Now that I think we have figured out the reasons for massive spell distraction, I have a suggestion.

Taking into account the massive public opinion on bards playability, let's increase the GoM threshold for bard distraction anti-gank code from 2 to 3 due to the inherent nature of bards PK.

That would be quite fair, I think. Shouldn't require much coding.

P.S. Sorry Venara, we were too late.

>Taking into account the massive public opinion on bards
>playability, let's increase the GoM threshold for bard
>distraction anti-gank code from 2 to 3 due to the inherent
>nature of bards PK.

This wouldn't even make a difference for the character in question.

But I didn't know I was THAT good.

So basicly it's about GoM numbers?

I have no idea what it's based on, I'm merely saying that for your adjustment, worrying about a 3 GoM vs 2 GoM doesn't even make a difference.

Screw the guy who rolled solely for ganking, I'm sure if he's smart enough, he'll do his part of lowbie solo kills gathering next time.

I'm talking about general bard playability, which I think will be better with the proposed change.

Or, when ganking, he could use edges roundhouse which is superior to songs if your gank partner can also lag.

I would appreciate it.

Glikhardiz needs help badly!

I remember you being upset about not being able to take 30 edges.

For the record, I've got three so far, and I'm not going to take Tavern Brawler as my next, if I even get to.

I didn't take the roundhouse edge because I didn't gank that much.

However, I've been ganked by round housing bards a few times and the edged ones were much more lethal.

The only key edges, imho, are feign weakness and the one to boost songs vs high int chars. The rest are nice but not that critical.

I say screw the guy.

Bard's shouldn't get penalized in a battle based on how previous battles were fought. Why? Because you just took away the incentive for them to try and not gank in their next battle. They are going to hit the distraction nerf if they fight you 1v1 or 3v1, so they will go 3v1. If they could avoid distraction every battle by not making it non-ganky, they have a real-time incentive to try and solo the fight.

An analogy: If a ranger for some reason spends too much time out of the wilderness and gets a laggy creep (and whatever else), he will make an effort to correct that and be more attentive to where he travels in the future. But, what if you could never correct that and your penalty(s) were permanent? It would NOT encourage you to change your behavior and in fact would temp many to delete and re-roll (or worse, delete and not re-roll).

Which is dynamic.

You could have a GOM of ten, your songs will still never trigger anti ganging in a one v one.
A 1 v 1 lowers their GOM if they succeed, so they have an incentive to try and land solo kills as opposed to exclusively ganging.

Being an effective solo killer will make them a more effective ganger as well.

True, 1v1 is still being encouraged with this code. I should have said that anything above 2v1.

I just hate when characters can't develop and are nerfed for life.

To Kas comment...what does dynamic GOM mean as opposed to a static GOM?

So a character is not gimped for life with GoM.

At least that's my understanding of the code in place.

It's penalizing a character whose sole purpose appears to be to support a powerhouse character in ganging. And, yet, he isn't totally powerless. He's just offensively neutered. He can still offer support songs in those fights.

No offense to the player, but, it's justifying to me that a true gank character gets clipped like this.

I think the edges argument is relevant but not strong for making bards more playable 1 v 1. The edge that stands out the most to me for this and that is super expensive is swashbuckler for the humans and halfies. You have to be able to survive melee to go one on one. And going one on one as a bard is a finesse game. It takes awhile and you need to get the opponent to commit. While getting your ass-kicked in melee is a good way to get the opponent to commit it doesn't leave you much opportunity to turn the tables.

Do you know what really screws bards? High int classes are harder for bards to fight. And there are more since people tend to play dexy melee classes. Add resist mental preps on that and it's a tough go for bards. Edges are second to this in my opinion.

Zannon says it's been there for years, and I've been listening to how bards suck for the whole time I'm playing CF.

This here might totally be one of the reasons.

Which was before the pwipe back in Ahtiehli days.

The bards suck is a culmination of a few things.
- Fiend and distortion becoming less effective. I can't believe these have not been tweaked downward in the past 7 years given how awful they are now.
- Far more resist mental gear, wider knowledge of easy resist mental preps
- CF playerbase reduction reduces a bard's general appeal in the environment where solo killing is more likely the scenario for PKs. Bards have always sucked in solo PK sealing, I'd argue only healers are worse.
- Reduction of edges is quite huge actually. An unedged bard compared to one with 10 is entirely different.
- Removal of mental vulns from giants.
- Removal of tail of the lizard scrolls, though to be fair I never once used them. Fangs of the serpent were pretty pimp though.

I've actually never considered the distracted from performances aspect from excessive ganking to be a reason why bards suck. Anti gank code has saved me from more than a few horrible deaths.

USELESS.

And that's with the super happy fun-time harp.

Like, literally useless. I think the song was at 88% or so, and 60% of the time they dark-elves etc I was singing it at weren't even affected.

A couple other times they killed the fiend in literally 2 rounds.

Only strong fiend I ever landed was on a goodie who wasn't part of my group

Since there is an edge for this too and it makes a big difference.

is Umiron Hatred.

Bard playability is perfectly fine even with the occasional song distractions.

I don't have sympathy for the bard dog piling on a target being less effective, and I've ganged the ever living hell out of people over the years.

In the group fight scenarios, people need to be smarter about who they target to avoid the mechanic. If you want to run around in a group of three slaughtering lone people, I would want the lone guy to have a shot instead of being perma lagged and direct damaged into oblivion with no chance of survival.

While I hate the notion of players pointing to a bard's GOM to say they are sissies or can't fight (because they have no idea about bards and their PK strengths and weaknesses) my years of experience lead me to believe bards are still pretty good in most situations. They just aren't amazing in any one situation.

If it was actually broken, I wouldn't have played so many bards.

The real strength of a bard to steam roll is having one competent ally to work with that compliments the bard.
Allysia and Argorok was my favorite all time death train to unleash on people.

When you have situations like:

#PK <51 Svirf War> Grembolin killed by Kromps, Chunun, Silvyr, Zagaer, Valeriah, Cracatua, Glikhardiz #CarrionFields #rpg

Which was not a 7 on 1 fight but a 6 on 5?

Of all the people involved, the only one screwed by this was the bard.

So I think it's reasonable to either remove assists from calculation or up the threshold.

All 7 of those people now have a 7 v 1 in their gank rating.
The gank penalty impacts everyone, not just bards. A warrior with a GOM with 2.5 will likely not find openings for skills when ganging more often than a warrior with a 1.5 GOM.

There has always been a flaw in group battles as it relates to GOM in that the size of Grembolin's group is never displayed or considered.
It also disregards facts such as when you die in an unrelated encounter that takes place before your adrenaline wears off from the initial.

I don't think the GOM is accurate, or that it should be tied to any mechanical functions of the game because of it's failures as it relates to cabal raids (I'd say this is the majority of group on group fights).

Gank protection can be a static thing and how often you have ganged should have no impact on ability to gang. Honestly, someone that has ganged a lot would be better at it, not worse.

Basically I'd like it to work out that you're unlikely to be hit by 2 commands against you from 2 sources, but will be hit at a rate higher than 1.
2 v 1 Commands have 90% success rate
3 v 1 Commands have 60% success rate
4 v 1 Commands have 40% success rate
anything greater have 20% success rate.
Number of melee attacks should equally diminish.

nt

Look at the log I posted on QHCF. Warriors are definitely impacted by anti-gang code.
Three warriors all targeting a person can fail to find openings to use skills on a single target.
Anti gank protection is not limited to AOE, I'm not sure why people think that.
They may be different echoes, but they are the same mechanic.

Warriors may be less likely to have higher GOMs due to lack of AOE, but that would be the only difference.

>Warriors may be less likely to have higher GOMs due to lack of
>AOE, but that would be the only difference.


Which effectively is the only aspect of antigank code that matters in 2 on 1. So long story short, it seems that the only class that is impacted by 2 on 1 anti-gank code is bards.

Which is why I propose raising the threshold specifically for them.

>Three warriors all targeting a person can fail to find openings to use skills on a single target.
>Three warriors all targeting a person
>Three warriors
>Three

We are talking about 2 vs 1.
If you look at Zagaer's logs you will see that he fights 2 vs 1 and direct skills aren't affected but AOE songs are.

In a 3 vs 1 everything is going to be affected no matter the gank-o-meters involved.

How was that not a 6 on 1 fight? And how was the bard the only one screwed? I reckon I got screwed pretty bad in that fight

You're a rager -- getting screwed is your job. Refer to Jalim for your manual if you have difficulties getting screwed.

n/t

It does not hurt me to see ragers die 1vs7. On the contrary, it makes me happy.

EDIT: I kinda like your character, but you can't expect me to just do a heel-face turn and start talking as if I actually care about a rager. Please die to ganks some more. And kill imperials, I hate them too.

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=127609&mesg_id=127665

We all know about your passionate hatred for Ragers. I'm just giving you a hard time myself. I have shared that hatred over several characters. I think it's time for Murphy to play a rager

by how often you die

Silvyr was on your side but hit by thirst, there was also Oxias and Panitorop and someone else.

It was a group battle.

Ahh, been a whole lot of those big group battles lately. I think Oxias posted that log, and so you are right.

In addition, I'd also like it if you 2v1 someone and they are not directly hitting you there could be say a 25% chance that your skills hit your groupmate instead of your target (being that your groupmate is in the way of melee) - that'd be slick!

Deathblow should be enough to address that issue

When you have a "team" rolling 4-5 deep with an out of range (safe) healer spamming sanc/heal on them - and a total of 12 people online it doesn't do wonders for the "funstick" of everyone else

Anti-gank code is not going to suddenly make it possible for you to fight a 4-5 team with an OOR healer.

#1 I'd make it so healers can only heal folks in their PK range - under the condition that the target of the healing is involved in PK or has adrenaline timer.

#2 I'd beef up anti-gank code. And instead of just evasion I'd make abilities randomly hit different people as to represent true chaotic battle. Wherein you could gank, but it's dangerous instead of "iconvenient"

#3 I'd re-instate some form of PK edge reward to encourage solo hunting over group ganking. What I've noticed is the reversion back to people powering to hero simply to pad #'s via ganks.

#4 I'd instate some sort of incentive for overcoming a gank (e.g. you beat people 1v2 you get some nifty little benefit beyond their loot).

Basically, some mechanics to make ganking not as appealing, while making competitive PK more appealing.

Got to say, a number of groups of late had remarkably synergistic make ups.

Why were my groups always lacking a tank or any support classes? And yet groups now have healing for all, dam redux for all, and during the imperial horde days I remember, a muter and Invoker too.