Proposal: Reduce Negation abilities

Alavatar

Alavatar

Exemplar
Hi everyone!

I have been mentioning this for some time, but never created a proposal for discussion. Here is my proposal:

Currently, there are a number of abilities and effects that completely Negate the effects they are defending against. Negation creates frustration in players because the ability or effect is then considered to have been a useless investment or non-value-added based on the consistency in which the ability is negated. This has frequently been a cause of frustration for Fighter who feel the prevalence of Weapon Guard negations often outnumbers their per-day abilities and therefore generally encourages those Fighter to instead invest in more damage. Additionally, Spell Casters often feel frustrated with having to use multiple of their limited resources (Spells per Day) to chew through the defenses of their enemy before finally affecting the enemy; this can indirectly cause Spell Casters to feel disenfranchised with their utility and therefore not be as engaged in combat out of fear of having to use half a column or more of Spells per opponent.

By changing the defensive abilities to reduce the effects of the offensive abilities it creates the opportunity for greater teamwork and allows for the players to still feel effective, even if their ability was mostly negated. This empowers Fighters/Rogues to continue to invest in their non-Weapon Prof / non-Backstab skills and gives Spell Casters greater sustainability to engage more thoroughly throughout the day.

These Negation abilities are:
  • Parry - Smart Weapon Guard
  • Riposte - Smart Weapon Return
  • Dodge - Smart <All> Guard
  • Cloak - Smart <School> Guard
  • Bane - Smart <School> Return
  • Spell Shield - Dumb Spell Guard
  • Weapon Shield - Dumb Weapon Guard
  • Poison Shield - Dumb Poison Guard
  • Reflect Magic - Dumb Spell Return
  • Elemental Shield - Dumb Elemental Guard
  • Spell Parry - Smart Spell Guard
  • Counterspell - Smart Spell Guard
  • Stalwart Shield - Smart Spell/Weapon/Elemental/Poison Guard
(I may have missed some)

All of these abilities completely Negate the effects they are defending against. My proposal is for these to be changed to be Reductions (for the most part) instead.

  • Parry- Smart
    • Reduces all Weapon Damage to 10% or 20 for Uncapped Damage (Eviscerate/Terminate)
    • Reduces all Weapon timed (i.e. Stun Limb) and line-of-sight (i.e. Weapon Web) effects to 3 seconds
    • Negates Weapon Disarm and Shatter
    • Negates a Weapon Carrier other than Normal/Silver/Earth/Chaos/Magic/SLIF
  • Riposte - Smart
    • Parry + Weapon Return
  • Dodge - Smart
    • Reduces all Damage to 10% or 20 for Uncapped Damage (Eviscerate/Terminate/Death/Corrupt)
      • Negates a Weapon Carrier other than Normal/Silver/Earth/Chaos/Magic/SLIF
    • Reduces all timed and line-of-sight effects to 3 seconds
    • Negates Instantaneous non-damage effects (i.e. Disarm, Shatter, Amnesia, Enslavement, Euphoria, etc.)
  • Spell Shield - Dumb
    • Reduces all Spell Damage to 10% or 20 for Uncapped Damage (Death/Corrupt)
    • Reduces all Spell timed and line-of-sight effects to 3 seconds
    • Negates Spell Instantaneous non-damage effects (i.e. Disarm, Shatter, Amnesia, Enslavement, Euphoria, etc.)
  • Weapon Shield - Dumb
    • Reduces all Weapon Damage to 50% or 40 for Uncapped Damage (Eviscerate/Terminate)
    • Reduces all Weapon timed (i.e. Stun Limb) and line-of-sight (i.e. Weapon Web) effects to 3 seconds
    • Negates Weapon Disarm and Shatter
    • Negates a Weapon Carrier other than Normal/Silver/Earth/Chaos/Magic/SLIF
  • Poison Shield - Dumb
    • Reduces all Poison Damage to 10% or 20 for Uncapped Damage
    • Reduces all Poison timed and line-of-sight effects to 3 seconds
    • Negates Spell Instantaneous non-damage effects (i.e. Disarm, Shatter, Amnesia, Enslavement, Euphoria, etc.)
  • Reflect Magic - Dumb
    • Spell Shield + Return
  • Elemental Shield - Dumb
    • Reduces all Elemental Damage to 10% or 20 for Uncapped Damage (Death/Corrupt)
    • Reduces all Elemental timed and line-of-sight effects to 3 seconds
    • Negates Elemental Instantaneous non-damage effects (i.e. Disarm, Shatter, Amnesia, Enslavement, Euphoria, etc.)
  • Cloak - Smart
    • Reduces all <School> Damage to 10% or 20 for Uncapped Damage (Death/Corrupt)
    • Reduces all <School> timed and line-of-sight effects to 3 seconds
    • Negates <School> Instantaneous non-damage effects (i.e. Disarm, Shatter, Amnesia, Enslavement, Euphoria, etc.)
  • Bane - Smart
    • Cloak + Return
  • Spell Parry - Smart
    • Spell Shield
  • Counterspell - Smart
    • Spell Shield
  • Stalwart Shield - Smart
    • Spell/Weapon/Elemental/Poison Shield
Thoughts?
 
This is going to sound harsh, but that is way too complicated.

Right now, with a parry, I have to remember one effect (negation). With this proposal, I have to remember four different effects (divide by 10, reduce to 20, negation, and reduce to 3 seconds). Furthermore, I have to divide by 10 on the fly in combat (most players have difficulty dividing by 2 in the middle of combat) and I have to remember to negate the effect of a carrier attack while also applying some other effect (division, usually, but possibly reduce to 20 or reduce to 3 seconds) at the same time. And furthermore, if the effect is delivered by a specific list of carriers, I don't negate those. In fact, I might have to apply the effects of those in combination (for example, if I take double damage from fire and then have double the damage and then divide by 10... ie... divide by 5).

And that is just one defensive that went from simple to massively complicated. Other defenses have a similar list to remember, but with different triggers for the specific effects. And then, just to throw a monkey wrench into it all, weapon shield uses different numbers and percentages (I'm assuming that you like Evade the way it is since you don't mention it).

Honestly, I have played for over 2 decades and I don't think I could consistently get these rules right if they were implemented, possibly ever. There are just too many fiddly bits.

Also, I seriously wonder at some of the design decisions here. You open up by discussing how fighters feel useless a lot, but your solution to help solve that problem massively reduces the effectiveness of one of their best abilities. I think you lose almost as much as you gain, maybe more.

-MS
 
-
 
Last edited:
I do like the concept in general. With the increased importance of take out effects vs damage in 2.0, there was absolutely some frustration during playtesting. I felt at times like we may as well stop combat and just compare cards to see whether the opponent has more negates than I have takeouts.

But I agree with what's been said that this is really complicated to remember and implement in the heat of combat. One of the 2.0 changes I really like is the simplifying and clarifying of defenses, and this feels like a step in the wrong direction in that regard.

I think Evade is a good model of a reduction defense. Half damage, kill the carrier. Simple, easy to remember. If the defenses could get to be closer to this level of complexity, I'd be all for it. (And maybe swapping negates for reductions would allow for the return of the prepare to die call, and a little bit of strategy when choosing defensive casts?)
 
mikestrauss said:
This is going to sound harsh, but that is way too complicated.

Right now, with a parry, I have to remember one effect (negation). With this proposal, I have to remember four different effects (divide by 10, reduce to 20, negation, and reduce to 3 seconds). Furthermore, I have to divide by 10 on the fly in combat (most players have difficulty dividing by 2 in the middle of combat) and I have to remember to negate the effect of a carrier attack while also applying some other effect (division, usually, but possibly reduce to 20 or reduce to 3 seconds) at the same time. And furthermore, if the effect is delivered by a specific list of carriers, I don't negate those. In fact, I might have to apply the effects of those in combination (for example, if I take double damage from fire and then have double the damage and then divide by 10... ie... divide by 5).

And that is just one defensive that went from simple to massively complicated. Other defenses have a similar list to remember, but with different triggers for the specific effects. And then, just to throw a monkey wrench into it all, weapon shield uses different numbers and percentages (I'm assuming that you like Evade the way it is since you don't mention it).

Honestly, I have played for over 2 decades and I don't think I could consistently get these rules right if they were implemented, possibly ever. There are just too many fiddly bits.

Also, I seriously wonder at some of the design decisions here. You open up by discussing how fighters feel useless a lot, but your solution to help solve that problem massively reduces the effectiveness of one of their best abilities. I think you lose almost as much as you gain, maybe more.

-MS
Click to expand...
Seconded
 
The reason I chose 10% was because the math is easier by just moving the decimal. e.g. 50 -> 5, 17 -> 1, etc. This is generally simpler than divide by 2 (35 -> 17, typically harder mental math to figure what half of something is than to move the dot). For results less than 1 (such as Adam's 4 -> 0.4), the options are either a minimum of 1 or allow it to be negated to 0. I don't really care, personally, so it could go either way as far as I am concerned.

What I was going for was commonality on how defenses work with various effects, not unique defenses based on the skill (with the exception of Weapon Shield cutting damage to half so Parry is considered superior, but I am not married to that distinction). (The notes on Carrier was mostly to identify if someone has "Only affected by ..." then the Parry does not turn it Normal therefore making it not affect the creature)

Basically, change 'Guard' from "Negate Everything" to:
  • Reduces Damage to 10% or 20 for Uncapped Damage (Eviscerate/Terminate/Death/Corrupt)
  • Reduces timed and line-of-sight effects to 3 seconds
  • Negate Carrier effects
  • Negates Instantaneous non-damage effects (i.e. Disarm, Shatter, Amnesia, Enslavement, Euphoria, etc.)
If it is seen as overly complicated (which is basically just building off the noted v0.9 Evade concept), are there suggestions or ideas on how to simplify? Perhaps make all Guards alter the effects to a flat 10 damage?
 
Last edited:
Players can barely just ADD the numbers of the damage they are taking properly now. You want them to do percentages? This isn't a computer game that does the math for you.
Negation is the best and simplest way to go.
If anything I would get rid of Return effects.

To be brutally honest here, this proposal is going in the completely wrong direct, as have many others lately and over the years. The more complicated the rules the more of an obstacle they become for new players. Every other Larp I've played has gone for a simple, streamlined, user friendly rules set. There is a way to do that for Alliance and keep the "flavor", but this proposal isn't part of that.
 
Here is my attempt to provide a positive angle to my criticism.

I still think that your suggested system is way too complicated by an order of magnitude, but I like the general idea that negation is incredibly frustrating. Thus, my recommendation is to slightly redefined defenses. Instead of having a single category (guard), create two categories: Lesser Guard and Greater Guard.

Both Lesser Guards and Greater Guards would negate an appropriate incoming attack. However, a Lesser Guard allows that attack to be regained through Focus, while a Greater Guard does not.

This means that much fewer attacks will ever go wasted. Looking at the list above (and I am spitballing here), I'd organize like so:

Greater Guard:
Dodge
Parry
Phase
Cloak

Everything else is a Lesser Guard (including No Effect). If you look, every one of the above is difficult to get in high quantities and / or rare. Also, none of the return abilities are a Greater Guard. This is intentional. I figure if you just got your own ability back in your face, the least the rules can do is let you try again.

I am aware that this idea does nothing for alchemists, but in my experience alchemists are pretty awesome and nothing I have seen in the 2.0 rules really hurts them (in fact, I think it mostly helps them).

-MS
 
Just a reminder, folks, that whether you agree or disagree with a contribution someone is trying to make, we should make sure that our response is framed positively, encouragingly, and constructively.

It's really easy for us to make a response that sounds dismissive and derogatory without meaning to, and considering the state of things, we should make sure that people who are trying to help make it better are appreciated for their efforts in doing so.

:)
 
Agnar said:
Players can barely just ADD the numbers of the damage they are taking properly now. You want them to do percentages? This isn't a computer game that does the math for you.
Negation is the best and simplest way to go.
If anything I would get rid of Return effects.

To be brutally honest here, this proposal is going in the completely wrong direct, as have many others lately and over the years. The more complicated the rules the more of an obstacle they become for new players. Every other Larp I've played has gone for a simple, streamlined, user friendly rules set. There is a way to do that for Alliance and keep the "flavor", but this proposal isn't part of that.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. Hell, I fully admit that I have problems keeping numbers straight sometimes in combat, simply because the current speed of combat is high enough that I can't always process multiple near-simultaneous hits fast enough to have a solid number before the next one lands, and that's after more than a dozen years of doing this.

That's just using basic subtraction. I don't think it's reasonable to expect players to consistently do fractions and percentile adjustments in their head on the fly. What you're describing seems a lot more suited to a tabletop game where a player has plenty of time to do the math, or a computer game where the system is handling the math for you behind the scenes.
 
MondayMcGee said:
I felt at times like we may as well stop combat and just compare cards to see whether the opponent has more negates than I have takeouts.
Click to expand...

This feels like poorly implemented playtesting to me. The resources of a PC are supposed to last for an entire day. No matter how many defenses a PC has (and they definitely have fewer in 2.0 than in earlier editions), you shouldn't ever be able to treat any battle like this (except, arguably, the last battle of the event / before the end of a logistics period). I didn't attend whatever playtest event you were at and could be badly understanding what you are saying, but this just doesn't jive with any day long or weekend long event I have ever experienced, and makes me wonder (again) if the way people are playtesting is creating results that are inconsistent with how normal play would feel under these rules.

-MS
 
Last edited:
I should clarify that I NPC'd for the playtest in question. The point I was trying to make is that, with low damage and high PC body and armor, I felt like takeouts were the only way I could even inconvenience the PCs, and there were lots of spawns where I failed to land even one due to the large number of negates the PC group had. (Our PCs all had 300+ build, to test the paragon paths. One PC had 11 dodges, and didn't even use them all.)
 
So here, then is the $64,000 question: Did you have enough fun that you would return to NPC again under that ruleset?

I feel like not enough attention, at least on these boards, is being paid to that question.
 
That in itself would not be a dealbreaker for me, no.

But given a choice between a system where my role as an NPC is to get hit a few times, fall down, and repeat vs. a system where I also have the opportunity to play more tactically and have my actions have an impact on the players, I'd choose the latter, no question.
 
-
 
Last edited:
I can't fully speak to the Spell Parry point (I personally think that is a rule that still hasn't been implemented in the right way yet), but I can talk about that last point.

The trick to future scaling for body / armor bloat is recognizing that players are increasing in armor and body (though probably, on average, not quite as much as some people seem to be claiming) and decreasing in damage. As a result, NPC health should drop (probably by at least 1/2) while NPC damage should probably creep up a little at the mid to high end (keep low level damage the same).

That scales to the new standards that PCs are setting while still allowing low level PCs to feel more useful in a fight (effectively, their damage has doubled). Oh, they still need to be careful not to get hit (because a low level character simply can't take a hit like a high level character), but they can more meaningfully deal damage. That is a win-win in my view (keeping in mind that I prioritize low level characters feeling more useful and NPCs being able to entertain larger cross sections of the game more effectively).

-MS
 
-
 
Last edited:
mikestrauss said:
This feels like poorly implemented playtesting to me. The resources of a PC are supposed to last for an entire day. No matter how many defenses a PC has (and they definitely have fewer in 2.0 than in earlier editions), you shouldn't ever be able to treat any battle like this (except, arguably, the last battle of the event / before the end of a logistics period). I didn't attend whatever playtest event you were at and could be badly understanding what you are saying, but this just doesn't jive with any day long or weekend long event I have ever experienced, and makes me wonder (again) if the way people are playtesting is creating results that are inconsistent with how normal play would feel under these rules.
Click to expand...

This playtesting was run as a full logistics period worth of content, to include various different types of monsters and styles of encounters. Combats ranged from normal "kill the opponent" fights to objective based encounters with props or puzzles. Production items and loot were provided. San Francisco playtesting is exceptionally thorough, and typically runs 6-8 hours at a time. One of the first questions asked during the wrap up sessions for these playtests is "Did this feel like a normal Logistics period worth of content to you?" For this playtest cycle in particular, two playtests were held due to the sheer amount of content introduced by the Paragon Paths.

I would be interested in hearing how the playtests you have participated in have been handled?


Thank you

Chris Fernandez
Alliance San Francisco Playtest Coordinator
Alliance LARP Playtest Community Manager
 
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top