[CF-Devel] Resist godpower +30

[Peter Mardahl]

>
     
      Thank you for removing the godpower ring for now peter.
     
     >
     
      I don't want to appear stubborn, but since this issue will
     
     
Well, I don't mind appearing stubborn  :)
I think we both have valid arguments and no doubt we'll keep 
hammering at this until everyone is satisfied, or at least,
tired.

>
     
      I have designed many high level maps in pupland, and I do
     
     >
     
      have some experience there. If you want to create a melee monster
     
     >
     
      that can threaten a high level character, there's only two
     
     >
     
      possible ways:
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      1) You hand "harmless" attacktypes to the monster, but many
     
     >
     
         of them (fire/cold/physical etc). Since players can drink potions
     
     >
     
         and wear protections you must set the monster to extremely
     
     >
     
         high level (>100) and insane strenght. If you don't, players
     
     >
     
         would soon smite your "highlevel monster" like an ant.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
         What is the outcome? A monster that kills players instantly
     
     >
     
         unless they know exactly about all attacktypes of that monster.
     
     >
     
         Now tell me: Isn't that the exact opposite of what you want peter?
     
     
You raise a good point here.  My reasoning is that demanding
that the player take potions in order to survive imposes enough cost
to balance this.  Once he's got enough potions in him, I think he
SHOULD be able to whack these monsters.

I agree, though, that you shouldn't make the monsters so powerful
they destroy an unprepared character before he has any possibility
of fleeing.  This in effect means that a player with 95 resist
would have little to moderate trouble.  I, however, think this
is fine.  It's the whole reason we allowed the 90 and 95 potions
in the first place:  to let players survive in the face of
overwhelming firepower--ESPECIALLY when they're playing through
lag.

>
     
      2) Second, you hand godpower (or weaponmagic) to the monster.
     
     
Are we talking melee attack with godpower/weaponmagic or
via spells?

There IS protection from melee attack:  a very high AC, which
is *permanent* and which a player can attain relatively easily.

And there IS protection from cause wounds and comet, the two
spells bearing godpower and weaponmagic:  reflect spells.

However, reflect spells is unreliable in face of what high-level
monsters that spew out cause wounds and comet/swarm in high
volume.  A bit of lag, a few hits, and before you know it
you're dead--and your only fault was being unlucky with the
Internet.

>
     
         Since there is no protection from these, the monster can be
     
     >
     
         of sane strenght. A player who is not well-prepared has
     
     >
     
         a good chance to survive here.
     
     >
     
         Instead of cowardly hiding in equipment, the player needs to
     
     >
     
         work with healing spells/potions against this type of
     
     >
     
         monster. A tactic that seems quite interesting in addition.
     
     
cowardly hiding in equipment or potions is the only recourse
for a player who is suffering from lag.  He cannot count on being
able to click that healing potion or press that key and have the
keypress arrive in time to save his ass.

>
     
      > Alternately, use weaponmagic, and remove 
     
     >
     
      > "prot weaponmagic" from the carrillium apron and from that
     
     >
     
      > hammer someone just told me about.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Okay, be it weaponmagic or godpower doesn't really make much
     
     >
     
      difference. Personally I favour godpower. Not only that it sounds
     
     
And I favor weaponmagic, for this reason:  in this game, we have many
gods in opposition.  I think it makes sense for one to counteract
another's power.

>
     
      like being the "ultimate thing" - Important spells like
     
     >
     
      cause wounds, retributive strike and diseases rise and fall with
     
     >
     
      this attacktype. (E.g. Serious protection from disease can easily
     
     >
     
      make it abusive again).
     
     
I'll respond to each of these separately:
1)  Cause wounds:  why not have a god of Good protect you from harm
    from cause wounds?  counterspell and sanctuary and counterwall
    and reflect spell and directors all offer protection.  What's 
    so horrible about 51%? 

2)  Retributive strike:  this spell is so overpowered that 51% is
    going to be overwhelmed.  I also can't see this spell as important.
    When is it used on players?

3)  Disease:  players, by and large, easily avoid the effects of
    their own diseases anyway.  The key to balance of them is to require
    enough grace cost/kill to make them OK:  this has been done
    for all the diseases to my knowledge.  Players can simply loose
    their disease and run away before it gets them, leaving the pestilence
    to do their work.

    Furthermore, nothing is sacred about using Godpower as the attacktype
    for a disease.  Weaponmagic could be used instead.  However, I have  
    no problem with one good god aiding your survival vs. an affliction
    due to another god.

    As for using diseases ON players, you can easily make them fatal
    unless cured no matter WHAT protection is used, even 99% godpower,
    and STILL give the player reasonable time to save his own ass,
    even a lagged player.

On aside:  you keep making the argument that once we allow ANY defense
vs. godpower, we allow UNLIMTED defense against godpower.  This is
not true.  We can forbid protection above 51%, (or 75%, or 80%, whatever
level we decide is OK for lagged players.)  Weaponmagic defense has
been limited to less than 51% for years now without any inflation.

>
     
      Besides, I would miss these spells in my (map-making) repertoire
     
     >
     
      if they became harmless due to protective items.
     
     
Please don't argue against the straw man of 90%+ resistance to godpower
anymore, which no one has advocated.  51% is by no means total immunity,
51% fire protection, for example, is of no use vs. dragons.

>
     
      However, if the majority favours weaponmagic to rule over
     
     >
     
      godpower, guess I can live with that.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      I would only like to have at least one attacktype without any
     
     >
     
      means of protection (for players). And that should then be
     
     >
     
      kept as a strict "rule" in future, so people can rely on it for
     
     >
     
      mapmaking.
     
     
I also can accept weaponmagic as being resistance banned for players.

I would prefer not, since I think players should be able to defend
themselves vs. what is thrown at them.

But you say you need an unavoidable attacktype for Pupland.  I'm
not qualified to comment on pupland, I just hope you haven't made
it too hard.  Barely possible for the pinnacle of crossfire players
playing with low lag might be a bit too much to expect.

But the pupland set is the best of the mapsets in the game, and so I
think we must give weight to your demand for an unavoidable attack.


PeterM