Summon has the ability to turn a good 3 v 3 or 4 v 4 group fight into a succession of 4 v 1 ganks.

However, I do think it is a useful spell/supp.

So what I'd propose is that the more people from your cabal or group in the area with you, the greater the chance that your summon spell would backfire and send you to the person you are summoning instead. e.g. something like 20% chance of backfire for each ally in the area with you.

This would prevent it being used to gang as much, but keep it useful for simply getting to an opponent for a somewhat fair fight.

SUMMON:

I read all the thread and it is like “Summon (as general ability) is overpowered. Blah blah blah. Lets nerf it.”

Let me tell you.
Summon is NOT overpowered by itself (Deathblow IS ).

But there are instances when summon will pretty much guarantee the death of the summoned victim.
Examples: summoner+gang, necro/shaman/ap+thief, summoner+imperial + centurions next room.

Here is my proposal of potential solution:
==========================================================
LAG all people (in pk of the victim) standing next to the summoner for 2 rounds.
Not just the summoner.

Result: You got summoned. You got 2 rounds to react. No more instant summon/blackjack.
==========================================================



CENTURIONS:

I do believe they need some minor adjustments.

1) Allow to call centurions on two way roads only (two exits).

Rational behind – Ever tried to walk up on intersection and block ALL traffic from ALL directions?

2) Give people small chance to flee from centurions.

Imho centurions should work more like cutoff, not entwine.


Regards,

-=NNNick=-

I really like these fix ideas, they don't actually Nerf anything,
And I'd still happily play a summoner
And I'd play an imperial *if I could stomach the cabal*

Oh and DB is definatly the single most overpowered skill in the game =)

Although I personally feel like it is more severe than the change I was proposing, but yes, the general idea was just to make summon less useful in the situation you described.

Just normal summon lag applied to the group, if anything. That would be one round, unless I'm mistaken.

I like the centurion fix, don't get me wrong. I like the two-exit only rule, and I like them only blocking roads (not into buildings like the Inn).

The Summon fix is...a bit odd. How about a one round lag on groupmates of the summoner? Everyone in the PK is, ok, well abuseable. Example - you have five summoners in one room (exaggeration, but follow with me) and one unlucky SOB. Now, those 5 summoners are going to summon and resummon each other a lot while the unlucky SOB is stuck in summon lag forever.

Doesn't sound practical and useable? Remember how people tried to abuse rescue to kill people?

It's a neat idea, just needs some tweaking.

Despite the fact that my weapons and armor are in desperate need of repair, I blow the entire king's reward on Ale and Whores!

>Just normal summon lag applied to the group, if anything. That would be one round, unless I'm mistaken.

Gangers do not need to form a group to gang you.
So lag has to apply to everybody in that room (who is in pk of the victim).

But 'normal summon lag' (how many rounds it is) is fine.


>The Summon fix is...a bit odd. How about a one round lag on
>groupmates of the summoner? Everyone in the PK is, ok, well
>abuseable. Example - you have five summoners in one room
> exaggeration, but follow with me) and one unlucky SOB. Now,
>those 5 summoners are going to summon and resummon each other
>a lot while the unlucky SOB is stuck in summon lag forever.
>
>Doesn't sound practical and useable? Remember how people tried
>to abuse rescue to kill people?

Honestly I would be laughing my ass of if something like this will ever happen.
Keep in mind all these summoners need to be in pk range of each other and the SOB.
You can make so summoning trusting person would not count.

But potential abuse noted.
How about 'normal summon lag' for the summoner and ('normal summon lag'-1 Pulse) for everybody else in the room (like trip)?
So everybody can input commands every two rounds.

-=NNNick=-

MAybe I'm wrong, but it always seemed like one round to me, if that.

Summon has been this way for years. Years. Like a decade. Actually, it was more powerful way back when in the days it could summon someone from another area.

Why now is there this screaming "summon is overpowered!" conversation?

It can't be due to a few imperials doing the summon near centurions thing, that's been done for years. Years. Every single black sect and shaman imperial did it to one extent or another. It's one of the obvious benefits and tactics of that cabal. I've used it and I've had it used against me. What's the problem now that didn't exist before?

It can't be due to the ability to summon and gang a person, that's been done for years. Years. Every single cabal has ganged and been ganged, and every single cabal has had people summoned from their inner guardian. (Even villagers. There was a brief time when the village was not cursed/nosum.) What has changed now to create this hue and cry?

It can't be due to some sudden inability to resist summon. If anything there is more save vs. spell gear now, and ways to prevent summoning, than ever before. And, as many have noted, a near infinite number of alternate paths to any area in order to let you just completely avoid a summoner if you want.

I don't understand the underlying problem here. Could someone please explain it to me?

No one is saying it is horribly overpowered. All anyone is saying is that, hmmmmm, maybe the game would be better served if summon worked this way instead.

Big difference between that and

MONGOOSE IS #######


-Larcat

"New payment options w/ Iron Realms"

They do it alot more now, There have been alot of Empire shamans and Empire thieves lately. And some seem to live on eastern, so people notice it now. Same as when a giant with insane eq and 100% flurry starts flurrying people, it has always been extremely powerful but from time to time it gets more noticed.

Thing is also, it has been such an extreme deathtrap for some classes/cabals. Even if it is not often you would survive a shaman/thief combo it is even less chance now, even for the experienced players. You cannot run to them fast and surprise them as you must pass centurions and when you are jacked there is little chance of survival.

I like the suggestion by larcat of changing centurions so they only "guard roads". And I would also like to make inner guardians no summon places, that is a whole different thing though.

I'm saying that this particular aspect of summon is "unfun". Don't bother telling me that others don't because they use it. I've heard that and I know we don't agree on this point.

However, the fact that "summon has always been powerful" doesn't (in itself) mean that summon should never be changed at any point in the future. Conjurers were more powerful in the past. Rager bloodthirst was more powerful back then. Doesn't mean that a change doesn't improve things. Hold person was more powerful back then. Hell, I dislike neuro but neuro is an improvement over hold person. Charm person was more powerful back then. These things made for boring kills (well, actually charm person allowed for inventive kills but was still fairly dull). I think summoning into a large group does the same. Sure, it is effective. Sure, it's been done for a long time. Those factors don't make it the most fun option though for either side. It may be (thought I think not) the most fun option for either side, but not because it has been used for years and not because people use it.

If we don't like ganking that much, why don't we make all lagging skills fail 80% more often when directed at someone who has just been summoned?

It seems the logic you are using, is VERY similar to the logic that seemed to be used at the very beginning of the changes to practicing.

"We don't like people thinking they have to practice, so let's make practice MUCH harder using hard-coded methods."

I disagreed with that apparent rationale, because some people had FUN practicing and getting the payoff of the "You have become better at" messages. And if they having good skills made people think they had to practice too....that's their fault...not the fault of those who liked practicing.(but, to be fair, it's changed since, what with rank gains, and other things)

You are using the same rationale. "I don't like people who gang, so let's hard code that people who try to summon into a gang will get ganged themselves often."


I just don't like that. Obviously, ganging is fun to a large portion of Cf, or it wouldn't happen as much as people claim it does. Because there are already many ways to avoid a gang, it is somewhat the gangee's fault for getting ganged if he hates gang fighting.



"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

With Odrirg, I don't have the specifics, but I probably averaged 4-7 attempts at summoning before a successful pk summon.

If they went with your "20% of the time, they get pulled to a gank themselves", then there is a good chance I would have been pulled every time.


"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

You would only getting a 20% chance of being pulled to the gang IF you had someone with you. And only 20% chance of a backfire when the summoning magic works. i.e. a failed summon can't backfire, but 1 in 5 that would otherwise be successful could if you had someone with you.

I think your solution could only make sense if summon -always- had a chance of bouncing you to them instead of vice versa.

Summon fails means no interdimension connection is made.

Summon succeeds/backfires means an interdimensional link is made, but depending on whether or not there is a backfire depends on which way matter is transferred through it.

Imperial Shaman/necro + thief. Summon to inn north of centurions and thief immediately blackjacks.

What can someone possibly do in that situation? If you're blackjacked, well, you're almost certainly dead. You could spam murder on the thief if you have detect hidden, or resist the blackjack, or quaff as soon as you're summoned. But your chances are low no matter what.

I agree, summoning and such isn't so bad, except for the utter nastiness the Empire can set up. Summonings into rooms where you're immediately attacked, and if you flee, you have about three seconds to quaff before they catch up, attack again, and then Centurions block any chance of non-casted wording.

I know that Me & Abernyte copied the old necro/thief combo's when we were getting to grips with the pk side of cf way back when.

It's 'recent' because of the centurions that make it deadlier. At least before you could try and run. Anyone can do necro/thief. Centurions + necro/thief...

Was this possible with old Empire centurions? I don't know.

Actually, things are easier for you now. In the old days you could summon someone directly to centurions. Now you can't, giving someone a chance to flee and quaff.

When you have a group, all you need to do is leave one member there spamming murder on the guy fleeing from the next room, so that you catch him before he can quaf.

See baddies sitting in the inn, step off eastern road, don't use eastern road. You are obviously familiar with the situation and danger it represents, while avoiding it can be a pain in the neck because of movement cost, there is not one place in cf that requires you to use eastern road.

It reminds me of the sylvan ganking squads, but here you have the advantage of seeing them. If they want to sit on one spot for an hour or so just waiting to gang down people in their 5 on one trap, more power to them. I'll just go about my merry way safe in the knowledge that they won't be bothering me anywhere else.

Last shaman/thief I went up against, had a trigger for people in their pk and where.

When you typed "where", they typed "where" and you were summoned. It was obviously automatic because of the speed of it and he tried summoning others while I was fighting the thief, automatically.

Now I just avoid the Eastern road, period.

Despite the fact that my weapons and armor are in desperate need of repair, I blow the entire king's reward on Ale and Whores!

I obviously have no idea who you are, or who the shaman and thief were, but it's obvious fact that you don't know whether someone else is using a trigger there. In fact I'd be willing to bet the shaman (unless you are trying to say the thief somehow summoned you) did not have a summon trigger.

I know with Brordaran (my recent shield paladin) people accused me of having a summon trigger and I did not. I never have. I'm not even sure I know how to make a summon trigger.

Frankly, I think you just got beat to the punch and unlucky. You were seen and someone got in a "co sum X" faster than you typed "c wo" or "w" or whatever. And unlucky again that the summon worked. With Brordaran I would try and summon people three or four or five ranks below me and fail repeatedly.

It's not that big of a deal, but I'm almost positive it was automatic because my groupmates who were not with me at the time and checking in, were getting summoned as fast - and he failed to summon a few times while I was fighting him.

It'd be an easy trigger to write. You do a "where" and anything with (PK) infront of it (that you haven't done already - name array) you would attempt to immediately summon.

Yeah, it's involved - either way, not that big of a deal. I haven't had trouble from that in awhile since I just avoid that road if I see any summoning-imperials about.

Despite the fact that my weapons and armor are in desperate need of repair, I blow the entire king's reward on Ale and Whores!

I prefer having a chance if you do choose to get summoned. Would you rather have a game where people stick to their sure-kill spots, or a game where anything could happen? A summon/blackjack in front of cents is (almost) a sure kill. People can certainly just stay off the eastern road, but I don't think that attitude has ever been conducive to enjoyment of the game, when Sylvans did it or today.

"Summon has the ability to turn a good 3 v 3 or 4 v 4 group fight into a succession of 4 v 1 ganks."

Yes, but it also can be used to break up a 3 on 1, if the lone person is both lucky and clever enough.

"However, I do think it is a useful spell/supp."

I do, too.

"So what I'd propose is that the more people from your cabal or group in the area with you, the greater the chance that your summon spell would backfire and send you to the person you are summoning instead. e.g. something like 20% chance of backfire for each ally in the area with you."

Having a conjurer around can interfere with summoning in more than a few significant ways. In addition, summoning already has a high failure rate, and most characters that have summoning ability also have mana concerns.

"This would prevent it being used to gang as much, but keep it useful for simply getting to an opponent for a somewhat fair fight."

Summoning can certainly be one component of a gang. However, by my observation, abilities like grouptell, CB, bash, hide, trip, sleep, bind, knockout, neuro, and blackjack are equally contributory to gang deaths.

Fair fights are up to the players. Anti-ganging code has already been put in place, and I'm not sure there is much more that can be done without sacrificing gameplay. In light of the drawbacks above, taking a few preventative measures can really ruin a summoner's day. Summoning is not as reliable as you would think for most characters.

It could still be used to break up a three on one as I've suggested it, because the chance of backfire is related to the number of people on the summoner's side. So a summoner on his own can safely summon anyone from a group of three. But a summoner in a group of three (even if not grouped -- just being in the same area) might end up sending himself the other way.

Summon is reliable enough. I play quite a lot of summoners, and have played all four summoning classes (paladin, shaman, ap, necro) at least once, and most a few times or more. If you are with a group, and spot another group, it basically allows you to gank them if they don't have their own summoner and succeed in ganking you first. Conjurers are usually not around to prevent summoning in either fashion.

I just don't see any drawbacks to what I've suggested. I know it would take some coding time, but I genuinely think it would be worth it. It's chances of backfire are directly proportional to the size of the enemy force that the summoning is being used for.

The drawback is that it reduces the effectiveness of summon. End of story. No reason for it. Nothing inherently good about what you want or inherently bad about what you are complaining of, and, in fact I'd argue that what you want is not what most people want, otherwise they would not be in groups to begin with.

There is no reason to make it harder for a group to do what it wants. There is no reason to contrive a reason to change summon.

You say that reducing the effectiveness of summon is a drawback. To who? My current (when I actually play) and last four characters (at least, since they were Baendra, Hargustin, Sossaphrin, and Thurthath) have all been summoners. Reducing the effectiveness of summoning into a large group is not a drawback imho. Not every reduction in power is a drawback. If assassinate worked 100% of the time and I suggested it shouldn't, would you say it was a drawback because it reduced the effectiveness of assassinate? Clearly not.

Why is it every time someone suggests a change everyone assumes it is complaining? I am not suffering from things being the way they are, but others are. I am suggesting this change because I believe it would make for more interesting and fun gameplay for all. Was adding the other anti-gank code a drawback because it reduced the chance of someone being permabashed?

Summon is a useful tool, but also is a tool that can generate risk free kills by gank. By all means kill by gank, but accept, as a summoner, that you will incur an element of risk to yourself if you do. The change I suggest would mean that instead of death by gank you have an increased chance of those attempting to gank finding themselves having to fend for themselves, or that two groups fight each other in a more even fight. Taking the example where the one imperial got summoned into the group of 8 (was it?) fortress members. Would it have been more fun in that situation if the use of summon had actually backfire and sent the summoners the other way because of the mismatch in numbers? I think so. It would have made a pretty interesting fight actually, instead of an 8 v 1 gank. It would have sent three summoners to the imperial at the inner, whilst the others would have had to break past the outer.

Is it more fun to have a group v group fight or a fight were one group kills each of the others one by one, even if you are on the winning side? Personally, I'd rather win without spamming summon whilst my group rips each unfortunate to pieces in turn.

"You say that reducing the effectiveness of summon is a drawback. To who?"

To all of the summoning classes, for starters. One of the main strengths of the Paladin, Shaman, AP, and Necro is the ability to summon. Shaman have it earliest, but require empowerent. AP's and Necros get it considerably later, and must work harder to reach the point where 'summon' is effective and practical for them. It is not an ability that is attained easily from a design standpoint.

If the effectiveness of 'summon' is eroded, the appeal of these classes is likewise reduced. This change would also impact the conjurer class. They will be less feared in groups, and conjurers will be less potent.

"Summon is a useful tool, but also is a tool that can generate risk free kills by gank. By all means kill by gank, but accept, as a summoner, that you will incur an element of risk to yourself if you do. The change I suggest would mean that instead of death by gank you have an increased chance of those attempting to gank finding themselves having to fend for themselves, or that two groups fight each other in a more even fight. ... Would it have been more fun in that situation if the use of summon had actually backfire and sent the summoners the other way because of the mismatch in numbers?"

I agree 100% that less ganking equals more fun. However, I think your initial solution will immediately affect balance for summoning classes and conjurers. I *might* settle for increased failure rate in groups of 3 or more - but only slightly. You'd have to convince me that the benefits of this added restriction outweigh the gameplay costs. Remember, there are already existing drawbacks to summon:

Some Drawbacks of 'Summon':
Failure Chance
Delay (lag)
High mana cost
Requires empowerment OR significant investment of time to attain
Can be negated by Conjurers
Can be negated by other preventative measures taken by the target(avoidance/combat/saves/etc)
Does not work in nosummon areas, of which there are many

"Why is it every time someone suggests a change everyone assumes it is complaining?"

I don't think you're complaining and I think you have interesting points. Any change will impact someone who plays the game, so virtually every idea will face some kind of resistance or scrutiny before undergoing more serious consideration.

>"You say that reducing the effectiveness of summon is a
>drawback. To who?"
>
>To all of the summoning classes, for starters. One of the
>main strengths of the Paladin, Shaman, AP, and Necro is the
>ability to summon. Shaman have it earliest, but require
>empowerent. AP's and Necros get it considerably later, and
>must work harder to reach the point where 'summon' is
>effective and practical for them. It is not an ability that
>is attained easily from a design standpoint.
>

Well, in my experience summon is such a useful spell that even given its cost it quickly rises to high levels of practice. At lower levels, people don't tend to gear for saves as much, so fewer summons are needed (it seems to me). At higher level, you have around 1000 mana and 50 mana per attempted summoning is very little when you won't be needing your mana to kill the summoned people (your group will do that for you).

>If the effectiveness of 'summon' is eroded, the appeal of
>these classes is likewise reduced. This change would also
>impact the conjurer class. They will be less feared in
>groups, and conjurers will be less potent.
>

I'm not convinced. The use of deny summoning immediately prevents you teleporting, wording, tesseracting. That's a pretty big handicap. I know I've killed people who used it to stop me summoning them before.

> Remember, there are already existing drawbacks to summon:
>
>Some Drawbacks of 'Summon':
>Failure Chance

Drawback, but of minimal risk to someone in a group. My own experience is that, on average, one in three summonings will succeed, but then I also improve upon that by picking on the people that have the worst saves first, once I build up a picture of that.

>Delay (lag)

1 round is of little risk much of the time. In four rounds, someone is unlikely to reach where I am on eastern, or in mountains, or in any area where rooms have similar names, such as desert, oceans (yes, submerging is an option for some, but not others).

>High mana cost

When you summon into a group, you don't need much mana for the actual fight because your group is there to rip them up with numbers.

>Requires empowerment OR significant investment of time to
>attain

No less than other skills obtained at the same level.

>Can be negated by Conjurers

With great drawbacks.

>Can be negated by other preventative measures taken by the
>target(avoidance/combat/saves/etc)

Most of which are not practical in many summoning situations. Combat, you need a mob near enough to use it. That's not the case in raids, with the result that the current summoning situation prevents defenses where people are heavily outnumbered (except in the village). It's not like in a raid you can start hitting your inner. Would it be such a bad thing to enable outnumbered people to make stands at their inner (similar to the village)?

>Does not work in nosummon areas, of which there are many
>

You take your group into one, and you can expect to get raided, obliging you to come out for rp reasons.

>"Why is it every time someone suggests a change everyone
>assumes it is complaining?"
>
>I don't think you're complaining and I think you have
>interesting points. Any change will impact someone who plays
>the game, so virtually every idea will face some kind of
>resistance or scrutiny before undergoing more serious
>consideration.

I understand that. However, as someone who plays a lot of summoners, I too will summon people into my groups. Contrary to what Graatch says, this does not mean that I consider being able to do that as good for the mud. However, I'm not about to tell groupmates that I won't do it when I have no rp reason to refuse. I just don't feel that the reduction in summon in this situation would spoil my fun, because I don't get that much enjoyment out of killing someone 3 or 4 on 1. On the other side, I'm sure it would increase the fun of the person who would have come to me if I went to them instead and they could at least have a chance to survive and/or kill me and/or flee. I just don't see summonings into large groups as adding anything to the mud. Summonings into smaller groups, sure. Summon into larger group, if nothing else, at least might force the summoner to use some preps in case they find themselves deposited by their intended victim, under what I've proposed.

>"You say that reducing the effectiveness of summon is a
>drawback. To who?"
>
>To all of the summoning classes, for starters. One of the
>main strengths of the Paladin, Shaman, AP, and Necro is the
>ability to summon. Shaman have it earliest, but require
>empowerent. AP's and Necros get it considerably later, and
>must work harder to reach the point where 'summon' is
>effective and practical for them. It is not an ability that
>is attained easily from a design standpoint.
>

Well, in my experience summon is such a useful spell that even given its cost it quickly rises to high levels of practice. At lower levels, people don't tend to gear for saves as much, so fewer summons are needed (it seems to me). At higher level, you have around 1000 mana and 50 mana per attempted summoning is very little when you won't be needing your mana to kill the summoned people (your group will do that for you).

This will then defeat much of the purpose of having a necromancer, paladin, AP, or shaman in your group. Summoning is one of the main selling points of these classes.

>This change would also
>impact the conjurer class. They will be less feared in
>groups, and conjurers will be less potent.
>

I'm not convinced. The use of deny summoning immediately prevents you teleporting, wording, tesseracting. That's a pretty big handicap. I know I've killed people who used it to stop me summoning them before.

The ability to completely negate summoning should be costly. However, you're leaving out another important point. What about 'Kaubris's Inverted Summons'? Doesn't that introduce an additional anti-ganging remedy when conjurers are present? After all, the group must now contend with the possibility of losing their summoner.

I just don't see summonings into large groups as adding anything to the mud. Summonings into smaller groups, sure. Summon into larger group, if nothing else, at least might force the summoner to use some preps in case they find themselves deposited by their intended victim, under what I've proposed.

I'm still skeptical of transporting the summoner as a solution to the ganking problem, though. Why should she be penalized for doing exactly what a summoner should be doing? Player fun? Maybe. However, we already have 'Kaubris's Inverted Summons', which maintains the utility of Conjurers and introduces that inverse-transportation risk element.

Again, much of the ganging is a function of the players. The classes and races in CF complement each other so well that group-oriented PK will always exist. Complementary abilities are what is fun about CF in the first place. It's very hard to design around that, with anti-ganging in mind.

In the wake of the anti-gang code, I might consider adjusting the success rate of summon when group members are present. But again, that's up to the design team.

For what it's worth, the game culture seems to be evolving more toward individual reliance. We have now have the PBF, public IMM comments, and the Gank-O-Meter to call out the sissies!

For what it's worth, the game culture seems to be evolving more toward individual reliance. We have now have the PBF, public IMM comments, and the Gank-O-Meter to call out the sissies!

I think this transparency of information is a better way of curbing the behavior than heavy-handed hard-coded restrictions. Given the amount of energy a lot of our players spend defending their reputation and skill on forums, I think it's safe to say these same people will feel an incentive to change their actions towards working at even odds more often.

One of the things that I've learned as a member of the staff is that a sizable fraction (*) of the 'elite' players acquired that reputation despite doing all the things they claim are "cheap" when other people do them to their characters. For example, some of the most vocal "Ganging is bad!" forum members play characters who gang the same lone newbie down 3 times in an hour, get busted for permagrouping, only show up when their range is favorable, etc. Tools like the Gank-O-Meter, PBF, PK breakdown, etc. allow the community a way to more accurately assess these sorts of claims for themselves.

(*) By no means all.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

But isn't Kaubris's inverted summons a highly limited spell? As in, you don't get it just by perfecting deny summon, but actually have to find it? Thus only the conjie players that know where it is will ever have it?

Has there ever been more than one conjie in existence with this spell at any point in time?

Maybe I'm wrong and all conjies get it, but I thought I'd heard from conjies that they didn't.

Is that a clever summoner with a trigger will get you summoned even if you just do e;where;w once, and if the thief buddy has some grey matter he'll figure out what the summoner is doing and set a trigger to jack everyone summoned.

That means every time someone enters the summoners area they'll die unless either summon or blackjack fails. My experience with summoning classes(never made it to hero) is that summon works very well against the majority of the players, since very few bother to get svs eq. And blackjack almost never misses when perfected. Most imperial players seem to have caught up on this, judging from the number of shamans and thieves in the cabal.

I don't have much problems avoiding the Bloated Whale Alehouse technically, however its boring as hell as moves take forever to regain, and if a good summoner is on even looking if he is on eastern means I suffer a substantial risk of dying.

Summon is overpowered imho. It wasn't, until the empire returned. However their demographics and cabal powers make it so.

Is it summon in general that's overpowered, or summon to this one specific room with Centurions outside it that's overpowered?

If it's just the latter, without making any promises, I hazard it's easier to fix that.

I didn't have centurions in mind at all when I made the suggestion. I just had summoning into groups, because it turns otherwise evenly matched encounters into ganks, at very little risk to the summoner's group. Centurions do make for a pretty easy trap though, that doesn't take skill to pull off if you have a group with you. All you do is stick one person next to the centurions to spam murder on the victim so that when he flees he won't quaf before the arrival of the rest of the gang.

To argue that because people do it means that it is what people want is not necessarily true.

If assassinate worked 100% of the time, people would do it. Is it what people want? No. It would spoil gameplay, but some would still play assassins and do it.

People dropped link to avoid pk. Is it what people want? No. It spoilt gameplay, but people still did it.

People pass gear between characters. Is it what people want? No. It spoilt gameplay, but people still did it.

People permagroup. Is it what people want? No. It spoils gameplay, but people still do it.

People complain about lack of raids without overwhelming numbers. Is it what people want? Not really, but people still do it.

The upshot is that people will usually do what gets them the easiest win, but that does not make what they do into what people want.

Final point. I could further take your argument and say that if holy word needed changing, people wouldn't use it because, hey, if summon_into_a_gang needed changing, people wouldn't use it. However, I won't, because I find the argument flawed, and I'm not sure how you can push for one change and oppose the other on the grounds that people use it so must want it. By all means oppose the suggestion, but not on the grounds that people must want it because they use it.

There are a host of flaws in your points which I have neither the time nor energy to respond to, but a few select ones which leap out:

You wrorte (in one of the three posts you wrote in succession) "personally, I find it more fun..." or something like that. That's the point. You personally. Other people - and a large majority or else this wouldn't be a perceived problem in the first place - obviously disagree. If they didn't want to fight that way, they wouldn't.

Comparing holy word and summon are apples and oranges, and, moreover, your point fails because I never see anyone use holy word in combat since the change requiring people to have a hand free. They aren't using it. That's why I advocated changing it, so it could once again be useful. Summon is fine as it is. Your problem is with ganging. Instead of changing something that is fine as it is, change the problem, which is that other people play differently than you. Go write essays on why ganging is bad and change peoples' opinions. Preach the value of one vs. one fighting. Play a character who doesn't gang, and who preys on those who do. Make a change yourself, don't change the spell/supplication. It's the sympton you're addressing, not the problem.

And, of course, it's not really a problem at all, I'm just writing it that way so you will understand. In reality it's just how people want it. If they are, as you say, after the easiest way to kill, then that's what they want. If they wanted it harder they wouldn't gang in the first place. Why should you engineer a contrivance to make it into something less desired by those who play it?

to realise you completely missed the most important point.

The fact that some people take advantage of something that can be done to make themselves more deadly does not in itself prove things are right, and does not necessarily improve the game.

If you didn't pick that up from examples of gear passing, infallible assassinate etc, then I give up.

You need to read what you write before you ask others to do the same.

The fact that some people take advantage of something that can be done to make themselves more deadly IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE GAME.

Wow, someone uses bash????

Do you see what you're saying? Something is effective in certain circumstances and you are complaining about it. Things exist to be effective. That's the point. If they weren't there, you'd have a game where everyone just hit one button, waited a second, and then you'd get a line telling you the random result. But it's not. This is something that can make a few people more deadly, just like every single other skill in the entire game.

As for your other examples, give me a break. Cheating? Infallible? You're just being ridiculous.

You said that because people use it then it must be fine in their eyes, and that the effectiveness cannot be to great to negate this.

The examples have one thing in common. They are things that give people an edge but are not good for the game. Giving people an edge is not necessarily good for the game. The purpose of the examples was simply to rebut your logic that if people use something they must be in favor of it, and thus it must be good for the game.

You bring up the example of bash. I did not say that giving people an edge is never good for the game. At not stage did I imply that any effective skill should be removed. I raised an issue with this specific skill, and one scenario in which I thought a change would be for the better.

If you honestly believe that:

1. A summoner makes group v group pk more fun (in aggregate) when he successfully summons individuals into a group,

2. That evenly matched, more interesting fights, are not missed out on because of summon,

3. That giving an underdog a chance to turn the tables is a bad thing

4. That raids are not partly so onesided because of summoners,

then by all means keep summon unchanged. It can still be used to split groups when your group isn't so large. It can still be used to solo pk. It can still be used with a large group. Even with a group of four you would only be slightly less more likely to fail than to succeed. With a group of three you'd still be more likely to succeed than fail. And failure isn't such a bad thing in many circumstances. As a necro or an ap, I'd quite happily settle for being sent from my group to the other guy if he's alone, much of the time.

I'm not saying that summon doesn't have a lot of good applications that add to the game (which bash does), but I'm saying that where you summon someone into a large group (one application of summon only) that it detracts from the game. That's my opinion. I think you know my reasons even if you do not understand the parallel I'm trying to draw between things that people do because it works and things that don't necessarily benefit the mud, and insist on saying that this means I'm saying that all things that work don't benefit the mud.

>You need to read what you write before you ask others to do
>the same.
>
>The fact that some people take advantage of something that can
>be done to make themselves more deadly IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF
>THE GAME.
>
>Wow, someone uses bash????
>

And yet, bash was changed so that it would not be as effective when used in a gangbang.

Daurwyn is discussing a change to another skill, summon, so that it would not be as effective when used in a gangbang.

Your example proves Daurwyn's point.

There's nothing disturbing or precendent-breaking about what Dauwryn is suggesting. Daurwyn recognizes that CF is a constantly evolving game, with skills that are periodically evaluated and changed. Even if the skills are so effective that they are used in a certain way all the time, they may still be subject to change where change may result in an even greater potential for tactics and fun. Daurwyn believes that summon has the potential for change that will result in greater tactics and fun.

Some of the most memorable fights I've seen are when a single defender holds off an attacking horde at their inner guardian. Except for the village, a summoner raiding with others often means either not bothering with a defense or dying at the outer.

What is inherently better - or "good" in your terms - about a fight with the same numbers on each side? There isn't. It's unpleasant to die whether you die to one or one hundred. And you as a player are fully aware of those that can summon you (if not, they are necromancers, shamans, paladins) and you have ways to prevent it. First of course being to not be there.

I've been on both sides, and I've moaned and groaned that no one would give me a one on one fight. But that's a point to your personal fun, not a point to what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

>What is inherently better - or "good" in your terms - about a
>fight with the same numbers on each side? There isn't. It's
>unpleasant to die whether you die to one or one hundred. And
>you as a player are fully aware of those that can summon you
> if not, they are necromancers, shamans, paladins) and you
>have ways to prevent it. First of course being to not be
>there.
>
>I've been on both sides, and I've moaned and groaned that no
>one would give me a one on one fight. But that's a point to
>your personal fun, not a point to what is 'right' or 'wrong'.


The deal is, people are complaining about the increasing rate of gang-downs in CF. Part of the reason for gang-downs and player inactivity until there are 4-5 friends to join in is because players are taking your advice, "to not be there" until they have 4 people alongside them. My theory is that people are clustering together in massive groups because of abilities like summon (particularly in raid situations) where the easiest and most reliable work around is to wait until you heavily outnumber your foe.

No one is talking about some inherent morality to game playing. They're discussing a means to alter a game so that players will have more fun and fights will occur with greater regularity that involve greater skill. Anyway, my reading of his post is that he obviously used "good" as a substitute for "fun."

"Not be there" means not be in that area. It does not mean to log off. Or to have a lowbie character check the higher range to see if you have allies.

As to the rest, it's obvious the players are having more fun this way, otherwise they wouldn't do it. If you (or anyone else, myself included) does not like it, it's incumbent on you to contrive situations where you can have the types of fights you prefer.

And yes, with many of my characters I prefer one on one fights. So I would do what I could to engineer them. The complaints I am hearing now, it seems, are from those who cannot handle the fights whether alone or in groups. I don't think it's less fun now, in that regard, because of the game. I think it's because of the players. It is entirely player driven. Requests like the one which started this thread are an attempt to make the game mechanics change to reflect a minority (if anyone) who wants to do something that the majority does not. That is so becasue if the players wanted only equal fights, they would fight that way. People would say "no" when asked to join up to hunt. People would flee if they found themselves in a gang. People would hunt other people who gang. But they don't. Because the way it is reflects player desires.

Now, if you wanted to make a way for someone to ensure a one on one fight without changing everything else, you could just advocate making force duel a universal player ability. But I don't see that happening.

All it does is give an element of risk when you try to use the supp to gang. 20% chance of backfire if you have one person with you when summoning is not a lot. 40% for a trio is not a lot. Even with 4 people waiting to gank the one it is only 60% chance of backfiring. It still has tactical uses. For example, if you use it during a raid you can get yourself inside the enemy cabal to cause a bit of chaos whilst your allies kill the outer.

I'm not trying to make all fights one on one. I'm trying to remove "risk free" gankings. Summoning to a large group is one of these tactics (because if you have many allies in the area, then even if you fail it won't matter much). By sending you the other way in that situation it simply forces those who try to use it to gank to fight alone now and then. Those who can handle that shouldn't have a problem.

The change to nightgaunts, allowing you to get carried off uninjured, was a similar change. It allowed you to put the conjurer at some risk.

If a lot of people gank, this doesn't mean that the most fun thing for them is ganking because otherwise they wouldn't do it. Some people gank, so other people gank in order to compete - ganking is easy.

Basically, players want to kill other players (not to gank necessarily). Ganking is the easiest way to do this. Make it harder, and people will fight solo more.

Are you saying that I can't handle myself in pk, whether alone or in a group?

You can't just discount that doesn't like a certain tactic as incompetant and unable to defend against it. I think Derafhac did pretty well in pk and he's not in favor of at least one application of the summon-to-group.

I personally haven't died to a summon gank ever (?)(maybe not true but I don't remember it), but I see people doing it all the time (partly to me and my groups). I suspect that anyone here enjoys a close fight that they win more than a one-sided one that they win, and enjoys a close fight that they lose more than a one-sided one that they lose. So what's wrong with making a change that helps with this? Some might even describe it as balancing things.

I understand what you're trying to do, but it doesn't seem to be a sensible effect at all. Why would Summon do that?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

The summon spell/supp bends the fabric of reality in order to bring the target to the caster, thus, if the spell backfires, the caster is instead sucked into the hole and deposited near the target.

Anything is possible.

I kinda agree with the concept, and that his solution is somewhat odd. I do think summon can make for some ugly situations though. Why not make summon affected somewhat like other anti-gank code? Instead of having lowered success for # of people attacking, make it's success rate lessen for # of PCs in group, when used against PCs? Perhaps lowered chance of success on any use, based on # of PCs in group. (Don't want NPCs used because necros would get hurt kinda bad with that)

It makes sense that it's hard to Throw someone who has two other people swinging weapons at them. Why would Summon do all these bizarre things?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Throw is something that people can see in real life. I throw somebody, it hurts, they have to get up, it's (supposedly) harder to throw someone when it's crowded (or whatever.)

Summon can follow whatever logic you want, since you're making it up anyway. If you want to say, "In Thera, summoning people bends the fabric of space so there's a chance that the magic boomerangs and sends you to them instead."

Now, saying that it could only boomerang if there were extra people with them would be a little hard to justify.

I could see some outside shot of -any- Summon backfiring that way, especially if caused by magic and not divine powers. You mess around with the dimensional boundaries near your target, something goes wrong, and it ends up being you moving, not them. Maybe in those rare instances it becomes a contest of smarts or something between you and the target, and the loser gets moved.

That would be fine, and might create some drama involved in using it. However, tacking on "This happens a lot if there are people around you, but it doesn't matter if people are around them. And, oh yeah, only PCs seem to metter, and not NPCs." smells very artificial. We might as well add things like:

You try to summon Beefchunk to where your group is standing.
A big fist appears and punches you all in the groin! OMG!

, if we were just interested in arbitrarily abusing the summoner without creating a chain of logic behind it.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

If you call it arbitrary abuse it sounds like you've already made up your mind, and that even if I did come up with something logical to explain the magical effect you would not be interested.

However, assuming this is not the case:

1. Summon connects two points in real space when successful.
2. The density of life on each side of the connection creates "pressure" at each end.
3. The natural tendancy is therefore for life to be sucked from the high pressure side to the low pressure side. Or you can think of it as a kind of spacial osmosis.
4. A mage has some capacity to resist this, and can therefore manage to summon "against the flow". However, the stronger the flow, the more likely the mage's resistance will prove insufficient and he will be carried along by it as it moves towards the low pressure end.

nt

n/t

Here's an idea: Don't do the inverse summoning thing. But make it so that with more pks around, it is more likely it doesn't work or it summons the wrong person. There are several ways you could do this and have it fit logically.

For example, when a lot of people are around, you split the chance of success with everyone present and see who comes up as the target of the spell. So if there is the summoner plus 5 others in the area, he'll have a 20% chance of the Summon spell targeting the desired target. Then you try the saves to see if he/she is actually summoned or not.

A second way might be to give it only a chance to wrongly summon people in the same room as you. The Summon magic looks for another person to summon, and those nearby are easily sucked in. Hang around too many people when you're trying to summon, and it probably won't work as you like, but it will work as usual when you are alone and there's another huge gang in the area. So if there is the summoner plus 5 others in the area, with 2 people in the same room: 33% chance per guy in room, and 33% chance of summoning correct target (assuming he fails his saves after this).

And there could be a lot of variations between, and around, these two. Maybe you have a chance of summoning anyone in the area, but a slightly better chance of summoning people near you. Maybe the spell picks off the person in the area with the worst saves, no matter where he is (this would be delightful for a necromancer, but might seem to encourage picking on newbies too much). Maybe there is a chance to summon mobs from the area.

I do think Nepenthe is right about Centurions versus Summon, but I know there has been griping about cabal defences that could be 4 versus 2 at the inner cabal guard that end up at the outer as 4 versus 1, twice, due to summoning.

Please don't mess up summon too much though. Although it is frequently used to beat down on solo people, it is also a really good tool for splitting up and fighting groups as a solo person.


Hutto, the Sleepy Nitpicker