Shattered Kingdoms

Where Roleplay and Tactics Collide
VOTE NOW!
It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:01 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

What should be done to summon?
Nothing. It's fantastic. I love ganking people. 19%  19%  [ 14 ]
Auto summon makes you completely immune. 39%  39%  [ 29 ]
Something else. Please list idea below. 43%  43%  [ 32 ]
Total votes : 75
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:41 am 
Offline
Mortal Contributor

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 1279
Location: Miami, FL
Minette wrote:
There are also a lot of fountain RPers and certain group of players (such as the predictable Talons who are 24/7 in Nerina)


Only when I'm brewing. I'm mostly running around trying to make money or looking around for good EQ loads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:34 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 6:16 am
Posts: 470
Location: Zhenshi
Quote:
I think if you wish to keep summons as it is, then have one possible outcome is the entire group stays with the one being summoned. Maybe a 20% chance of that happening, this way people will really have to think twice before necessarily trying to summon someone from thier group.


I'll summon you, and your dog Toto too...

Another thought would be a percentage chance when you summon someone, the spell's 'focus' takes a bit extra out of the summoner's 'consentration' (slight lag before they can respond). Not an automatic thing, but a risk that the summoner would have to take, which could at times give the person summoned the edge. 5 seconds? *shrug* Just another thought to put into the bowl of ideas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:41 am 
Why don't we just leave it at if you have auto summon on you can't be summoned?

No need to think up complicated and convuluted plans.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:07 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:53 am
Posts: 1786
Or leave summon as it is... make it so you can see the summoner if you have them greeted and they are not poly/invis/whatever.

And then make gate slightly if not greatly easier to land.

There ya go!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:38 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:36 am
Posts: 1471
Fepel Veiled wrote:
Or leave summon as it is... make it so you can see the summoner if you have them greeted and they are not poly/invis/whatever.

And then make gate slightly if not greatly easier to land.

There ya go!


How about no! Wimp Summon and Boost Gate. That is all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:03 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 12:17 pm
Posts: 492
Funny to see this thread, by Dulrik, no less! Feedback is always a good thing, even if some annoying Greek stirs the whole issue with his own personal "whining" posts. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:45 pm 
Offline
Implementor

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 8220
Location: Redwood City, California
Why funny? Contrary to lies you may have heard, I do listen to player feedback on many issues, both solicited and otherwise.

Based on the poll, it's safe to conclude that people want something done about summon. I believe I'm going to try the dalamar option to start.

dalamar wrote:
I would like to see summon reveal the attempted summoner- perhaps in the same way that voodoo does now.

Any attempt at summons should require the summoner have auto-summon turned off himself, and therefore be vulnerable to attack.

Some kind of "lag" associated with summons that would not hinder using the spell for utility but prevents the kind of "c summon <name>; order all bash <name>" tactics that it can currently be used for, as well as preventing a stacking of "auto summon; c summon <name>; auto summon" to keep them safe from retaliatory-summons.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:49 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:50 pm
Posts: 1798
I can see change #1 justified so summon will be carefully used. #2 would make a very interesting change. #3 would just encourage, in fact completely turn over to more group ganks because the lone summoners can no longer do it themselves. None of the three proposed changes discourage and stop gank squads, which was the spirit of the thread (?).

Given how the summon spell works, any summoner is already vulnerable, running at risk to counters in the same zone/area, as much as the victim is, to both summon and gate spells. There are some summon back/forth logs at MrP's.

I believe #1 will already make the spell more tactical and less used, coupled with no_gate + no_summon in all cities' main inn rooms where they provide comfort. It had been the place where players congregate, but due to large summoning attempts some players are less willing to go there. None of the three changes stop gank squads and players still won't stay at inns.

It's difficult to find new characters to interact these days. Arranged meetings by tells kinda take the fun away. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:58 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:55 pm
Posts: 1365
Quote:
None of the three proposed changes discourage and stop gank squads, which was the spirit of the thread (?).


Well, as I see it, there are three problems we're trying to solve,

1. For a Veteran-level, very low risk spell, it's an awfully good way to kill newbies and the ill-equipped. It's not clear that a spell that's so powerful against the inexperienced is good for a MUD that wants new players around and active.

2. Because the summon spell is so low-risk, and because it takes up so little mana, it can be repeated again and again and again.... Besides being annoying, this tactic broke up regular game activities as people fled to no-summon areas.

3. Summoning enemy group members was so much more effective than a pitched battle that it was the preferred tactic. That's not compatible with the ideal of army vs. army PK that Dulrik's apparently encouraging.

Dalamar's proposal looks like it has a good shot for all of the above, PROVIDED it's possible to identify the caster well enough to have him summoned in turn. If invis, form-changes, and just plain not greeting people are going to block this, being able to counter with summon seems a toothless threat. But if identification is possible, even an lowbie can ask a friend to summon a temporarily vulnerable mage - if he can just live long enough to get the message out.

It's not my favorite solution, either. I'm concerned that the summon lag might make it needlessly difficult for mages to summon aggro NPCs. And as mentioned, I'd like to see summon remain a usable PK tactic against a larger group. But it's hard to argue the proposal isn't workable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:40 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:48 pm
Posts: 1608
Location: My heart's in <strike>Iraq</strike> Texas with my newly re-enlisted 'som' 'soq' daughter
SK Character: Galida Apelila Shaloush Mayumi
Dulrik wrote:
Why funny? Contrary to lies you may have heard, I do listen to player feedback on many issues, both solicited and otherwise.

Based on the poll, it's safe to conclude that people want something done about summon. I believe I'm going to try the dalamar option to start.

dalamar wrote:
I would like to see summon reveal the attempted summoner- perhaps in the same way that voodoo does now.

Any attempt at summons should require the summoner have auto-summon turned off himself, and therefore be vulnerable to attack.

Some kind of "lag" associated with summons that would not hinder using the spell for utility but prevents the kind of "c summon <name>; order all bash <name>" tactics that it can currently be used for, as well as preventing a stacking of "auto summon; c summon <name>; auto summon" to keep them safe from retaliatory-summons.


You start to concentrate.
You utter the words 'summon'.
Bob appears suddenly.
You pull your arms toward yourself as you pull Bob to your location.

Jim starts to concentrate.
Jim utters the word 'summon'.
Bob appears suddenly.
Jim pulls his arms toward himself as he pulls Bob to his location.

You feel [Jim|a pudgy male human](greet|nongreet) trying to pull you to a natural pathway. (fail)
[edit]Bob turns transparent briefly. (fail from Bob's observers' point of view)[/edit]

Jim has summoned you!
Jim pulls his arms toward himself as he pulls you to his location.

Could the secondary lag check for "accepting summons"? This way someone who wishes to go won't cause the caster lag?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 130 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group