New Charm suggestion

[0ctane]

While other suggestions for the charm attribute have been put forward (1, 2, ...), I do not think they capture the essence of charm and those threads were a bit old. Therefore, I submit my suggestion for the charm cross attribute (originally mentioned in the middle of this thread regarding PK).

 

Concept: Charm is your ability to influence other players. For EL, charm is the ability to convince another player not to attack you. These are not the droids you are looking for. This will not affect monster behavior since defense levels and Monster magnetism already exist.

 

Calculation: Ability to avoid player conflict = charm * 3%

 

Rationale: As mentioned in the PK thread referenced above, some players (typically alchers, crafters, and manuers) would like to wander PK maps without fear of being attacked or bullied. However, as it currently stands, any player that enters a PK map does so knowing that there is risk involved. By using the charm attribute in the manner suggested, players (PK and non-PK) can reduce the risk of being attacked at the expense of pick-points. Why 3%? Well, to completely avoid conflict, one would need a charm of 33 (34 technically), which is very unlikely.

 

Implementation: Player A (charm 4) tries to attack Player B (charm 10). Player B succeeds in avoiding conflict (33% chance). A message in the console says something like, "A reconsiders attacking B" or "A thinks B is just too darn cute" or some other witty phrase (just like death messages). Then Player A will have to wait some predetermined amount of time (1 minute perhaps) before A can try to attack B again.

 

My suggestion only deals with the initiation of armed conflict. In the example above, Player B could just as well decide to attack A, and if successful a normal round of combat would ensue.

 

"But this will ruin PvP training." As mentioned, A can attack B and B can attack A. Sure, both players could successfully avoid combat. Maybe arenas could be programmed to ignore the charm? But even then, you could get an undesirable interloper interrupting your training, at which point you might wish that the charm attribute was still in effect. Besides, 1 minute is not that long. Taunt each other.

 

"But we already have diss rings." Yes, but charm existed before diss rings and is still unused. And, since most current players have charm levels below 6, plenty of diss rings will still be needed.

 

"But we have Peace Day, so you can walk around PK maps then." Well, everyone gets to walk around non-PK maps, right? Or should we prevent the hardcore PK players from walking in non-PK maps? Okay, maybe a dumb argument, but think of it this way...people would be sinking pick-points into things other than p/c, so be proud of your brickhouse character.

 

"What about having charm reduce the cost of items from NPCs?" This has been suggested before. Do you see it implemented in the game?

 

What do people think of my suggestion?

[Lorck]

I already commented about it, and i said it sounded cool. It appears that you polished a bit more your suggestion, that made it even more interesting.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Lorck

[Shouja]

I kinda like it.

 

Although, when you think about it, this is a pretty godsend for mages. Charm is a cross-attribute that's affected by Vitality, which also affects Toughness and Ethereality. If you want to get 34 Charm (and hence, complete un-attackability), all you have to do is sink 68 pickpoints into Vitality and nothing else. That would increase your EP significantly, prevent you from getting hurt too much in the meantime, and all the while help you avoid battles. (Btw, does this work on monsters too?)

 

To get 68 pickpoints, all you need are a couple of negative perks and around 60 oa level. How easy is it to get 60 oa? I'm not saying it's bad, but a determined person who wants to build character CAN create a impossibly charming person invulnerable to PKers. What this will do to game balance and for the complaints department, I don't know.

 

Having said that, I still like the idea. (Hey, if anyone WANTS to sacrifice 68 pickpoints for invulnerability, let them)

 

~Shouja~

[Thordin]

I think that 3% is a bit too much, 1-2% would do the job same, but it would keep the decent chance to PKers either...

[Fox Lupine]

I'm not sure I like the idea.....

 

I think the point of MMPORGS is the free roaming, and the choice, and if a player wants to attack someone, whats actually stopping them?

 

Sorry, after you wrote so much, I'm still not convinced, as this is basicly MM for players, and for a lot of hgh level characters players are the one of the few things that can scare them

[Infamous]

i'm too damn charming by nature so gg EL you all can't attack me ;p

 

anyway it's a good idea

Edited June 15, 2006 by Hardcore

[Zaer]

its good but you're example of 33% seems slightly too high, id say 15-20% max tbh.

 

great idea tho, means people might stop moaning so much

[trollson]

This is a good idea. We really need uses for all the attributes, to encourage a bit more variety -- from a design viewpoint all attributes should have equal worth.

 

I don't see anything wrong with developing a character who is just-to-darn-cute to attack; it would require alot of dedication and focus, and would be a clear statement that the player is not interested in PvP'ing.

 

Alternatives?

 

You could use diminishing returns rather than a flat rate percentage, allowing a higher initial value, but preventing complete immunity. However, the cost to the character of all those pick points increases already, so this may not be necessary.

 

Another method is to make more use of attribute vs. attribute rolls; so while you may develop a high charm to disuade attackers, they could develop a high perception to "see past the charm". The opposing attribute could alteratively be rationality, though this already has a uses, or the sum of the two?

 

A common implementation would give equal attributes a 50% success rate, with a 1 point advantage giving 55% success (again, diminishing returns as the gap becomes wider). (A quick implementation would use a gaussian random number source)

[0ctane]

A common implementation would give equal attributes a 50% success rate, with a 1 point advantage giving 55% success (again, diminishing returns as the gap becomes wider). (A quick implementation would use a gaussian random number source)

I thought about using (in my suggestion) the difference in charm between players multiplied by some factor. That way players of equal charm would be able to "see through" the opponent's guise. I would rather not start out at 50%, just because too many fights would be avoided.

 

If you want to get 34 Charm (and hence, complete un-attackability), all you have to do is sink 68 pickpoints into Vitality and nothing else.

Well, yeah, you could. (technically 64 points since you start at 4) Assuming you take no negative perks, you would still have to get to level 64 at a minimum before you are invulnerable to PK. This would also mean that no nexus were picked (unlikely since harvesting minerals and ore is too important for getting spell ingredients) and no phys/coord were chosen (unlikely since these are needed for EMU) and no phys/will (for health points). But yeah, 2% is probably a bit more reasonable. Then if someone really wants to be invulnerable, they can sink 96 pickpoints into vitality or instinct.

 

I think the point of MMPORGS is the free roaming, and the choice, and if a player wants to attack someone, whats actually stopping them?

 

Sorry, after you wrote so much, I'm still not convinced, as this is basicly MM for players, and for a lot of hgh level characters players are the one of the few things that can scare them

First, non-PK maps stop everyone from attacking one another. Second, a lot of the current high level characters would take a significantly long time to raise their charm such that this suggestion would be of any use. I know I have ~1million exp to go before my next pickpoint.

 

i'm too damn charming by nature so gg EL you all can't attack me ;p

Yes, you are quite charming Hardcore.

[trollson]

A common implementation would give equal attributes a 50% success rate, with a 1 point advantage giving 55% success (again, diminishing returns as the gap becomes wider). (A quick implementation would use a gaussian random number source)

I thought about using (in my suggestion) the difference in charm between players multiplied by some factor. That way players of equal charm would be able to "see through" the opponent's guise. I would rather not start out at 50%, just because too many fights would be avoided.

 

Yes, a default 50% would slow things down a bit too much I was thinking that while 'charm' is your defense, the opponents offensive factor could be a sum of an attribute and a skill, perception and attack? I find its preferable to determine a probability from factors already available, rather than adding in a new parameter if it can be avoided.

[Ghrae]

It shouldn't allow complete invulnerability against attack.

 

There should always be a chance for people to hit you.

[Derin]

The choices we make for PvP actions should be made by the players, not by what attributes we have. Charm should be used for NPC actions/reactions and to some extent skills, like summoning.

[0ctane]

The choices we make for PvP actions should be made by the players, not by what attributes we have. Charm should be used for NPC actions/reactions and to some extent skills, like summoning.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. People who create PvP characters are specifically choosing their attributes to boost their PK ability. While, as I mentioned, others have already suggested NPC actions/reactions for the charm attribute, nothing has come of this.

 

Also, others have already suggested a possible role in summoning. I personally do not see much of a role for a player attribute in summoning. I think those who have suggested it in the past have felt that "charm" was more akin to putting a spell on something ... or like a skill rather than a player attribute. People "charm" snakes, but that is a skill.

 

Again, I am trying to propose something that AFAIK has not been suggested.

It shouldn't allow complete invulnerability against attack.

 

There should always be a chance for people to hit you.

Yes. And if the calculation used 2% * charm, then it would be very unlikely for anyone to become invulnerable or too "pretty" (sorry Hardcore). Yes, there are players with an OA 100, but no one ever puts all their pickpoints in one attribute.

 

And if someone did decide to entirely stack charm for 100 levels, they could only harvest up to coal, only summon up to rat, only alch a few things for lack of being able to havrvest ingredients, only manu up to leather gloves, only potion small mana and health, and craft nothing. Sure they can do any spells for which they would have to buy nearly every ingredient. Yes, this is an extreme case. My point though is that you would be severely limited as to what other exp gaining skills you pursued in order to achieve "invulnerability" to PvP. And if someone did pursue this path, more power to them IMNSHO.

 

[edit]fixed alch statement

Edited June 16, 2006 by 0ctane

[roos]

This seems like an interesting idea I definitely like it. I think maybe this could be useful for a lot of the players who just want to harvest or pvp or what not... Maybe it could also be 5% per charm level with diminishing returns instead of 3%, so that you don't have to sacrifice all your PPs to get decent protection.

 

I'm not sure if this would help pvpers much though. Usually if someone wants to PK you, they won't just try once and say "oh, it failed, you're too charming! OK have fun" They'll probably stay around and keep trying to attack you until it succeeds. So it seems to me like charm doesn't really protect you from attack- it just gives you some time to flee. If you're pretty fast with your diss/tele though, then you don't really need it imho

[ville-v]

And if someone did decide to entirely stack charm for 100 levels, they could only harvest up to coal, only summon up to rat, only alch up to energy essence, only manu up to leather gloves, only potion small mana and health, and craft nothing. Sure they can do any spells for which they would have to buy nearly every ingredient. Yes, this is an extreme case. My point though is that you would be severely limited as to what other exp gaining skills you pursued in order to achieve "invulnerability" to PvP. And if someone did pursue this path, more power to them IMNSHO.

 

Have you heard about negative perks? Those that give you up to 42 pps? And when alchemy has started to need nexuses? Is it added in last update?

[0ctane]

Have you heard about negative perks? Those that give you up to 42 pps? And when alchemy has started to need nexuses? Is it added in last update?

No, I have been playing this gave for over a year and have never heard of a negative perk. If you want to take Hellspawn to get your charm level up, go ahead. If this charm sugestion is implemented, nothing would be stopping you from getting those 42 pps to put into charm too. Of course, you already have the ability to put those 42 pps into p/c to be a stronger fighter, right? And prevously, I did mention that these calculations were based on not getting neg-perks just to simplify things.

 

While alchemy itself does not require a nexus, in order to get the ingredients for many alchemy mixtures, you need to have inorganic nexuses to harvest the stuff. Like I said, unless you somehow can afford to buy all the ingredients. This theoretical total charm player would have to harvest a lot of lilacs to buy enough ingredients to eventually alch and mage up to level 100. Or with their 4p/4c they could kill a lot of rabbits.

[Kalach]

Have you heard about negative perks? Those that give you up to 42 pps? And when alchemy has started to need nexuses? Is it added in last update?

No, I have been playing this gave for over a year and have never heard of a negative perk. If you want to take Hellspawn to get your charm level up, go ahead. If this charm sugestion is implemented, nothing would be stopping you from getting those 42 pps to put into charm too. Of course, you already have the ability to put those 42 pps into p/c to be a stronger fighter, right? And prevously, I did mention that these calculations were based on not getting neg-perks just to simplify things.

 

While alchemy itself does not require a nexus, in order to get the ingredients for many alchemy mixtures, you need to have inorganic nexuses to harvest the stuff. Like I said, unless you somehow can afford to buy all the ingredients. This theoretical total charm player would have to harvest a lot of lilacs to buy enough ingredients to eventually alch and mage up to level 100. Or with their 4p/4c they could kill a lot of rabbits.

 

In addition to this, alchemy with a low EMU is a real pain in the neck. I doubt an Alchemist is going to stick with 80 EMU and be able to make ~ 15 HE before reloading from storage. (Even at Raven)

[trollson]

Quick thought during the morning commute...

 

This would make Chainmail Bikinis™ feasible at last! Low armour value, but a huge charm bonus

Edited June 20, 2006 by trollson

[Infamous]

make it fur bikinis ;p

 

btw how you gonna attack ur pvp partner if u take charm so others can't attack you?

Edited June 20, 2006 by Hardcore

[Sheesh]

Ok, sounds reasonable but I do have one question. Let's say that A and B are fighting and C enters the ring to kill both A and B. Does A and B's charm add together to warn of C (still in the 33% chance of happening) or does just A or just B's charm go per confrontation?

[trollson]

I don't think that the mechanics of this suggestion will work as suggested so far, but its aim is worth pursuing.

 

Hardcore: How to address voluntary pvp?

Two options:

• The use of Charm is a voluntary action. If you are attacked, hold the 'Home' key to disengage, and your Charm improves the disengagement chance(2).
  
• Implement the Duel system, which circumvents Charm. I think that reusing the trade window to initiate a duel (and place a wager) would be interesting(1).
  

Sheesh: Multiple combat?

Charm would have to work on a one-to-one basis surely? Or be ineffective for parties already engaged in combat? Or if it is a bonus to disengagement ('Home' key) then it doesnt matter.

 

Summary from this post:

• Consider using Charm to give a bonus to the use of 'Home' to disengage from combat. This makes the use of Charm a voluntary action(2).
  
• Downside is that you may not get any time to act -- fighter vs non-fighter combat can easily be a one blow affair! The victim should always have an opportunity to respond, otherwise they are just a passive spectator in the game (except: outright ambushes?). This needs to be answered.
  

(1) -- I posted this suggestion at the end of the duel thread, but I think that the topic had pretty much run its course by that point.

(2) -- When I refer to using the 'Home' key, this really means any "normal" disengagement attempt, including trying to walk away.

Edited June 21, 2006 by trollson

[0ctane]

Ok, sounds reasonable but I do have one question. Let's say that A and B are fighting and C enters the ring to kill both A and B. Does A and B's charm add together to warn of C (still in the 33% chance of happening) or does just A or just B's charm go per confrontation?

I would say just A or B's charm. I do not see how a calculation for A&B vs C could be easily done. There would be too many factors, such as whether-or-not A&B were training(amicable) or PKing(hostile), or whether C is a guildie trying to assist A or B.

make it fur bikinis

Interesting suggestion. Let's see Hardcore in a bikini.

Duel...Consider using Charm to give a bonus to the use of 'Home' to disengage from combat. This makes the use of Charm a voluntary action

I was pondering about this. Let's say you successfullly charm the other player. Maybe a window should popup giving you the option to engage anyhow. But, your idea of giving a bonus to disengage (via Home or any movement) is a reasonable idea.

 

The "Duel" system would also help arena fighting and prevent the interloping C problem.

[Infamous]

make it fur bikinis

Interesting suggestion. Let's see Hardcore in a bikini.

 

only if i get to wear the tiger print one!