Illusion Spells

[Kami]

kami, what im posting are not personal fears. its rather complaints that i find likely to show up if said spells are put into the game.

165932[/snapback]

 

And it also seams as though the "Bagjumping complaints problem" is your responce to every issue as well. Afterall, You are Notorious for your stance on Bagjumping and related issues. If an idea has even a slight chance of being used by a bagjumper, you are always one of the first to veto it.

 

and why would someone bother to pm the person next to them if they are the only two people in the room? a pm is a extra number of keypresses, and if there is one thing thats a sure thing about humans then it is that they are lazy the situation can happen.

 

And since when was players' Laziness an excuse for not improving the game? I'll say it again, We can't keep the mindset that this game should be "Simplified for the Simpletons" then that's all we're going to get to play this game.

 

 

oh, and a skill and a attribute are a bit diffrent. a skill increases with use, a attribute is increased by spending points. and a cross-attribute is based on the avarage value of 2-3 other attributes...

 

Same ...... Diff ......

Don't get into Semantics here. It just wastes time and makes us type more then Necessary.

 

and i would love to see you pass the argument of a crime without witnesses being equal to no crime in front of any judge

 

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose? I mean, if no one knows the crime was commited, there would be no reason to convince a Judge that it wasn't. Crimes happened every second in this world. It's only the ones that are Known about that are accepted as "Real."

 

allso, if a person leaves a objet on a table and then forgets about it in real life, can you just walk of with it?

 

Well now, that would depend on exactly where that table is. Obviously, you can't just walk into someone's house and pick something up and walk out with it But If you leave your Wallet on the Table in your local Cafe, Legally it's Only yours as long as it contains some form of I.d. But then again, it's only Legally yours so long as you return to claim it. Otherwise, it's the responciblity of Cafe. But, If it has no I.d. then whose to say that it's isn't mine if I come along behind you Later and pick it up? The Laws regarding taking something that doesn't belong to you only purtains to Taking that object off of a Person or a Person's Property.

Othewise, Finder's Keepers.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Kami

[duran]

atleast one person will know, the person that have gotten something stolen.

then its the polices job to verify the claim and find the offender, then its passed up the chain and the offender is presented before a judge and posibly a jury to decide the persons fate.

 

and i fail to see how im allways the first to veto something if it can in theory or practice be used for bagjumping. your closing on personal attacks here...

 

hell, i have made my share of posts on the subject pointing out that a bag on the ground is fair game for anyone. still, i have allso come up with some theoretical solutions on the subject as well just for the hell of it.

 

as for thinking or no thinking. with say a spell that hides a persons armor without a clue that said armor may be hidden (a magical glow maybe?) then it will be pure guesswork about the equipment of said person unless the other party knows the person by reputation or otherwise.

 

there is a slight diffrence between a thinking mans game and a gambling mans game.

[Learner]

atleast one person will know, the person that have gotten something stolen.

then its the polices job to verify the claim and find the offender, then its passed up the chain and the offender is presented before a judge and posibly a jury to decide the persons fate.

 

and i fail to see how im allways the first to veto something if it can in theory or practice be used for bagjumping. your closing on personal attacks here...

 

hell, i have made my share of posts on the subject pointing out that a bag on the ground is fair game for anyone. still, i have allso come up with some theoretical solutions on the subject as well just for the hell of it.

 

as for thinking or no thinking. with say a spell that hides a persons armor without a clue that said armor may be hidden (a magical glow maybe?) then it will be pure guesswork about the equipment of said person unless the other party knows the person by reputation or otherwise.

 

there is a slight diffrence between a thinking mans game and a gambling mans game.

166467[/snapback]

 

When making suggestions involving player interaction, rules, reporting, researching claims, etc, you thing to remember is the average mental age of EL and what the average mental age of the bottom 25% is. Those are the people that will play havoc with reasonable in game methods of any sort of fairness. Now try to look at it from someone who is trying to help out and deal with that bottom 25% and how often it happens and see if your nerves will last very long?

[Kami]

atleast one person will know, the person that have gotten something stolen.

166467[/snapback]

 

You see, this is where you're logic betrays you. In this game at least, nothing can be "stolen", which is the general Point I was getting at. The only reason anyone even claims to have their Bag Jumped is if they see another player nearby just before they go "Poof"! But in this case, Out of Sight means There's No Blame. If a player has no one to blame after s/he returns to find their bag gone, then they'll only have themselves to blame. Or they'll get over it. Eitherway, all the better.

 

and i fail to see how im allways the first to veto something if it can in theory or practice be used for bagjumping. your closing on personal attacks here...

 

hell, i have made my share of posts on the subject pointing out that a bag on the ground is fair game for anyone. still, i have allso come up with some theoretical solutions on the subject as well just for the hell of it.

 

No, no. No personal attack. Just noting a running theme in many of your posts. You have tended to cite "Bagjumping" as a Problem quite often, if not for the same reasons as most.

 

as for thinking or no thinking. with say a spell that hides a persons armor without a clue that said armor may be hidden (a magical glow maybe?) then it will be pure guesswork about the equipment of said person unless the other party knows the person by reputation or otherwise.

 

there is a slight diffrence between a thinking mans game and a gambling mans game.

 

First, this game is about 40% gambling, in one fashion or another. The other 60% neither requres much Thought or Luck; Just a lot of Time and Patience.

 

Second, I like the idea of such a "Glow". But it would have to be uniform to any players that has an Enchantment on them in order to not give other players a sense of just what spell is on them. Such as whether it's "Illusory Armor" or "Phantom Weapon", the player would still have the same "glow".

 

Also, this would be a great way to apply the Perseption Cross-Attribute as well.

At 0 Perseption Level, a Player will not be able to see the Glow of a Enchanted player.

At higher Levels, a player would only able to see the glow emminating from nearby Enchanted Players.

With a higher Level, a Player can Indentify what Spell is enchanting Other Players.

At an even higher Level, a player would be able to "sense" a glow from an Invisible Player (but not see them).

At a Level yet even Higher, a Player would be able to See through the Invisiblity Spell and Identify the player.

 

This would be a lot of fun for people who don't want to Train their Magic but still would like a defense from those who do.

 

And Perseption wouldn't only apply to Common Magic either. It can also work the same more Summoning and other related skills. This would be a great way to deter Fighters from investing all of their PPs into just their Fighting. If a fighter wants to be more careful in their fights, they'll invest in a little Smarts instead of just brute force (unless they're Role-playing a Barbarian or such.)

Edited June 2, 2005 by Kami

[Lachesis]

Yes, this suggestion enables many sorts of scamming and even spying. Though I don't do either of them, I like this suggestion especially because it introduces these possibilities. If you want to be sure not to be outheared you can still use PM or join a channel*. This is an RPG and scamming and spying are some important sorts of role play if you ask me. Safe games are boring, aren't they

 

*) To the server devs: can we have channel locking? There are enough channels ... maybe locking could be disabled for channel numbers < 10,000. A listing of all players in a channel would also be useful with this problem.

[trollson]

Just a few quick thoughts on invisibility (total invisibility of a character, not hiding items). If it where done, then model it as a fragile shell, dispelled by any interaction, such as if the invisible character...

• picks up anything, including by harvesting.
  
• moves to another map.
  
• initiates an attack.
  
• casts a spell on another character or creature.
  
• another character or creature bumps into them *.
  

The invisible character would still be able to spy, and may get a surprize bonus in combat (I don't think that there is such a thing at present?). They could still drop items, though strictly this may be considered shell-breaking.

 

A weaker form of invisibilty would be hiding, which would also prevent movement, but needn't be magical.

 

* By "bumps into" I mean clicks to move into the same square. Pathfinding may be allowed to circumvent the invisible character.

Edited June 3, 2005 by trollson

[Hap_Loder]

Having a character be able to become completely invisible would probably be completely unfair. People would be casting their detect invisible spells all the time out of necessity.

 

But as long as there was some visual effect to indicate that a character is present (like the visual blurring in the predator films, for example) then other characters would be able to spot invisible characters if they are watchful.

 

Another way to handle it would be that an "invisible" character is still visible in a graphical sense but can't be PK'ed or attacked by monsters while invisible. Perhaps they will also be unable to chat or send pms, or interact with NPCs while in this state - they are not only invisible but also inaudible. A character who is invisible in this way should have it represented somehow... like their character visibly darkening or turning from colour to greyscale.

 

I think even 30 seconds might be too long a duration for a spell that works as a temporary MM. 15-20 seconds would be fine and still very worthwhile.

 

Hap_Loder

[Learner]

Having a character be able to become completely invisible would probably be completely unfair.  People would be casting their detect invisible spells all the time out of necessity.

 

But as long as there was some visual effect to indicate that a character is present (like the visual blurring in the predator films, for example) then other characters would be able to spot invisible characters if they are watchful.

 

Another way to handle it would be that an "invisible" character is still visible in a graphical sense but can't be PK'ed or attacked by monsters while invisible.  Perhaps they will also be unable to chat or send pms, or interact with NPCs while in this state - they are not only invisible but also inaudible.  A character who is invisible in this way should have it represented somehow... like their character visibly darkening or turning from colour to greyscale.

 

I think even 30 seconds might be too long a duration for a spell that works as a temporary MM.  15-20 seconds would be fine and still very worthwhile.

 

Hap_Loder

170942[/snapback]

If invisible was to be done to blurr or hide a character, the first illegal patch after that in the Client will be to disable that. It must a be a total invisibility handled in the server and the data isn't even sent to the client unless the server decides you notice something because of your perception.

[Roja]

Another way to handle it would be that an "invisible" character is still visible in a graphical sense but can't be PK'ed or attacked by monsters while invisible.  Perhaps they will also be unable to chat or send pms, or interact with NPCs while in this state - they are not only invisible but also inaudible.  A character who is invisible in this way should have it represented somehow... like their character visibly darkening or turning from colour to greyscale.

170942[/snapback]

 

If we ever did invisibility, this is how we'd have to do it basically. Just can't allow players to be fully invisible, too many problems with that. It would just look like the wraith-or how the old models used to be.

[Lachesis]

If invisible was to be done to blurr or hide a character, the first illegal patch after that in the Client will be to disable that. It must a be a total invisibility handled in the server and the data isn't even sent to the client unless the server decides you notice something because of your perception.

170944[/snapback]

Something that came into my mind ... the problem is that we are thinking the client either knows of the invisible person or not. But it can also partially know. That is, when the character moves there might be some small probability that a nearby client gets a notification. But that information is only worthful for a short time because the invisible player might already have moved elsewhere. I really like the idea of real invisibility, it's a really great thing for role plays.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Lachesis

[Hap_Loder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't know a lot about how the client works, but let's imagine you made an illegal patch on your copy of the client to make invisible characters FULLY invisible.

 

Wouldn't that make it so YOU couldn't see invisible characters at all? But other people with the un-patched client can still see the invisibility effects as normal?

 

So doing that would only hurt yourself. In that case, patch away!

 

Hap_Loder

[ttlanhil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't know a lot about how the client works, but let's imagine you made an illegal patch on your copy of the client to make invisible characters FULLY invisible.

 

Wouldn't that make it so YOU couldn't see invisible characters at all?  But other people with the un-patched client can still see the invisibility effects as normal?

 

So doing that would only hurt yourself.  In that case, patch away!

 

Hap_Loder

171062[/snapback]

no, they'd make it so they can always see the invisible people, and those with the official client can only sometiems see the person

[Puntif]

That's why there's basically only 2 options for invisiblility: either an invisible character shows in the client but cannot be attacked or the server never sends invisible actors to the client at all. I would like to see either one (or maybe even both). Obviously a completely invisible character would have to be seriously limited in order to not unbalance combat. Maybe any time an invisible character attacks someone they become visible first then they are frozen visible for 2 seconds before the attack occurs (attack including magic spells or physical attacks).

[ttlanhil]

That's why there's basically only 2 options for invisiblility:  either an invisible character shows in the client but cannot be attacked or the server never sends invisible actors to the client at all.  I would like to see either one (or maybe even both).  Obviously a completely invisible character would have to be seriously limited in order to not unbalance combat.  Maybe any time an invisible character attacks someone they become visible first then they are frozen visible for 2 seconds before the attack occurs (attack including magic spells or physical attacks).

171147[/snapback]

that could work quite well. plus the chance based on perception to notice, esp if they move.

a chance to roleplay a spy