Difference between revisions of "Rules talk:Magic Power"

From AltWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 83: Line 83:
  
 
::::::::Sounds like new(er) mage characters are just generally going to get shafted compared to older ones, but I'm not sure if that's even a variable in this room. It's almost tradition >_> --[[User:Icebreed|Ice]] 14:34, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
 
::::::::Sounds like new(er) mage characters are just generally going to get shafted compared to older ones, but I'm not sure if that's even a variable in this room. It's almost tradition >_> --[[User:Icebreed|Ice]] 14:34, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
 +
 +
:::::::::Balancing is optional. Screwing up new characters is mandatory. [[User:Tiryst|Tiryst]] 14:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  
 
::::::Will battle/combat spells still receive mage doubling at character creation, or will mage doubling always apply only to rituals? [[User:Tiryst|Tiryst]] 14:29, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
 
::::::Will battle/combat spells still receive mage doubling at character creation, or will mage doubling always apply only to rituals? [[User:Tiryst|Tiryst]] 14:29, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  
 
::::::I think it's a pretty good idea.  Just so long as the tech day gap between combat and ritual spells is wide enough that it's more beneficial to take a cheaper ritual spell, than to just wait for six months and get something faster-casty.  I used to design my character's spells/techs in the past to do things like "take more time" under the assumption that I'd get it cheaper or have some sort of advantage... and that didn't pan out. It was easier to just app something that's all pros, no cons.  A change won't really 'take' in Alt, unless it's appealing enough. [[User:Lampdevil|Pamela]] 14:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
 
::::::I think it's a pretty good idea.  Just so long as the tech day gap between combat and ritual spells is wide enough that it's more beneficial to take a cheaper ritual spell, than to just wait for six months and get something faster-casty.  I used to design my character's spells/techs in the past to do things like "take more time" under the assumption that I'd get it cheaper or have some sort of advantage... and that didn't pan out. It was easier to just app something that's all pros, no cons.  A change won't really 'take' in Alt, unless it's appealing enough. [[User:Lampdevil|Pamela]] 14:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Revision as of 14:45, 20 March 2008

A mage casts two spells which give him 200% MagPL durability and 100% MagPL flight speed. He then rams an opponent with his empowered flight. What strength would that be at? --Ice 02:48, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Historically, there has always been a separation in Alt between strength and speed -- thus why someone can punch for 30% damage at 100% speed. To hold to a truer real-world physics model, speed would have an impact on strength. By that precedent, the mage would cause zero damage. Alternately, damage rules similar to concussive force could be applied, and the opponent might suffer half the mage's speed in damage, or 50% MagPL. The trouble with that is that there is no explicit stamina cost for using speed, which would be nominally unacceptable for a damage-causing technique. Based on this analysis, I'd have to go with zero damage. It may not be entirely plausible, but it's consistent with our rules and suitably fair for game balance. Hroefn T 02:58, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay, thought so. Next question, as contrived from a conflict in a Budoukai match: A mage is enchanted with a flight spell and a durability spell, same as the last question. A ki fighter approaches them and uses a Ki Aura Explosion for approximately 125% the mage's power in concussive damage. Both are flying. Lacking any sort of strength spell, to what extent is the mage allowed to resist the force, if at all?

By the way, I'm asking this stuff here rather than more privately just so it clears things up for the players, who may be asking similar questions. --Ice 03:04, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Concussive force is, in my mind, resisted by speed, not strength, as it is dependant on your ability to accelerate yourself in the opposite direction. Thus, the mage would have 100% speed at their disposal (assuming same numbers as before) to resist it. Since the KAE is 125% the mage's power, they would be knocked back significantly, though not game-breakingly so. For instance, in the Budoukai, since the arenas are fairly large, unless they were already at an edge, they could probably break sufficiently to prevent a ring-out, but since it's all rather vague on this point, it would be up to the muns to discuss precisely how effective it was, based on their conception of their own characters' reaction time and relative abilities. In the event of them not reaching a consensus, well, the Victim Calls Effects (or however we termed that) rule would take precedent.
And yeah, I figured you were -- this is the whole reason we made a wiki! Discussion! Hroefn T 03:15, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
I can see strength being used to resist concussive force as well, especially if the character being pushed is on the ground or otherwise able to anchor himself. This is actually how I tend to run my own resistance to concussive forces--my character will resist with strength, either losing stamina or losing possible damage output for that post. Tiryst 14:20, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh, yeah, that's totally acceptable, too. If they can grab hold of something, then they can use strength to resist it. But when they're without something to anchor to, then speed is fine for resisting it. Hroefn T 15:10, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

So are we going to get back to the magic discussion? Tiryst 13:46, 4 February 2008 (PST)

Resume discussion, suckaz!

the Wiki crashed just as we were supposed to get started on refining our categorical points of view.

The pages we were supposed to be using for that were:

If we fail to resume discussions, the terrorists will have won!

--Ice 17:22, 4 February 2008 (PST)

Re: Mandatory casting times

This is a pretty steep charge for many mages. Even if you consider forcing Speedcast to be mandatory on the standard defense spell, high-end attack spells become entirely unwieldy in their upgraded forms (regardless of option to use it without upgrades). I don't think a charging time of more than 5 full posts is really warranted for anything, unless it's like something the plot boss uses to end the world, or something. This may be a DBZ room, but actually having virtual episodes full of ARRRRRRRGH 75% ARRRRRRGH 80% ARRRRRRGH 85% will pretty much kill off whatever fun playing a mage still is. There are players saying that they would rather ditch doubled learning entirely than go with this current system.

I would propose instead that each period of casting time increment be increased substantially. Say, by a cumulative 30 day modifier. Thus this time table:

1-60 tech days: Instant
61-120: 1 post
121-180: 2 posts
181-240: 3 posts
241-300: 4 posts
301-360: 5 posts

You would instead have this time table:

1-60 tech days: Instant
61-150: 1 post
151-270: 2 posts
271-420: 3 posts
421-600: 4 posts
601+: 5 posts

This could still be tweaked to more comfortable conditions, but those on the complaining end of this technique should realize that this change is intended to change mages closer toward what they are supposed to be -- artillery. --Ice 22:10, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

I kind of agree with Ice, and I kind of don't. These proposed changes are actually pretty frustrating, because it requires change on a massive scale that seems needlessly complicated. It's so complicated that when it was suggested I play my mages taking these proposed changes into account, I couldn't. Extending the casting time of a spell by 1 post per 60 days works fine on paper, but when you factor in that mage techs are always complicated, and that staffers don't itemize every single effect a spell has for your convenience so that if you wish to cast a 'less powerful' version of the spell you can, this seems more like a last-ditch effort to preserve doubled learning than any meaningful attempt at balancing the power template.
I'm still of a mind that doubled learning should be removed, but if it isn't, I'm also of a mind that these changes are simply NOT practical. Removing mage doubling will not wreck entire character builds. Forcing casting times for spells that cost more than 60 days base when 90% of every spell ever approved costs more than 60 days base is only going to serve to muck things up for established characters. --Snackycakes 19:42, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
He's got a point there that I didn't consider. It's too dramatic of a change. An established mage would be, at best, able to quickly get a barrier up, but unless you water the casting times down to the point of inefficacy, it's going to make many, if not all advanced characters useless. I've already made my speech about how we, as players, do things in Alt -- we engineer our characters so that they are effective with the rules. Change the rules, at least insofar as what effects how they fight, and you wreck builds and render characters useless. --Ice 20:27, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
I concur, that implementing this change will require some 'heavy lifting' to make it all work, including some auditing. However, one of the primary reasons I went with this posited option was because it was interesting. I want all the power types to be distinctively different -- otherwise, there's not much reason for there to BE separate power types. Psi has their slot system and awesome senses, for instance, while MagPL had huge tech dependency, and Ki and PhysPLs were the rough-and-ready types. This disadvantage would further add to MagPL's uniqueness, which I thought would, in the end, contribute to its overall 'feel'.
I'm certainly willing to remove doubled learning, provided someone can provide a suggestion that maintains both game balance and an interesting PL type. Hroefn T 21:39, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
Normally when people say 'no offense, but' and follow it with something, that something's usually offensive, so try not to take this personally. While maintaining RP flavor is important, in my opinion balance is prioritized over the "feel" you mentioned. I feel particularly strongly about this considering that when a handful of people complained about the changes I made to the Saiyans not being canon, you said that game balance trumps canon. If game balance trumps canon, why should it not trump something that isn't even canon to begin with? Doubled days doesn't offer mages a unique flavor, it offers them a distinct advantage that some people feel overcompensates for technique dependence. I don't see it as necessary to alter mages so that they meet certain concepts to make them wholly distinct as a PL type, I see it as necessary for the power template to be brought into balance and for factors that make mages interesting to still be considered so that the experience isn't ruined for those who prefer the PL type.
If we were starting this room from scratch, then using the enforced casting time ideas would not be a bad idea at all in my opinion, because staffers could annotate tech pricing accordingly. As it stands, the backlog of changes and the sheer amount of information that will be demanded of anyone who has access to the tech and app boxes is staggering, while removal of doubled learning post-approval still appeals to me as a change that is both balancing and not disruptive. If you are asking for ideas to further set apart mages from the other PL types, I'm afraid I can't really offer anything. --Snackycakes 03:18, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
An idea occurred to me that may bridge this disagreement reasonably well. What if we added an additional classification to spells -- those which are Combat spells, and those that are Ritual spells. In short, Combat spells would be cast as they currently are, but not benefit from mage doubling, whereas Ritual spells would benefit from mage doubling, but be subject to mandatory casting times. Ritual spells would thus cast half as much as an identical Combat spell, but possibly take considerably more time to activate. (There may be some modification to the mandatory casting time rules in this case, such as all Ritual spells taking at least one post to prepare, etc.)
Thus, we gain both an interesting addition to the power type, we rein in the abusability of mage doubling, and we significantly reduce the necessity of a boatload of audits. (And I'm also game for better names for the classifications than Ritual and Combat -- it's just what came to hand when my mind clawed at thin air for a designation.) Questions? Comments? Opinions? Hroefn T 02:52, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
I could totally live with this. And it does seem like a good way to resolve the issue for all. :) Marcus
I fully support this idea. --Ff0ecaf 07:34, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
This kind of reminds me of the ritualist you don't play anymore. I think I remember him having ridiculously powerful rituals with an equally ridiculous casting time for his spells. As far as what you've suggested here, I actually think it's a good way to, as you said, bridge the gap. I'm curious as to how backlogging things will work (for example, how will we decide what is a ritual and what is a combat spell among the characters who are already approved? Will it be an individual, case-by-case basis or will you give all mages insofar the benefit of the doubt so that the audit isn't crippling to those with expensive spells?) but I'm a lot more optimistic about the possibilities here. --Snackycakes 07:42, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, I'm sure that Daran was somewhere in my head when I came up with this basic idea. (Although his casting time was measured in minutes and hours, not posts -- he could really only cast out of combat scenes.) As for preexisting spells, well, we wouldn't make them pay the difference if we just pulled mage doubling away, so the plan is to just leave all preexisting spells as combat spells, with changes in the rules adopted going forward. Hroefn T 14:28, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Sounds like new(er) mage characters are just generally going to get shafted compared to older ones, but I'm not sure if that's even a variable in this room. It's almost tradition >_> --Ice 14:34, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Balancing is optional. Screwing up new characters is mandatory. Tiryst 14:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Will battle/combat spells still receive mage doubling at character creation, or will mage doubling always apply only to rituals? Tiryst 14:29, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
I think it's a pretty good idea. Just so long as the tech day gap between combat and ritual spells is wide enough that it's more beneficial to take a cheaper ritual spell, than to just wait for six months and get something faster-casty. I used to design my character's spells/techs in the past to do things like "take more time" under the assumption that I'd get it cheaper or have some sort of advantage... and that didn't pan out. It was easier to just app something that's all pros, no cons. A change won't really 'take' in Alt, unless it's appealing enough. Pamela 14:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)