Who's Online
0 registered and 2 anonymous users online.
Newest Members
Mog, GreenGems, Minzuki, evaker, juffsion
83 Registered Users
Top Posters
608
Cerberus
368
Charon
211
MacTORG
204
Kim
164
carmy
148
Muod
106
Shadowraith
90
Minstrel
88
sabu
49
Rancid
Recent Topics
Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#346 - 12/05/07 08:29 AM Re: Summon [Re: Kim]
Kim Offline
enthusiast
*****

Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
And one more thing. It's not about being able to kill with summon. It's about being able to remove from the game, to the point where you can't even hiatus or rebirth. For killing, AMs don't need summon.
Top
#351 - 12/05/07 09:23 AM Re: Summon [Re: Cerberus]
Gabe Offline
stranger
**

Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 18
As i understand it, summon requires the presence of a token in the inventory of the summoned player. Unwilling reception of items has been an issue that's surfaced in darke a number of times, and there seems to be a simple solution. In a manner similar to one player allowing another player to follow, there could be a command implemented where one player would have to allow another player to give them items. Are you going to accept something from someone if you don't want it in your possession? Probably not. Simple syntax:

trade allow <name>

Toggles the ability of <name>d player to give items to the one entering the command.

Of course, the stealth-requiring act of slipping something small into another person's inventory could be, and probably should be, a guild ability, if it is determined that the ability to do so will serve a useful purpose within the game.

Top
#352 - 12/05/07 10:03 AM Re: Summon [Re: Gabe]
Cerberus Administrator Offline
addict
***

Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
 Originally Posted By: Shadowraith
Most of what I'm gathering is the ability of an AM to lock you up if you dont have a teleport of your own, not so much getting ganked, which any guild can do with proper preparation.
I think this is the crux of the argument, yes. The fact that another player can keep you from playing the game is the most relevant point, in my mind.
 Originally Posted By: Shadowraith
A second solution might be to only allow summon to work outside, or even only on the world map. Then it can still be used offensively, but not as terribly so as beign locked up, or even summoned to someones castles uber room of death.
This would be fine, except there are places on the world map that are fully inaccecessable at this point. This is not to say that an arch-mage of today would even be able to reach one of these places, but the same difficulties would apply if they were to somehow reach one of these inaccessable points. While the claim of a volcano summon is valid, it's still only death, not removal from the game. I find this to be the most 'middle-ground' option, but it leaves the real problem to be solved by a later group since it doesn't address the fact that moving a player aggressively has been and always will be a dangerous ability in terms of both fun and balance.
 Originally Posted By: Kim
"But, AM's are meant to be nasty due to their power. I do think perhaps being able to do this at level 12 might be a little low, but a high level AM should be nasty, as should most high levels."

That's one of the points. Even without summon, AMs are the nastiest guild. Summon simply takes them beyond being the worst guild, by far, to annoy, to being broken.
Arch-mages should be extremely dangerous at higher levels, and in fact they are. Summon isn't the tool that makes these magic users dangerous though. I neglected to quote Drey, but he lists a number of tools in the arch-mage arsenal that makes them a force to be recognized. Summon is not the usual combat spell, it's not on par with any other spell in the game, as far as I can tell. While other effects copy its major function, none copy its raw power to any degree.
 Originally Posted By: Shadowraith
So we nerf AM's then they complain about how easy NB's kill them (which they probably can do now) then the NB's get nerfed and they complain about how powerful fighters are, etc. Its a vicious cycle.

Back to summon, I still cant find history yet that it was meant to be benefitial only.

I do not like that it is level 12 with such hostile potential though. Still not sure of the right answer about it
Whether or not there is any record of how or why summon was reinstated, I am sure that portal was created as a replacement, and not a suppliment, to summon. If we're avoiding the nerfing of guilds, which is an admirable goal, we should be looking not at what their current use is, but their potential for abuse. Summon has a high potential for abuse, but is currently unabused, thus this conversation. Having established that, we now establish why the potential exists: because one can move another without consent. It is the consent issue that is key here, and not the moving of another individual, since we have a number of spells that do just that and are not currently under this microscope. Since it is the consent issue at hand, we should be exploring how it is appropriate to circumvent consent - for which there is already an answer: targets must have a token of some sort. I believe if we are to avoid nerfing OR removing the spell Summon, the idea we must focus on is the consent of individuals with regard to receiving a summoning token.
 Originally Posted By: Gabe
As i understand it, summon requires the presence of a token in the inventory of the summoned player. Unwilling reception of items has been an issue that's surfaced in darke a number of times, and there seems to be a simple solution. In a manner similar to one player allowing another player to follow, there could be a command implemented where one player would have to allow another player to give them items. Are you going to accept something from someone if you don't want it in your possession? Probably not. Simple syntax:

trade allow <name>

Toggles the ability of <name>d player to give items to the one entering the command.

Of course, the stealth-requiring act of slipping something small into another person's inventory could be, and probably should be, a guild ability, if it is determined that the ability to do so will serve a useful purpose within the game.
Shadowraith has kindly provided a tool for use here. We have the 'receive' command, which provides us with a solution that may please none, and should then stand as a viable option. If the receive command is toggled to disallow others from giving items to you, it stands to reason that this can be portrayed as an individual being very vigilant about their own inventory. Perhaps we see the common street urchin with their tattered rags clutched tightly to themselves as a prime example of one who would fail to notice an invisible mage slipping them a small item, but would at some point feel a difference in their inventory and immediately relieve themselves of unwanted items.

Here we get into allowing a player's stats to have some effect. For instance, if the receive toggle ignores invisible givers, as I feel it rightly should, it should also include clauses that allow for one who has receive turned off to check their memory and reactions stats, and rid themselves of whatever their memory stat says they have not intentionally picked up in a time determined by their reactions stat!

So for the paranoid who feels they must not ever have an arch-mage's summon token on them, memory becomes important as with an extraordinarily high memory stat any received item will be recognized as soon as it arrives. For the same overly vigilant individual reactions would be important because they could potentially rid themselves of incomming disaster AS it arrives, before they ever have possession of it (so even a masterfully timed linked, speedwalked alias could not effectively summon the individual).

Perhaps I am erring in outlining a system rather than arguing points further, but I believe this or another system that deals with the fact that both pro and con points are exceptionally valid, could be the answer in keeping the potential for a "nasty" AM as well as keeping the potential for a player "immune" to summon.

Note: There are also more ways to boost memory and reactions than there are to see invisible.
_________________________
Please mail your views on balance to:
cerberus@darkemud.com

Top
#355 - 12/05/07 10:28 AM Re: Summon [Re: Cerberus]
Kim Offline
enthusiast
*****

Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
"Perhaps I am erring in outlining a system rather than arguing points further, but I believe this or another system that deals with the fact that both pro and con points are exceptionally valid, could be the answer in keeping the potential for a "nasty" AM as well as keeping the potential for a player "immune" to summon."

This still doesn't address the point if any guild should have the possibility to remove a player from game, regardless of that players stats. It does not..

The idea that you would have to maximise a stat or two to be sure to avoid ever being in a "can't play, can't rebirth" situation is absurd, to me.

Top
#356 - 12/05/07 10:43 AM Re: Summon [Re: Cerberus]
Charon Offline
enthusiast
****

Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 368
Loc: Toronto, ON
The whole recieve command was completely negated unfortunately by being able to circumvent it with invis. The players we are discussing are high level mages, not level 12 mages and high level mages will have invis.

I think the whole argument isn't about being able to move another person, but to be able to move them wherever you want against their will.

The mechanics don't really matter. What DOES matter is if people should be able to, in any circumstances be able to move somebody against their will to another location.

Summon from my experience has usually been used in 2 ways:

1. Summon somebody onto a gate or other aggressive rune (back when the warp meant death to most).

2. Summon into a room with 15 aggro pets, and another type of aggressive rune so that said person would have to fight 15 pets, the mage and possibly eat a rune at the same time.

For pk reason a mage doesn't need summon as we've established. I personally don't think such a spell is required and portal is actually more useful than summon ever was.

It allows multiple people to come through, and, more importantly a person of any level can use a portal. If you want to be able to pull in that level 70 cleric they can summon an aerial servant, you can scry the servant and open a portal which the cleric can pass through. Very handy.

What would be the purpose exactly of having a spell that works like a single-person portal but requires a token exactly? The only reason *I* can think of is so that said person can be summoned against their will but it just makes it a bit more tricky.

The steps required to summon somebody in the old days.

1. cast scry at target
2. cast summon at target.

New method:

1. scry target
2. set up delays
3. trans invis to target
4. give token to target
5. delayed teleport goes off, followed by summon

Introducing a couple of extra steps doesn't really change the problem, it just makes it a little more difficult to do and is pretty pointless.
_________________________
If you say plz because it is shorter than please, then I will say no because it is shorter then yes.

Top
#359 - 12/05/07 11:00 AM Re: Summon [Re: Charon]
Shadowraith Administrator Offline
member
****

Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 106
I have determined by this point that summoning to remove them from play is the major issue here.

First, I havent heard of anyone saying it has happened, or at least is happening or happened recently. I would probably myself consider that bug abuse if you could put someone somewhere they can't get out of as that is an admins perogative. Im not going to consider past events, but were it to happen now, it would more than justify summon being changed to prevent it.

But since it isnt happening, and since if you are at keyboard you will still no if you are given something while receive is toggled off, even if the person is invisiable, then the only threat is if you AFK while logged in, thus not being vigalent about your person and your character.

The fact that an AM can chain spells to put a token on you is also immaterial. Such an AM could equally well chain spells to kill you on the spot.

Just my thoughts so far, no code changes yet.

Top
#360 - 12/05/07 11:08 AM Re: Summon [Re: Shadowraith]
Charon Offline
enthusiast
****

Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 368
Loc: Toronto, ON
I know of a few cases where it has happened and people have been removed from play.

Mind you, in almost every one of those cases said person was botting.

I believe Obasics (who basically botted up to HM) spent some time on botter's island.
_________________________
If you say plz because it is shorter than please, then I will say no because it is shorter then yes.

Top
#361 - 12/05/07 11:09 AM Re: Summon [Re: Shadowraith]
Kim Offline
enthusiast
*****

Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
"First, I havent heard of anyone saying it has happened, or at least is happening or happened recently. I would probably myself consider that bug abuse if you could put someone somewhere they can't get out of as that is an admins perogative."

There is an island a bit north and east you can only reach by flying. Arawn used to put people there. No way for them to leave if they had no wings or levitate.

"The fact that an AM can chain spells to put a token on you is also immaterial. Such an AM could equally well chain spells to kill you on the spot."

It's not immaterial. As has been pointed out repeatedly, killing is nowhere near the same thing...

Top
#363 - 12/05/07 11:10 AM Re: Summon [Re: Kim]
Kim Offline
enthusiast
*****

Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
"Mind you, in almost every one of those cases said person was botting.

I believe Obasics (who basically botted up to HM) spent some time on botter's island."

How do you know? A player *can't* know if somebody else is botting. Other players have no obligation to reply in any way, and you can't do things like local echo etc...

Top
#365 - 12/05/07 11:20 AM Re: Summon [Re: Kim]
Charon Offline
enthusiast
****

Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 368
Loc: Toronto, ON
Oh silly Kim.. always the devil's advocate.

Ok how about this:

Obasics made his best effort to look exactly like a bot, including but not limited to:

Ignoring people talking to him, even things like "I'm going to kill you if you start another rune without saying something".. and continued to work away.

While people were killing him, in the middle of a fight would move away after his LT finished, move back to the place where he was being attacked, pull out the next LT target and stand there doing nothing until dead.

So either he was botting, or is incredibly stupid and is making an active effort to look exactly like a bot.

Oh, and then 15 minutes later he would pray and start talking about how he was there just decided not to talk, didn't notice people attacking him (even if there were at least 2 pages of spam in a case when I was involved) and then decided to wait 15 minutes until he prayed for no particular reason.

It is POSSIBLE that he wasn't botting? Yes. It is also possible that he is an alien from a galaxy 50 million light years away mudding through some sort of worm-hole communication device.

Is it LIKELY that he wasn't botting? Not at all.
_________________________
If you say plz because it is shorter than please, then I will say no because it is shorter then yes.

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


Hop to:
December
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Forum Stats
83 Members
33 Forums
335 Topics
2543 Posts

Max Online: 277 @ 01/07/23 02:30 AM

Generated in 0.021 seconds in which 0.003 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.