Report 1826

Report #1826
Skillset: Skill: Forced-Actions
 Org: Celest Status: Rejected Oct 2017
Furies' Decision:
Not at this time
Problem: Removing worn items is currently an allowed forced action (e.g., via
pooka). This allows players to effectively remove many buffs, including
artifacts and armour, as well as your dignity. While worn items have the
potential to be cursed on you, this is not a great solution (inconvenient, can't
remove buffs/maluses like movement resistance), and in my opinion, this is not a
necessary use of this skill.
[A: 7 R: 7] Solution #1: Forced actions cannot remove worn artifacts.
[A: 7 R: 5] Solution #2: Forced actions cannot remove any worn items.
[A: 8 R: 5] Solution #3: Also disallow forced WEAR.
Player Comments:
---[Falaeron on 10/9 @ 02:58 writes]:
Supported.
---[Moi on 10/9 @ 03:01 writes]:
Absolutely all of these, please
---[Xenthos on 10/9 @ 03:10 writes]:
I don't see this as being a significant problem-- while we have addressed a
number of force commands, mostly they are around things that mechanically can't
be countered (such as cannibalizing away all your mana for an instance
toadcurse, for example). However, discussion does show interest in looking into
this, so my alternate solution 4 would be to instead go with an adjustment to
Fist Sigils. An item with a Fist sigil attached to it cannot be forced to be
removed. This gives the desired effect while also pinning it onto a tradeskill.
Artifacts with a fist sigil would obviously never lose the fist sigil (since
they never decay), but it doesn't wipe the option entirely across the board. I
will note that this doesn't actually impact the "wear"ing end of things at all,
though. If there's a desire to actually disable that as well, then a flat
removal of both wear and remove domination is probably the only option.
---[Xenthos on 10/9 @ 03:11 writes]:
In summary: Solution 1 would be better as the Fist Sigil idea, then Solutions 2
& 3 should be combined. Determine which way we want to go with it. Tweaking
artifacts, or adjust the system in general to flatly account for people dressing
& undressing you.
---[Kaimanahi on 10/9 @ 03:17 writes]:
There is no point in creating a solution that essentially inconveniences players
having to maintain fist sigils on their clothing, when you can just remove the
source of the problem. There is no rationale why the applicable classes should
be able to do this.
---[Kaimanahi on 10/9 @ 03:20 sets as pending]
---[Xenthos on 10/9 @ 03:26 writes]:
Artifacts require no "maintenance" of fist sigils, because artifacts do not
decay. That isn't a problem at all. If you rune your clothing, the same thing
applies, in fact. Hence my pointing out a disconnect between your two sets of
solutions. Solution 1 addresses only artifacts, and if we're going to just do
that, then make it work via fist sigils. Use the in-game economy we've got.
Solutions 2 and 3 are reworking the system to address a broader goal (including
clothing-in-general), and should basically be treated as the same solution imo.
If you're going to remove wearing things, then you have to remove removing as
well, and there's not really a good mechanical system aside from just outright
removing it from the Force system to accomplish that.
---[Xenthos on 10/9 @ 03:31 writes]:
Another viable option would be to just delete Solution 1 entirely and keep 2 and
3, which excises the disconnect (and focuses your report entirely around the
clothing system as it exists, instead of having an artifact cutout which doesn't
address where you seem to be going with it based on Sols 2 & 3).
---[Xenthos on 10/9 @ 03:51 writes]:
One last thought (having logged off and then deciding I wanted to be more clear
on this): The argument that force commands can strip artifact buffs and effects
is a problem is not a compelling one to me. I feel that is exactly what force
commands are meant to do (one of the things, anyways), hence my distaste for
solution 1 (and the bulk of the problem statement as it currently exists).
However, in the discussion the broader concern of people being able to force you
into (or out of) clothing sets in general was brought up and I find this to be a
much more compelling argument for consideration, which is why I'm willing to
support sols 2 and 3. Making a change for artifacts, and artifacts alone, does
nothing for this-- it is intended only to keep mechanical advantages without
having any counter to them at all.
---[Kaimanahi on 10/9 @ 18:06 writes]:
You shouldn't be able to negate the effects of an artifact (i.e., buffs that are
worth hundreds of credits) with a forced action. In my case, I was given alcohol
withdrawal just because I unknowingly removed the Charm of Clangoru mid-combat,
resulting in a -5/-10 debuff to all of my vitals. There is no protection against
this, and there is no sensible way to trigger putting all of your removed items
back on.
---[Kaimanahi on 10/9 @ 18:09 writes]:
If anyone actually supports Xenthos' fist sigil proposal, then I'll amend the
solutions, but everyone else in the conversation (including verbal confirmations
outside of the current report comments) favours removing this capacity from
forced actions altogether. Supposedly if this gets wide support, the report will
just be implemented, so please comment either way so we can perhaps use this
slot for something else.
---[Tarken on 10/9 @ 18:10 writes]:
I'm fine with it being removed, its trivial to counter with gmcp and I'm
generally against anything that increases the scripting buyin randomly.
---[Crek on 10/9 @ 19:43 writes]:
Not really fond of either solution though I certainly see why this is annoying.
Removing items can be a valid tactic (not the best examples but whatever:
dreamweaver druid inducing removal of cleanse enchantment to help stick
sap/pookaing removal of cement socks to reduce rooting) and proposed solutions
would give complete immunity to attempts. Instead why not just make Clangoru
charm (since this is the thing Kaimanahi was originally discussing over Envoys
channel anyway) impossible to remove unless masochistic or have the charm work
worn and unworn.
---[Falaeron on 10/9 @ 21:05 writes]:
@Crek: And what happens the next time someone finds a way to abuse forced
artifact removal to get a big advantage? We make another report to add that to
the list of exceptions? Just make it all artifacts.
---[Xenthos on 10/9 @ 21:33 writes]:
As I said, I'm against the change just addressing the removal of artifacts by
fiat. Either the problem is people being able to interfere with your dignity
(via dressing / undressing / cursed items etc), or the issue is just someone
using mechanics to counter other mechanics (which is good gameplay). I see
absolutely no problem with someone being able to undo credit-buffs because
they're not -destroying- your artifact, just temporarily disabling it (and you
have the ability to turn it back on immediately, too). The clangorum charm is
essentially an odd-one-out in that it counters a debuff on yourself, so removing
it applies that debuff-- other artifacts are self-buffs and removing them just
puts you back on a status-quo level as everyone else who does not own the
artifact in the first place. Please consider: Is this report trying to address
artifact removal, or the clothing dignity and self-control issue? If the
latter, I don't see the point of solution 1 at all. If the former, what are the
other solutions doing in the report? I really do consider these to be two
entirely separate problem / solution sets and one of them (as I stated earlier)
I actually do have a great deal of sympathy for once it was brought up in the
discussion... but I'd really like to see this report actually pick one and go
with it. (Also on a purely meta level I'm not entirely sure why you don't just
go "Okay, yes, this report is about removing clothing, let's adjust it to that
and make Xenthos shut up and unconditionally support it" :p)
---[Minkahmet on 10/9 @ 23:11 writes]:
I am in agreement to all three solutions suggested
---[Anelissa on 10/10 @ 10:24 writes]:
I don't really feel either way for forced commands on artifacts/armor. I
honestly think using forcedcommands in this manner is good strategy, and it is
very easily countered with some coding, but I can see how using forced commands
on certain artifacts can cause a problem (like with the drinking arti mentioned
previously.) I kind of side with Xenthos on this. First, I don't really feel all
the solutions presented really solve the problem statement given. Solution 1
just gives another buff to investing in artis and doesn't cover aspects in the
problem statement (armor, buffs in the form of enchants, etc). Sol 2 probably
covers most bases, and if I had to choose one, that would likely be it. Sol 3 is
just an addition that isn't even addressed in the problem statement (as that
covers forced removal only), so I'm not even sure why you want me to support
removing forced wear. In the end, I don't really think this is something that
needs to be changed as it removes a valid strategy from forcedcommands, but if I
had to choose an option, it would be sol2 out of the given solutions (forced
actions cannot remove any worn items.)
---[Veyils on 10/10 @ 18:28 writes]:
On review I'm basically indifferent to this going through or not. I'd be happy
either way if it stays or goes. If forced removal/wearing is or isn't wanted by
the admin either works for me. I'll just let the admin pick. I was under the
impression that this would be a hard thing to trigger at first and I'm not that
good with coding but Tarken threw together a simple trigger for me in a few
ticks that counters any removal by rewearing the specific item removed(was
apparently much easier to do than I thought). So practically folks can counter
this easily so forcing unwear becomes a wasted command on anyone prepared for
it. If we want to remove this trigger requirement to make combat easier for
newbies to get into though that seems like a logical reason for me to support
removal of forced unwearing. On the other side I do see the argument Anelissa
and Xenthos are putting forwards as well in terms have having additional tactics
and opportunities. So I've said my piece beyond that I'm just going to abstain
on the vote as either way works for me and I can see benefits to both sides of
this.
---[Danquik on 10/12 @ 19:39 writes]:
I don't see this as needed. You can easily code to rewear items and using forced
commands to get around artifacts seems to me a valid tactic. As pointed out, you
are not losing the artifact, just the benefit for a short time, shorter if you
take the 2 minutes to make a trigger.
---[Moi on 10/18 @ 21:53 writes]:
Danquik: Reducing mandatory system overhead is good for the game, because it
lowers the entry bar to combat.
---[Falaeron on 10/18 @ 23:07 writes]:
If's really so easy to code around then I don't really understand the argument
against this change.
---[Ixion on 10/21 @ 01:27 writes]:
Solution 2 only- concur with Tarken's assessment
---[Ejderha on 10/21 @ 04:10 writes]:
I am supporting all 3 solutions. I don't find forced unwearing to be
particularly inventive or desirable game play, and it is compounded by the
ubiquity of artifact runes (one item might be itself an artifact and also have
10 artifacts attached to it). I also buy the 'no reason to increase coding
overhead unnecessarily' argument.
---[Danquik on 10/28 @ 01:56 writes]:
@Moi reducing overhead is good. Babysitting in every aspect of the game is not.
@Faelaron just because something is trivial to code does not mean someone does
it, nor does it automatically mean that something should be removed because it
can be coded against. It is still a valid tactic to sue.