Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
<As I said, the chance for permanent item loss will be removed. Loss, in the sense that the equipment will leave your hands, is still going to be very much a part of the disarm ability (or it wouldn't be disarm anymore). You'll simply be able to get it back in a timely fashion by your own efforts, even if you die the second after it leaves your hands.>
https://media.giphy.com/media/1M9fmo1WAFVK0/giphy.gif
Why not just make it like when you lose your right arm with a weapon in it? Why replace tedium and annoyance with a little less tedium and annoyance? Why not just remove the tedium and annoyance?
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
>> Why not just make it like when you lose your right arm with a weapon in it? Why replace tedium and annoyance with a little less tedium and annoyance? Why not just remove the tedium and annoyance?
Disarm is a good mechanic in and of itself. It creates excitement, can generate RP opportunities, helps add to the sense of danger or at least risk...
Permanent item loss doesn't make sense in this game given there isn't a reasonably equal opportunity to create or acquire some of the items that are lost.
Why not just have your character stand in a padded room with a monster feeder dropping like level critters in one at a time with no risk at all? Because it would be boring.
-- Robert
* Wyrom was just vaporized!
Disarm is a good mechanic in and of itself. It creates excitement, can generate RP opportunities, helps add to the sense of danger or at least risk...
Permanent item loss doesn't make sense in this game given there isn't a reasonably equal opportunity to create or acquire some of the items that are lost.
Why not just have your character stand in a padded room with a monster feeder dropping like level critters in one at a time with no risk at all? Because it would be boring.
-- Robert
* Wyrom was just vaporized!
I'd argue it only generates those things because of the real fear of losing the weapon for real. People rush out to help because they know an item might really be lost to the janitor and if they help now it secures that someone else will help them down the line. It's a rush for me because I might lose an item that I've sunk a ton of money/simucoins into to improve and now it's on the ground and a blip on the internet or a broken stream from a decades old game might be the difference between me picking up that chunk of cash and time and aggravation and never seeing it again, or having to wait for an assist and wasting the time of at least two people who might be fixing real issues or making something else better instead of dealing with an over zealous janitor or spotty connections causing item loss. If its the rush of possibly dying, how does your weapon on the ground change that verses a debuff effect that reduces your defenses equal to the amount that having that weapon in hand would, without any risk of item loss?
As a player who LOVES full item loss and really truly punishing mechanics, they just don't fit into this game as it currently exists. There are too many vestigial systems and procedures that work against the last few remaining systems that could result in item loss. Combined with a trickle introduction of weapon enhancement and creation, you just don't have an environment where item loss is fun.
Wyrom says, "Ordim is the reason savants won't be coded as well."
As a player who LOVES full item loss and really truly punishing mechanics, they just don't fit into this game as it currently exists. There are too many vestigial systems and procedures that work against the last few remaining systems that could result in item loss. Combined with a trickle introduction of weapon enhancement and creation, you just don't have an environment where item loss is fun.
Wyrom says, "Ordim is the reason savants won't be coded as well."
>> I'd argue it only generates those things because of the real fear of losing the weapon for real.
I think you can still have that to a degree if there is an inconvenience or some level of effort required to recover an item that is lost. We'll have to see what they roll out! There is a lot of area in between permanent item loss and no impact whatsoever (outside of the immediate combat penalty). Depending on where they set the dial we may or may not still see some of those things going forward.
-- Robert
* Wyrom was just vaporized!
I think you can still have that to a degree if there is an inconvenience or some level of effort required to recover an item that is lost. We'll have to see what they roll out! There is a lot of area in between permanent item loss and no impact whatsoever (outside of the immediate combat penalty). Depending on where they set the dial we may or may not still see some of those things going forward.
-- Robert
* Wyrom was just vaporized!
<Why not just have your character stand in a padded room with a monster feeder dropping like level critters in one at a time with no risk at all? Because it would be boring.>
What? How did you get from what I said to this? I feel like you skipped a few steps. I don't like items on our character to be placed anywhere else unless I make my character do it, plain and simple. I'm not asking for disarm ability to be removed, I'm asking that it work like a missing arm. All the "danger" is still there like current disarm except you won't lose that weapon you've spent 1-20 years making. For a game where a big part of the draw is upgrading your weapons/items it seems silly to have permanent item loss without tons of opportunities to get a new one (I don't consider the events for the past couple years to be tons/plenty).
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
What? How did you get from what I said to this? I feel like you skipped a few steps. I don't like items on our character to be placed anywhere else unless I make my character do it, plain and simple. I'm not asking for disarm ability to be removed, I'm asking that it work like a missing arm. All the "danger" is still there like current disarm except you won't lose that weapon you've spent 1-20 years making. For a game where a big part of the draw is upgrading your weapons/items it seems silly to have permanent item loss without tons of opportunities to get a new one (I don't consider the events for the past couple years to be tons/plenty).
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
I think we agree that permanent item loss is undesirable. Where we disagree is that temporary item loss is still desirable (in my book) as long as the item can be recovered (somehow). I think more is taken away from the game than item loss by simply turning disarm into a 'missing arm' mechanic.
-- Robert
* Wyrom was just vaporized!
-- Robert
* Wyrom was just vaporized!
<Where we disagree is that temporary item loss is still desirable (in my book) as long as the item can be recovered (somehow). I think more is taken away from the game than item loss by simply turning disarm into a 'missing arm' mechanic.>
Oh, I completely disagree on that front. I don't think it would add fun to have the item be recoverable. Why add that step? How would you make it fun?
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
Oh, I completely disagree on that front. I don't think it would add fun to have the item be recoverable. Why add that step? How would you make it fun?
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
| >This is the only comment that concerns me. If you could elaborate further it would be appreciated. It makes it sound as if loss is still going to be possible. There were several good suggestions for ways to handle the "drop" potion of disarm. If the weapon/shield has to be removed from the characters hands, I particularly liked the goes into the "at feet" worn location and prevents movement suggestion. |
| As I said, the chance for permanent item loss will be removed. Loss, in the sense that the equipment will leave your hands, is still going to be very much a part of the disarm ability (or it wouldn't be disarm anymore). You'll simply be able to get it back in a timely fashion by your own efforts, even if you die the second after it leaves your hands. As for the implementation mechanism, that's for us to handle. I never mind player speculation about that sort of thing, but a competent coding GM is always going to have much more knowledge of what needs to be handled. |
| Finros |
Can you explain the "recovery mechanism" design?
I guess I'm wondering why there needs to be a recovery mechanism at all when there are other solutions available.
For example, when disarm makes your weapon leave your hands, it could place that weapon in a "at feet" location.
The recovery mechanism could be, get weapon.
You would still be placed in RT, you would still have the weapon leave your hands, it just doesn't go on the ground where a player or creature can take it.
It resolves the item loss portion of disarm without losing the effect of the mechanic.
Is there a reason why this solution wouldn't work?
That seems easier to code, and better design (from a player perspective), than some new system that is created.
I don't like the previous suggestions of having the adventurers guild go out and get your weapon.
- How many guild points will it cost?
- What happens if I don't have enough, do I lose my item permanently?
- If it's not the AdvGuild and it costs silvers, what happens if I can't pay?
I would appreciate any information regarding how the changes are going to be designed so player input can be considered. It would be a shame for a lot of work to go into coding something new only to realize that another design could have been a better approach. I can make a lot of assumptions about how you're going implement this but it would be better to just discuss the actual design that is being worked on.
What happens to this nice plan when the very next creature action causes you to run from the room screaming like a little girl? (Or getting picked up by a griffin, or...)
Weapon's still on the ground back there, OR it's tied to your ankles by systemic string (and should really be doing a fair job of tripping you).
Weapon's still on the ground back there, OR it's tied to your ankles by systemic string (and should really be doing a fair job of tripping you).
I can understand the need for keeping most of it under wraps. In dealing with the public for most of my life, if you tell them something, and for whatever reason that changes based on an incompatible system, needs of the community, coding issues, whatever, well... then "But you said yadayada." No good comes of that.
Essentially, until they have a finalized system in place that is fully functional, I agree with keeping it a mystery if only to avoid any great melt down when changes are forced for whatever reason.
I get that it's frustrating to not know, but I do have faith that they're making the change to improve the system, not hinder it. There may be others who disagree for whatever reason, but I'm okay with waiting until it's released.
>I would appreciate any information regarding how the changes are going to be designed so player input can be considered.
Not to say the same would happen here, but it feels like most (or all) player input was not included with the enchanting system updates. When we were give updates that were slated for the coming enchantment update, there were a lot of posts of likes/dislikes. From what I saw in all the posts and from what was released, nothing was taken (good or bad) in the enchant updates. I'd wager they'd probably do the same here.
They usually have a plan in place and once it gets going, little to nothing players input is taken into consideration since it would change up their current plan/coding/testing and just take longer to get out.
That doesn't mean you should feel dissuaded to offer up input/suggestions, maybe something someone posts may be taken into consideration at a later time or implemented into a different system....or just maybe they'll take info provided and implement it into the current project.
-Drumpel
Not to say the same would happen here, but it feels like most (or all) player input was not included with the enchanting system updates. When we were give updates that were slated for the coming enchantment update, there were a lot of posts of likes/dislikes. From what I saw in all the posts and from what was released, nothing was taken (good or bad) in the enchant updates. I'd wager they'd probably do the same here.
They usually have a plan in place and once it gets going, little to nothing players input is taken into consideration since it would change up their current plan/coding/testing and just take longer to get out.
That doesn't mean you should feel dissuaded to offer up input/suggestions, maybe something someone posts may be taken into consideration at a later time or implemented into a different system....or just maybe they'll take info provided and implement it into the current project.
-Drumpel
[TABLE]
What happens to this nice plan when the very next creature action causes you to run from the room screaming like a little girl? (Or getting picked up by a griffin, or...)
Weapon's still on the ground back there, OR it's tied to your ankles by systemic string (and should really be doing a fair job of tripping you).
[/TABLE]
As the item is considered worn on your character, it's just in the "at feet" slot, it would travel with you. You just can't voluntarily move until you recover from the disarm and get the weapon.
This isn't a good way to avoid a great melt down. Look at basically all of the wizard changes for why this doesn't work. Keeping things a secret usually leads to bad design and months of repetitive conversations about how to fix it. Then changes roll in to fix the initial design that if discussed might have been implemented differently to begin with.
What happens to this nice plan when the very next creature action causes you to run from the room screaming like a little girl? (Or getting picked up by a griffin, or...)
Weapon's still on the ground back there, OR it's tied to your ankles by systemic string (and should really be doing a fair job of tripping you).
[/TABLE]
As the item is considered worn on your character, it's just in the "at feet" slot, it would travel with you. You just can't voluntarily move until you recover from the disarm and get the weapon.
| I can understand the need for keeping most of it under wraps. In dealing with the public for most of my life, if you tell them something, and for whatever reason that changes based on an incompatible system, needs of the community, coding issues, whatever, well... then "But you said yadayada." No good comes of that. |
| Essentially, until they have a finalized system in place that is fully functional, I agree with keeping it a mystery if only to avoid any great melt down when changes are forced for whatever reason. |
This isn't a good way to avoid a great melt down. Look at basically all of the wizard changes for why this doesn't work. Keeping things a secret usually leads to bad design and months of repetitive conversations about how to fix it. Then changes roll in to fix the initial design that if discussed might have been implemented differently to begin with.
I'm all for whatever it takes to get the item loss component out as quickly as possible, THEN we can discuss how much we like or dislike specific aspects of the implemented system. Given that item loss is infinitely negative (the item is gone forever, no(ish) exceptions) there's no system or amount of work that isn't preferable.
>As I said, the chance for permanent item loss will be removed. Loss, in the sense that the equipment will leave your hands, is still going to be very much a part of the disarm ability (or it wouldn't be disarm anymore). You'll simply be able to get it back in a timely fashion by your own efforts, even if you die the second after it leaves your hands. As for the implementation mechanism, that's for us to handle. I never mind player speculation about that sort of thing, but a competent coding GM is always going to have much more knowledge of what needs to be handled.
>FINROS
How does this fit in with Ithzir looting of bodies? It has no effect on the actual combat (since you are dead) and functions only as a threat of permanent item loss to the janitor or other players. If the desire is to maintain combat effects and remove item loss, it seems like this could be addressed without much worry.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
>FINROS
How does this fit in with Ithzir looting of bodies? It has no effect on the actual combat (since you are dead) and functions only as a threat of permanent item loss to the janitor or other players. If the desire is to maintain combat effects and remove item loss, it seems like this could be addressed without much worry.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
>How does this fit in with Ithzir looting of bodies? It has no effect on the actual combat (since you are dead) and functions only as a threat of permanent item loss to the janitor or other players. If the desire is to maintain combat effects and remove item loss, it seems like this could be addressed without much worry.
Don't forget those nasty little gremlins that snatch items from your containers....nasty, filthy gremlins. At least they don't take weapons/shields, but any magical trinket you have in a container (that's not double bagged), they can steal from you.
Then again, I never bothered with them so I'm not really sure it's a big issue for most people.
-Drumpel
Don't forget those nasty little gremlins that snatch items from your containers....nasty, filthy gremlins. At least they don't take weapons/shields, but any magical trinket you have in a container (that's not double bagged), they can steal from you.
Then again, I never bothered with them so I'm not really sure it's a big issue for most people.
-Drumpel
A suggestion I made on the PC, and liked:
If you lose a weapon to the janitor (due to disarm, or any of the other myriad similar attacks), you go to the town clerk and hire a bunch of mercenaries to go out and retrieve it for you. They charge XX,XXX silvers for the service, the first time. The cost goes up each subsequent time you use them. They take 30 minutes of logged-in game time (so no just logging out and waiting), then report back to you. 95% of the time, they find your Pitchspoon and you're all set. 5% of the time, they don't, and you have to re-hire them (at the steeper rate). This is inconvenience, frustration, and something to be avoided without A) item loss, and B) the necessity of an ASSIST to get your Pitchspoon back.
Plus it could be fun writing the messaging for the band of mercs on a town-by-town basis. Love the idea of a bunch of hardened halflings running to the Rift from Icemule to retrieve your Holy Hand Grenade.
If you lose a weapon to the janitor (due to disarm, or any of the other myriad similar attacks), you go to the town clerk and hire a bunch of mercenaries to go out and retrieve it for you. They charge XX,XXX silvers for the service, the first time. The cost goes up each subsequent time you use them. They take 30 minutes of logged-in game time (so no just logging out and waiting), then report back to you. 95% of the time, they find your Pitchspoon and you're all set. 5% of the time, they don't, and you have to re-hire them (at the steeper rate). This is inconvenience, frustration, and something to be avoided without A) item loss, and B) the necessity of an ASSIST to get your Pitchspoon back.
Plus it could be fun writing the messaging for the band of mercs on a town-by-town basis. Love the idea of a bunch of hardened halflings running to the Rift from Icemule to retrieve your Holy Hand Grenade.
<Then again, I never bothered with them so I'm not really sure it's a big issue for most people.>
Most didn't, but I certainly did with a couple characters because of that. Most of what gremlins steal is common loot and below level 10 it's easy to get out there without anything on you they can steal (if you even have anything that can't be replaced with a quick trip to the pawn)... so they're only stealing the loot you got from them in the first place AND they have more loot on them cause no one wants to hunt them.
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.
Most didn't, but I certainly did with a couple characters because of that. Most of what gremlins steal is common loot and below level 10 it's easy to get out there without anything on you they can steal (if you even have anything that can't be replaced with a quick trip to the pawn)... so they're only stealing the loot you got from them in the first place AND they have more loot on them cause no one wants to hunt them.
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.
It sounds like the goal is to not reduce the scope of the penalty. Moving it to your feet, or just turning it off for a few seconds, is a lot less of a penalty than losing the weapon. It sounds like the goal is that you can temporarily lose it, and then have to perform some action, like a special bounty or something, in order to get it back. They still want to encourage people to hunt with a backup etc.
They could ALSO provide some other instant mechanism, such as a large silver payment (1/4 weapon value or something) and/or simucoins, for instant recovery. It would be the general micro-transaction approach. You can do the quest for free, pay a lot of in-game currency, or help pay for dev.
They could ALSO provide some other instant mechanism, such as a large silver payment (1/4 weapon value or something) and/or simucoins, for instant recovery. It would be the general micro-transaction approach. You can do the quest for free, pay a lot of in-game currency, or help pay for dev.
>>They could ALSO provide some other instant mechanism, such as a large silver payment (1/4 weapon value or something) and/or simucoins, for instant recovery. It would be the general micro-transaction approach. You can do the quest for free, pay a lot of in-game currency, or help pay for dev.
Since the golden rule of "microtransactions for cosmetics only" was long ago blown away, that wouldn't surprise me. Though we didn't get a microtransaction to unlock locked enchanting projects, unless the delay was in creating and adding the item to the store...
Wyrom says, "Ordim is the reason savants won't be coded as well."
Since the golden rule of "microtransactions for cosmetics only" was long ago blown away, that wouldn't surprise me. Though we didn't get a microtransaction to unlock locked enchanting projects, unless the delay was in creating and adding the item to the store...
Wyrom says, "Ordim is the reason savants won't be coded as well."
| It sounds like the goal is to not reduce the scope of the penalty. Moving it to your feet, or just turning it off for a few seconds, is a lot less of a penalty than losing the weapon. It sounds like the goal is that you can temporarily lose it, and then have to perform some action, like a special bounty or something, in order to get it back. They still want to encourage people to hunt with a backup etc. |
| They could ALSO provide some other instant mechanism, such as a large silver payment (1/4 weapon value or something) and/or simucoins, for instant recovery. It would be the general micro-transaction approach. You can do the quest for free, pay a lot of in-game currency, or help pay for dev. |
| Archsenex |
Moving it to your feet, could and should have the same AS/DS penalty as the current disarm mechanic. It would also technically leave your hands if it's at your feet, but it would still be considered on your character in that slot to prevent item loss. We don't need some new system to recover it after it's dropped to the ground and stolen.
If we do get some type of silvers for recovery system, are the item values going to be standardized? Will outliers be modified? There are some objects in the game that loresing as priceless, or for hundreds of millions of silvers. Is it going to be a flat fee? Is it going to be an incremental fee based on how many times it's used? Will it be capped? Will the cost reset every month back to baseline cost? If it costs simucoins, I'm going to LMBO because that would be really horrible. I also don't believe it will pay for any "dev" because GMs are volunteers.
| Several people in this thread have identified the key point: the intent of DISARM is combat disadvantage, not permanent item loss. The same thing applies to several related abilities like Vibration Chant, waern bites, and the like. The permanent item loss potential of those abilities is/was only incidental to their main purpose. Item loss was a lot more common with droppage on death, gear leave-behind on decay, and breakage. Whether or not permanent item loss is a good idea in today's game is now beside the point -- since it isn't implemented anywhere else anymore, then it should be removed from these abilities as well. |
| Loss, in the sense that the equipment will leave your hands, is still going to be very much a part of the disarm ability (or it wouldn't be disarm anymore). |
| Finros |
If the key point of the mechanic is a combat disadvantage, and not item loss. The next generation of disarm shouldn't include the weapon being dropped to the ground where it can be taken by someone or something else. I'd like to see that part removed, and (new?) penalties added/increased if required. Being unable to run away because a weapon is entangled at your feet seems like a good penalty. Especially if you're being swarmed.
>That seems easier to code, and better design (from a player perspective), than some new system that is created.
Like I said, I don't mind player speculation about this sort of thing. Speculate away! But it will remain no more than speculation, since no staff member is going to get into a debate with a player about what is easier for us to code.
I might also point out that you are basically saying this: "my version is easier to code and a better design than your version, even though I don't have any details about your version". I hope you understand why this isn't a winning argument? I appreciate that you have a vision for the ability and that you like what you've come up with, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
As for discussing exact design details early in the process, we've learned from painful experience that it usually goes badly.
>How does this fit in with Ithzir looting of bodies?
That's a separate matter from disarm (and other combat ability) updates. Same with the gremlins.
Like I said, I don't mind player speculation about this sort of thing. Speculate away! But it will remain no more than speculation, since no staff member is going to get into a debate with a player about what is easier for us to code.
I might also point out that you are basically saying this: "my version is easier to code and a better design than your version, even though I don't have any details about your version". I hope you understand why this isn't a winning argument? I appreciate that you have a vision for the ability and that you like what you've come up with, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
As for discussing exact design details early in the process, we've learned from painful experience that it usually goes badly.
>How does this fit in with Ithzir looting of bodies?
That's a separate matter from disarm (and other combat ability) updates. Same with the gremlins.
<As for discussing exact design details early in the process, we've learned from painful experience that it usually goes badly.
You have to find a balance. Zero information when changing systems is also a disaster. You have to listen to the customers as well. If 90% of people are telling you this won't end well but you pull a Principal Skinner and think "No its the customers who are wrong". You're gonna have a bad time.
With that last bit in mind. It seems most everyone agrees that item loss is bad. Simucoins for item return wouldn't be a preferred way to go. It would be preferred if we didn't have to go thru a "recovery process", just use a sunder shield mechanic or something like that.
No change will please everyone.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
You have to find a balance. Zero information when changing systems is also a disaster. You have to listen to the customers as well. If 90% of people are telling you this won't end well but you pull a Principal Skinner and think "No its the customers who are wrong". You're gonna have a bad time.
With that last bit in mind. It seems most everyone agrees that item loss is bad. Simucoins for item return wouldn't be a preferred way to go. It would be preferred if we didn't have to go thru a "recovery process", just use a sunder shield mechanic or something like that.
No change will please everyone.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
| >That seems easier to code, and better design (from a player perspective), than some new system that is created. |
| Like I said, I don't mind player speculation about this sort of thing. Speculate away! But it will remain no more than speculation, since no staff member is going to get into a debate with a player about what is easier for us to code. |
| I might also point out that you are basically saying this: "my version is easier to code and a better design than your version, even though I don't have any details about your version". I hope you understand why this isn't a winning argument? I appreciate that you have a vision for the ability and that you like what you've come up with, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees. |
| As for discussing exact design details early in the process, we've learned from painful experience that it usually goes badly. |
| >How does this fit in with Ithzir looting of bodies? |
| That's a separate matter from disarm (and other combat ability) updates. Same with the gremlins. |
| Finros |
When it comes to the actual coding I am making an assumption, I'm sure it's a lot of work either way because of how many systems are involved.
I would also like to mention, I didn't design "my" suggestion, another player did, Luxelle I believe but it's not in this thread, I just really like it and if you haven't started what you've designed, why can't we discuss it?
You haven't told us anything about your design, so we have to assume. I'm assuming at this point that you're going with something Adventure Guild related. Which means that the gear is still going to be lost and none of the frustrating parts about disarm are being changed.
| And finally, I'll note that Wyrom isn't just giving a canned response. I was the one who made the original proposal on how to rewrite disarm, and laid claim to the work. That was quite a while back now and the delay can be laid at my feet if you want to blame somebody. |
| Finros |
All we know is that you've made some kind of proposal and marked your territory, which seems to be off limits to anyone else with ideas about how disarm should function. I appreciate that you have a vision for the ability and that you like what you've come up with, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees, especially the player base who will be affected and who may see some issue with your design that you may have overlooked.
It would be nice to have some sort of outline of how it's going to work, you don't have to go into every specific detail, but give us an overall idea.
| Loss, in the sense that the equipment will leave your hands, is still going to be very much a part of the disarm ability (or it wouldn't be disarm anymore). |
What is this going to look like? How is it different than what we currently have? How is item loss going to be prevented if the equipment is still on the ground?
| You'll simply be able to get it back in a timely fashion by your own efforts, even if you die the second after it leaves your hands. |
What does this involve? Is it going to be adventure guild related? Is the gear going to instantly vanish if I'm disarmed? What happens if I step into the next room to arm myself and then go back to recover it, will it be gone? What happens if another player comes along and kills the creature that has my weapon, can they take it?
| As for discussing exact design details early in the process, we've learned from painful experience that it usually goes badly. |
You don't have to share every little design detail, but give us something, a general overview When you don't share what's going on it ends up like the wizard changes where for months on end people complain about what was done.
Veythorne, the clips that you quoted from Finros ARE the "some sort of outline of how it's going to work" that you requested. It will still leave the character's hands; you will be able to recover it (eventually) even if you have been subsequently killed.
The 'staking out of territory' that you're talking about isn't so much him against players... it's him against the other GMs. Once a project is on one GM's plate, it stays there; they don't poach.
(Unless, you know, one of them runs in and says, "Chase!" They've been well-trained.)
.
"I'm assuming at this point that you're going with something Adventure Guild related." -- Veythorne
Why?
Finros already said the PC could get it back through their own efforts, so odds are, that's "some sort of outline" for where he's headed with recovery mechanics....
The 'staking out of territory' that you're talking about isn't so much him against players... it's him against the other GMs. Once a project is on one GM's plate, it stays there; they don't poach.
(Unless, you know, one of them runs in and says, "Chase!" They've been well-trained.)
.
"I'm assuming at this point that you're going with something Adventure Guild related." -- Veythorne
Why?
Finros already said the PC could get it back through their own efforts, so odds are, that's "some sort of outline" for where he's headed with recovery mechanics....
>> My experience has been the complete opposite, but I do Agile. Continuous BP involvement and feedback helps to better refine a product and deliver something that everyone has agreement on. Being honest and timely with changes stops the, "but you said..." thing.
Agile doesn't work when you have 100+ stakeholders. I've tried, it was hilarious (and ineffective.). The problem with open approaches is that players vastly, VASTLY disagree on what they want. Even the "item loss is bad" sentiment isn't 100%. What one player calls Tedium (you mean I have to do things?), others will call Content (you mean I get to do things!).
Agile doesn't work when you have 100+ stakeholders. I've tried, it was hilarious (and ineffective.). The problem with open approaches is that players vastly, VASTLY disagree on what they want. Even the "item loss is bad" sentiment isn't 100%. What one player calls Tedium (you mean I have to do things?), others will call Content (you mean I get to do things!).
> Agile doesn't work when you have 100+ stakeholders.
CCP uses Agile development for Eve Online and it works, historically well. They have something called a CSM which is a small group of elected players to act as an interface of sorts. That said, you can still do Agile with as many "stakeholders" as you can count, you really need to have a product owner to interface with that represents the interests. That PO could be from the development team who's job is basically to determine what best suits the product development. Agile doesn't have to be a democratic process involving every user/stakeholder.
I'm not saying that the SDLC of Simu needs to change, just that early communication is bad is a fallacy.
CCP uses Agile development for Eve Online and it works, historically well. They have something called a CSM which is a small group of elected players to act as an interface of sorts. That said, you can still do Agile with as many "stakeholders" as you can count, you really need to have a product owner to interface with that represents the interests. That PO could be from the development team who's job is basically to determine what best suits the product development. Agile doesn't have to be a democratic process involving every user/stakeholder.
I'm not saying that the SDLC of Simu needs to change, just that early communication is bad is a fallacy.
As for discussing exact design details early in the process, we've learned from painful experience that it usually goes badly.
>You have to find a balance. Zero information when changing systems is also a disaster. You have to listen to the customers as well. If 90% of people are telling you this won't end well but you pull a Principal Skinner and think "No its the customers who are wrong". You're gonna have a bad time.
>With that last bit in mind. It seems most everyone agrees that item loss is bad. Simucoins for item return wouldn't be a preferred way to go. It would be preferred if we didn't have to go thru a "recovery process", just use a sunder shield mechanic or something like that.
>No change will please everyone.
You are correct that no change will please everyone. This will likely be more of the same in that regard, especially when you have players with direct opposing differences.
However, I take exception to the comment about Zero information being a disaster. Players seem to get the impression we do not read these boards, or that if when we read, we ignore any and ALL suggestions put forth. The opposite is more true. We carefully consider every player's viewpoint on just about every nuance of this game. Disarm mechanics is but one small facet that has some rather unpleasant consequences (for most players) that makes it a candidate for improvement.
I personally like it when I see players put out their version of an update, or what THEY would like to see happen and how they think that is a better plan than what another player has brought to the table. It gives us a better handle on how we work something out behind the scenes, whether we are in design mode, or coding mode. In each case we may also change the design during the coding, or further discussion after testing to take a poll on whether we believe we have hit the difficult sweet spot of getting the players what they want, and still have the mechanic functioning like it should by design.
In otherwords, anything can change, but may not be what the player's expects or wants. The key view here is to realize that the mechanic still has to fit the design intent, otherwise it becomes Sunder Weapon, and not Disarm. Oddly, a player's perspective is usually along the lines of hating anything that makes their hunting more difficult, whereas a GM is more along the lines of how can I use this to challenge the player a little, but not to the point of extreme frustration or disappointment.
It is a very fine line there.
~Contemplar~
>You have to find a balance. Zero information when changing systems is also a disaster. You have to listen to the customers as well. If 90% of people are telling you this won't end well but you pull a Principal Skinner and think "No its the customers who are wrong". You're gonna have a bad time.
>With that last bit in mind. It seems most everyone agrees that item loss is bad. Simucoins for item return wouldn't be a preferred way to go. It would be preferred if we didn't have to go thru a "recovery process", just use a sunder shield mechanic or something like that.
>No change will please everyone.
You are correct that no change will please everyone. This will likely be more of the same in that regard, especially when you have players with direct opposing differences.
However, I take exception to the comment about Zero information being a disaster. Players seem to get the impression we do not read these boards, or that if when we read, we ignore any and ALL suggestions put forth. The opposite is more true. We carefully consider every player's viewpoint on just about every nuance of this game. Disarm mechanics is but one small facet that has some rather unpleasant consequences (for most players) that makes it a candidate for improvement.
I personally like it when I see players put out their version of an update, or what THEY would like to see happen and how they think that is a better plan than what another player has brought to the table. It gives us a better handle on how we work something out behind the scenes, whether we are in design mode, or coding mode. In each case we may also change the design during the coding, or further discussion after testing to take a poll on whether we believe we have hit the difficult sweet spot of getting the players what they want, and still have the mechanic functioning like it should by design.
In otherwords, anything can change, but may not be what the player's expects or wants. The key view here is to realize that the mechanic still has to fit the design intent, otherwise it becomes Sunder Weapon, and not Disarm. Oddly, a player's perspective is usually along the lines of hating anything that makes their hunting more difficult, whereas a GM is more along the lines of how can I use this to challenge the player a little, but not to the point of extreme frustration or disappointment.
It is a very fine line there.
~Contemplar~
>The 'staking out of territory' that you're talking about isn't so much him against players... it's him against the other GMs. Once a project is on one GM's plate, it stays there; they don't poach.
I wouldn't characterize it as "against". Projects aren't exactly in short supply, and situations where a staff member tries to claim a project from another staff member are pretty rare. (Offering to assist is somewhat less rare, and bigger projects often have multiple staff involved). My statement was more to say "the design was agreed to and the onus is on me now, so don't attack Wyrom because you think that it is a generic statement about getting around to it eventually".
I wouldn't characterize it as "against". Projects aren't exactly in short supply, and situations where a staff member tries to claim a project from another staff member are pretty rare. (Offering to assist is somewhat less rare, and bigger projects often have multiple staff involved). My statement was more to say "the design was agreed to and the onus is on me now, so don't attack Wyrom because you think that it is a generic statement about getting around to it eventually".
< Oddly, a player's perspective is usually along the lines of hating anything that makes their hunting more difficult, whereas a GM is more along the lines of how can I use this to challenge the player a little, but not to the point of extreme frustration or disappointment.
It is a very fine line there. >
So I just posted this on PC, but I felt like it might get some traction here as I take a stance there has to be challenge when something is removed.
I'd like to see disarm handled in the following :
Utilize sunder shield with "enhancements". Endrolls over 150 should leave the weapon hand numbed and hinder your DF utilizing an effect. Randomized effect time with an absolute minimum, the remainder can be mitigated with a strength/constitution bonus check. Say 3% DF reduction per rank CM-wise, with a master in the warrior guild capping at a 20% DF reduction to those they disarm.
Just RT is boring, and since using the same mechanic of Sunder Shield gives zero chance of item droppage, this factor will provide the negative effect.
You could also collectively reduce CS by X amount ( I think the same formula would equate well ) and then use a check to allow NON-gesture magic ( the Bard circle I think is fair to exempt as well as LOL Savants ) to go through sans effect.
OR
Outright failure of actions using hard RT in the same method of Sounds + lores. If the effect is still on the person, check against combat verbs ( kill, cman, wtrick, cast/incant/invoke whatevs ) and have it tell the player "Sorry, looks like you're not harming anything in this state" .
I have faith that a viable alternative can be found instead of outright droppage.
~James/Stunseed
It is a very fine line there. >
So I just posted this on PC, but I felt like it might get some traction here as I take a stance there has to be challenge when something is removed.
I'd like to see disarm handled in the following :
Utilize sunder shield with "enhancements". Endrolls over 150 should leave the weapon hand numbed and hinder your DF utilizing an effect. Randomized effect time with an absolute minimum, the remainder can be mitigated with a strength/constitution bonus check. Say 3% DF reduction per rank CM-wise, with a master in the warrior guild capping at a 20% DF reduction to those they disarm.
Just RT is boring, and since using the same mechanic of Sunder Shield gives zero chance of item droppage, this factor will provide the negative effect.
You could also collectively reduce CS by X amount ( I think the same formula would equate well ) and then use a check to allow NON-gesture magic ( the Bard circle I think is fair to exempt as well as LOL Savants ) to go through sans effect.
OR
Outright failure of actions using hard RT in the same method of Sounds + lores. If the effect is still on the person, check against combat verbs ( kill, cman, wtrick, cast/incant/invoke whatevs ) and have it tell the player "Sorry, looks like you're not harming anything in this state" .
I have faith that a viable alternative can be found instead of outright droppage.
~James/Stunseed
<In otherwords, anything can change, but may not be what the player's expects or wants. The key view here is to realize that the mechanic still has to fit the design intent, otherwise it becomes Sunder Weapon, and not Disarm. Oddly, a player's perspective is usually along the lines of hating anything that makes their hunting more difficult, whereas a GM is more along the lines of how can I use this to challenge the player a little, but not to the point of extreme frustration or disappointment.>
From what was said before it sounds like sunder weapon would be exactly the design intent of the spell without the item loss.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
From what was said before it sounds like sunder weapon would be exactly the design intent of the spell without the item loss.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
