AWY Consolidated 2.1 Questions/Concerns List

[tieran]

Before I get into replies to replies, I just want to thank you for your answers. While I and the submitters don't agree with all of them, I appreciate the open and public discussion. With 2.0 there was a sense of things being secret in the background and feedback being utterly ignored. With text discussion, it's very easy to have comments be interpreted as attacks (especially when criticism is involved), which is why I wanted to put this up front.

I certainly don't anticipate everyone agreeing with everything that gets said or decided. I'm more than happy to discuss, clarify, and explain anything in the packet with or to anyone, but I expect there will be points where we may need to realize that we simply have different philosophies about how the game should be played.
In regards to interpretation of statements as attacks, I certainly hope that nothing in my prior reply was taken as such. I try to be fairly neutral in my writing, but if there is anything you felt was at all inflammatory, please let me know, I can assure you it was not meant that way.

Goals: As I read this, you're saying there's no set goal for this and it ended up being a mish-mash of other ideas? Is that correct? We're trying to pin down the intent, so if it ended up getting dragged in a lot of directions, that kind of answers the question, but I want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.

That was not the way that I phrased my answer and while I can't stop you from interpreting it that way, I'd prefer the explanation that I provided above be the one ascribed to me.

Ritualists: This one I admit I don't understand the reply on. As I read the packet (and how others seem to have read it based on the comments I've been getting), if you bought X levels of a skill, you can do Y ritual. I don't see (and I may be simply overlooking it) where it requires constant recasting other than for superior gear. The comment about it costing more and more xp I definitely don't get. Can you clarify? This may simply be a case of those close to the text understand the vaguer points and those of us who are reading it for the first time might be making other assumptions.

The "constant recasting" that mention was not something that I said. I think that the statement that you are referencing was in regards to the ritual duplicating effects (abilities would have been a better word choice for me, in hindsight). For clarification, the crafting abilities that duplicate ritual effects, which I am assuming is one of the things you mentioned in your original statement, are the things that require repeated expenditure of XP (in the form of CP) from LP to LP. For instance, if I cast (as a ritual caster) the Armored Shell ritual, that's a one time cost that persists for (at least) 20 LP. If I buy the Stoneskin smithing ability, I have to respend those CP every event in order to maintain the ability.

I've got some concern that maybe we are discussing two different things here, so please let me know if I'm off base on what I'm addressing here.

Rit Marshal: So the goal is not to remove the marshal, but rather the ritual training/knowledge for said marshal?

As well as a significant reduction (and potential elimination) in the time required on the part of NPC camp.

Indomitable Will: I think the crux of our disagreement on this one is the amount of available healing. In 2.1, it seems night onto limitless, making this ability vastly overpowered. If we agreed on healing being limited (which we don't ), then yes, the ability has limits.

I think it may come down to us having different definitions of what limited means as opposed to whether or not PC-side healing is limited, but I agree with your end point.

Qualifier: No, I think you covered it. "Shot" was the new delivery (qualifier? I could see it argued as being either category, since it's a modifier to either) I was referring to.

Shot is not a new delivery or qualifier. Its a new keyword (just like strike) that can be added to Mystic deliveries in order to change them to follow Material delivery rules. It is, essentially, the opposite of strike.

Shatter Spirit: I think the reply on this one rather misses the point being made by the original asker, but if they have suggestions, I'll send that your way.

I guess I am not certain on the point made by the original asking of the question. I took it as "Can we find a different name?" and explained the reasoning behind why we did not have a problem with a name that didn't conflict with anything that has ever been in the ruleset of this game. If I misinterpreted this in some way, please let me know how.

Passive Crafting: Resurrect? So as I read that, if I took Trap Making's passive to do lockpicking/legerdemain and I resurrect...I can't touch locks until logistics?

I think I may not have been as clear as I could here. The intention was not to say that Passive & Daily abilities were removed by resurrection, but merely that resurrection was a method by which some abilities may be removed, very similar to how High magic interacts with resurrection. I would be fairly surprised if any abilities end up being removed when you go to the circle, but it is a possibility, though not, in my opinion, for things like refitting, locks, traps, globe throwing, or the like.

Automatic Injector: Perfect on the call. Wasn't sure if it was a silent call or stated. Still curious if it needs a rep.

No rep is required at time of use. Obviously, as per the normal rules, the item must be repped when it is initially utilized, but once that is done, the item is consumed and can't be reclaimed, so no need for a rep at that point.

The one remaining major concern we have (aside from the items not addressed, obviously) is in the last comment you made. "ARC does not place a great amount of value on maintaining parity with the 1.3/2.0 production skills". This feels like a pretty harsh statement on the condition of Alliance rules. We've thrown away 100% of the game many of us signed up to play/run/own when 2.0 came along, then this statement appears to indicate we're overhauling yet again, two years later (most of that with chapters closed). This really doesn't give any sense of stability and continuity to the rules system if it's endlessly being rewritten. Many of us want to be able to play without having to rewrite or relearn every season or two, so this definitely has my concerns raised!

I think this may be a matter of misinterpretation of the scope of what was stated, but also some exaggeration on your part. My statement applied specifically to the statement it was in reply to. I could have been more clear in that regard, but I don't think we need to be concerned with the scope of change that there seems to be concern about.

 

[Xanian]

I’m game, lets take a look. First, though, I want to make it clear I don’t agree with the premise that 3 level alchemy is unacceptable. It is not only a somewhat useful tool for PC’s of low level to use, it is also a useful tool to stat a low level encounter with a dangerous guy who has just a couple of globes, who could really make an encounter feel cool but not bloat the character up with a bunch of extra build.

Traditionally, Alchemy has had two major limiting factors.

1: The range of encounters Alchemy is useful in is fairly narrow and restricted to normal metabolism creatures



2: Alchemy costs money to produce and is expensive in both production and coin to just throw in bulk for someone who doesn’t have a hoard of gold, thus it is slower to acquire through producing it.



I would split the thrown alchemy into something like Acids (Or dissolvents, or blasts etc) and Gasses. Acids would be cheaper to produce, thus more common, and could be blocked. Gasses would continue to be expensive and slower to acquire. Blast globes fit this nicely with the current setup.

Essentially, I would put the burden of cost upon the individual Alchemy as opposed to the Experience of the character.

Gasses need more effects than “No Skills” or “Sit down” (Vertigo, Nausea, and Laugh were all “No Skills” variations, rolled into Enfeeble, while Sleep and Paralysis are “Sit Down”). Perhaps an Awaken effect (Smelling salts), or a Pin or Shackle (Glop Grenade). Alchemists, of any crafter, should have access to Molotovs. A half full bottle of burning high octane whisky breaking on your shield isnt going to be something you can block and not muss the finish on your ringmesh.

Alchemical oils one would smear upon their armor or person to help against certain elements as a dumb defense would be interesting



All that said, if you wanted to continue with the paradigm presented in the 2.1 packet:

If you wanted to make each globe that uses the Strike keyword cost a CP to prep as you throw it, that would work, but would be very prohibitive in terms of what is spent each day. Makes it more of a meaningful choice though

If you wanted to still retain the superiority skill, make it closer to 10 than 20, where at 10, the extra prep is no longer necessary and they do not cost the extra CP to toss.

That said, this splits out Gasses and non-gas globes in terms of production and treasure distro, but it retains the spirit while still skewing things to more investment.

I agree with both of your constraints and in my experience, #2 has been a stopping point from making this a viable low level staple, unless you have an established group feeding you resources.

As for splitting into acids and gasses, I don't see that happening, as that would be in direct conflict with the general direction of the delivery update, but its something to consider.

I 100% agree with you on the more effects than take outs. I thinks spells need the same, but that's a different discussion. You've provided some interesting ideas there that I would get behind.

In regard to suggesting someone play a low level alchemist in this system. I would compare it to a low level scholar. They both would run into the same issue of running out of stuff to do really quickly. You are correct in that it would likely have more growing pains if they don't get help from others. As a double edged sword if they DO get help, they can have a significantly better time than low level scholar. You shouldn't count on a new player receiving that help, though.

 

[EC-JP]

One other thing to keep in mind re: alchemy is that it is not an “in a vacuum” thing as has been said. Right now, there are a lot of monsters with immunity or significant resistance to poison. Some (undead, elementals) are flavor, others are game balance.

When enough characters have alchemy 3 and can “buy fights” as we all know can happen, monsters must be statted in a manner that makes that cost viable. With a change to the overall power level of dabbler-alchemists, it seems highly likely that balance can shift the other way and let actual alchemists be more effective against those things they should be able to effect.

Much like a lot of the paradigm shifts in 1.2 to 2.0, evaluating this change in light of current statting trends may be a mistake.

 

[tieran]

So let me understand this. Alchemy globes are is now blockable with a Shield (As it is a Material packet, thus a Mystical with the Shot qualifier) unless you have 20 levels of Alchemy, which you have to spend on the Superiority ability to be able to throw them as "Strikes?"

Alchemy globes are now blockable by shields, due to the fact they use the Poison qualifier. If you have 20 levels of Alchemy you can spend a portion of the CP generated by that to throw the globes as poison strike, which would cause them to act as alchemy globes do in the current system.

This is a HUGE change, and not one for the better. Gutting Alchemy to fix a perceived problem with Archery and packet colors is not a good thing. This is a Significant nerf to alchemy going largely under the radar, and I say this as someone who does not have any Alchemy characters. Making someone have 20 levels of alchemy before they can do what they could prior to this proposed change with 3 is awful.

It is certainly a significant change, but a needed one. I disagree on it not being one for the better and that it "guts" alchemy. The change you are referencing was not made in order to allow fixes to be made to Archery (my apologies here, my prior answer muddied the waters a bit), but to bring poison in line with how weapon coatings worked and reduce the influence of the coin operated win button that Alchemy has existed as for decades.

Alch globes should go through a shield.

And they can, when used by a significantly dedicated crafter.

As I will state in my breakdown of things, the "Shot" qualifier is very problematic and will lead to many a breakdown in combat. Adding a call that must be said, should not subtract from it (In this case it takes from it the strike ability, which is restored with Superiority, which makes Strike work on Packets again...... but Qualifiers say you shouldnt use the qualifiers like that in the last line... Its circular and contradictory in the same rules package)

I think there may be some misinterpretation of what was in the packet going on here. Shot can be added to Mystic attacks to make them work like Material attacks, but can not be added to Material attacks, as they already work that way.
So, for instance, you should never hear a call of "Poison shot sleep" as all Poison attacks that do not include strike in the incant already function as if they had the shot keyword.
Poison can have the strike qualifier added to it as it is Material-type, but would never have the shot qualifier applied. I apologize for any confusion.

 

[Squee]

I have to strongly disagree that being a low level alchemist is like being a low level scholar. Scholars are not spending money/resources every time they cast. This is a massive difference as it snowballs. Since a scholar is not spending money/resources to cast, they can use that money to buy items that make them stronger at a much faster rate than alchemists. If I were to hold up the two builds (One where you run out of skills and money very quickly, vs one where you just run out of skills quickly) No one would call those comparable.

As for trying to nerf alchemy so that you can't "Buy your wins anymore": This is literally stomping on the low level player in order to curb the high level player. There has to be better ways to go about this. Again, if holding older, more powerful players in check requires making low levels builds all but unplayable, are we really approaching this with the right mindset?

And EC-JP, Will there be a major change to monster stats? What you say make sense if there will be, and I would be much more on board. However, it is a bad idea to base changes to the rules off of ifs and maybes.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

I have to strongly disagree that being a low level alchemist is like being a low level scholar. Scholars are not spending money/resources every time they cast. This is a massive difference as it snowballs. Since a scholar is not spending money/resources to cast, they can use that money to buy items that make them stronger at a much faster rate than alchemists. If I were to hold up the two builds (One where you run out of skills and money very quickly, vs one where you just run out of skills quickly) No one would call those comparable.

So I'm going to disagree with you significantly here.

A "low level" character who has 5 levels of a profession, gets 5 CP and can use them to make adventuring equipment. This is a consumable resource that you may or may not use, they are free. If in the event the character has a Workshop, this is more free CP.

A scholar at approximately low level... let's say 4/3/2/1 - these are 10 spells. That is it. The scholar gets no more than 10. If in the event they memorize signature spells (unlikely but possible) they can then meditate missed packets.

Now, let's address the use of weapons, as well as a PVE game which encourages co-op. The crafter, can choose to hold back as much as possible - as can the spell caster. Their resources are limited afterall. The difference being, crafting results in tags that never expire.

So next game, that crafter gets this events adventuring equipment and anything for last game they didn't use. This continues to cycle exponentially, where as the "low level" scholar maintains only having their 10 spells.

There are no crafting materials to replenish their spells or any other thing added in this alpha slice which increase that Scholars ability.

The crafter however can get a profession, get a CM, and get more CP. The scholar can't. The crafter can merchant and sell their free stuff to earn upto 5 gold... despite "training" being added to lifestyle, Scholars can't start a logistic period down a spell and earn a gold having sold it to someone. Another purchase of merchant will give the crafter 3 free CP to add to there levels & workshop.

Now while the crafter is buying professions & merchant the scholar is buying more spells. However spells continuously get more expensive, and continue to be a limited resources that can't be filled back up and can't be saved to be used next game.

As a Person who started right before 2.0 went live as a Celestial Scholar with Inscription - Inscription was (at low level) and still is (at 30+ level) *the reason* my PC can be a bad *** spell caster. Because I can spend my 200pp to make 5 Dispel Scrolls. Put them in my bag, and next game, I have 9 dispels. Next game I make 5 scrolls and still not use them... next game I have 14 dispels. Now here I am 5 years later after max crafting and sometimes doing a 2nd batch every game - I have an obscene amount of scrolls.

 

[Heinricht]

Please be very careful adding anymore items that cost CP to the list for any crafting skill. As someone who was part of the Chicago playtest I felt that as a crafter I was always shy of points. I felt I could either spend my CP to make things or buy cool abilities to support myself and others on the field. I have level 20 in Smith and based on 2.0 I thought I was good. But with the way the new crafting system is set up you burn threw CP fast. AND if you are low level in a high level game it is next to impossible to get crafting materials unless you have merchant 2.

Again just saying that adding another ability that costs 1CP doesn't seam like that much but it is in the new system. I urge caution; before trying to solve problems by adding more skills to each crafting section.

 

[Muir]

How about we not resist change and say that since this is such a big revision of the game EVERYONE gets set back to level 1, so everyone can be on even footing again? Push the reset button since the game is pretty much a new one overall. It's honestly the most fair way to deal with things.

For what it's worth, while it would be extremely frustrating for a lot of folks who've put a lot of money into their characters over the years, a full reset with explicit level caps would in my opinion be a really good thing for the game in the long term. Much as I take advantage of it with a PC as old as mine, there probably shouldn't be level 30+ characters running around if we want the game to be playable for newbies.

Especially now that MIs don't tick down usefulness when you don't attend events.

To me, minor is "Can't be blocked by shields" to "Can be blocked by shields".

As someone who's been using a shield for well over a decade in game? That's a -huge- difference. I carry a 12" center-grip round shield, and I can't remember the last time I took an arrow because blocking packets with an Alliance-weight (effectively nothing) shield is trivially easy.

 

[Mike]

Here's a suggestion. What if Alchemy globe superiority opened up at Alchemy 10. And at Alchemy 20 there was a daily ability for poisons to work on things that normally resist poison (or that particular effect) once per purchase?

I agree that these proposed changes nerf alchemy quite a bit. Alchemy globe superiority should be available sooner. I'd like the cool archery/alchemy combo to return in some capacity, but as the mechanics stand I'm not sure how that would work out.

 

[Squee]

So I'm going to disagree with you significantly here.

A "low level" character who has 5 levels of a profession, gets 5 CP and can use them to make adventuring equipment. This is a consumable resource that you may or may not use, they are free. If in the event the character has a Workshop, this is more free CP.

A scholar at approximately low level... let's say 4/3/2/1 - these are 10 spells. That is it. The scholar gets no more than 10. If in the event they memorize signature spells (unlikely but possible) they can then meditate missed packets...

A fair point I had not considered. So I agree there are far more similar then I first thought. Imagine how much more that scholar would be nerfed if those spells were blockable with shields/Parry/Evades. Still, I do see you're point.

Here's a suggestion. What if Alchemy globe superiority opened up at Alchemy 10. And at Alchemy 20 there was a daily ability for poisons to work on things that normally resist poison (or that particular effect) once per purchase?

I agree that these proposed changes nerf alchemy quite a bit. Alchemy globe superiority should be available sooner. I'd like the cool archery/alchemy combo to return in some capacity, but as the mechanics stand I'm not sure how that would work out.

I could get more behind this. 10 levels is far easier to achieve and would add a distinct advantage to actually dedicating yourself to alchemy without having to all out master it (20 Level is considered mastery after all)

Also, am I reading correctly that the ability that allows you to throw a second packet on a miss does not pertain to something blocked by a shield? If so, letting that ability proc when the packet is blocked might also be a middle ground?

And Finally for the night, I can only imagine how hard it is to try and balance this game. Any concerns I bring up are done so knowing full well, I love this game and the work you do for it.

 

[Mike]

I just feel that requiring 10 ranks in alchemy isn't someone could just casually pick up for the effect, and it wouldn't punish dedicated alchemists all that much.

I was considering picking up 3 ranks of alchemy as it is currently just to throw any globes I just found as treasure, but I wouldn't spend 44 build on it. Don't know that I'd even spend 33 build on it (if I was a rogue), but it would be more fitting, especially if I needed more stealth skills.