Report 1647

Report #1647
Skillset: Acrobatics Skill: Scissorflip
 Org: Nekotai Status: Completed Apr 2017
Furies' Decision:
Solutions 2 and 3.
Problem: It has come to my attention that Scissorflip stuns targets, even on
failure. This stun is 1s long. Given that scissorflip is enemy list dependant,
and doesn't count as magical movement, I believe this is too strong. This report
aims to limit the stun effect, or keep it and limit the group impact.
[A: 0 R: 4] Solution #1: Keep power cost at 5p, change the stun to a 2s
 balance loss, and ONLY apply to successful targets.
 The balance loss should not take effect if the target
 is already off balance or eq for any reason.
[A:11 R: 1] Solution #2: Change scissorflip 1s stun to 1s bal loss. Should not
 apply if the target is already off balance. Keep the
 rest of the ability the same as it is currently -
 including continuing to affect targets that fail to
 move.
[A:11 R: 0] Solution #3: In either case, change the scissorflip line on the
 target to indicate what direction they have been
 moved in (You are thrown out to the west!).
 Optionally, also have a third-person line in the room
 to indicate where people who were moved were thrown.
Player Comments:
---[Demartel on 4/2 @ 02:11 writes]:
I like the idea of solution 3, but I will have to think on it more.
---[Shedrin on 4/2 @ 03:01 writes]:
1 or 3 sounds fine. Or just remove the stun on failure. Scissorflip is quite
strong but only slightly overtuned, not majorly, I think.
---[Xenthos on 4/2 @ 04:07 writes]:
Crow squall is 1p and hits everyone in the room (no enemy list), so solution 3
is making it a more expensive Crow Squall that also stuns your allies. Why not
just have it not stun those who don't get scissorflipped? Or swap it to a
balance-loss (you're knocked off-bal for 1s when you get flipped), so it's not
impacting curing.
---[Shuyin on 4/2 @ 06:10 writes]:
I would vote removing the stun on failure. It should stun only on success
---[Falaeron on 4/2 @ 19:23 writes]:
I agree with Shuyin. Keep it the same but don't stun failures
---[Wobou on 4/3 @ 13:32 writes]:
I personally am not bothered by the 1s stun for the power cost involved, and
this is coming from a bitter psymet monk. That said I think Shuyin/Xenthos'
suggestion to restrict the stun to successful moves is a good way to go. I also
like the idea of switching it all to balance loss as Xenthos suggested because I
do think it's important that you have some way to stop people from immediately
walking back in, I think if you were to do that that there also wouldn't be a
large issue with causing bal loss on the targets that stay in the room.
---[Malarious on 4/6 @ 18:10 writes]:
Agreed with above. Make it stun on successful move only. Do not like any
suggestions present otherwise. 1 means people can walk right back in. 2 would
neuter the skill and require scripting to make it usefl. 3 would make it far too
expensive. The stun is 1s, it'd be worth 1p still. Yes, same as squall, but I am
stunning my allies still.
---[Lerad on 4/8 @ 05:03 writes]:
I've updated the solutions based on the above feedback. My preference is for
solution 1, to remove stun from the ability entirely while keeping its
functionality to prevent people walking back in immediately. If that is not
acceptable, then either limiting the amount of people it affects (sol2), or
adding a disadvantage to its use (sol3) would be the alternatives.
---[Falaeron on 4/9 @ 23:03 writes]:
I see solution 2 as being a huge buff in smaller skirmishes, as well as being
unwieldy with enemy list micromanagement similar to old static field in larger
fights. Solution 1 is ok, but is also arguably a buff as it would now stop
someone from coming back in for a guaranteed 2 seconds (or more if they were
already off bal) rather than 1 second with the current stun. Solution 3 just
encourages using it with serpent imo. Still prefer keeping it as-is but without
the stun on failed movement.
---[Shedrin on 4/10 @ 04:48 writes]:
I prefer the 1s stun over the balance loss, as balance loss inherently stacks
with itself. Which also means if you hit an entangle and writhe that'll stack,
and balance classes attacking in general get hit harder.
---[Lerad on 4/10 @ 13:35 writes]:
I've updated the solutions again, to take into account the above feedback.
Solution 1 has been changed to specify not-stacking. This change should have the
additional side effect of allowing lucky people (who have a less than 2s bal/eq
timer at the point of being flipped) to recover faster. It is still my prefered
solution, because I stuns in general simply shut down everything, and feel that
they should be less prevalent in the game in general. In return, I feel that a
2s movement prevention fits the idea of the ability more. Solution 2 is the
alternative for if stun MUST stay - since solution 3 does not seem acceptable,
then any scissorflip with stun must be limited in the scope of who it affects.
To address the concern about big skirmishes small skirmishes, the solution has
been updated to use a percentage number. This will additionally eliminate the
need to micromanage enemy lists: there's only one real way to manage it - put as
many applicable people in their enemy list as you can, end of story. As a bonus,
it becomes an ability that gets buffed by the enemy list artifact. More value
for an artifact, to drive more sales. Win/win.
---[Aeldra on 4/10 @ 13:42 writes]:
I feel am okay with the new solution 1
---[Falaeron on 4/10 @ 19:58 writes]:
5p to move 1 random person out of 3 possible enemies out of the room and give
them a 1s stun? No thanks. Making the enemy list rune even more necessary is not
a win-win situation either. Not everyone has one. Still preferring the 1s stun
on solution 1. Having all of these conditions on what effect skills will
actually give just overcomplicates things.
---[Lerad on 4/12 @ 11:42 writes]:
Good point about 5p only hitting 1 person. Stuns are strong, but not worth that.
In a way, it could limit scissorflip to an ability you DON'T use in such
scenarios, but well, I take the point that it might still be too much. As a
result, solution 2 has been scrapped. As an alternative to solution 1, instead
of 2s balance loss - since that's an extra second over the current 1s stun -
I'll use the suggestion for a 1s balance loss instead - but keep the on-fail
side effect. As I've explained multiple times, and upon further thinking on the
feedback provided, I don't think stun should be available in this ability when a
similar mechanic exists to perform the same goal - movement blocking.
---[Shuyin on 4/13 @ 07:01 writes]:
Regardless of the solution, can scissorflip's line also changed to reference
what direction you got kicked to?
---[Shedrin on 4/13 @ 16:09 writes]:
I think you're overvaluing stun and undervaluing balance loss, but it's probably
a wash in this case.
---[Lerad on 4/14 @ 00:42 writes]:
That's possible. In this case, the stun doesn't actually contribute to the
flipper's offense, because he's not hitting these targets and using stun at the
same time ot build an offense, yes. However, I feel that if it is not needed to
actually do what the ability is trying to achieve (team cohesion disruption,
movement hinder), then just remove it. Making stuns rare justifies their
strength, and their costs, in places where they are properly implemented for
combat reasons. Regarding balance loss - if it's made to not stack with existing
off-eq/off-bal, then I really don't see how I'm "undervaluing" it.
---[Shuyin on 4/16 @ 19:20 writes]:
Solution 2 and 3 only. I would have been fine just making it not stun on
failure, but hey, sure
---[Eicia on 4/17 @ 04:09 writes]:
I'm stuck between the second two solutions, but I know that I dislike that
first.