Prioritised Curing

Ieptix

Something I've discussed with the envoys a fair amount (particularly today) is the ability (and current lack thereof) to prioritize afflictions when curing. A number of ideas have come up, and I would like to see more discussion outside of the handful of envoys who just so happen to be logged in when we happen to be discussing stuff in game.

Below is a list of ideas that have come up, both from within the Havens and from players (both on the forums and in-game). I'm looking for discussion of the ideas presented below, and also for potential new ideas as well (or the introduction of any that have come up previously that I may have missed).

Nested Priorities

In this idea, the affliction cure tables are broken up into two or more sub-tables. As an arbitrary, concrete example, we'll take the mental table with Anorexia, Clumsiness, and Confusion in ST1; Addiction, Epilepsy, Hallucinations, Sensitivity in ST2; and Recklessness, Stupidity, and Paranoia in ST3. When using a cure, the subtables are checked in order: any affliction in ST1 is cured first; if nothing is cured, ST2 afflictions are cured; if still nothing is cured, then ST3 afflictions are cured. This would make it possible to bury afflictions in higher tables behind afflictions in lower tables. Concretely, using the sub-tables above, one can prevent an opponent from curing Paranoia by ensuring they've got at least one of Addiction, Anorexia, etc.

Table Narrowing

As with Nested Priorities, affliction cure tables are broken up into two or more sub-tables. As an arbitrary, concrete example, we'll use the same sub-tables as used in the Nested Priorities. In this idea, cures can either be used as they are currently, and all afflictions in the main cure table have an equal chance to be cured. However, one could also e.g. SIP SLUSH ST<n>*, where the main cure table would be replaced with the nth sub-table for that cure, so only the afflictions in that sub-table are able to be cured on that cure use, though at a small increase to cure balance time. Further, there would be a third-person message indicating which table was used, allowing for offensive affliction tracking. In the case where the user has no afflictions present in that sub-table, but still has others in the main table, there would still be nothing cured. This is more similar to the pre-Overhaul cure setup, which has smaller and more targeted affliction curing tables, though spread out across a large number of cures.

This idea could also be extended to having sets of overlapping subtables, e.g. ST4 = Anorexia, Stupidity, Recklessness; ST5 = Paranoia, Clumsiness, Recklessness. 

* If this were to be implemented, the arguments to commands would not be literally ST<n>, but instead something more descriptive.

Targeted Cures

This idea is largely identical to the Table Narrowing idea above, where the sub-tables each contain one affliction, and the union of all sub-tables is the same as the main table. For example, it would be possible to SIP LUCIDITY STUPIDITY to attempt to cure only Stupidity; if you don't have stupidity, you waste your cure balance. Restrictions on this could take several forms, including power costs, increased balance times, and cooldowns on targeted cures (perhaps on par with allheale).

Targeted Power Cures

This idea is similar to Targeted Cures, but instead of using regular cures, the affliction targeting is added to Green and Gedulah (either replacing or augmenting their current effects, perhaps with increased power/eq costs over vanilla green/gedulah), thus allowing the ability to cure specific afflictions but at a guaranteed power and equilibrium cost. For example, EVOKE GEDULAH AEON to attempt curing aeon. If the user is not afflicted with the targeted affliction, power and equilibrium are still used.

Daganev

Where does, first on, first off, fit into this?

The more I think about this, the more I think that targeted curing is a bad idea. (i.e. EVOKE GEDULAH AEON or SIP LUCIDITY STUPIDITY)

You make "sticking" an affliction harder, and you make system coding more difficult, and I'm not sure I see the benefit.

Enyalida

First on, first off isn't on the list, and it's a pretty bad idea. It would make it far too easy to stick critical affs with a never ending rain of trash affs.

I think that was the general envoy consensus: Any ability that does directly targeted curing like that (SIP LUCIDITY STUPIDITY) should have a pretty strong opportunity cost, like green/gedulah.

Altrea

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely a fan of the targeted cures idea, especially since affliction stacking is and has been a common tactic for years in game, and while randomness was bad enough, this would make that tactic (and as such, likely a couple skillsets or classes) unable to work well, especially if it's essentially free (wasted balance idea on it isn't really any use, since the only time you'll sip and it won't cure anything anyway is if illusions are used). Of the given ideas, nested priorities and targeted power cures seem to be the best for me, especially in combination.

Nested cure priorities, especially if done right, allows for the current affliction stacking tactics to be used still, removes a large part of the randomness factor that many people have complained about in cures previously, and the addition of an actual targeted cure that costs power and eq would be downright lovely as well, providing a defensive/offense tradeoff in the same way greenlocks do currently as well (if you waste all your power offensively, you won't be able to cure a lock).

Just my thoughts on it, though. Grain of salt and all that.

Daganev

Enyalida said:

First on, first off isn't on the list, and it's a pretty bad idea. It would make it far too easy to stick critical affs with a never ending rain of trash affs.

I think that was the general envoy consensus: Any ability that does directly targeted curing like that (SIP LUCIDITY STUPIDITY) should have a pretty strong opportunity cost, like green/gedulah.

So afflictions within say ST1 are cured randomly?

My problem with targeted curing, is that the strong opportunity cost means very complex logic for coding curing systems.  I don't see the point of redoing all the afflictions if curing still requires overly complex system coding.

Personally, I was excited about the idea of the overhaul because it would mean I could use the HTML5 client.  (Less loops and Ifs to go through, and more off loaded to server side stuff)  But something like targeting curing (especially if it has a power cost) makes me rethink my assumption.

Ayisdra

I personally like the idea of the targeted cures. As for the cost of this, as I don't think an increased balance time is going to hurt that much, - a few things I can think of that might work better are increased sip use (so, using a target for a cure would use, for example, 100 sips worth instead of just one.). Power is relatively easy enough to get that adding a power cost I don't think is going to be that much of an issue with most.

Enyalida

I would prefer the table narrowing implementation, with or without overlapping sub-tables. It more closely preserves some of the strategies and tactics present in the current curing system, while still simplifying the overhead. I can get into the nitty-gritty of why I believe that, but the core point is  that it will require choice, without entirely eliminating randomization.

Implementing table narrowing curing with targeted cures as a power-costing replacement for Discipline FocusMind and FocusSpirit would also be a good idea, as @Altrea pointed out. I suggest making it cost 3p and cooling down over a period. 

Synkarin

Ideally, you want something along the lines that will allow you to cure out of any situation, because it's not fun if you're stuck in a situation you can't cure out of. 

A targeted power cure gives you that, and doesn't really make it overly complex because if the cost is 3p for 1 aff (or something similiar) you'd only want to use it in dire cases when it's 100% needed, because spending that much power for an affliction that can be thrown right back on isn't worth your while.

Ieptix

Except for the nested priorities idea, these are ideas that would be available in addition to basic curing, not as replacements. Targeted curing CAN be used in complex system logic, but is not required; new players or people who engage casually in combat could still get by with basic curing; the targeted (or narrowed) curing would allow those more interested in in-depth combat to do so with a more tactical mindset. In the case of the targeted curing specifically, in either case, the costs would be non-trivial, as well, so that using them to block affliction sticking would either make it easier to stack other afflictions, or slow down your offense by consuming power or balance or equilibrium, as well.

The point of the Overhaul isn't to turn combat into a button-mashing contest; deciding when and how to dish out and cure afflictions should still require a fair amount of tactical consideration and such. Instead, we're trying to streamline the combat mechanics, e.g. by reducing the sheer number of afflictions, cures, and such that one has to deal with. In effect, dealing with combat should require less working memory, but should be non-trivial in terms of tactics and strategy.

Daganev

Synkarin said:

Ideally, you want something along the lines that will allow you to cure out of any situation, because it's not fun if you're stuck in a situation you can't cure out of. 

A targeted power cure gives you that, and doesn't really make it overly complex because if the cost is 3p for 1 aff (or something similiar) you'd only want to use it in dire cases when it's 100% needed, because spending that much power for an affliction that can be thrown right back on isn't worth your while.

I would much rather having a 3p cure that cures a random high priority affliction no matter what situation you are in.  That doesn't require a whole bunch of "if/thens" for someone to sort through.

Personally, I find the worst situation is where it's easy as a human to know what to do next, but you can't figure out how to tell the computer to do it. (Because the logic and edge cases are too complex)

Because somebody will figure out how to program it, which means you are, IMO, making a needless barrier to entry.

Daganev

Making this its own post so it doesn't get lost.


Would curing within a Tier,  be random, or first on, first off, or last on, first off?

For example, if I have Anorexia, Clumsiness, and Confusion , what order will those three be cured in?

Ieptix

That would be random. FIFO or LIFO orderings aren't really under consideration.

Daganev

Ok, then I'll put my vote for Nested Priorities, with a power cost to cure ST1 afflictions (or ST2 if you don't have ST1 etc)  no matter what other conditions or afflictions you have.

Synkarin

I don't think it'd be a needless 'barrier' at all and feel that's a poor way to phrase it. As @Ieptix said, it's not about dumbing down combat, it's about streamlining it.

Daganev

I don't see what you gain.  It will be coded. Those who buy a system with the fastest language will not notice its affect in the game.

It doesn't make combat smarter, or more streamlined.

From my perspective, the more metagaming* I have to do, the more needless barriers the game has.

* I mean that in the strict meaning of the term, doing things about the game, rather than as part of the game.  And I'm not saying that all metagaming is bad, Artisinal and Bardic contests for example, or buying credits,  are great metagaming activities... but the more that exist without a real clear benefit, the worse it is, IMO.

Saesh

I would point out that high end PKers don't usually use systems that are right out of the box, so it's not just about who buys what's system. Though I would say curing being classified as a "choice," isn't the most accurate representation because of systems. But I digress, my only strong feelings are for power cures. Which I think could be implemented along side whatever is eventually decided on.

Enyalida

You (and your system) still need to choose between multiple options, introducing opportunity cost/benefit ratios and so on. 

Like you said, advanced players do not just use a blank system, they make decisions about how it should cure. That isn't what I was talking about when I said 'choices' though, I admit.

Lerad

Any of the ideas is better than purely randomized curing that we have now.

In fact, having all of the ideas implemented would be great.

Nested tables as the default would be really nice, allowing people to just do SIP LUCIDITY and be assured it would not randomly cure in a random order that might just randomly happen to randomly screw them up. It might also then be possible to add to balance discussions the position of an affliction in the tables - if an affliction is said to be very strong, it could be tweaked by being added to the next higher table as well, in order to blunt its effects by making it more difficult to stick etc.

Adding table-narrowing on top of that as a choice for more advanced combat would be great, as long as it comes with meaningful drawbacks. Letting your opponent see which table you tried to cure as well as lengthier cure balance are perfect as drawbacks - every second counts in affliction/cure races, and if you want more control, you should give up some speed for it, to allow your opponent to capitalize on it. One possible problem, though, is that classes then can not, and should not, have only a single strategy of sticking their core affliction - if they need to stick and affliction for their kill or as a goal, and it can get countered by table-narrowing, then they should be given the tools to potentially punish their opponent for using it. If they don't have the said tools, they'll end up as being quite shafted.

More specific curing at the cost of power will be good, I think letting green/gedulah serve as that would be more than sufficient. Green/gedulah has always functioned as a lock breaker here, allowing it to be specifically targeted (and cure one instead of two afflictions) means that it serves the same purpose. Whether we want to keep vanilla green/gedulah.. well, it's nice for the newbies who just want to get rid of some afflictions while they are bashing or something, but not having double aff cure isn't too damaging.

Moi

If targeted power cures are an option, skills will be balanced around being able to Gedulah out of locks and people without Gedulah will be unable to meaningfully participate in combat. It's like the current situation with Illuminati vs people without Focus Mind. Nested priorities and targeted allheale is fine. Making allheale cost power/balance is fine. But locking basic curing requirements between a lesson wall is and always will be a terrible idea.

Enyalida

That's how it is now for lock classes?

Shuyin

Reducing green/gedulah to one specific cure for 3p is something I support for sure.

With regards to cure order, I am leaning towards Lerad's idea of a hybrid nested/narrow table system, however I think the prevalence of skills that do random affs or even RNG in general (passives that give random affs, warrior wounding, poison absorption in general, etc) makes it difficult to construct an offense to properly take advantage of the new cure order.

If we can address the randomness inherent in Lusternia, even if in small degrees as a whole, then I think Lerad's system will work just fine.

Else, I'm good with the  nested tables.

Daganev

Saesh said:

I would point out that high end PKers don't usually use systems that are right out of the box, so it's not just about who buys what's system. Though I would say curing being classified as a "choice," isn't the most accurate representation because of systems. But I digress, my only strong feelings are for power cures. Which I think could be implemented along side whatever is eventually decided on.

What strong feelings do you have about power cures and why?

I think power cures are a great idea, but I don't see why they need to be targeted.  
Tell me what I'm missing, because I see a lot of upfront complexity, and then it becomes fire and forget.

Saesh

I support converting Green/Gedulah to cure a specific afflication of the users choice for whatever decided upon power choice (3 seems to be the standard). I think power management between offense and defense is an interesting layer for dynamic combat without adding unnecessary complexity. In their current incarnation you spam it until you are out of power and hope for the best. There's no strategy behind it.

 

Additionally with the condensing of the affliction volume, more powerful afflictions take up a greater ratio of the overall affliction volume, so it could be argued that the power of afflictions in general has raised. I think having a mechanic in place to deal with this in a limited fashion without button mashing and a prayer is important to prevent powerful afflictions from becoming overly dominant.

Edit: When I mentioned "choice," earlier, I think power cures for specific afflictions are a more accurate representation of the word in our existng PK system. It's an active choice made real time to influence a current event. A system, for lack of a better phrase, is a passive choice. Rarely do you alter them real time, you generally roll with the consequences of a choice you made (or didn't know you need to make) weeks before. Adaptation always comes after the fact. Any choice made with a system was done prior to the encounter, so the "choice" between what afflictions to cure doesn't really happen in real time. To me, dynamic and intersting combat comes more from active choices made in real time rather than consequences of coding choice made weeks before. Which goes back to why I support the power cure idea above the others (which is not to say I don't like the others as well or that they can't be implemented together).

Enyalida

Of course, understanding and playing with those passive choices is what shapes and defines offensive tactics. The active choices depend on the existence of the passive choices. Basically: If the opponent isn't needing to make choices ('active' or 'passive'), you cannot force them into a tough choice or catch them out when that choice was wrong. Combat no longer revolves around reacting to your opponent's curing decisions, if they aren't making any (or if their decision is cure: yes/no?).

*Though pretending that good combatants don't make "executive decisions" and toggle their priorities around mid-combat is... pretending. Honestly, so is pretending that introducing power cures somehow will take things out of system's hands. Unlike offense, there will almost always be a 'best way' to cure a situation, especially with such a simple mechanism. 

Daganev

Saesh said:

Additionally with the condensing of the affliction volume, more powerful afflictions take up a greater ratio of the overall affliction volume, so it could be argued that the power of afflictions in general has raised. I think having a mechanic in place to deal with this in a limited fashion without button mashing and a prayer is important to prevent powerful afflictions from becoming overly dominant.

Edit: When I mentioned "choice," earlier, I think power cures for specific afflictions are a more accurate representation of the word in our existng PK system. It's an active choice made real time to influence a current event. A system, for lack of a better phrase, is a passive choice. Rarely do you alter them real time, you generally roll with the consequences of a choice you made (or didn't know you need to make) weeks before. Adaptation always comes after the fact. Any choice made with a system was done prior to the encounter, so the "choice" between what afflictions to cure doesn't really happen in real time. To me, dynamic and intersting combat comes more from active choices made in real time rather than consequences of coding choice made weeks before. Which goes back to why I support the power cure idea above the others (which is not to say I don't like the others as well or that they can't be implemented together).

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree with one of your points here.

The "power" of an affliction, as I see it, is decided by two things.  1. What it does.  2. How hard it is to get rid of it.
The more afflictions you have per cure balance, the harder it is to get rid of the powerful afflictions.  If I understand correctly the goal is to have 10 afflictions per cure balance.    Before the overhaul, I believe there was an average of 30 afflictions per cure balance. This means it is harder to "stick" an affliction, and there are less 'filler' afflictions which get ignored but possibly consume cure balance. So afflictions in general are becoming easier to cure, and thus less powerful, even if the "average affliction" is more potent in the 'What it does' category.

The part that I'm having a hard time envisioning, is the place where you are actually choosing during a fight to cure something with power or not.  It might be my own lack of creativity, but I presume the high level algorithm goes like this:
Can I cure it quickly without using power?  Yes- Cure it.  No- Then, are my current list of afflictions life threatening?  Yes- Use Power.  No- wait.
On top of this sequence which will be set by a system before a fight, there is the "panic button".  Or as you put it,  "button mashing"
In a world where you must specify an affliction to panic out of, then you will code in your system a list of afflictions which prevent you from running/healing and you will make a panic alias, to use power or any other means to get out of those afflictions as quickly as possible.  I.e. It won't prevent button mashing.

If I remember correctly, this sort of choice currently exists with INVOKE SUMMER and WRITHE, and a solution has been found and it's coded into systems.  (Only use Summer when you have X writhe levels)   So what scenario am I missing where, during a fight,  the player will be making a choice to use power or not?

Ssaliss

Since Green/Gedulah are being discussed, I just want to add one thing:

Please please please please PLEASE make them appear at Inept, or far lower than they are today (like 50-100 lessons in). Alternatively, make Green/Gedulah enchantable so that everyone can use it, no matter the lesson investment. Being told that "Well, you can't really expect to fight much" without putting 700 lessons into a skill just to get a single ability is not exactly much fun.

Saesh

@Enyalida: What I said was players do not alter the guts of their system mid combat, which I think is a fair generalization. Turning on pre existing class toggles and whatever not included in that statement. The difference here is power management, which is not usually left to systems (to my knowledge), will play a more prominent role in strategies if curing is controlled to a degree with that power, or at least influenced by that power. The choice isn't the affliction, it's the management of power over time to address the afflictions which we already have but in a more random and scenario limited degree. It's a pretty significant distinction, IMO.

 

@Daganev:I might just be speaking from my own personal experience here but the systems I used never included every possible scenario and manually interfering with it was a necessity and when to use specific defensive measures was often my own decision rather than my system's (though my systems did include automatic emergency buttons in addition). There are times when you can handle an affliction, such as aeon, for a few seconds while you cure out of it, and there are times when you get aeon'd and 3 enemies walk into the room and you don't have a few seconds to spare to cure out of it. A bit of a crude example but hopefully you get th idea. Alternatively, you can look at truehealers and how they refrain from spending offensive power so that they can use it defensively, which is a strategy of its own. Focus spirit was generally manually done when necessary by higher end combatants rather than relying on the system due to the cost/risk of using it. So they weighed their options. If an angry Wiccan is around, don't cure treebane. If no angry wiccans, cure treebane. Difficult to code that sort of thing.

You can even look at it offensively. Maybe you are a bard with your full DCC set up and you get slapped with aeon or something. You would have the option to cure it immediately and complete your finisher or risk them curing an auric while you cure out of aeon. To me, that's interesting and dynamic.

It's taking something that kind of already exists and expanding it to encompass how players integrate power/curing strategies.

Inevitably it will be automated to a degree as most things are, but what can you do. I think there's a lot of possibility there for those that don't just lean on their systems.

 

At this point I might be undermining my own point regarding choice and how it interacts with systems though, but alas, with systems being as they are, it's a complex issue! I guess we're getting kind of deep into the role systems play, the philosophy of choice and consequence, blah blah blah and a tad off topic. So I do apologize!

 

Enyalida

@Daganev It will be easier to stick high-risk afflictions in the  overhaul, even if all of these options are implemented. It has to do with cure overlapping and table narrowing in the old system, which will almost entirely go away in the new system, even if all of the presented are implemented. Running through likely cure scenarios I can tell you that if you had a chance to cure out of sap now, you essentially won't under the new system (unless you're absurdly lucky), a problem that will be lessened by the ideas presented here, but not fixed. I have no idea how to fix it, against any druid worth their salt, you'll just have to roll dice and hope.

@Saesh If power cures were implemented as a required part of 'normal' curing, instead of a method for escaping the rare affliction-lock (like they are now), active power pools should be greatly expanded to compensate. Offense already has a massive advantage over defense in combat*, causing standard defensive measures to both require sentient, in the moment input AND making defending eat up big chunks of power would make combat inordinately frustrating and one-dimensional. That's casting aside all concerns about practicality.

It also glosses over the fact that the ideas you talk about, specifically selectively choosing what affs to cure and when, are entirely gone in the current version of the overhaul. There are only four choices of action (once all the cures are in, and focus is taken out), none of which create meaningful choices involving the others. All of your examples involve isolated and special cases, involving high-level skills used as 'panic buttons', not as part of regular curing. By and large, without focus spirit or trueheal - you can still survive the majority of combat without any special skills, it just takes care and attention to what's going on, and adjustment of your curing priorities (or running away). What worries me when talking about power curing is the possibility that it replaces some core tenents of 'normal curing', instead of remaining a special tactic to consider and use or not use.

 It's taking something that already exists and twisting it into something different and not in keeping with how players actually (in my experience) use them. I don't usually use defensive skills like green because I can, but because I (at my system's advising) feel that I must. It's not a dynamic choice on my behalf, it's "Green now or you will die" or "rockclimb now, or you will die", "Serpent now or you will die", etc.

*Except for the kinds of things I talked about in the cantor-rant thread, the exception skills. Again, note that most of the standout wtf skills are NOT defensive in nature, besides trueheal. There must be a reason for that!

Daganev

I Guess without knowing how many tiers the tables have and which afflictions are in each tier, it's hard to know what will be easy and what won't be.

I think my main point about systems is as follows.
Coding and maintaining a system takes commitment. I would rather see players spending time in spars than spending time coding or finding someone who coded for them.

Even if it doesn't happen, I'd like the admin to pretend that they will be coding a server side curing system and think about if the added complexity to code that system is worth the feature being added. I think it would be harmful to the game to ignore the necessity and role of healing systems.

Malayn

Saesh said:

I support converting Green/Gedulah to cure a specific afflication of the users choice for whatever decided upon power choice (3 seems to be the standard). I think power management between offense and defense is an interesting layer for dynamic combat without adding unnecessary complexity. In their current incarnation you spam it until you are out of power and hope for the best. There's no strategy behind it.

The main concern I have with this is it assumes power economy is important.  Power economy is completely questionable and varies entirely by guild. Telekinetics are notorious for using no power, while warriors, guardians, some monks, wiccans, use heavy power.  You have both sides of the scale, so to make this always important we would need to address that matter in the process. 

The current concern I have heard IG is that the system still seems spam based at the present moment, it is about doing enough afflictions to outpace curing (as should be expected) and there is not a lot of ways to either do that or compensate. Are we aiming for afflictions having to be specifically used to stack or spam attacks like colourspray and other multi hits to get afflictions to be maintained?  

Using an earlier example of manabarbs with Nihilists, how is it intended they make that stick while also being able to capitalize on it? Since generally making use of it will conflict with maintaining it.

Those sorts of things, dont take any to be literal, but as examples of concern. 

Saesh

It's difficult to respond to people that accuse you of "glossing over the fact," or "casting aside all concern," when they didn't really pay attention to what you wrote. So...I won't! Moving on.

@Malarious: Yes, I agree! Some classes (IMO) do not use enough power. Others probably use too much. These are things that can be changed. I would like to see affliction stacks. Keep in mind cure recovery times can also be changed if they aren't really stacking effectively.