Report 283

Report #283
Skillset: Cooking Skill: New
 Org: Serenguard Status: Rejected Oct 2009
Furies' Decision:
We do not find this to be necessary
Problem: The defense to hunger centered attacks requires that significant
quantities of food be kept in inventory. The problem is, even preserved, these
decay much more rapidly than vials, and wind up being more "random crap" laying
around your inventory, as well an unnecessary headache to upkeep.
Solution #1: Replace the removed construct skill in cooking with a new one-
 ration bars (or power bars, or whatever), which have a vial-like
 decay time associated with them naturally, and have a goodly
 number of "charges" to them before they are consumed (25+). Make
 them take a significant quantity or goods, or even a bit of power
 to make, such that their cost reflects their value.
Solution #2: Similar to the above, make some sort of food item that is able to
 be put in the rift.
Solution #3: Give an existing cure the additional ability to reduce hunger.
 This solution is least favored due to the law of unintended
 consequences.
Player Comments:
---[Nienla on 10/10 @ 16:16 writes]:
Solution #1 sounds neat, actually. I'd support that
---[Llandros on 10/11 @ 04:34 writes]:
Preserved food can last as long as protection and healing scrolls. I dont know
why a combatant wouldnt carry con or dex infused platters with them anyway. If
people cant be bothered to stay prepared then they have only themselves to
blame. Until we know how report 255 turns out, this is kinda premature
regardless.
---[Ilyarin on 10/11 @ 15:46 writes]:
I kinda like solution
---[Ilyarin on 10/11 @ 15:47 writes]:
Oops. I kinda like solution #1, although they should only offer satiation and
not be able to be imbued with con/dex buffing, IMO.
---[Llandros on 10/11 @ 21:15 writes]:
I don't want to see Lusternia get in the habit of trading creativity for
convenience especially when it is not needed. The introduction of Super-mega-
power-bars would do just that, eliminating the market for the vast majority of
the cooking skill.
---[Mirami on 10/13 @ 04:18 writes]:
I think, if this had any impact on the market, energybars would increase the
market to mid- to high-end combatants. I would suggest that the commodity cost
be higher than regular food, though, to encourage combatants to use regular
food. Solutions 1 and 2 look good.
---[Llandros on 10/13 @ 16:57 writes]:
I still think this is just a wrongheaded direction to take. Since this is the
second attack in as many months from the forests to hunger attrition, something
really only viable in Magnagorian guilds and a central aspect of the Cacophony,
making the tactic useless is not the best way to address it. If people dont like
it then offer alternatives. Nerfing it into the ground without any trade off is
the opposite of trying to find balance. Id be happy to trade it off for
something, it is unreliable and not effective in group combat. This report has
-very- real combat implications that people seem to be skipping over.
---[Nienla on 10/13 @ 23:35 writes]:
What you're failing to see, Llandros, is that Hunger attrition has been debated
for awhile now. I just don't think anyone has come around to actually offering a
solution for it until now. I support Mirami's comment on the commodity cost
being higher. If this effects Cacophony combat so drastically, which I don't
believe it does, then this will give them more room for envoys in the future.
---[Nienla on 10/13 @ 23:36 writes]:
Not to mention, your offense shouldn't wholly be based on something unavoidable
like hunger attrition.
---[Llandros on 10/14 @ 15:21 writes]:
Cacophony hunger attrition only hits people who can hear and arent captivated by
another bard. It can take 3 to 9 minutes, depending on various defenses, to come
into play (for even 3 minutes of constant exposure it requires 23 perfectly
timed blanknotes). It is completely cured by platters that can be produced for
as little as 20 to 60 gold per. Platters that can be made to last over 60 irl
days (longer than magic scrolls). What you fail to see is that lazy combatants
dont justify envoy reports just because they are the -only- group of people
hunger attrition works against.
---[Ceren on 10/15 @ 15:57 writes]:
Not so much against the idea itself, but it seems kind of redundant with the
baskets/food preservation mechanics we already have. You can combine those to
make platters last longer than scrolls, which everyone maintains without
complaint. Indeed, some people do the same for food without problems; in group
combat I can and do predict with almost complete certainty which of my enemies I
can rely on hunger for because of their neglect, a good example being Krellan.
Krellan who turns off his autosipper while bashing, Krellan who wouldn't spend
100 gold for a platter for a 300 credit wargames, and Krellan for whom I have
only manly love in my heart. We used to have something like your solution 2/3,
namely that riftable spices were usable to cure hunger, but that was seen fit to
be removed.
---[Nienla on 10/16 @ 16:16 writes]:
I'm afraid I have to state that your information is false, Llandros. From full
hunger, it took only four or five ticks to bring me down to starving to death
from Narsrim. Which is about a minute of straight ticks.
---[Llandros on 10/17 @ 05:17 writes]:
In testing with Narsrim it takes at -least- 15 ticks to make someone go from
completely full to starving to death, which puts it right around the 2.5 to 3
minutes range. At this point I am going to have to stick by my statement.
---[Xenthos on 10/18 @ 14:31 writes]:
In my opinion, Ceren, it's more because that you need to stock a "lot" of food
to use it as a cure mechanism, and it is significantly more expensive than other
foods. It's being compared to the decay time of scrolls, but you only really
need one scroll of each type at a time. The report appears to be meant to
address that by having a higher cost for a single item so you wouldn't use it
for a one-off hunger satiation, but you would have access to something with
numerous "charges" (like a scroll, as keeps getting mentioned) when you need it.
Either it's meant to be a cure, in which case it should be relatively easy to
carry around a cure (especially without getting forced to eat it all the time at
the beginning of a fight, assuming you have it outside of a container), or it's
not-- in which case, hunger attrition is flawed. Pick one, please.
---[Llandros on 10/19 @ 15:21 writes]:
Hunger attrition was envoyed and we are still awaiting a decision. This report
is an end run around fairness and balance. Hunger attrition only works on the
lazy or ignorant. This report effectively kills it while offering nothing in
return. Necroscream is based on plagues and hunger. We have the best buff songs
and the tankyest spec build to keep us going to pull it off and one of our 5
plagues deals with hunger as well. You are trying to trash a signature element
of a guild and telling them they can envoy a replacement later. This report is
out of line and a waste of time until report 255 comes out and we can see what,
if any, steps should be taken by those who find carrying food with them to be
debilitating and game breaking.
---[Nienla on 10/22 @ 15:03 writes]:
Hunger attrition was -not- envoyed. The unconscienceness effect was envoyed, and
is 'guaranteed to be approved' according to you. Hunger attrition and exhaustion
attrition are one of the biggest issues in combat as of right now, and I believe
this report does well in addressing them. What you could envoy is that one of
your song effects lessens the effect that these items have on curing hunger, or
perhaps neutralizes it sometimes like a stupidity effect and I'd be fine with
that.
---[Llandros on 10/22 @ 18:35 writes]:
I offered up several compromises in report 255 when people brought up their
objections. Because of that I don't know how it will turn and until I know
exactly how that report comes down I not going to simply sit by while people
take swipes at a theoretical situation that could negatively impact my guild,
nor will I volunteer to go a month without an important aspect of our offensive
abilities.
---[Akui on 10/30 @ 12:35 writes]:
Llandros, you first say it doesnt matter, that prepared combatants cure hunger
easily. Then youre calling it an endrun around balance and name calling. Youre
not even making a consistent argument here. Heres the secret- this report
doesnt impact 255 at all. This report doesnt change the core of hunger
attrition balance, at all. This report doesnt impact abilities that stop
eating, at all. This report doesnt nerf abilities that cause hunger, at all.
This report, is pure and simple, about streamlining the acquisition of a cure to
a certain kind of attack. Were all about streamlining recently, and this fits
the bill. Its a report that reduces pointless tedium. It literally cant impact
hunger attrition balance, because it isnt attempting to change any mechanic
regarding the cure itself. It makes it more straightforward (not even less
costly) to obtain a cure for a certain type of attack.
---[Llandros on 10/30 @ 17:00 writes]:
Akui, your statements are disappointingly inaccurate. Being prepared is not
difficult but making being prepared -completely- effortless with 25 meal power
bars or rift-able food makes the tactic pointless. Getting gold is not difficult
and is not a realistic barrier.
---[Akui on 10/31 @ 02:15 writes]:
Which, if true, inherently means that this change cannot be "an endrun around
balance". Solution 1 is streamlining, making a cure easier to obtain and keep,
without impacting skills associated with hunger. Which is exactly what we want.
---[Nienla on 10/31 @ 16:15 writes]:
Agree with Akui's comments, both of them
---[Llandros on 10/31 @ 23:10 writes]:
Akui, your arguments are like saying reducing the eq on cleanse isn't a nerf to
sap or ectoplasm. Boosting the cure diminishes the ailment. Why is that
confusing you? This is an end run exactly because of that claim and that nothing
is being offered to balance it out. You do not like hunger so you attack it from
the rear and claim the high road. Thanks, but no thanks.