Upcoming Debating Rework

FuriesFuries Member Posts: 3 Inept
Debating is described as a non-violent means of conflict with other players but we have heard many complaints about the system. Three in particular come up very often: 1) it is not possible to compete against players who are mechanically stronger, 2) it is not possible to make someone engage in a debate with you if they are not interested, and 3) it is just a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors with little player agency. These essentially boil down to "there is no point". As such, we are looking to rework debating entirely, changing both how the core mechanics work as well as how they currently fit into revolts, particularly when peaced. While nothing has been set in stone yet, we wanted to present our ideas to you to give you a chance to give us some feedback before we implement them.

The goals we have for this rework are:
* Make it more fun: Ultimately there is no point in spending resources on a mechanic if we don't try to make it fun and engaging for players.
* Make it more strategic: At the highest levels we want to give players more variation in what they can do.
* Keep it simple: At the same time, we recognise that one of the strengths of debating is that it is easy to get into and we want to keep it that way.
* Make it viable in peaced revolts: We understand that peaced revolts are rarely fun, with divert spam being the biggest source of conflict. We want to move the focus back towards debating.
* Level the playing field: We want to remove the advantages players who have particular classes, artifacts, or buffs currently have, so everyone can feel like they can compete.

Let's start with some of the more significant changes. Firstly, ego will no longer be the vital associated with debating. Instead, debates will feature a new resource, named "flair" for now. Everyone will start with the same maximum flair at the beginning of debates, and the goal is to get the other person to 0 flair first. With how debating works, with attacks growing stronger over time, it quickly devolves into a battle of attrition to see who can first get more lucky streaks, and second who can endure the most streaks. This gives people with a larger maximum ego and ego regeneration a significant, and potentially even insurmountable advantage in debates. By divorcing ego from debates, we will be able to start from a clean slate and ensure that players can't get significant advantages just by virtue of stacking buffs or having certain skills like Laetitia or Roulade.

Everything related to debating will be moved to its own skillset. Instead of spending lessons to learn this skillset, players will be able to "practise" and earn progress through the skillset by taking part in debates. There will likely be some limit to how quickly someone can advance through the skillset. While unlocking more skills will give players more options, as much as possible we want to try to limit them as just that; options. Instead, most of the skills needed to compete will be available either from the start or very early on. We are also exploring the option of having some skills be "perks", things players can choose between to give themselves certain benefits, allowing different players to choose between different styles. For example, one player may choose to go with stronger attacks, while another may want to be more tanky and start with a higher maximum flair.

Running from debates will now automatically count as losses. To begin a debate, a player must challenge another player in their room. That room is then marked as the debate room and after 5 seconds, if one player is not in the room then the other player will be declared the winner. All debating skills can only be used on a person a player is currently in a debate with. This means no more spamming fasttalks on other people. We will be reducing the shattered ego timer significantly, and are considering also applying the timer to the winner as well. Instead, in revolts winning a debate against a member of another organisation who is contesting the village will give points towards winning the revolt. We'll be implementing measures to prevent gaming by throwing debates to allies here, but the idea is people can choose to debate or influence, and if it's highly contested it'll probably require a combination of both to win. Outside of revolts, we may even remove the timer entirely to encourage people to try it out more.

As for the actual debating mechanics, to prevent stalling mindsets can only be changed in the same command as attacks. If someone wants to change mindsets, they will need to try to attack too. There will be a handful of new attacks and mindsets, with some that have a cooldown or can only be used a certain number of times per debate. For example, there might be an attack that will do the same amount of damage regardless of the opponent's mindset, or another one that restores a small amount of flair.

Attitudes will continue to act as passive boosts to attacks or mindsets, but we are considering adding tiers to them, with the higher levels conferring a malus in another area as well. On the other hand, fasttalk afflictions will become incurable, instead staying effective on a player for a certain amount of attacks. A maximum of one fasttalk affliction can be active on a player at any time, but this should make them more viable to use beyond just spamming them to overrun the focus enchantment balance.

All in all, we believe this will lead to a more engaging mechanic for all of you to participate in, and also gives us a good base to integrate debating into other aspects of the game.

Comments

  • UzrielUzriel Member Posts: 200 Virtuoso
    Looks interesting!

    Some comments I would have about the system though that would need to be considered are below.

    1. How would orgs be able to help allies in revolts in this system? Currently allies can debate members of the other orgs to shatter them or can sit and monitor denizens for when they shuffle. If all debating gives points to an org then that makes debating to shatter enemies counterproductive to helping an ally. Additionally if they are sitting to watch a denizen, that also just leaves them open for being debated which they can't leave and the same consequence. In both situations allies would be getting points themselves or if they lose debates giving them to enemies.

    2. Being instantly declared part of a debate and leaving being an immediate loss is something I'm very iffy on. Somebody can just spam the debate command while you're running around and you lose the debate. I think there should be some time to leave after they attempt to initiate it, but before the debate actually starts. This would put it on the initiator to catch somebody for a debate while they are influencing.

    3. If somebody doesn't have a debating system they might be actively hurting their org by being present in the revolt. As in point 1, if you lose a debate you are costing your org progress. As it is even newbies can come along and feel like they helped by watching or trying to influence regular villagers. If they get debated out no loss. Under this system they would be giving points to the other side.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,017 Transcendent
    I have many of the same thoughts as Uzriel.  I don't think we should aim for a system that encourages us to tell less skilled people that if they participate they are undermining us and that the best way they can help is to stay away.  I also think that there DOES need to be some form of an opt-out (like you can sanctuary to opt out of the fight temporarily); as currently proposed there is "do this new mechanic or auto lose" which does not sound appealing.  You should want to do it because it is of benefit, not be forced upon you.
    So, some tweaks:
    1) Rethink the whole "auto lose" part; if someone never engages in the debate, there was never really a debate in the first place after all, it was just a one-party soapbox.  But you CAN do things like: if engaged in a debate, experience a village influencing malus, or take a 25% penalty to the village sway points when influencing villagers, or some similar sort of downside.  Essentially, you are still progressing your org's goals if you ignore the system, but you are less effective (still better than enemies getting the influence though!).
    2) Instead of giving raw points for winning debates, have a counter that ticks up for npcs influenced / debates won.  This counter is used as a comparison for who is seen as being successful in swaying the village.  This can be used for additional things.
    3) For example: track the initiator of a debate challenge.  If the initiator has a higher influence weight for this revolt cycle than the target (eg a newbie), they get no additional bonuses.  If they win, the target is blocked from influencing/debating for a bit, that's it.  If the initiator is lower, or if the initiator loses, the winner of the debate gets a bonus for a bit (or until they lose a debate) towards swaying the village.
    I would see the intended goal here as being a system that is useful for its base purpose (blocking the target from influencing) with additional perks and incentives to make it appealing to engage in it, without it being a requirement to do so.  If you opt not to, you are less effective in your efforts.
    Obviously you'd still have to do something to prevent gaming it with friends, but that was already part of the original solution too.
    I am interested in seeing the actual mechanics of the new debating style in more detail, it sounds like it could be fun!  I would have to actually see that proposal fleshed out a bit to comment further on it.  These are just my thoughts on the actual village revolt aspect.
    image
  • LlaniLlani Member Posts: 9 Inept
    edited March 17
    If there's only a malus for running from a debate, it should stack the more often you run until you're entirely ineffectual. While it would not be great if you were speedwalking somewhere, got debated, and auto-lost when you kept moving, I feel like just having a minor drawback would let the people who always run from debates continue to do so.
  • LlaniLlani Member Posts: 9 Inept
    Instead of just adding points to your current score, it could siphon some from the org you debated - that way it wouldn't have any impact if you debated people from an org that wasn't trying to claim the village.
  • BrawrurBrawrur Member Posts: 25 Inept
    I love that it's going to be a practiced skill. Very good. +500 

    I'd just like to say, while I'm not massively in support of artifacts for the system, I'd definitely invest credits in it if given the option, particularly if the options were in some way cosmetic or not directly interacting with the balance of the minigame.

    Will there be limits or bonuses for actually using debating in conflict vs spamming it at your nexus with friends in terms of gains? 

    Will there be rankings of any kind? I'm thinking something like Psychodrama or maybe more like Grimkeep, perhaps a mix of both? 

    Will there be org flavourings for different types of debating? (Special emotes for winning a debate based on where you're from?) I imagine a Gaudiguchian debate to be different to a Hallifaxian debate, and the same for Glomdoring or Celest. I want to be a sassy bear.

    Will group sizes impact on debates at all? Below question related.

    Will outsiders be able to interact with debates? Previously we had Laetitia and Inspire, but that was restrictive. Will we be able to heckle or hearhear to swing debates at all? 

    How will debating be represented in the basin as a whole? Will there be any rewards other than villages for getting deeply involved in this system and how will it tie into other systems if at all? (Culture, Families, Orders?)

    Are you going to look at the impact of debating people in a violent revolt? 


    Sorry for so many questions, but... NEW CONTENT.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,406 Transcendent
    Would there be any changes for how this would work in unpeaced revolts?
    Wondering whether you'd see strategies in those such as teams starting debates then having their allies force the targets out of the room to give themselves an auto-win, which kinda seems against the spirit of the system.
  • FuriesFuries Member Posts: 3 Inept
    Just want to remind everyone that nothing has been set in stone, so this feedback is very helpful. Just a few general points before a few specific responses.

    For a debate to begin, one player must challenge another player. Both players need to be masochistic - except for in peaced revolts or sanctuaried rooms in non-peaced revolts. Once challenged, there is a grace period (5 seconds for now) before the debate actually begins and they can use the debating skills. After the grace period ends, if one of the players isn't in the room they other one will be declared the winner. If neither player is in the room, the debate doesn't begin and neither party wins or loses. This should prevent the cases where someone is just walking through and getting challenge spammed. 

    Part of why the winner of debates also gets shattered is because it acts as an opportunity cost. We are rewarding successful debates with progress in the revolt, so there should be a cost to it as well i.e. you can't get a lot of progress for debating while also influencing half the village yourself.

    We understand the concerns about shattering someone who has participated in a debate entirely. We are open to exploring other alternatives, such as reduced points from influencing mobs. 
    1. How would orgs be able to help allies in revolts in this system? Currently allies can debate members of the other orgs to shatter them or can sit and monitor denizens for when they shuffle. If all debating gives points to an org then that makes debating to shatter enemies counterproductive to helping an ally. Additionally if they are sitting to watch a denizen, that also just leaves them open for being debated which they can't leave and the same consequence. In both situations allies would be getting points themselves or if they lose debates giving them to enemies.
    One of the complaints we have heard time and time again is that in any conflict system numbers make a significant difference, and one alliance can just steam roll another by bringing many more people. While we don't want to discourage people from participating, we also don't want it to become a massive advantage. We are considering how we can strike a better balance. 
    2. Being instantly declared part of a debate and leaving being an immediate loss is something I'm very iffy on. Somebody can just spam the debate command while you're running around and you lose the debate. I think there should be some time to leave after they attempt to initiate it, but before the debate actually starts. This would put it on the initiator to catch somebody for a debate while they are influencing.
    Hope we've addressed this above.
    3. If somebody doesn't have a debating system they might be actively hurting their org by being present in the revolt. As in point 1, if you lose a debate you are costing your org progress. As it is even newbies can come along and feel like they helped by watching or trying to influence regular villagers. If they get debated out no loss. Under this system they would be giving points to the other side.

    Hope we've addressed part of this above. Also, a key goal of this rework is that we hope we can provide a mechanic that everyone can feel like they can compete in. Sure, we don't expect a less experienced newbie to be able to win against the best debater most of the time, but there is no reason why they shouldn't able to get the occasional win if things go their way. One of the ideas we have for a skill that is unlocked by default is an ability that randomly picks one of the attacks and mindsets for you, so even relatively new players without a system should be able to just use that skill to some effect.

    1) Rethink the whole "auto lose" part; if someone never engages in the debate, there was never really a debate in the first place after all, it was just a one-party soapbox.  But you CAN do things like: if engaged in a debate, experience a village influencing malus, or take a 25% penalty to the village sway points when influencing villagers, or some similar sort of downside.  Essentially, you are still progressing your org's goals if you ignore the system, but you are less effective (still better than enemies getting the influence though!).

    Hope we've addressed this above.

    2) Instead of giving raw points for winning debates, have a counter that ticks up for npcs influenced / debates won.  This counter is used as a comparison for who is seen as being successful in swaying the village.  This can be used for additional things.
    Addressing multiple posts about points here. We want to encourage debating as an alternative form of conflict in peaced revolts. Currently one of the only real sources of conflict there are divert battles and we want to shift it more towards a mix of debating and influencing, which is where the points come in. A couple of alternatives we have right now are having points from debating only contributing up to a certain amount, or winning debates affecting how many points you get for influencing. This is one of the big areas we are definitely looking for other ideas for, though.

    If there's only a malus for running from a debate, it should stack the more often you run until you're entirely ineffectual. While it would not be great if you were speedwalking somewhere, got debated, and auto-lost when you kept moving, I feel like just having a minor drawback would let the people who always run from debates continue to do so. 
    Hope we have addressed this above.

    Instead of just adding points to your current score, it could siphon some from the org you debated - that way it wouldn't have any impact if you debated people from an org that wasn't trying to claim the village. 
    Part of the plan is already that you only get rewarded with points (or other things, if we go with an alternative solution) if the person you win against is from an organisation with a certain amount of progress in that village. 
    I'd just like to say, while I'm not massively in support of artifacts for the system, I'd definitely invest credits in it if given the option, particularly if the options were in some way cosmetic or not directly interacting with the balance of the minigame.
    One of the key design ideas is to keep everything that affects the mechanical debating prowess contained within the new skillset, so there are currently no plans for other effects to affect the strength of debates.

    Will there be limits or bonuses for actually using debating in conflict vs spamming it at your nexus with friends in terms of gains? 
    There will likely be a daily limit to how someone can advance in the skill. It also makes sense for debates against enemies in revolts to advance more than practice debates at the nexus.

    Will there be rankings of any kind? I'm thinking something like Psychodrama or maybe more like Grimkeep, perhaps a mix of both? 
    This is one of the ideas we have for a later release. For the first release we just want to make sure we have a solid base for the mechanics of debating itself. 
     
    Will there be org flavourings for different types of debating? (Special emotes for winning a debate based on where you're from?) I imagine a Gaudiguchian debate to be different to a Hallifaxian debate, and the same for Glomdoring or Celest. I want to be a sassy bear.
    This is certainly something we are discussing, but again, may be for a later release.

    Will group sizes impact on debates at all? Below question related.
    Will outsiders be able to interact with debates? Previously we had Laetitia and Inspire, but that was restrictive. Will we be able to heckle or hearhear to swing debates at all? 

    At this stage, no. We want to make debates entirely 1v1. This brings a couple of advantages. Firstly, it lets us balance the mechanics of debates better without having to consider what happens if one person has 5 other people doing things to them. Secondly, it also helps players newer to conflict in Lusternia or MUDs in general by reducing the amount of information coming their way.

    That said, once we have released this mechanic and fine-tuned it, we would like to explore how we can start to incorporate other small-scale group debating mechanics.

    How will debating be represented in the basin as a whole? Will there be any rewards other than villages for getting deeply involved in this system and how will it tie into other systems if at all? (Culture, Families, Orders?)

    We would very much like to see debating as an alternative means of conflict, or perhaps even used in other areas, but first we need to ensure that the core mechanics of debating achieve the goals we set out so for now the focus is just on these mechanics and on how they interact with revolts.

    Are you going to look at the impact of debating people in a violent revolt? 

    With sanctuary campaigns it may be possible to debate people too. That said, the focus for now is peaced revolts as there are already other forms of conflict (i.e. PK) for non-peaced revolts.

  • BrawrurBrawrur Member Posts: 25 Inept
    Will debates progress in rounds/go a little slower like psychodrama rather than just being the spamfest they currently are.

    I've recently discovered psychodrama to be a joy and I'd love to see something similar to that system *but far less RNG and no gacha element* if that's at all possible. While I understand there are only so many resources and so much time that can be put into this, I've kind of set myself up for hoping for something expansive and with a bit of depth from how things have been described so far.

    I'm not really sure how I feel about the winner being shattered. It feels a bit... Kamikaze? I feel like the progress towards winning should be more significant than I originally thought it would be in this case, or the shattered period for the victor needs to be about half of the loser, perhaps. 

    I'm imagining an option of DEBATE FOR *ORG* so you can help out allies. Is that going to be a thing?

    Will there be essence gains for having meaningful debates? Karma gains? ESTEEM gains? They're no longer tied in with influence/dramatics but they feel adjacent to that system of non-violent conflict.
  • NelrasNelras Member Posts: 190 Expert
    edited March 18
    It feels as though these changes will tip things further in favour of the side with superior numbers, rather than making peaced revolts more interesting.

    By making the winning player suffer a cooldown, you ensure that they are not able to score further points for their team. Even if the loser is also locked out of participating as they are currently, that simply removes one player from each side - meaning that eventually only the side with more players will be able to score points through influencing while the smaller side, even if they won all of their debates, is unable to participate.
    By making it so that leaving the room of a debate is a loss, you make it so that players are no longer able to strategically prioritise the stronger debaters/influencers on the other side. Instead, they must debate the first person to challenge them, no matter who that might be, and will then be locked out regardless of the result.
    By making it so that you score points by debating, you add to this even further by ensuring that allies can no longer tie up enemy debaters - rather than it being based on the size of each alliance, it is reduced to org size while also making it so that the organisations that are not after the village are unable to participate. While in some cases there would be other villages for them to attempt to claim, there is also one revolt where there is only one village up for grabs.
    Furthermore, by making it so that one cannot learn the skillset required for debating without participating in debates, you make it so that the side with more people will learn the skill more quickly than in organisations where they may not regualarly be able to find enough people to debate with. This would then make it so that the side which has been able to learn the skill (the larger side) would also have an additional advantage, both in revolts and in Justice. No, before anyone is so kind as to offer it, "friendly" debates with enemies would not be the solution to this - in order for there to be a level playing field as is the aim here, each player should be able to learn the skill at an equal rate to the other players.
    The original post states that the additional skills would be options, and that the skills required for debate would be available early in the skillset. The two outcomes here are either that the options are so weak as to render the remainder of the skillset wortheless or that, like is the case with the current expanded list of demi perks, a clear meta will evolve in which specific options will be required and players without them will be at a noticable disadvantage.
    I am also concerned regarding the strategies which are being removed from debates, although these are more concerned with Justice than with village debates. Not being able to stall would mean that there are times when a player would be forced to gamble on an attack which is likely to shatter them, whereas currently there is an option by which they would be able to escape the situation and potentially make a comeback. I do not see why this is seen as undesirable, when it reduces the randomness in what is otherwise a heavily RNG-based form of conflict.
    Further removing debating strategies, making fasttalks incurable presumably means that they would no longer be curable by attitudes, as well as via the use of focus. This is actually a nerf to fasttalks, beyond making it so that only one can apply, as it means that attitudes can no longer be removed. For similar reasons, it would be a buff to attitudes as they would no longer have a counter. While this change in the relative power of the skills migh be something that is viewed as desirable, or it might not be, removing counterplay in this area further reduces the extent to which strategy can be applied to debates.

    *edit* For the sake of clarity, I do agree with the general idea that something needs to be done about village debates, specifically when it comes to how easily people can run from them.
    Post edited by Nelras on
  • BrawrurBrawrur Member Posts: 25 Inept
    I kind of have to trust that no matter what the system is, it'll be more strategic than current debating.
  • FuriesFuries Member Posts: 3 Inept
    Thank you for all the feedback so far. We're considering a few changes based on the concerns and ideas you have brought forward. Please continue to comment with anything you may think of.
    Would there be any changes for how this would work in unpeaced revolts? 
    Wondering whether you'd see strategies in those such as teams starting debates then having their allies force the targets out of the room to give themselves an auto-win, which kinda seems against the spirit of the system.
    As we mentioned, the focus is on peaced revolts. We’ll consider whether we‘ll still allow them in sanctuaried rooms, but generally if someone is in a situation where there is a consequence to losing a debate but they are also likely to be attacked it doesn’t make sense for debates to be allowed.

    Will debates progress in rounds/go a little slower like psychodrama rather than just being the spamfest they currently are.

    While slowing down the minigame is definitely something we want to do as we believe it would make it accessible for more players, we also have to balance the fact that this will be used as a key mechanic in a conflict system which necessitates it also being resolved in a timely fashion. We'll consider this more as we fine tune the systems.

    I'm not really sure how I feel about the winner being shattered. It feels a bit... Kamikaze? I feel like the progress towards winning should be more significant than I originally thought it would be in this case, or the shattered period for the victor needs to be about half of the loser, perhaps. 

    We agree with the concerns about a full shatter equivalent being too much of a deterrent for both the winners and losers so we will alternatives that don't remove someone from participating entirely.

    I'm imagining an option of DEBATE FOR *ORG* so you can help out allies. Is that going to be a thing?

    This is an interesting idea that would help alleviate the concerns some may have about allies not being as helpful. We will consider this, although if something like this is done it will likely not be as effective as if someone is debating for their own organisation.

    Will there be essence gains for having meaningful debates? Karma gains? ESTEEM gains? They're no longer tied in with influence/dramatics but they feel adjacent to that system of non-violent conflict.

    We will consider this, though it may not be part of the initial release.

    By making the winning player suffer a cooldown, you ensure that they are not able to score further points for their team. Even if the loser is also locked out of participating as they are currently, that simply removes one player from each side - meaning that eventually only the side with more players will be able to score points through influencing while the smaller side, even if they won all of their debates, is unable to participate.

    By making it so that leaving the room of a debate is a loss, you make it so that players are no longer able to strategically prioritise the stronger debaters/influencers on the other side. Instead, they must debate the first person to challenge them, no matter who that might be, and will then be locked out regardless of the result.

    By making it so that you score points by debating, you add to this even further by ensuring that allies can no longer tie up enemy debaters - rather than it being based on the size of each alliance, it is reduced to org size while also making it so that the organisations that are not after the village are unable to participate. While in some cases there would be other villages for them to attempt to claim, there is also one revolt where there is only one village up for grabs.

    We hope we have addressed most of this above. One thing we do want to clarify is that we don't intend for an organisation to be able to win a village purely by winning debates. Debating should be supplementary to the primary goal, which is to influence villagers.

    We also maintain the position that running from a debate should be punished. One of the biggest problems with debating today is that running is consequence-free, which makes it pointless as a mechanic.

    Furthermore, by making it so that one cannot learn the skillset required for debating without participating in debates, you make it so that the side with more people will learn the skill more quickly than in organisations where they may not regualarly be able to find enough people to debate with. This would then make it so that the side which has been able to learn the skill (the larger side) would also have an additional advantage, both in revolts and in Justice. No, before anyone is so kind as to offer it, "friendly" debates with enemies would not be the solution to this - in order for there to be a level playing field as is the aim here, each player should be able to learn the skill at an equal rate to the other players.
    There will be a limit to how quickly people can progress, with a higher limit for actual revolt debating. These limits will not be very high, and we think it is fair to expect players to need to put in some work to advance this skill if they are interested in doing so.

    The original post states that the additional skills would be options, and that the skills required for debate would be available early in the skillset. The two outcomes here are either that the options are so weak as to render the remainder of the skillset wortheless or that, like is the case with the current expanded list of demi perks, a clear meta will evolve in which specific options will be required and players without them will be at a noticable disadvantage.

    We don't think it is a fair assessment. Debating will still very much rely on an interactions between what both sides choose for their attacks and mindsets, as well as some RNG (though to a much smaller degree than what it is today). We think a better comparison would be a competitive card game, where multiple decks may be seen as "meta", but those decks all have counters both inside and outside of that set of decks. We want to see the same with debating, where some strategies and specialisations through a perk-like system may lend one strategy to being very effective against another strategy, but weaker than others.

    We also want to clarify that we don't expect a character who invested the time and effort into maxing out their debating skill will be on the same level of a character who is just starting out. Our goal is to make it so that the one just starting out can compete against the maxed out character, but being able to compete doesn't necessary mean that they will be just as powerful. Options inherently provide the user power, even if the options are numerically equal.

    As with anything, what we release may not reach the level of balance we hope to see, but we hope this clarifies what we intend for debating to ultimately become.

    I am also concerned regarding the strategies which are being removed from debates, although these are more concerned with Justice than with village debates. Not being able to stall would mean that there are times when a player would be forced to gamble on an attack which is likely to shatter them, whereas currently there is an option by which they would be able to escape the situation and potentially make a comeback. I do not see why this is seen as undesirable, when it reduces the randomness in what is otherwise a heavily RNG-based form of conflict. 

    We are introducing other forms of attacks, including one that acts as a heal, or one that will do some damage regardless of mindset. Stalling will still be a viable mechanic, but the reason for making mindsets attached to attacks is that this allows us to design around the idea that mindsets can only be changed at most once per attack, rather than multiple times by either using attitudes or fasttalks which are on a shorter balance (or by not doing anything at all). We do not think we are limiting the current options with our plan, but rather opening up other, more balanced possibilities. 

    Further removing debating strategies, making fasttalks incurable presumably means that they would no longer be curable by attitudes, as well as via the use of focus. This is actually a nerf to fasttalks, beyond making it so that only one can apply, as it means that attitudes can no longer be removed. For similar reasons, it would be a buff to attitudes as they would no longer have a counter. While this change in the relative power of the skills migh be something that is viewed as desirable, or it might not be, removing counterplay in this area further reduces the extent to which strategy can be applied to debates.

    We are considering whether attitudes will still act as one-off shields against fasttalk afflictions. We are also considering whether attitudes will also have a limited duration. We disagree that this is a nerf to fasttalks in their current state, though. Even today, unless someone did nothing but spam fasttalk they would not be able to realistically stick a fasttalk, let alone one that they can really use.

  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,406 Transcendent
    Furies said:

    We are introducing other forms of attacks, including one that acts as a heal, or one that will do some damage regardless of mindset. Stalling will still be a viable mechanic, but the reason for making mindsets attached to attacks is that this allows us to design around the idea that mindsets can only be changed at most once per attack, rather than multiple times by either using attitudes or fasttalks which are on a shorter balance (or by not doing anything at all). We do not think we are limiting the current options with our plan, but rather opening up other, more balanced possibilities.

    It'd be really neat if this can be set up in a way that enables guild specific skins as well as the previously mentioned org ones.

    Mechanically the same obviously, but like maybe guilds can request a full skin like demichoices for teleporting, or idk... maybe some of the actives have the character saying a phrase like...
    "As the Ancestors teach us..." Saran begins as he pontificates at you.

    Where it kinda... blends the rp into an otherwise standard line for system builders.
  • ArixArix Member Posts: 1,452 Transcendent
    I like that this is being looked into, I hope it will also make cheating in Justice challenges more difficult
Sign In or Register to comment.