Tactical Spell Combat

Archive of the Sojourn3 Gameplay Discussion Forum.
Azenilsee
Sojourner
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Tactical Spell Combat

Postby Azenilsee » Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:43 am

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Azenilsee wrote:
Corth wrote:That makes them even more useful to a group then they used to be. That can't really be disputed.

True, but what's your point?

I believe Corth's Not-So-Hidden agenda is to remerge the defensive and offensive spec caster classes into Sorcerers.


After thinking things thru (and looking at Xisi's posts), I concede Corth has a good point.

A lot of threads on BBS talk about combat need to be more tactical and strategic, but offer a melee-based solution. As much as I understand it, the current changes to the defensive skills is a small step in that direction.

However, I'm intrigued at the possibility of tactics in combat having more of a focus in spells and effects instead of damage, and I also think that _ultimately_ the downgrading or upgrading of damage is not the right way to go.

Spells like sandblasts and fell frost are good examples of targeted spells with effects, and at the same time offering some strategic options while dealing a good amount of damage.

Though I don't think that emerging the defensive/offensive capabilities of the different mage class into a Sorcerer class is the ultimate solution, I do think that it is possible to make combat more interesting by:

- having more targeted damage spells with different effects
- removing area damage (except for squid and druids)
- removing targeted silence

Coupled with the current melee change (and a possible upgrade to offensive skills in the future), I think that this would be a good change.

Feel free to discuss.
Azenilsee - Faern Dalharil
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:51 am

Heh, wow. that was a drastic change of heart. :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Azenilsee
Sojourner
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Postby Azenilsee » Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:56 am

All I can say is, I see your point. Though it helps if you don't attack invokers as the root of the problem, but massive area damage is. :P
Azenilsee - Faern Dalharil
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:02 am

Corth wrote:Heh, wow. that was a drastic change of heart. :)


So long as people aren't advocating outrageous and extreme measures (ie terming/banning/pfile deleting all players of a class), we have no need to post images of Turduckens and Gummi Bears ;)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:27 pm

who ever suggested something like that Xis?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:42 pm

Corth wrote:who ever suggested something like that Xis?


This is denial on par with that found over here
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:04 pm

Corth, since we both obviously have greatly differing interpretations of what these quotes mean:

Glorishan wrote:If you ask me, downgrading invokers isn't the solution...What is? Well, eliminating the entire class is.



Corth wrote:Amen. I agree with everything you say. I'd love to see invokers given a choice to become any of the other mage classes and that would be the end of it...


thanuk wrote:When it gets down to it, invoker is just the monk class with mem time. The closest this mud ever came to balance was after monks got pulled. 1+1=?


Sarkhon wrote:Solution: Remove Invokers and put Monks back in


Mplor wrote:As for Invokers, I think the game would be more fun for the majority of players if Invokers, as they currently exist, were gone.


I have decided to preempt the pointless semantic quibbling, bumped the ol' Stomping Ground, and anyone interested in the real story (hahahaha) can look at it themselves and form their own opinion.

I think that's the easiest way.
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:50 pm

removing a class is not the equivalent of:


"terming/banning/pfile deleting all players of a class"


Where classes have been removed in the past, players were able to continue playing as a different class. I.E, they were neither banned, termed, nor deleted. From what I can tell by your quotes, nobody is arguing otherwise.

Calm down man :)

Corth.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:16 pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Mplor wrote:As for Invokers, I think the game would be more fun for the majority of players if Invokers, as they currently exist, were gone.


Oh man, did I say that? I feel like someone just dug up the proverbial porno made when I was young and confused.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:32 pm

thanuk wrote:When it gets down to it, invoker is just the monk class with mem time. The closest this mud ever came to balance was after monks got pulled. 1+1=?



Truer words were never spoken.
err, typed.
yeah.

O'doyle rules!
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:51 pm

thanuk wrote:
thanuk wrote:When it gets down to it, invoker is just the monk class with mem time. The closest this mud ever came to balance was after monks got pulled. 1+1=?



Truer words were never spoken.
err, typed.
yeah.

O'doyle rules!


Thus spake Thanuk: Your mom.
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:38 am

Mplor wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Mplor wrote:As for Invokers, I think the game would be more fun for the majority of players if Invokers, as they currently exist, were gone.


Oh man, did I say that? I feel like someone just dug up the proverbial porno made when I was young and confused.


The difference is that you weren't paid money this time to spread your ... err.. n/m!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Tactical Spell Combat

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:25 am

Azenilsee wrote:
After thinking things thru (and looking at Xisi's posts), I concede Corth has a good point.

A lot of threads on BBS talk about combat need to be more tactical and strategic, but offer a melee-based solution. As much as I understand it, the current changes to the defensive skills is a small step in that direction.

However, I'm intrigued at the possibility of tactics in combat having more of a focus in spells and effects instead of damage, and I also think that _ultimately_ the downgrading or upgrading of damage is not the right way to go.

Spells like sandblasts and fell frost are good examples of targeted spells with effects, and at the same time offering some strategic options while dealing a good amount of damage.

Though I don't think that emerging the defensive/offensive capabilities of the different mage class into a Sorcerer class is the ultimate solution, I do think that it is possible to make combat more interesting by:

- having more targeted damage spells with different effects
- removing area damage (except for squid and druids)
- removing targeted silence

Coupled with the current melee change (and a possible upgrade to offensive skills in the future), I think that this would be a good change.

Feel free to discuss.


I would be interested in hearing someone argue against what Azenilsee said. The only problem I can think of is that many newer zones were written with areas in mind. Clouds, for instance, would be an entirely different story if areas weren't so prevalent. Other than that I can't think of such a great argument in favor of area damage.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Re: Tactical Spell Combat

Postby Xisiqomelir » Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:33 am

Corth wrote:
I would be interested in hearing someone argue against what Azenilsee said. The only problem I can think of is that many newer zones were written with areas in mind. Clouds, for instance, would be an entirely different story if areas weren't so prevalent. Other than that I can't think of such a great argument in favor of area damage.

Corth


Well, certain aspects of his argument would be imbalanced. This, for example:

Azenilsee wrote:Though I don't think that emerging the defensive/offensive capabilities of the different mage class into a Sorcerer class is the ultimate solution, I do think that it is possible to make combat more interesting by:

- having more targeted damage spells with different effects
- removing area damage (except for squid and druids)
- removing targeted silence



Would be a very unfair advantage to evil players if targeted silence were replaced with room silence. If silence was done away with all together, that would be a great weakening of the priest classes.
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"



Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Azenilsee
Sojourner
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Targeted Silence

Postby Azenilsee » Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:17 am

Well, my argument against targeted silence was mainly due to the number of stun spells we have available. It makes combat more proactive and frantic, rather than just spamming silence hoping one hits and silences a mob for the next 30 seconds.

Raise the rate and duration at which a mob can be stunned from spells if you want something like semi-silence, but at least this allows the mob to sneak in a spell or proc in between, rather than silencing it outright making it impotent.

Even if you don't want to remove silence, make it so that the effect is coupled with a spell that does damage, like silence with sandblast after a mob is blind, or the numerous stun spells used by shamans and illusionists. Then you can remove area damage.

I'm just suggesting ways to make combat more 'hands-on', rather than just area till everything dies.

If you're concerned with clerics not having anything to do apart from full heals, I'd suggest looking into an upgrade of holy/unholy word, I know that's been discussed before and there's a lot of arguments for an upgrade to the spell.
Azenilsee - Faern Dalharil
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Tactical Spell Combat

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:08 pm

Would be a very unfair advantage to evil players if targeted silence were replaced with room silence.


Nobody said anything about bringing back room silence..

I'm trying to remember my phallacies.. no that wasn't an ad hominem... hrmm.. was it a straw man?

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarkhon
Sojourner
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 6:01 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Sarkhon » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:35 pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Sarkhon wrote:Solution: Remove Invokers and put Monks back in



Umm yeah, that's a great quote there to provide support for your little argument. That post was 100% joking/sarcastic because I still enjoy tossing the merits of monks into the middle of heated arguments (especially because it was my friends who were arguing back and forth, and would mostly pick up on my sarcasm). Yep, that's just about it, deep breaths.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Re: Targeted Silence

Postby rylan » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:32 pm

Azenilsee wrote:If you're concerned with clerics not having anything to do apart from full heals, I'd suggest looking into an upgrade of holy/unholy word, I know that's been discussed before and there's a lot of arguments for an upgrade to the spell.


Clericw would becoming the most boring class on the mud without the silence spell... stand around, cast a full heal every now and then.. twibble. Silence gives us some strategy to fights besides just healing. And I don't see an upgrade to holy/unholy as a viable solution... it would have to be bumped to 8th or 9th circle to get used, and the increase in power would make PCs get owned by mobs spamming it much more than the added benefit to us.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Re: Tactical Spell Combat

Postby Xisiqomelir » Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:37 pm

Corth wrote:
Would be a very unfair advantage to evil players if targeted silence were replaced with room silence.


Nobody said anything about bringing back room silence..

I'm trying to remember my phallacies.. no that wasn't an ad hominem... hrmm.. was it a straw man?

Corth


Did I ever say it was anyone elses argument? If silence person were removed, the gods could either yank it without compensation or they could put back room silence. If you yank it completely that is a great downgrade to priest classes, if you put back room silence it is of massively unfair benefit to evil players. How is that fallacious?
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"



Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:59 pm

::cough::

Xisi... Corth knows how to spell "fallacy" ...
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Tactical Spell Combat

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:45 pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Corth wrote:
Would be a very unfair advantage to evil players if targeted silence were replaced with room silence.


Nobody said anything about bringing back room silence..

I'm trying to remember my phallacies.. no that wasn't an ad hominem... hrmm.. was it a straw man?

Corth


Did I ever say it was anyone elses argument? If silence person were removed, the gods could either yank it without compensation or they could put back room silence. If you yank it completely that is a great downgrade to priest classes, if you put back room silence it is of massively unfair benefit to evil players. How is that fallacious?


I see. So your statement was a result of inexperience in the game as opposed to maliciousness. Now would you like to know why your assumption is stupid?

Corth (now knows how to spell fallacy!)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Re: Tactical Spell Combat

Postby Xisiqomelir » Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:02 am

Corth wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Corth wrote:
Would be a very unfair advantage to evil players if targeted silence were replaced with room silence.


Nobody said anything about bringing back room silence..

I'm trying to remember my phallacies.. no that wasn't an ad hominem... hrmm.. was it a straw man?

Corth


Did I ever say it was anyone elses argument? If silence person were removed, the gods could either yank it without compensation or they could put back room silence. If you yank it completely that is a great downgrade to priest classes, if you put back room silence it is of massively unfair benefit to evil players. How is that fallacious?


I see. So your statement was a result of inexperience in the game as opposed to maliciousness. Now would you like to know why your assumption is stupid?


What assumption?
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"



Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:34 am

*roll*
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “S3 Gameplay Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest