Vampires

[Quantum]

Well, I for one agree with Nerull that healing someone in pvp combat flags them for combat and reveals them. WoW, EQ etc. MM to my knowledge only have damage spells and they loose invis once they start nuking someone. Should be the same for healing, enchanting, summoning etc. Any action should reveal your presence.

The other option is to remove the Nazgul from the game. Nothing to fight over. Vampires "troll" because they want the FBB for themselves. If there is nothing to fight over, there should not be any drama.

[Chanele]

Well, I for one agree with Nerull that healing someone in pvp combat flags them for combat and reveals them. WoW, EQ etc. MM to my knowledge only have damage spells and they loose invis once they start nuking someone. Should be the same for healing, enchanting, summoning etc. Any action should reveal your presence.

The other option is to remove the Nazgul from the game. Nothing to fight over. Vampires "troll" because they want the FBB for themselves. If there is nothing to fight over, there should not be any drama.

I keep hearing "griefing" "trolling" "remove said NPC so you have nothing to fight over"...

Again this is not a single player game. This perticular NPC is causing some stir in the ordinary grind, I get that, but to me it is quite refreshing.

All the people in this thread who has attacked the Nazgul has already made a choice to be active in a potential conflict. It is a guild NPC and by that alone you have decided to cross a line, another aspect is competition of equipment, the choice is yours really, participate or not.

So please stop screaming griefing or trolling, this is part of the game and it is called - conflicts. Handle them as such, counter tactics used, make up your own tactics, declare war, hunt people for what you feel is aggressions...there are no limits to the opportunities.

Don't like this part of the game? Well, then you shouldnt have attacked the NPC in the first place.

[Targun]

Oh come on now. Like the game is not full of stuff that was adjusted after it was approved to enter the game? You make it sound like once something enters the game it should never-ever change no matter what. That's not how any kind of game development works, and you know it. And you also know that some unintended changes eventually get grandfathered in.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, where you have such rudimentary, buggy and basic true/false system of seeing invisible/hidden targets that casting heals (or any action affecting stats, stamina, health, poison, etc.) on a different target than yourself and still being invisible/hidden can be great tool for griefing and abusing very basic design. It doesn't matter if it's EC, Ranger on sneak or a Vampire.

Ideally, any spell that target other beings as argument (especially nukes, heals, buffs, debuffs etc) should end invisibility. You know, a traditional mmo-approach.

I listed some examples, but overall, yes. Spells that interact with a target other than the caster should break sneak and invisibility. As for putting the character in combat, I have doubts on the account of creating another loophole - namely - bypassing DIS check to assist through buff/heal.

I also think, there's little point in bringing other games in this particular discussion. Each game will implement its mechanics in its own context. It doesn't matter what they do or don't. What matters is how a certain mechanic works in a text game environment, specifically Genesis.

For me, it's pure and simple that once someone starts to abuse the mechanic something has to be done about it. It doesn't matter if it's been there for 10 or 20 years. If it affects power of EC/WoHS/Rangers/Vampires/SS/FK/Kenders in some meaningful way, then they just should be compensated. But we shouldn't encourage and cherish mechanics that focus on griefing (I don't care by whom it is done).

It's breaking immersion, balance, gameplay and general enjoyment of the game in a way that hardly can be attributed to a "as designed".

[Hektor]

How does it break immersion and gameplay and is griefing? I have a hard time following the arguments presented.


If a Ranger can heal his friends (NPCs or otherwise) especially when he can't fight off the Morgul that seems very immersive and gameplay friendly. You need to be prepared for other tactics than "massive DPS and crowd control".

The Morgul can get more awareness and do something about it. Seems like a more involved game to me than "oh now he wont try and heal because he knows Ill bonk him" or "if he heals I can always do something about it without being extra prepared". (Same with invis etc).

Why is it griefing? I could see it if it was a consistent attempt to ruin someone from getting a quest done or play the game. This is guild conflict?

[Kvator]

Well, I for one agree with Nerull that healing someone in pvp combat flags them for combat and reveals them. WoW, EQ etc. MM to my knowledge only have damage spells and they loose invis once they start nuking someone. Should be the same for healing, enchanting, summoning etc. Any action should reveal your presence.

The other option is to remove the Nazgul from the game. Nothing to fight over. Vampires "troll" because they want the FBB for themselves. If there is nothing to fight over, there should not be any drama.

I keep hearing "griefing" "trolling" "remove said NPC so you have nothing to fight over"...

Again this is not a single player game. This perticular NPC is causing some stir in the ordinary grind, I get that, but to me it is quite refreshing.

All the people in this thread who has attacked the Nazgul has already made a choice to be active in a potential conflict. It is a guild NPC and by that alone you have decided to cross a line, another aspect is competition of equipment, the choice is yours really, participate or not.

So please stop screaming griefing or trolling, this is part of the game and it is called - conflicts. Handle them as such, counter tactics used, make up your own tactics, declare war, hunt people for what you feel is aggressions...there are no limits to the opportunities.

Don't like this part of the game? Well, then you shouldnt have attacked the NPC in the first place.

true end-game conte....ugh comment! <3

[TaranGoatWalker]

How does it break immersion and gameplay and is griefing? I have a hard time following the arguments presented.

Yes, it's just whining, move along, nuffink to see here.

[Cherek]

Oh come on now. Like the game is not full of stuff that was adjusted after it was approved to enter the game? You make it sound like once something enters the game it should never-ever change no matter what. That's not how any kind of game development works, and you know it. And you also know that some unintended changes eventually get grandfathered in.

Agree, though 2 pages earlier you take opposite stance of: "oh come on this stuff has been here for decades". It has to be one or another. It's not ok to swap whenever one finds it fitting.

What do you mean? I did no such thing. Me saying it had been around for a long time was a reply to those who were accusing Nerull of implementing it recently. It was not me taking any "stance" at all, just clarifying to people that Nerull did not code this for vampires.

Like I said in the very same note, I have no strong opinion either way on this so I haven't swapped opinion at all. I didn't have one to begin with. I just said I was leaning on keeping it because it seems to create some conflict, which I don't think has to be a bad thing. I also very clearly said that if Ckrik, who knows a lot more about this than me, feels there is an issue, I don't mind adjusting it.

That said, obviously every case is different. We discover weird things relatively often, and sometimes we decide to grandfather it in, and sometimes we decide to fix it. Usually it's pretty obvious what to do. Like when it recently was discovered that undead-bane imbuements didn't work against most undeads. Clearly that had to be fixed. But it doesn't mean every unintended effect has to be fixed. It all depends on the severity of it, and if we feel it's worth the time and effort to fix it. And that can be different for each issue.

There were and are plenty of mechanics on Genesis that were abused. Most of the time it was unintentional effects of implementation or interaction between different parts of the game. Sometimes this was done purposefully by player-wizards or perks-for-friends.

It cannot be avoided in a smallish, non-profit volounteer project. Such is life. Both: the chance for omission due to limited time and conflict of interest of people having both wizards and mortals are too big. These things happened and will happen.

However, once players report some mechanic is being successfully used for griefing and trolling, then it really shouldn't be 6 pages long thread of diluting the issue at hand or comments such as "it causes some stir among players, I think it's good". It just proves lack of understanding of the scale of abuse. It really should be one note: "Roger. To get the facts straight - it's not vampire specific. Yes, it's mechanic abuse, we'll fix that". EOT.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, where you have such rudimentary, buggy and basic true/false system of seeing invisible/hidden targets that casting heals (or any action affecting stats, stamina, health, poison, etc.) on a different target than yourself and still being invisible/hidden can be great tool for griefing and abusing very basic design. It doesn't matter if it's EC, Ranger on sneak or a Vampire.

I don't think healing an NPC to prevent someone else to get it's treasure (that you want yourself) is griefing or trolling.

Here is Wikipedia's definiation of a griefer: "A griefer derives pleasure primarily, or exclusively, from the act of annoying other users, and as such, is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities."

Unless there is some information I am missing, it sounds to me like whoever is healing the Nazgul is simply doing the best they can to prevent someone else to get the FBB. Sounds like they are trying to make it extra risky and a hassle to get it, so they can get more FBBs themselves. I don't think it sounds like they are doing it just to annoy. Besides, for 20+ years the MM tried to kill anyone who killed the nazgul (maybe they still do?), and several guilds and players "protect" various areas and NPCs, sometimes simply in order to keep a good grinding area for themselves. I don't think this case is much different. That there is competion for a very good sword, and that people are using the skills and abilities they have to prevent others from getting it, is not griefing or trolling in my book. And yes, I do think conflict and drama between players is generally a good thing, as long as it doesn't turn into harassment or becomes very infected and personal. Fighting over a sword in a game should be fun competition, not something that becomes infected and personal, and I hope it isn't in this case.

Anyway, I do understand the argument that any healing/buffing/debuffing spells should break invisibility, that design could definitely make sense. But I don't think it's the worst idea ever to leave things be either, because it does create some interesting and more passive ways to "fight" someone that isn't a direct attack. And, we do have invisibility counters in the game. I can understand both sides, but like I said, I don't really have a strong opinion either way myself. Since I really don't know if it's best to change it or keep it, I probably won't push for a change here, but if someone else wants to go for it and Ckrik approves, I likely won't stand in the way either.

Finally, to be clear, I don't care at all if something has been working in a particular way for a long time. If I feel the game will be better if it is changed, I am going to push for a change. "But it worked like this for a long time" is not a good argument to leave something be, and I have no idea why you think that is my opinion. It's the opposite of my opinion. I would only argue for grandfathering something in if there are more downsides than benefits from fixing it, or if I feel the benefit of fixing it is not worth the time it takes to do it.

One would have thought the recent changes to races and death would have proved that I am not afraid to change old systems

For this specific encounter it's simply further aggravated by the passive DMG reduction that Nazgul has, which is why griefing is so effective. It's also causing so much trouble, becuase FBB is massively overtuned since it became top-notch enhancer and it should've been nerfed ages ago.

I was not aware of that before, but I have been made aware of it now. Yes, I can see how this strategy is extra-useful against an NPC like the Nazgul, and something we should consider. We're actually already discussing redoing the encounter once again, because both me and Ckrik feel he is killed too often and too easily. The idea with the recode a year ago (or was it two?) was to remove the benefits undeads had when killing him, and also to make him harder overall for everyone. Removing the undead benefits seems to have worked fine, but he still seems to be a bit weak for someone who in my opinion should be the most dangerous and difficult boss to kill.

[Budwise]

My experience killing him is that only the tank takes damage. And not anything that needs cleansing?
Rest of team just stands around for up to 20 mins making small white hits as specials do not work.

So not much strategy involved. Mostly just brute forcing it.

The weapon breaking thing also seems a bit buggy.

[Kvator]

My experience killing him is that only the tank takes damage. And not anything that needs cleansing?
Rest of team just stands around for up to 20 mins making small white hits as specials do not work.

So not much strategy involved. Mostly just brute forcing it.

The weapon breaking thing also seems a bit buggy.

it was about griefing strategy -> where, due to nazgul's massive DMG-taken reduction, 1 'healer' can outdo dmg of 5-6 players who want to kill him (which is not the case for all/almost all 'living' NPCs - that were given as counterargument here)

[TaranGoatWalker]

it was about griefing strategy -> where, due to nazgul's massive DMG-taken reduction, 1 'healer' can outdo dmg of 5-6 players who want to kill him (which is not the case for all/almost all 'living' NPCs - that were given as counterargument here)

Kill the healer.

Thank you for attending my TEDed talk.