Report 1758

Report #1758
Skillset: Skill: Lust
 Org: Hallifax Status: Rejected Oct 2017
Furies' Decision:
We will not be doing this at this time
Problem: Lust forcibly adds someone to a target's ally list, and when rejecting
or a lust being overrided (from going over the max of 5 lusts), it removes from
the ally list. This has a few effects. One, classes with aoe buffs or heals will
end up buffing or healing enemies that lust them as a side effect of that lust.
Lust is much costlier to remove than paranoia and also enables other skills, so
those classes are impacted more than usual. Second, you're required to manually
ALLY someone you want to keep as an ally if you're lusted to them and they get
removed from your lust list intentionally or unintentionally
[A: 2 R: 7] Solution #1: Change the lust list to be separate from the allies
 list (though still show on ALLIES output as
 'unusually strong lust for person'). Lust will no
 longer remove someone from their ALLIES, nor will it
 act as if they're allied. It will remove the luster
 from the target's ENEMY list as usual.
[A: 0 R: 7] Solution #2: Make the lust list separate, retaining both allies
 and enemies on their respective lists even after
 being lusted.
Player Comments:
---[Falaeron on 10/13 @ 02:33 sets as pending]
---[Xenthos on 10/14 @ 00:53 writes]:
Or just put them back on whatever list they were on when the lust fired (so all
mechanics stay the same, doesn't really need to be a separate list at all, just
needs to remember whether the person was an ally/enemy before the lust fired--
since you can only be lusted to up to 5 people at a time this isn't so huge I
think).
---[Veyils on 10/14 @ 17:41 writes]:
One of the downsides to using the lust potion in groups is that it messes up
these things you've mentiond. Not opposed but just want to point out that this
suggestion is a semi/minor buff to love potion.
---[Aeldra on 10/16 @ 11:39 writes]:
I agree that it's a semi buff to the love potion, but I think that if we think
that we need a downside to love potion, something less ... unwieldy as the
current behaviour would be better.
---[Xenthos on 10/16 @ 23:44 writes]:
Again voting "no" in favour of my preferred Solution 3. I'm fine with that one,
I just don't see the point in creating a lustlist.
---[Moi on 10/18 @ 21:30 writes]:
One of the major points of Lust is that it makes you count as an ally. I like
Xenthos's Sol 3, which preserves that benefit
---[Danquik on 10/19 @ 20:38 writes]:
The whole fact that you get put on someone's lust and therefore reap the
benefits of them not rejecting you is part and parcel of Lust. It's not just a
fling lust so you can empress mechanic. If any solution is to go through I would
suggest Xenthos'
---[Ejderha on 10/21 @ 03:42 writes]:
To express the thoughts of part of the populace, one concern is that the affects
of lust are asymmetrical - the example given to me was Geomancer demense vs.
Aeromancer. Lust on Geomancer stops negative effects, whereas Lust on the
Aeromancer both stops the negative effects and actively heals. Now - I don't
think that statement itself warrants a change, so long as facts like these are
acknowledged in the rest of skill design and balancing, it seems unavoidable
that some effects are stronger against one opponent than another - even of the
same archetype. I'm also not entirely convinced of the efficacy and elegance of
these solutions for that problem.
---[Xenthos on 10/21 @ 17:29 writes]:
I don't actually consider that to be a problem, it's part of the design of Lust
as it currently exists (beneficial things affect your allies, including people
you are lusted to). I do think the system can be made more userfriendly to work
with but I don't really think it needs a redesign in terms of mechanical impact.