Bind <Legs> Safety Issue
- Thread starter IMoriarty
- Start date
Seconded. One of the things I hate about Storm spells is how easy it is to lose my balance and fall. Also, I see a lot of people unconsciously shift their feet for balance, and get called out like they were cheating.
I don't see a good reason to make Bind Legs less safe.
I think there is a point where common sense has to come into play. If you can stand there with your legs together and it's safe, do so. If you need to keep your legs apart for stability and safety, but just don't move, do so. I mean, if a player or NPC wants to call out another player for being safe, sure, I guess they can, but as a Marshal, use some judgement and as a player, just be safe.
PirateFox
Scholar
I may be misreading, but are you saying we should pass rules that may be unsafe, then tell people to ignore them (even temporarily) for safety reasons? Why add the rule if there's a question? What are we improving in the game by adding this rule, knowing it could be unsafe?
Any way you word "don't move your feet" can be unsafe in a situation. The blanket of real life safety always takes precedence over game rules. If, for example, someone got bound (legs) while barefoot in the snow for whatever reason, I'm not going to make them stand there. We should be acting like reasonable adults and working something out, because we are supposed to be here to make an awesome game together.
Yes, there are going to be corner cases, there always are, but maybe we should all be cooperative in taking care of each other first and foremost.
Yes, there are going to be corner cases, there always are, but maybe we should all be cooperative in taking care of each other first and foremost.
PirateFox
Scholar
You're not wrong...but it doesn't answer the key part of my question. While everything in the game must be adjusted on the fly for safety concerns, the reality is that we have people complaining that dual-foot pin is MORE unsafe than one-foot. Why are we making the change? What does it gain us for the game? In general, I'd think we'd try to move toward safer choices, rather than less-safe, regardless of whether people need to police their own safety.
Sure - that's why I'm asking - I don't perceive this change adds anything to the game, and defaults the player to an unsafe position. So, is there any compelling reason to make this change?
Saephis
Squire
As we're in the testing phase, I'm concerned that we have new rules that are being put forth that ARC and Owners approved of that also advocate selective use of -- rules are rules, and we have this opportunity to put forth *good* ones with *clear* direction. Not ones that should be followed piecemeal.
Seattle had a Playtest session this past weekend, and the safety concerns were unanimous among participants regarding "Bind" and its use on legs.
Seattle had a Playtest session this past weekend, and the safety concerns were unanimous among participants regarding "Bind" and its use on legs.
Same argument can be made on Prison, Paralysis and Confine. You could be in a very awkward position when those effects hit. Do you let the person take a safe pose or force someone to be unsafe? I've watched people pivot on a Pin and lose their balance as well.
As as example: I have a bad lower back. If I get into a position that would force me to be bent over for a long period, I would straighten up. If we have to reword Bind to tell the players to "maintain a safe pose but do not move your legs" we can add that verbiage. But again, common sense has to be used in all cases of every effect that we use.
As as example: I have a bad lower back. If I get into a position that would force me to be bent over for a long period, I would straighten up. If we have to reword Bind to tell the players to "maintain a safe pose but do not move your legs" we can add that verbiage. But again, common sense has to be used in all cases of every effect that we use.
What about Confine? What about Prison? Let's just remove all binding as unsafe. Come on. These two spells "bind" your entire body, how are they not unsafe? You've decided to target the spell that is changed as unsafe but the spells that bind your whole body have been around since the beginning and somehow are safer?
You do not continue to attack, cast, block, or attempt to avoid being struck while in Prisons, Paralyzed or Confined. You are in fact prohibited from all of these things while under those effects. When your legs are bound, you are allowed to do these things, and will likely be forced to based on the flow of combat. These motions are more likely to cause a safety issue with two planted feet than when simply standing still.
So, the previous bind was safe when people were running around with their arms held tightly to their sides? Or what about pinned and bound, pivoting on one foot with their arms held tightly to their sides? Can you say lack of balance and slow reactions to catching themselves if the trip. If there was an unsafe spell in this game I would say it was bind because when it hits a player they try to run away to break LOS, not walk, run.
No one said these other situations are or were safe, but we're saying the current proposed rules change is moving to a more unsafe situation. Since that's what we can alter, we're exploring why this change would be made, and I've heard no reason to alter it thus far.
PirateFox
Scholar
There seems to be a logic disconnect here and a lot of heated replies. Let's get back on topic...
- The bind change is perceived as unsafe by many.
- We've asked repeatedly what is gained for the game by this change. Ie, what benefit outweighs perceived unsafe changes.
- There has been literally no answer to the above question offered.
The perception so far is, "It's changing because it's changing." That's simply not ideal. Can we at least know why this is so vital to 2.0 that people are willing to throw down over the need to change, but won't explain why it has to change?
- The bind change is perceived as unsafe by many.
- We've asked repeatedly what is gained for the game by this change. Ie, what benefit outweighs perceived unsafe changes.
- There has been literally no answer to the above question offered.
The perception so far is, "It's changing because it's changing." That's simply not ideal. Can we at least know why this is so vital to 2.0 that people are willing to throw down over the need to change, but won't explain why it has to change?
Once again, this thread is specifically addressing rules changes. It does not address the aspects of existing rules. The current situations encountered by existing effects are not being discussed here.
The original poster is free to correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that this thread is specifically addressing the following questions:
• Why are we now requiring both feet to be planted, as opposed to just one?
• What benefit, if any, does this add to the game?
• Do these benefits outweigh the drawbacks and safety concerns that would arise regarding the changes that require both feet to remain planted, while a target continues to actively participate in combat, both offensively and defensively.
This thread has yet to provide any responses to these questions.
The original poster is free to correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that this thread is specifically addressing the following questions:
• Why are we now requiring both feet to be planted, as opposed to just one?
• What benefit, if any, does this add to the game?
• Do these benefits outweigh the drawbacks and safety concerns that would arise regarding the changes that require both feet to remain planted, while a target continues to actively participate in combat, both offensively and defensively.
This thread has yet to provide any responses to these questions.