either permanent, or, triggerable, in which case they need to be Charge based - I think the current refreshing/non refreshing system works pretty well there.

ATK is in a decent place - works nicely, adds to base attack roll, rather than damage which we can address later on.

DEF I'd suggest reworking. Currently :

Defense enchant:

Casting method: none
Defending method: none

Description: Can be placed upon: Weapons, Armor, Jewelry

Cost: 100 if placed upon a weapon, 125 otherwise

Defensive enchants add +1 to a players defensive rolls against magical or physical attacks. Each item can only hold up to +5 Def. There is a hard cap of +15 to the total amount of defense enchants a character can hold. (Note: Defence enchantments on weapons will only count against close physical attacks.)

I'm aware this is a big change here, but I'd suggest scrapping the way DEF works currently. Instead, let any item which has a physical Armour Rating get enhanced with +DEF up to the value of that armour rating. So Vambraces could go to +1, RoTAM to +5, full plate to +13, and so forth. This would go some way towards addressing the off topic points raised by others re physical/magical balance.

Focus enchants I'm fairly happy with except for the wording.

Focus enchantments can be very useful to casters. Focus enchantments reduce the stamina cost of a spell already known, not enchantments, to a maximum of 7. Focus does not cover the stamina up keep for spells, only the initial casting cost. It can be enchanted on weapons, armor, jewelry, tattoo's, and any MISC item that can hold 2 or more enchantments.

The cost of Focus enchantments is 100 Mhl for the first slot, and 200 Mhl for each slot up to 7.

I'd suggest that the bold bit needs to be "By a maximum of 7". I'm assuming -1 stam cost per slot of focus.

Circling back around to spell enchants. Based on this thread, only magical classes can use spell enchants, whether charge based or straight slots, for battle stuff. OOB and soft enchants are ok. I can't remember where, but I've also seen comments indicating that people who can't use specific spells (Fire Mages, water spells etc) shouldn't be using a wand or similar to get round this.

So, with that in mind, why have enchantable slots at all? The only people who could use them would be mages who could literally just learn the same spells themselves and cast them with the same stamina requirements and restrictions. We could keep the Charges spell slots if people want them, because they have a clear benefit - zero stamina cost, but otherwise, it's just unnecesary complication.

So new suggested category - castable battle spells. Can ONLY be cast with charges. From the current sphere, I think that's :
  • Chill Touch
  • Colour Spray
  • Energy Bolt
  • Fire Bolt
  • Ice Shards
  • Damage Shield
  • Magical Armour
  • Physical Armour
  • Shocking Grasp

I'd suggest adding in Burning Fingers and Stun Bolt to this list. Obviously non-magical types can only use these.

Then, I suggest for castable OOB spells, we amend the page and simply say that any Common sphere spell can be enchanted onto an item on a Charge basis under the current rules, and then just keep the unique-to-items on the Enchant page, which by my count are :
  • Cold and Hot
  • Dissolve
  • Ignite
  • Instrument
  • Morph
  • General Soft Enchants
  • Visual Effects

Finally, we have spell like effects. Currently we treat these as the "make permanent" version of the elemental spells above. I'd suggest we separate them out. I see these being either temporary using the Charge system or permanent as per current system. I would also suggest (HC likely have an opinion here) that these are far enough from spells that we could let physical classes use them. It's closer to a barbarian shouting the trigger word to have his sword catch fire for a fight than the same barbarian using the sword to throw fireballs. Alternatively, we could scrap the temporary forms of the elemental enchants and only have permanent ones in play?

  • ATK
  • DEF (per notes above)
  • Stat Boost
  • Fire
  • Ice
  • Lightning

Obviously nicer fluff versions of the elements go here. Maybe also something for Earth? Stat wise they all currently do +1 damage per 5 slots, (damage not ATK) which while OK seems like it might be irrelevant at higher levels - maybe +10% per 5 slots instead? To my mind Focus belongs in with this category too.

I would also suggest here that we could add Magical and Physical armour to this list, depending on how far HC want to let the whole "magic for non magic people" thing go.

So tl;dr, summary stuff.

  • Re-categorise. For most OOB, simply note that Common Sphere applies, include Ship and unique item enchants on Enchant page.
  • Change how DEF works - cap by armour value of item enchanted.
  • Scrap enchanting "spell slots" that take stamina onto items entirely - make it all either charges or permanent.
  • Split out categories - castable battle spells (charges only) and "spell like effects" - charges and permanent.
  • Let non-magic people use spell like effects but not the battle spells - I think this captures HC intentions, open to corrections.

Hopefully not totally incoherent. This was also supposed to be a general review - next thing I'm gonna try and think about is potential additions :).

Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby Naomh on Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:08 pm

That's quite the post, and will take a little bit for me to go through and process.

Thank you all for the input thus far. Just wanted to post here to let you all know what you're putting here isn't being ignored.
Avatar courtesy of: Lucky/Isilindil :
Team member of: Dev, SI, Quest, Ops
Manager of: Sorcerous Sanctuary (Anaya), Unigo (Headmistress - Keani), Lodge of Strength (Head Priestess - Robyn)
Assistant manager of: Thallis (Lady of the Azure Isle - Naomh), Sutara's house (Majordomo - North), Arena (Records Keeper - Kateri)
User avatar
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:23 am

Re: Player Input to Development

Postby Joshua_Jericho on Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:00 pm

Absolutely appreciated, thank you for reading :). It may all be useless waffle, in which case, feel free to ignore me :D.
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:37 pm


Return to Races, Classes and Skills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest