[.11] Remove required packet colors?

Discussion in '{Archived} Alliance Rules 2.0 Playtesting' started by Feldor, Nov 26, 2018.

  1. Feldor

    Feldor Scholar

    With the changes in 2.0 where calls include the information needed to know what defenses apply, is there any value to requiring specific packet colors? It seems we could remove the rules around packet colors without any downsides.
     
    DiscOH likes this.
  2. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    I still think there is value in packet colors. Could we just change the packet color that the packet should match the delivery type?

    Orange - Poison (like a poison coating on an arrow or a gas globe).
    Blue - Weapon (arrows)
    Something new for elemental?
    All other colors - spell
    Arcane?
     
  3. Krystina F

    Krystina F Artisan Oregon Staff

    Personally, in large fights, having a visual cue of a color flying at me if I don't hear a call is very helpful. Besides, the only two actual required colors are blue and orange. I don't really see a need to remove the colors from the system.
    Besides, it's a visual cue for the attack/defense for some players that are hard of hearing regardless of the player's age.
     
  4. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    Why blue and orange are the only two that matter Krystina?
     
  5. Feldor

    Feldor Scholar

    The problem is that it is no longer an accurate cue. You can have poison arrows, spell arrows, strike arrows, and normal arrows that are blue; and depending on the call are defended against differently.
     
  6. Tantarus

    Tantarus Squire

    I kinda like the visual que just to have an idea of what attacks the enemy has, Spells, physical or gas/trap.
     
    Feldor likes this.
  7. Krystina F

    Krystina F Artisan Oregon Staff

    And to @Cedric --- this is for me personally --- an arrow is an arrow, therefore it is blue. Alchemy/Poison is Orange, etc... If you are launching an orange packet out of a bow, I'm not going to think a coated arrow. Again, this is me personally. I'm going to think you're throwing a packet wrong. I'd rather have a blue packet thrown at me with a carrier, it to me, keeps things some what cleaner.

    Again, I don't normally play an archer. I play a celestial scholar, and dabbled with archery in our play tests. My personal goals aren't for using coatings and the additional spell carriers, but again, that is me. And with newer players coming in, and throwing in additional colors, or altered colors could potentially be confusing since some are one time attacks, only for a period of time, etc... Especially to those with visual, hearing or processing disorders. That's where I'm coming at with only two colors really matter.
     
  8. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    I see what you are saying. While I disagree, that's valid. I think putting more of the emphasis on what defense stops a packet is more important the physical representation of packets as different colors. But I see where you are coming at, I just think it is confusing and not helpful to the mechanics of the game.
     
    Gilwing and Krystina F like this.
  9. Krystina F

    Krystina F Artisan Oregon Staff

    And this is why I play a scholar lol.

    But no seriously, it's a good conservation to have in general. With the new rules changing, do we need to change it? With the new committees working to bring in new players, how will those potential color changes alter game play? I think this thread could lead to some cool things down the road.
     
    Feldor likes this.
  10. Draven

    Draven Count Seattle Staff Marshal

    There’s still a reason to have packet colors.

    Namely, those packets are visible prior to any abilities being used. Holding a bunch of orange? It communicates that you’re capable of throwing poison (IG, maybe your monstrous mouth is bubbling with steaming liquids, or your hands are full of Globes).

    It gives people a moment to prepare for what they’re up against, which could be really useful in this world of no carryover defenses.
     
  11. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    Good point Krystina! Maybe a better question of what do we want packet colors to indicate? Is it for us to see what type of enemies we are fighting? Is it to allow the stealing of IG arrows and globes? Is it to help indicate to the player being hit what defense is applicable?

    I think stepping back and thinking about why packet color is important would be a great first step.

    Draven - That was my argument for them as a PC. I want to know what I'm about to go up against.
     
  12. Feldor

    Feldor Scholar

    Also, as was pointed out in another thread, packet color at night is basically impossible to see. We don't expect people to pay attention to what color packet they are hit with. We expect them to notice they've been hit and respond to the call - or to get a clarify on what it was if they don't know.

    I think @Tantarus and @Draven had a point about it being useful for visually sizing up an enemy, especially with regard to alchemy. (Spell vs bow tends to be obvious based on if they are carrying a bow/xbow or not; but noticing alchemy packets seems especially relevant to those with poison defenses.)

    With that said, it feels like a rule that is adding mild OOG logistical complexity (tracking packet colors) for something that has inconsistent mechanical results. (IE, being hit by a blue packet doesn't actually tell you anything about how you resist its effect -- the only way you can know that is by hearing the call.) I think removing packet color restrictions mildly simplifies the rules, and avoids accidental confusion of people thinking they can avoid an effect because is wrong assumptions about what a blue packet means. The last thing I want is someone trying to adjudicate or argue a miscast because of a disagreement on packet color.

    ~~~

    Thinking more, I do find the sizing-up-the-alchemist example pretty compelling. Maybe only Alchemy should have a restricted color? Arrows already have a solid indicator in that they require a bow.

    ~~~

    Or I suppose taking this the other direction, should we be thinking about if we should be doing more with colors? Should earth vs celestial result in different color packets? It'd let you size up and know if you are coming up against someone with Doom or Prison. And it might result in interesting dynamics like some enemies focusing on healers because they could tell who they are. (You could also arguably do something interesting around necromancy use and packet color...) And we are already expecting people to juggle 3 different color packets - so there isn't really a complexity argument against this.

    ~~~~~~
    I think my _*personal*_ preference would be to either eliminate packet color except that only alchemy is color coded. A very small part of this is because I'd like to have arrow packets that color coordinate with my outfit, but its mostly because I think adding rules around packet color (with the exception of alchemy) doesn't really add anything other than complexity. And much like requiring magic swords to be white, its something that could use to be relegated to the rules history.
     
    Bruvah M. likes this.
  13. Tantarus

    Tantarus Squire

    I am all for removing arrow color, finding my blue arrows at night is half of why I dont carry a bow anymore. And it really doesnt add much as you said.
     
  14. Shades

    Shades Newbie

    It is soooo bad.
    On another note. As a colorblind (blue/purple) person who uses a bow, I have to regularly ask people what color a packet is.
    It would also, I think, be much easier for monster camps to not have to collect separate piles of packets.
    Also I think trap globes got added in as orange packets as well, right?
     
  15. Alavatar

    Alavatar Baron

    As a colorblind person, I regularly ignore color because I generally have no clue what color is in my hand or what color has flown at me. Was it orange or green? I dunno. Was it blue or pink? No idea. Light blue or white? Beats me. Is that floral pattern blue? Is the background blue? Haven't the foggiest. Could it be orange and blue stripes or green and purple stripes? Couldn't tell ya.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2018
  16. jdackow

    jdackow Scholar

    I am a celestrial Archer at this time. In one way I would love the removal of the color requirement. However, one logistical reason to keep it is Arrow count. At this time you can walk around with unlimited spell packets but you need to keep track of your Arrow packets as a PC. There is also restrictions on quiver sizes. However if the tracking of arrows no longer becomes an issue then I can see the removal of the blue color being a requirement.
     
  17. Inaryn

    Inaryn Knight Marshal

    I like seeing orange because, if it's not innate poison, it's something potentially lootable...
     
  18. Krystina F

    Krystina F Artisan Oregon Staff

    Hey Colorblind folks.... any of you interested in DMing me for some brainstorming on what colors work for you/you can actually see well? I know there are various types of colorblindness depending on what cones you're missing/have limited functioning (blah blah science)... but now I'm really curious.
     
    Inaryn and Feldor like this.
  19. Shades

    Shades Newbie

    The fact that you have to look at your hand to tell if you are casting a spell or shooting a bow seems awkward.
    On that note, is there a way that we can fix having to count arrows? It seems like something that has passed it's time. Heck, I can't even remember the last video game I played where you had to buy arrows when you used them. I generally don't even make players in my D&D games track them because it is a lot of extra work for very little value.

    Another note on tracking arrows. Is that it really limits new players who my not have access to master blacksmiths.
     
    JeffL likes this.
  20. Tantarus

    Tantarus Squire

    This... Or at the very least make an endless quiver ritual.
     

Share This Page