Report 1623

Report #1623
Skillset: Tarot Skill: Lust
 Org: Shofangi Status: Completed Apr 2017
Furies' Decision:
Solution 2, reject all costs 2/person with a max of 5 persons.
Problem: Lust, specifically rejecting lust is overly hindering currently,
particularly against tarot users and psychometabolism users. Against tarot, lust
serves as an offensive issue if you are a class that primarily uses enemy lists
(mage, bard, sometimes guardian) and serves as a defensive issue as well due to
empress. A tarot user can fling lust every 3s at base, but it costs 4s to
"cure". This means that against a target who must keep someone enemied that they
will be off balance continuously. This also means that multiple allied tarot
users can fling lust resulting in a 4s x (number of tarot users) cure time to
not be empressed back in the room. A psychometabolism user passively lusts every
15s meaning that to keep that person enemied costs 4s/15s which is ~26% of the
time. This report seeks to reduce the effectiveness of lust as a hindering tool.
[A: 7 R: 2] Solution #1: Reduce base rejection time to 3s, making it
 equivalent to fling lust. Introduce a REJECT ALL
 syntax which costs 6s or a scaling amount based on
 number of rejections.
[A:12 R: 0] Solution #2: Reduce base rejection time to 2s. Introduce a REJECT
 ALL syntax which costs 6s or a scaling amount based
 on number of rejections.
[A: 2 R: 8] Solution #3: Delete love potion. Introduce a skill in dramatics
 called strut which is an active lust for 3.5-4s
 balance. Introduce a skill in combat called BloodLust
 which does not cost balance but has a 15s cooldown
 and provides a defense against the next lust (similar
 to quicksilver). Reduce the pheromones tick timer
 from 15s to 12s.
Player Comments:
---[Xenthos on 4/1 @ 21:33 writes]:
Interesting. What if there was a more commonly-available defense against lust
(like quicksilver vs. aeon)? I actually like these suggestions, just floating
another idea as well.
---[Wobou on 4/1 @ 22:00 writes]:
I have replaced solution 3 which was previously just an extension to the timers
for love potion and pheromones to something more radical based on Xenthos' idea
and some envoys discussion. It could possibly be combined with solution 1 and
probably should not be combined with solution 2, in my humble opinion.
---[Shedrin on 4/1 @ 22:22 writes]:
I don't think solution 3 really solves the problem. Often when lust is an issue
it's when it's being spammed, which this would help minimally. I think solution
2 is better.
---[Demartel on 4/2 @ 02:09 writes]:
Solution 2 + delete love potion.
---[Xenthos on 4/2 @ 04:11 writes]:
You're right, Shedrin, that suggestion is more of a brake to slow it down
somewhat rather than equalizing things out entirely (if people are more
comfortable with a less aggressive solution). I do think removing love potion
and making an active skill for lusting for those who need it is a good way to go
for all solutions, though (doesn't need to be limited to just sol3).
---[Shedrin on 4/2 @ 05:06 writes]:
I don't mind removing love potion, but it will have an effect on fighting enemy
list classes.
---[Demartel on 4/2 @ 18:32 writes]:
I think removing love potion will impact enemy list classes less than it seems.
Melders are already being changed to no longer spamming dissolve on every enemy
in room, instead operating on a 1 or all for power, same as bards do. Bards have
already have truedeaf to counter them and those are the two biggest enemy list
classes.
---[Falaeron on 4/2 @ 22:07 writes]:
I think lust in general is actually unfairly punishing enemy list classes. I
prefer solution 2 here with the eq to reject all scaling at 2s per rather than
being fixed. Instead of reject all, maybe a reject <list of targets> syntax can
be added instead, like how you can enemy or ally multiple people in one command.
Love potion aside, there aren't many skills that require the target to spend a
longer amount of bal/eq to "cure" than to put the "affliction" on. Against
certain classes or with certain combinations this makes lust a very effective
pseudo-hinder. Love potion just takes this problem even further in these match-
ups.
---[Shuyin on 4/3 @ 04:29 writes]:
Solution 1 or 2 with a scaling eq based off number rejected.
---[Wobou on 4/3 @ 13:26 writes]:
I think solution 3 solves a different but related problem which is how hindering
pheromones/love potion can be in small fights/1v1. I believe the ideal solution
to explore would be to combine sol. 3 and 1 personally. We can then adjust the
reject time again if we need to.
---[Lerad on 4/13 @ 07:24 writes]:
Solution 3 as it stands will render pheromones completely useless. I'm fine with
introducing a quicksilver-like mechanic for lust, and to also additionally lower
rejection balance costs (solution 3+1), but pheromones timer needs to be faster,
not slower, than bloodlust cooldown. Even if pheromones is faster, bloodlust
will already render it completely useless in group settings, since it's a random
chance to select ONE enemy to lust. In a 1v1, then, it needs to retain some use.
Of course, an alternative is to completely change pheromones to do something
more interesting, which I'm also okay with, though that's not in the scope of
this report.
---[Lerad on 4/13 @ 07:32 writes]:
Actually, thinking about it, even if pheromones timer is faster than bloodlust
cooldown, it'll still be nerfed hugely - say that it ticks every 10s while
bloodlust is 15s cooldown. It'll take FOUR ticks, the fourth tick, to lust the
target ONCE. If the pheromones effect is objectionable for some reason, I'm fine
with changing it entirely to do something else instead.
---[Shedrin on 4/13 @ 13:52 writes]:
I'd rather change pheremones and not introduce solution 3. Pheremones is very
strong to OP against enemy-list reliant classes. And I'd rather not introduce
another mechanic like in Solution 3 unless we really need to.
---[Wobou on 4/14 @ 15:23 writes]:
Yes, currently solution 3 would make pheromones the only love like effect in the
game but it would still be a significant nerf and wouldn't do anything other
than stripping the lust defense in 1v1s. We could shorten the pheromones tick as
you suggest to something 10-12s in the meantime which would passively lust in
1v1 situations at most every other tick (20s-24s) which would still have a use
but would increase the shortest lust time by 60% in the second case (from 15s to
24s). I'll update solution 3 to say 12s so that pheromones still has a use but
is less brutal in 1v1 situations. If that's still too much then maybe pheromones
should just be reworked.
---[Lerad on 4/15 @ 00:55 writes]:
Please rework pheromones. 12s timer on pheromones will make it tick once ever
60s, not every 20/24s. The mechanics of bloodlust will make it take more than
"every other tick". This is a model of what will happen with pheromones:
https://ada-young.appspot.com/pastebin/Ei2i7rju
---[Lerad on 4/15 @ 01:03 writes]:
Opposed to solution 3 without a pheromones rework - or if it must go in without
a rework, then pheromones should be made temporarily immune to bloodlust until
it is reworked. In some cases, being nerfed slightly due to a wider-reaching
change and waiting for followup buffs is fine. However, in this case, you're
effectively deleting pheromones until any followup makes it usable again - and
I'm not going to support that on one of the few abilities in the skillset that
is already very limited and unversatile due to the difficulty of switching
psionic locks.
---[Wobou on 4/16 @ 00:50 writes]:
You're totally right that I didn't model how pheromones interacts properly with
bloodlust. On running simulations similar to what you posted it looks like that
if the tick time was made 9s it would result in 22.8s average time between lusts
and if it was made 8s it'd be 17.4s between lusts (simulations here, averages
based on a 5 minute period 1v1 https://pastebin.com/twk0jbTr). The report is
finalized so I can't change the numbers but if we do end up going with solution
3 the timer should probably be in the 8s-9s range instead.
---[Shuyin on 4/16 @ 19:18 writes]:
Solution 1 or 2 is fine. I think solution 3 should be its own report due to how
far reaching of a mechanic change that is. Abstain there.
---[Malarious on 4/18 @ 03:17 writes]:
Cost to REJECT ALL should probably scale up. you already cap at 5 people