Post Wipe Thoughts and Wants

[Ael'Thas]

Jan 15, 2010 2:11:39 GMT -5 [Karma] said:

Jan 13, 2010 16:21:44 GMT -5 Ael'Thas said:

Harm is NOT so easily defendable against as most people here believe, walk around the server a bit and you'll see that 90% of tanks are undefended against it.

That sounds so incredibly superior I want to hurl. Even my arrogance couldn't quite clear that. Besides, you're flat out wrong. It takes one level. Read. One. Level. That's all you need to cheese out the UMD req. 99.9% of tanks take 1 level for tumble. Level 5 cleric can scroll. It costs virtually nothing. And...arguement negated. Thankyou.

I don't want to start an argument here Karma, but let's just say that in the little while that I've been playing here and in the little while I've been DMing... I have seen loads and loads and loads of people who go around their everyday business without any protection from Harm (including me most of the time). Leveling without protection makes them so easily killable it's almost funny... you can invis, run to them, Harm them and bonk them on the head and it's over.
We all know that a decent Cleric can have awesome ab, even if it's for a limited time (buffs). A combination of buffs will allow you to easily reach the +20 cap on ab.
I've also seen MANY players drop by the hands of Shas'o Vior'la Shovah Kais Mon'tyr Badger with a simple sneak in, harm, sneak attack, hips out attack. Could easily take 2 of em out before they realized what was happening and set up Harm protections.


So while it is true that if you are prepared for PvP, Harm protection is quite easy to come by, but you can't say that most people are always protected by Harm. I personally don't even see that much of a problem with Harm as it is if it's used in a "clean" fight (where both people are more or less prepared to fight), I just dislike how it was used on someone who was leveling to either allow the mob to take him down or to take him down on the first two sneak attacks.

Now I don't really see it as a big problem anyhow, but we HAVE had Harm griefers before who would really screw up your happy time on the server because as soon as they logged in you know you had to be on Harm protection 24/7 or they'll come after you. Imo this is on a similar level of griefing (or call it bad sportmanship if you will) as making a PP toon that runs around and PPs people in town to produce an auto-attack that makes the PPee a killer (that's before PvP in towns was disabled).


What I also don't like about harm is how it makes no difference if you have 4hp or 4000hp before it. That's the part that seems a bit overpowered to me. That's why I vote for a % damage (let's say it drops you to 20% of your max hp, or even 15%). That would actually make it easier for crazy ass hp tanks to survive it compared to a wizard or a sorcerer and it would still be an awesome spell in terms of damage dealing.

[[Karma]]

We've already nuked PvP to the levels of extreme obscenity. It may not be an official rule, but 'Rez what you kill' is an institution thanks to the non-pvpers on a pvp server. Let's face it, a Hellball/gruin combo followed by an igms will kill anyone who is unprepared, so will a dozen other tactics I won't despoil the server by mentioning. Unprepared for pvp is death. Get over it. Shaso was a decent build, but not a great build. Are we saying that good builds should be punished now? And great builds should be seen as an abomination and nerfed in any way possible? (Read: Shaso was beatable by my unbuffed DK fgt based WM with 52ac and 51ab, so it's not really a debate about challenge)

Can I say that most people are always protected from harm? Hell no. That's the point. If they were always protected it would be a dead spell. The point is people need to be aware of it's power and act appropriately as they see fit. To nerf the spell because people are lazy is just stupidity. You say yourself that harm protection is easy to come by, so surely those who fail to come by it should be responsible for their own actions? And failing that, they get a free rez and get to pretend that nothing ever happened short of the fact they can't pvp or be pvp'd for 15 minutes. Frankly, if you fall to harm, you aren't pvp, so the 15 minute break is a blessing.

As for harm griefers, treat them like any other griefers. If they abuse a strategy, either reward them for their genius, or (in this case) throw them some "amusement" for their stale pvp style.

As for the "no dif between 4hp and 4khp" Wow...not really a surprise. Frankly, you don't need NEP to protect against harm (omg I mentioned the counter!!!1!1!). Conceal atm = 50% protection. With "proper" nerf = 30%. 1 in 3 chance harm will fail anyway. Heal after cast works if you are fast. Decent dexer builds laugh at most harm builds.

If we are to nerf Harm, I say check for oPC. If PC, act normal, if not PC, 50% health damage. Leave the rest to proper builds and strategy. I'm damn well tired of coddling on what is supposed to be a PvP server. If we want to make this a hold hands and suckle on our lollipops server, tell me now so I can quit gracefully

[bhale187]

Harm changes will not occur due to popular vote.

Need to hear from someone who thinks the changes to the following are a good idea or they will likely get canned to...
Word of Faith
Blade Barrier
Epic Warding
Hell Ball
Greater Ruin

[bhale187]

Jan 15, 2010 6:43:09 GMT -5 [Karma] said:

I'm damn well tired of coddling on what is supposed to be a PvP server. If we want to make this a hold hands and suckle on our lollipops server, tell me now so I can quit gracefully

So are you saying we should leave the entire server on NwN default scripts? I'm not following how attempting to level the playing field is like holding hands and sucking lollipops....

[Tyr]

NWN base spells were made for PvM in single player and the multiplayer and PvP aspects were not given much consideration except as an after thought by Bioware. So when it comes down to the persistent worlds its a matter of the designers having to engineer changes.

There has got to be some room for compromise here. We got out of a period of my way or the highway type of thinking. Surely we can come to some understanding that there do need to be some changes.

What would be helpful instead of digging our heels into the ground on things is maybe suggest fair counter proposals if you do not agree with something.

[Silence]

It would be nice if hellball didn't result in friendly fire.

[Rulin Pendragon]

There is no such thing as friendly fire in Hellball, if cought in the area Hell shall be paid...So sayeth Rasputin or so I heard...............

[Dethklok]

Instead of changing epic warding to +10/soak 50, what about making it +14/soak 20. Not as powerful as the Bracers of Hell Reduction were, and has a limited duration.

For G-Ruin, I'd rather keep it as it was pre-wipe. Considering that it's an epic spell, i think the damage was very fair. I dont remember anyone ever having a problem with it anyway.

[Dethklok]

A fortitude save should be added to Crippling Strike. Using something like [rogue level] or [rogue level + 10] for the DC would be good. If not, at least add a maximum strength penalty that would stack on one person (-20 for instance), or a time limit at which it would wear off (say 4-6 rounds) similar to Called Shot. Crippling Strike is currently automatic and will decrease strength to 3 in a short time. Granted, it can be defended against somewhat, but the rogue will always be able to get around it.

[[Karma]]

Jan 15, 2010 8:32:31 GMT -5 bhale187 said:

Jan 15, 2010 6:43:09 GMT -5 [Karma] said:

I'm damn well tired of coddling on what is supposed to be a PvP server. If we want to make this a hold hands and suckle on our lollipops server, tell me now so I can quit gracefully

So are you saying we should leave the entire server on NwN default scripts? I'm not following how attempting to level the playing field is like holding hands and sucking lollipops....

That is hardly what I'm saying. The reason for my little outburst was frustration at how in order to counter a problem, a large scale, generic modification is added, seemingly without thought for the other implications and side effects. Harm too powerful in PvM? Nuke it. Let's not take into account that a LOT of mobs have high fort, or that it reduces the uses of the spell in PvP to...well...er...noone. Rogues have high AC and UMD, tanks have fort, divine has NEP use and arcane has spell mantles.

As a suggestion (in reference to your comment Tyr), how about spells that have overpowered nature in a certain field are modified only in that field. Checks for PC can essentially split the spell in two. PvP it works the same as it does now, PvM it does say, 10HP per level, 3.5 style. Meaning even a pure cleric can only pump out 400dmg on those mobs for a level 6 spell, which considering it's susceptibility to conceal and high ac, is imo a much fairer way of scaling it back.

I'm all for providing ideas and suggestions, I was annoyed by the tone in which the changes were presented. IE the "likely to occur" without any general consensus. If we are opening the public domain to some fixes, I think we can get some nerfage done without any "heel-digging"

[[Karma]]

Jan 15, 2010 16:55:09 GMT -5 Dethklok said:

A fortitude save should be added to Crippling Strike. Using something like [rogue level] or [rogue level + 10] for the DC would be good. If not, at least add a maximum strength penalty that would stack on one person (-20 for instance), or a time limit at which it would wear off (say 4-6 rounds) similar to Called Shot. Crippling Strike is currently automatic and will decrease strength to 3 in a short time. Granted, it can be defended against somewhat, but the rogue will always be able to get around it.

This has a very easy (read:same) counter as well . I also disagree to Fort save. I hate essential immunities for tanks when currently that is what the server is being gear towards, the curious tank.

I like the idea of a duration (though more like a turn imo), but iirc you can't modify Crip Strike anyway, so it's possibly a moot point.

[mardok]

Just a suggestion,

For those who cant, because of price or don't want to get a remort but want to enhance their gear instead; could a shop be built to pay QP to enhance the gear we have.

Add a spell or spell like ability (Haste, Freedom ect) to an item. - 1 qp per spell lvl
Add +1 to a stat to an item (Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Int, Cha, Fort, Ref, Will) - 2 qp
Add +1 to a skill - 1 qp
Add a feat to an item - 2 qp
Add or increase DR resistance or soak - 1 qp for initial +1/Soak 5
- 1 qp more to increase the soak
- 1 qp more to increase resistance
Add Elemental DR +1 for each qp
Add +1 AC - 1 qp
Add +1 Enhancement - 1 qp

Just a thought.

[bhale187]

Jan 21, 2010 11:03:57 GMT -5 mardok said:

Just a suggestion,

For those who cant, because of price or don't want to get a remort but want to enhance their gear instead; could a shop be built to pay QP to enhance the gear we have.

Add a spell or spell like ability (Haste, Freedom ect) to an item. - 1 qp per spell lvl
Add +1 to a stat to an item (Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Int, Cha, Fort, Ref, Will) - 2 qp
Add +1 to a skill - 1 qp
Add a feat to an item - 2 qp
Add or increase DR resistance or soak - 1 qp for initial +1/Soak 5
- 1 qp more to increase the soak
- 1 qp more to increase resistance
Add Elemental DR +1 for each qp
Add +1 AC - 1 qp
Add +1 Enhancement - 1 qp

Just a thought.

Funny you should mention this, we have been talking about the possibilities of this kind of thing amoungst the DMs. Although we were not looking at enchanting items, just altering your character's stats and such.

Item Enchantment was possible in the past only through the use of a voucher-which were very hard to come by.

We'll keep the idea in mind and see what everyone thinks.

[Silence]

I have been on a lot of servers the past 2 years off and on that use this type of system. The ability to customize your own gear to specs adds a element of variety and the unexpected to the game.

Silence

[bhale187]

We did the item enchantment on Salvation, and I am not opposed to doing it, although it does add alot of additional resources and or time