Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>Which is why it's silly to reduce the power of a spell based on a whine post.
You have no basis for this claim, but neither is it just one person's complaint nor against just one sorcerer.
>Like when my little ranger gets killed by the bard using non-friendly AE spells on the trail between Landing and Solhaven.
>Or when my wizard gets e-waved by capped groups hunting bandits in the same forest that is my hunting ground on Teras.
Those are one-off spells where you have a minor chance of getting hit while passing by. 709 is persistent grasping, where the single cast can result in multiple inconveniences or prevent someone from standing and moving at a reasonable rate. Regardless, people shouldn't be using non-player friendly AOE spells indiscriminately in high traffic areas, especially if they are not even present in the room to face the danger along with everyone else.
Increasing everyone else's quality of life is a plus. Disablers were never intended to be used so one could run away and have them still work.
>>Which is why it's silly to reduce the power of a spell based on a whine post.
>You have no basis for this claim, but neither is it just one person's complaint nor against just one sorcerer.
I don't think the OP (Aurach) is the same person complaining about the spell elsewhere a couple weeks ago (Alastir)
But there is a substantial basis. I can say with a high degree of confidence that the feud brought this topic to light. True, it doesn't mean no one else had a problem wit that spell (that would be strange to say, the OP is not one of those two people). Regardless, it was primarily a feud between two players, and I don't think taking away a core ability from all sorcerers that reflected the 709 slot's history is the best solution. Several others are in fact more appealing. Also the justification which has been given is GM cherry-picking examples of spells. Sure, you can also claim I'm cherry-picking counter-examples, but I never claimed all spells work in a certain way or that "design" is a certain way. There are quite a number of spells on both sides of the fence as far as spells that affect other rooms.
I guess you know all about this but just in case...it's been a pretty big back-and-forth, and not just on the unofficials either. Saying there is "no basis" for that claim is outlandish. This feud has been loud and public, and there is a strong basis between posts, in-game action, LNet banter, and probably more. See: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?104450-AFK-Scripter-Baeleron
Estild
>It was inconsistent design. All room based effects should end when the caster is not present or is dead. All clouds, Light/Darkness, Minor Sanctuary, etc, work that way.
The really sad thing is, I was focusing on the "etc" part (e.g. what was not said). But I realized the only hostile example given is clouds, which is also not reasonable. I pulled up the Firestorm (1715) wiki and found the quote
Although this implies some difference from the caster's presence, the effect certainly does not end when the caster is not present!! I can't believe this is a GM's only example using a hostile spell and it's dead wrong. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to make a table and do some research for all the spells which fall into various categories in order to consider all of game design.
(Incidentally, I don't have an issue with 709 ending when the caster is dead. I think we can separate this as a totally unrelated issue.)
Though, of course if I bring up clouds I must touch on this:
Fleurs
>This was why cloud spells were removed from PCs to prevent the "cast and run" method of gaining experience safely.
As above with why Quake was moved, I question if you actually know that this was the logic employed. Since this was done quite some time ago, I'm guessing as much as you are, and I had the strong impression that clouds were moved because they were unpopular with the players of the class -- exactly the same situation that causes Quake to be moved according to what the GMs stated during HSN.
If "cast and run" was such a huge issue, what about Torment?! Frankly, I had that very high on the list of sorcerer base spells that would see changes during HSN, and it was mostly left alone.
>>The sorcerer base is also the only circle without buffs you can cast on other players.
>This is a positive as it prevents sorcerers from being treated as bots.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
>You have no basis for this claim, but neither is it just one person's complaint nor against just one sorcerer.
I don't think the OP (Aurach) is the same person complaining about the spell elsewhere a couple weeks ago (Alastir)
But there is a substantial basis. I can say with a high degree of confidence that the feud brought this topic to light. True, it doesn't mean no one else had a problem wit that spell (that would be strange to say, the OP is not one of those two people). Regardless, it was primarily a feud between two players, and I don't think taking away a core ability from all sorcerers that reflected the 709 slot's history is the best solution. Several others are in fact more appealing. Also the justification which has been given is GM cherry-picking examples of spells. Sure, you can also claim I'm cherry-picking counter-examples, but I never claimed all spells work in a certain way or that "design" is a certain way. There are quite a number of spells on both sides of the fence as far as spells that affect other rooms.
I guess you know all about this but just in case...it's been a pretty big back-and-forth, and not just on the unofficials either. Saying there is "no basis" for that claim is outlandish. This feud has been loud and public, and there is a strong basis between posts, in-game action, LNet banter, and probably more. See: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?104450-AFK-Scripter-Baeleron
Estild
>It was inconsistent design. All room based effects should end when the caster is not present or is dead. All clouds, Light/Darkness, Minor Sanctuary, etc, work that way.
The really sad thing is, I was focusing on the "etc" part (e.g. what was not said). But I realized the only hostile example given is clouds, which is also not reasonable. I pulled up the Firestorm (1715) wiki and found the quote
| Cloud spells will dissipate faster if their caster is not in the same room. |
Although this implies some difference from the caster's presence, the effect certainly does not end when the caster is not present!! I can't believe this is a GM's only example using a hostile spell and it's dead wrong. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to make a table and do some research for all the spells which fall into various categories in order to consider all of game design.
(Incidentally, I don't have an issue with 709 ending when the caster is dead. I think we can separate this as a totally unrelated issue.)
Though, of course if I bring up clouds I must touch on this:
Fleurs
>This was why cloud spells were removed from PCs to prevent the "cast and run" method of gaining experience safely.
As above with why Quake was moved, I question if you actually know that this was the logic employed. Since this was done quite some time ago, I'm guessing as much as you are, and I had the strong impression that clouds were moved because they were unpopular with the players of the class -- exactly the same situation that causes Quake to be moved according to what the GMs stated during HSN.
If "cast and run" was such a huge issue, what about Torment?! Frankly, I had that very high on the list of sorcerer base spells that would see changes during HSN, and it was mostly left alone.
>>The sorcerer base is also the only circle without buffs you can cast on other players.
>This is a positive as it prevents sorcerers from being treated as bots.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
<As above with why Quake was moved, I question if you actually know that this was the logic employed. Since this was done quite some time ago, I'm guessing as much as you are, and I had the strong impression that clouds were moved because they were unpopular with the players of the class -- exactly the same situation that causes Quake to be moved according to what the GMs stated during HSN.>
As I recall it, the wizards cloud spells were replaced because they could not only leave the room, but the clouds also had a tendency to wander. I think they were also MORE popular then intended and with the huge influx of new players there were just too many complaints about folk dying to other player's clouds (I remember having to run quickly from them quite a bit in the Graveyard back in the day).
Of course, it has been many years since then, so I could be getting some details wrong.
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
As I recall it, the wizards cloud spells were replaced because they could not only leave the room, but the clouds also had a tendency to wander. I think they were also MORE popular then intended and with the huge influx of new players there were just too many complaints about folk dying to other player's clouds (I remember having to run quickly from them quite a bit in the Graveyard back in the day).
Of course, it has been many years since then, so I could be getting some details wrong.
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
| DAID |
| Sure, you can also claim I'm cherry-picking counter-examples, but I never claimed all spells work in a certain way or that "design" is a certain way. There are quite a number of spells on both sides of the fence as far as spells that affect other rooms. |
All that means is that are a few spells that are not following the appropriate design. There are exceptions to allow some spells to act differently, but it's not the standard to allow that.
| DAID |
| The really sad thing is, I was focusing on the "etc" part (e.g. what was not said). But I realized the only hostile example given is clouds, which is also not reasonable. I pulled up the Firestorm (1715) wiki and found the quote |
| "Cloud spells will dissipate faster if their caster is not in the same room." |
| Although this implies some difference from the caster's presence, the effect certainly does not end when the caster is not present!! I can't believe this is a GM's only example using a hostile spell and it's dead wrong. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to make a table and do some research for all the spells which fall into various categories in order to consider all of game design. |
Stun Cloud (1704), Death Cloud (1713), and Firestorm (1715) have all been updated to the current design, which is that they will immediately begin to dissipate when the caster is not present. They already did this when the caster died.
GameMaster Estild
| KRAKII |
| Estild, have they been similarly updated NOT to drift from room to room? |
| (Granted, usually only FireStorm and Death Cloud lasted long enough to do so, and I believe they would only do so once their initial target had died, but still...) |
No, but they only have a 2.5% chance per round to move and when it does, you have 5 seconds to follow a firestorm and 10 seconds to follow a stun/death cloud.
GameMaster Estild
>Stun Cloud (1704), Death Cloud (1713), and Firestorm (1715) have all been updated to the current design, which is that they will immediately begin to dissipate when the caster is not present. They already did this when the caster died.
I appreciate your consistency in this respect, Estild, and it goes a long way to backing your original claim of intended design. I can't be the only one who's been killed by a cloud running through an area. Thanks.
I appreciate your consistency in this respect, Estild, and it goes a long way to backing your original claim of intended design. I can't be the only one who's been killed by a cloud running through an area. Thanks.
