Wording suggestion: Arcane qualifier

[JeffL]

Arcane: The Arcane qualifier signifies that an attack is particularly powerful and unique in that there are no protective spells that work against it; the target must have a defense against the specific effect or its Effect Group or some way to avoid the attack entirely.

I would suggest adding more than just "spells," like this:
Arcane: The Arcane qualifier signifies that an attack is particularly powerful and unique in that there are no protective spells, skills, or abilities that work against it; the target must have a defense against the specific effect or its Effect Group or some way to avoid the attack entirely.

 

[tieran]

There are both skills and abilities that will defend against the Arcane qualifier. Dodge can be used against Arcane attacks, as can Phase, regardless of the specifics of the Effect Group.

Additionally, an Arcane attack that does not include the Strike keyword can be physically blocked, like any other attack that does not contain Strike.

 

[JeffL]

Ah, okay. I see what you are getting at. Consider my suggestion retracted. ;-)

 

[Parzivel]

It is strange that "Strike" is used for spells. Like, I understand why but it feels like it is a patch on a patch.

 

[tieran]

It is strange that "Strike" is used for spells. Like, I understand why but it feels like it is a patch on a patch.

I can certainly understand that perspective. However, its less of a patch to a patch and more a streamlining of functionality.

All the qualifiers work the same now. There's no need to explain the difference between targeting mechanisms or how they are impacted by what method you are using to make the attack. There's no need to sometimes have "strike" on certain times you make an attack with a particular qualifier, but not others.

I, along with the rest of ARC, understand that this will be an adjustment for everyone, but strongly believe that the elimination of inconsistencies and streamlining of the whole call matrix is for the long term good of the game, even if it results in some shorter term hiccups.

 

[Parzivel]

I'm not arguing with the actual way it's done. I think that is great! I am a massive fan of the call and the in-battle communication.

The fact that it's called a Strike is obviously to make it fit with the patch done to clarify the distinction between Blows and Strikes, but calling a spell attack a Strike just doesn't fit for me.

 

[tieran]

I'm not arguing with the actual way it's done. I think that is great! I am a massive fan of the call and the in-battle communication.

The fact that it's called a Strike is obviously to make it fit with the patch done to clarify the distinction between Blows and Strikes, but calling a spell attack a Strike just doesn't fit for me.

Sure, I can see where you're coming from.

My general feeling is that we already have a word in the game vocabulary that meant "This thing just has to touch you" and we already used it with multiple carriers (Weapon & Spell (delivered via a weapon)) we just did it in an inconsistent way.

There always a good amount of pushback, and I'm not questioning the validity of the pushback, any time we "adopt" new words into the rules. In this instance, we decided that from a consistency standpoint and a "make use of the tools we had" standpoint, the best answer was the one in the packet.

And while the 2.0 meaning of Strike was something along the lines of "Please pretend that, for targeting purposes, this attack that was delivered via a weapon was actually delivered via a non-blue packet" now it means, more or less, "If this attack touches you, you need to do something about it," whether that's take damage, take an effect, or whatever.

Is there stuff that's going to be problematic because we are using a word we've used before? Probably.
Would there be problems if we used a new word instead? "Almost definitely," say all the people who still call magic armor and their shield magic, even if its just occasionally.

I hope that speaks a little bit to mine and ARC's thoughts on your concern and helps alleviate it, at least in regards to this.

 

[Parzivel]

I totally understood the rationale behind this one and I can see the benefits. I know people don't like change. The fact that some people are going to be upset that it's no longer called a "carrier" is evidence enough. I totally understand that.

There is also the thought that something more encompassing and more intuitive would be better from a novice and just general rules-comprehension standpoint. Sort of like "Arcane" is a descriptor of something entirely different than what it does, "Strike" now has the same problem.

 

[tieran]

Sort of like "Arcane" is a descriptor of something entirely different than what it does, "Strike" now has the same problem.

I don’t know that I entirely agree with the first part of this. Within the bounds of the overall change from Weapon/Packet to Targeted, Arcane does the exact same thing it did before: it is a qualifier that lacks defenses specifically tied to it.

As to the second, it’s the same kind of situation: strike used to (1.3 & 2.0) be a word that let you know a physical delivered attack was using the packet targeting rules, and it does the same thing now, we’ve just defaulted everything to the old physical targeting rules, and strike makes a given attack use the old packet targeting rules. We just don’t call them “Physical” and “Packet” anymore and we don’t default specific qualifier into different buckets, in an effort to make the whole of how it works easier.

I’m concerned that maybe we’ve got a disconnect between what each of us thinks the other is saying or we have different expectations for the goal of this conversation.

I’m more than happy to give insight into both my own thought process as well as ARC’s, but I just want to make sure that I’m addressing your concerns effectively.

Any help you can give to provide me with some clarity as to your side would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Parzivel]

Yeah... it definitely feels like we're missing.

My point is this, as concisely as I can put it:
The word "Arcane" does not intuitively imply or describe that a power is un-resistable.
The word "Strike" does not intuitively imply or describe that a power cannot be blocked by weapons.

I fully support and understand both mechanics, and think the changes in terminology are good... but the words used could be better, and probably would be if the mechanics were being invented for the first time (in a fresh rules system, for example), rather than coming from a legacy of other changes and standardizations.

My goal: I would love ARC to consider, at some later date or subsequent revision, trying to make calls as intuitive as possible, in this case, by looking at these words and trying to find ones that are more descriptive of what the actual mechanics do.

I think that's it.
Thanks!

 

[tieran]

Now, I'm picking up what you're putting down.

While I don't disagree with your thought process, or its outcome, really, I think there's a balance that needs to get struck between making the game intuitive and new person friendly vs keeping it accessible for the existing players.

You, me, and the pile of other people that play this game (and others where the same verbiage is used) know that "Arcane" means, roughly, "not a lot of defenses work against this." I think the same is true for the meaning of "Strike" being "if it touches you it counts." More importantly, I don't think that either of those two things are difficult to explain to new people.

Certainly, if there's a word out there that means something along the lines of "Fantastically magical and hard to avoid" that's also easy to import into our existing system and roughly in line from a syllable standpoint, as a substitute for arcane, lay it on me. Same goes for strike.

Non-specific to these two, I think the game has made great strides in the last decade or so in becoming less esoteric and more easy to learn, which is good for everyone, but its also important to keep the flavor of what Alliance is, and some of that lies in the words we use to do the things we do.