Edit: this post is in reply to Ciaran, obviously. Edit2: apparently Ciaran editted his post after I posted, so the remarks in this post about his "three points" might not make much sense.
I'm not the one asserting anything. If you notice, the block of text you quoted from me begins with a question. Elanorwen is the one asserting that double aeon + double sleep + anorexia is OP'd. I'll direct you to her to defend that thesis.
That aside, your three points are rather illogical.
1) Masked anorexia in aeon is accessible to many classes in the game. It was not, however, previously accessible to Loralaria users. Loralaria users, obviously, do not have the same repertoire as any other guild in the game. Therefore, there is the possibility that giving them this access might unbalance them in light of what else they might do. Just because other classes have access to it doesn't mean Loralaria users being able to do it is not potentially unbalancing. There is no correlation between other classes having access to it, and its balance in the hands of Loralaria users.
2) I'm not the one who is asserting this is overpowered. I'm not even a victim of it. However, even basic combat theory will inform you as to why passive sleep (note that both Elanorwen and I also put emphasis on passive in our respective posts) can make aeon+hiddenanorexia very dangerous. That doesn't mean it is overpowered, however, but being able to passively put an opponent to sleep, and possibly strip kafe to add even more delays to curing while allowing the user to continue their offense without having to upkeep aeon is definitely an extremely potent tactic.
3) Getting sleeplocked is a perfectly viable strategy in the game. It is one of the only strategies that can beat even fully prepared, highly experienced players just by sheer dint of bad luck or good timing. I am, of course, referring to wiccan sleeplocks here. However, other guilds also have access to weaker versions of sleep tactics, and they are all 100% viable. To post a reply that implies I am inexperienced in combat, or that sleeplock is somehow not effective against anyone who "hits the arena" is a either a thinly veiled insult, a poorly veiled attempt at distracting from the discussion, or just a plain show of incompetency.
I'm not the one asserting anything. If you notice, the block of text you quoted from me begins with a question. Elanorwen is the one asserting that double aeon + double sleep + anorexia is OP'd. I'll direct you to her to defend that thesis.
That aside, your three points are rather illogical.
1) Masked anorexia in aeon is accessible to many classes in the game. It was not, however, previously accessible to Loralaria users. Loralaria users, obviously, do not have the same repertoire as any other guild in the game. Therefore, there is the possibility that giving them this access might unbalance them in light of what else they might do. Just because other classes have access to it doesn't mean Loralaria users being able to do it is not potentially unbalancing. There is no correlation between other classes having access to it, and its balance in the hands of Loralaria users.
-- Before dramaturgy, Loralaria was the undisputed worst bard spec. Just because they didn't have it before doesn't mean they're OP with it now.
2) I'm not the one who is asserting this is overpowered. I'm not even a victim of it. However, even basic combat theory will inform you as to why passive sleep (note that both Elanorwen and I also put emphasis on passive in our respective posts) can make aeon+hiddenanorexia very dangerous. That doesn't mean it is overpowered, however, but being able to passively put an opponent to sleep, and possibly strip kafe to add even more delays to curing while allowing the user to continue their offense without having to upkeep aeon is definitely an extremely potent tactic.
-- See answer 3
3) Getting sleeplocked is a perfectly viable strategy in the game. It is one of the only strategies that can beat even fully prepared, highly experienced players just by sheer dint of bad luck or good timing. I am, of course, referring to wiccan sleeplocks here. However, other guilds also have access to weaker versions of sleep tactics, and they are all 100% viable. To post a reply that implies I am inexperienced in combat, or that sleeplock is somehow not effective against anyone who "hits the arena" is a either a thinly veiled insult, a poorly veiled attempt at distracting from the discussion, or just a plain show of incompetency.
-- I'm not going to take shots at you, but I'll explain this simply. All of the classes that try to use sleep as a strategy use DOMINATE. I'll explain why: Metawake ON counters sleep strategies. Now, let's put that together. Loralaria doesn't have a dominate ability. Metawake ON will counter their sleeps no matter how many they stack. Infinite sleeps become AT BEST equivalent to amnesia.
On the topic of hidden lust, I am referring to the active action of giving the lust "effect" (if you don't want to call it an affliction). Lust effects are traditionally given via 2 ways in Lusternia: love potion tic or lust tarot. Most, if not all, other ways of giving lust is a variation of one of the two: either an passive ability that gives a line informing the target they have just been affected, or an active ability that either informs the target they have been affected.
It is possible to hide a lust via tarot fool, I believe. It thus no longer tells the target they've been so affected, but it does let them know they may have a hidden affliction.
Dramaturgy does this, but it also removes the ability to trigger the line to let the target know they may have a hidden affliction. Like I said, this is a minor advantage afforded to scenes that account for their slow balance. Effectively, dramaturgy has not added to Loralaria users any extra ways of hiding lust beyond what a tarot user already could, except for a slight advantage against targets who are not familiar with how scenes work.
The above is what I mean by "hidden lust" - giving the effect without explicitly informing the target so. Just because it is easily checked doesn't mean that it "can't ever really be hidden".
Ciaran, just because Loralaria was "weak" before dramaturgy, doesn't mean that giving them hidden anorexia + hidden lust will not unbalance them. Even putting aside the dubious claim that Loralaria's underpowered status was "undisputed", the logic simply doesn't flow. I am in no way saying that it is overpowered. I am, however, supporting the point that it could be, and that if anything as to be changed, it would be SkySforzanwhatever.
Not all of the other classes that use sleep tactics employ dominate tactics, Ciaran. Pinleg/rend with morphite is a variation of the sleep strategy that is used by non dominate classes, and which is also highly effective. The sleep effect of that specific tactic is only a minor icing to the real cake (pinleg), yes, but morphite is chosen because of its ability to possibly keep the target trying to wake up (if they don't have metawake up) and delay clotting/sipping. Dreamweavers have a dominate ability, but that's also not used for their sleeplocks. They don't, obviously, sleep lock in the same way wiccans do, but instead use exhaustion (sleepiness level) as their main sleeping tactic, but that doesn't change the fact that their sleep tactic is still viable. My main objection to your third point, Ciaran, was that you were implying sleep tactics of all kinds are unviable. That is patently false, even for classes that use sleep tactics without dominate abilities.
Now, to address the new point you made about Loralaria not having dominate ability and its relevance to double aeon + hidden anorexia. I would like to point you to read my post again, more carefully. I am not saying that Loralaria sleeplock is OP'd, or that Loralaria aeon is OP'd, or that Loralaria anorexia is OP'd. I'm saying that all three together, along with the consideration that Loralaria sleep is passive, highlights a potential problem. Whether or not this actually warrants a change is still debatable, but it is with no doubt a tactic that is highly potent. It is effectively a second layer of anorexia layered on top of it, to prevent curing aeon. There are other afflictions that do this as well, for example slit-throat, or crushed windpipe. Like anorexia, they require an additional command to be sent before sip phlegmatic. Sleep does the same thing. The wake delay from not having metawake (or kafe) up is bonus. The important thing here is that Loralaria gives double sleep, passively. Where a single passive sleep will give the opponent time (two tics) before he his hit with an affliction that prevents aeon cure, here, it becomes an immediate block, ON TOP of anorexia. In the past, Loralaria users never had access to anorexia easily, not to mention hidden or untriggerable anorexia. This change definitely made them much more potent.
Now, I want to end off with the disclaimer that I am not neccesarily saying it is OP'd. But it is a point that envoys might certainly want to discuss as potentially OP'd.
Lerad man, I'm sorry but your post wall of text is just all full of wrong. I'll try to break it down.
"morphite is chosen because of its ability to possibly keep the target trying to wake up (if they don't have metawake up) " So put up metawake. That counters the strategy. Bringing this up simply supports my assertion
"Dreamweavers -- their sleep tactic is still viable. (without dominate)" First fact: Dreamweaving sucks for mages because they don't have sap. Second fact: Dreamweaving DOES have dominate, to allow them to strip metawake and use their sleep tactic. Why do you think it was envoyed for them to have a dominate skill? Edit: Addendum to fact 1: Sleep can still be useful via exhaustion with metawake for druids because in sap it can work as a passive amnesia tic, and passive proning. Preventing sap curing via prone through sleep is entirely irrelevant to maintaining aeon.
Now, I want to end off with the disclaimer that I am not neccesarily saying it is OP'd. But it is a point that envoys might certainly want to discuss as potentially OP'd.
Why are you obfuscating my clear explanation of how to counter his combo with inaccurate statements about combat?
Explain to me how a Loralaria user can lock you down with metawake up and you win a prize!
Pinleg/rend with morphite is a variation of the sleep strategy that is used by non dominate classes, and which is also highly effective. The sleep effect of that specific tactic is only a minor icing to the real cake (pinleg), yes, but morphite is chosen because of its ability to possibly keep the target trying to wake up (if they don't have metawake up) and delay clotting/sipping.
The bolded parts are the parts you arbitarily left out of your counter-argument, as though they were somehow insignificant. Please don't do that. Putting metawake up will not make pinleg/rend with morphite suddenly "countered", as you claim. It will give the target a slightly better chance to get out of the lock, but it doesn't nullify it. If you're going to say I am undermining my own argument, the least you could do is quote the entire point with which you claim I do so, and not half of it.
First fact: Dreamweaving sucks for mages because they don't have sap. Second
fact: Dreamweaving DOES have dominate, to allow them to strip metawake
and use their sleep tactic. Why do you think it was envoyed for them to
have a dominate skill? Edit: Addendum to fact 1: Sleep can still be
useful via exhaustion with metawake for druids because in sap it can
work as a passive amnesia tic, and passive proning. Preventing sap
curing via prone through sleep is entirely irrelevant to maintaining
aeon.
I fail to see how your first fact is relevant at all to this discussion about sleep. Neither sap nor mages are mentioned or even implied when I posted about dreamweaver sleep. If you're assuming that I am saying that dreamweaver sleep tactics are effective on the premise of sap as a support ability, then you're putting words in my mouth. Please stop doing that as well.
As for your second fact, it is true, dreamweaving does have dominate. However, I also have acknowledged that in my post. Why are you writing as though I am unaware of this fact? If you are disputing my argument that dominating metawake off is not as important for dreamweavers, that's fine, but please read my argument about dreamweavers: their main tactic is via exhaustion, not the wiccan style. They get their targets to an exhaustion level where they fall asleep every other second, and there is where the delays to sipping and curing show up.
Your edit is correct that sap curing is irrelevant to aeon curing. I would like to remind you that it is also irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is sleep tactics without dominate. I think you are mixing up the thread of discussion. This entire sub-thread about sleep was spawned because of your comment in your first post (and I quote verbatim:) "If you're getting sleeplocked you need to stop playing forums and hit the arena!" This comment, incidentally, was formatted on its own line before your edit, which was why I responded to it as its own point in my posts. I objected to the idea that sleeplocks are ineffective on anyone who spars. I was also offended at your implication that I don't, but we'll put that aside. If you are somehow confused about what we're talking about, please ask for clarification. It is a waste of time for us both if we're not on the same wavelength.
Why are you obfuscating my clear explanation of how to counter his combo with inaccurate statements about combat?
Explain to me how a Loralaria user can lock you down with metawake up and you win a prize!
I am not obfuscating anything, not least any explanation of how to counter Ollie's tactic. I have raised absolutely zero objections with Rivius' suggestions. In fact, I think his suggestions are certainly the best things anyone can do, though this is an opinion and I didn't voice it.
The validity and wisdom of Rivius' suggestions, however, have nothing to do with whether or not Loralaria users being able to give hidden anorexia + hidden lust is balanced or not.
Explain to me how a Loralaria user can lock you down with metawake up and you win a prize!
I have already explained how Loralaria users being given access to hidden
anorexia and hidden lust with their existing repertoire of double sleep
passively and double aeon when lusted can be dangerous, and how metawake doesn't really affect it. Perhaps my phrasing was hard to understand. Let me try to summarize what I have said thus far:
1) Being able to give double aeon while having passive double sleep means that a Loralaria user can bypass both speed and insomnia defence (the latter passively). This is the case from before, and hasn't changed.
2) Dramaturgy allows a Loralaria user to give hidden lust to enable double aeon. This was already possible via tarot as well.
3) Dramaturgy allows a Loralaria user to give hidden anorexia. This is new.
Together, these allow a Loralaria user to add another command (via anorexia) a person has to enter before he can cure aeon. Because double sleep is passive, this means that a Loralaria user can continue with his offense without needing to upkeep aeon. Effectively, Loralaria's aeon has been boosted.
Note here that I am not making a statement on whether this is balanced or
not, just noting how it works and how any changes, if any were to be made,
should be implemented. This is also the fourth time in five posts I am
disclaiming this.
Please don't use 'hidden lust' as an argument. Even if it's technically true, it's effectively meaningless due to the ease of checking it.
Hidden lust is not "effectively meaningless". Let's put aside the cases when people don't check their ally lists (which happen, but which is their own fault, of course). Let's also put aside the cases when people KNOW they have been lusted (because it was given unhidden), but either choose not to reject and to maintain their offense, or are unable to do so because they are alread off balance. These situations also happen, but are irrelevant to the lust itself being hidden.
Let's look at hidden lusts via fool tarot. It is possible to trigger a fool tarot line to send "enemy caster". It is, however, not wise because fool might have been hiding aeon, and you'll simply be delaying your own cure for no reason. Battle savvy combatants will, however, periodically check for lusts against a tarot user, and a fool tarot line, even if they don't trigger it to automatically check, will alert them to the need to do so asap. Against experienced combatants, fool hidden lust will remain hidden for at most a handful of seconds. Those who are fighting Loralaria users will only ignore lust with the knowledge that they are deliberately risking double aeon. Here's the important point: All this taken into consideration, it is still possible to hide lust for those handful of seconds, and possibly take advantage of it. Hidden lust is in no way a WHOA tactic, nor does it boost vanilla lust above great levels. That much I acknowledge, and I also do not dispute. However, to say it is "effectively meaningless" is also false. It is plenty meaningful even after we have disregarded the two scenarios I listed in my previous paragraph. If you take into account those two other scenarios, lust certainly stands to benefit from being hidden, though the actual benefit is variable.
On the other hand, Dramaturgy lust is hidden on another level - it cannot be triggered, and with the Leprechaun pot, it can even be masked entirely in battle spam. It also doesn't give aff-lines for the lust effect. While it may be arguable that hiding lust via fool tarot only boosts vanilla lust's effectiveness by a small and marginal amount, dramaturgy lust is on a different level. We have yet to see it in use widely enough to make a firm statement, but it is clear that it is more effective than fool tarot at the very least.
Please don't use 'hidden lust' as an argument. Even if it's technically true, it's effectively meaningless due to the ease of checking it.
Hidden lust is not "effectively meaningless". Let's put aside the cases when people don't check their ally lists (which happen, but which is their own fault, of course). Let's also put aside the cases when people KNOW they have been lusted (because it was given unhidden), but either choose not to reject and to maintain their offense, or are unable to do so because they are alread off balance. These situations also happen, but are irrelevant to the lust itself being hidden.
Let's look at hidden lusts via fool tarot. It is possible to trigger a fool tarot line to send "enemy caster". It is, however, not wise because fool might have been hiding aeon, and you'll simply be delaying your own cure for no reason. Battle savvy combatants will, however, periodically check for lusts against a tarot user, and a fool tarot line, even if they don't trigger it to automatically check, will alert them to the need to do so asap. Against experienced combatants, fool hidden lust will remain hidden for at most a handful of seconds. Those who are fighting Loralaria users will only ignore lust with the knowledge that they are deliberately risking double aeon. Here's the important point: All this taken into consideration, it is still possible to hide lust for those handful of seconds, and possibly take advantage of it. Hidden lust is in no way a WHOA tactic, nor does it boost vanilla lust above great levels. That much I acknowledge, and I also do not dispute. However, to say it is "effectively meaningless" is also false. It is plenty meaningful even after we have disregarded the two scenarios I listed in my previous paragraph. If you take into account those two other scenarios, lust certainly stands to benefit from being hidden, though the actual benefit is variable.
On the other hand, Dramaturgy lust is hidden on another level - it cannot be triggered, and with the Leprechaun pot, it can even be masked entirely in battle spam. It also doesn't give aff-lines for the lust effect. While it may be arguable that hiding lust via fool tarot only boosts vanilla lust's effectiveness by a small and marginal amount, dramaturgy lust is on a different level. We have yet to see it in use widely enough to make a firm statement, but it is clear that it is more effective than fool tarot at the very least.
You can send 'enemy <target>' on every attack you do. You can send it on any line which potentially could include lust. You check ALLIES every half second and gag the spam, just displaying if you're lusted to an enemy.
Is it potentially annoying? Sure.
Does it potentially lag your system? Sure.
Is lust a stupid mechanic in general? I think so.
Neither of those, however, are evidence of hidden lust being possible on anyone who takes the effort to properly defend against it.
You can send 'enemy <target>' on every attack you do. You can send it on any line which potentially could include lust. You check ALLIES every half second and gag the spam, just displaying if you're lusted to an enemy.
Is it potentially annoying? Sure.
Does it potentially lag your system? Sure.
Is lust a stupid mechanic in general? I think so.
Neither of those, however, are evidence of hidden lust being possible on anyone who takes the effort to properly defend against it.
Eh, sending allies every half a second and gagging the spam is clearly an unwise thing to do, not just because of processor speed problems. I'm sure you suggested it as a hyperbole to emphasis your point that it's possible if someone wants to keep full track of lust. Sending enemy <target> on every attack or checking every time you see a line which could potentially include lust are probably the more effective and reasonable of your suggestions.
I may not have made the exact same suggestions, but certainly, capable combatants will strive to be aware of who they are lusted to in about as frequent a time frame as what those suggestions mean: every few seconds. Note that this timeframe (a few seconds) is what I used in my post as well. And even with this time frame, it is possible for the lust to fall off the radar of a combatant, and for a user to take advantage of it.
Will this ever happen with a combatant who is 100% focused on you? Very near nil. But it is certainly possible in team fights for such gaps in actively checking for lusts to be extended due to the sheer amount of things a combatant has to do. In these niche scenarios, and they certainly are niche, it's possible to take advantage. To brush aside these possibilities and claim it is flat out impossible is factually unsound.
(My point about dramaturgy's lust still stands as well, on top of this.)
Lust takes ~4.5s eq to 'cure'. Most people will not automatically reject, and if they do their offense is normally ruined. Anyway....
Not a lock, but a potential kill method. Would need testing and refinement, but it's a place to start.
Assuming:
the bard has octave
metawake hits every half second. This is really hard to model, actually, because a lot depends on sub-second ordering.
the target has a good system that attempts to cure into stun/sleep (assumes metawake)
SkySforzando stun is 4s, as per Ciaran
Bard has etchings, bringing auric time sub-2s. Again, awkward to model because of the various things affecting eq.
Bard hits with anorexia/lust, watches to see if target cures anorexia (i.e. if they eat/drink). If not, start sequence assuming they do not know about anorexia:
00s: Bard starts with 9p due to dramaturgy. Bard hits with SkySforzando. Stuns for ~4s, offeq for ~3s. Bard has 6p.
<7s: Bard regains eq. Applies achromatic. Offeq for ~2s.
>6s: 'smoke coltsfoot' hits. Off herb bal for ~2s. Target cures anorexia. Sends 'drink phlegmatic'.
>7s: Target cures aeon, assuming no other interference. Is off herb balance for ~1s longer.
>8s: Target regains herb bal, sends eat earwort?
~8s: Assuming earwort hasn't hit yet, Bard has regenned 1p, now has 7p. Auric <2s speediness adds up to about half a second or so by now? Bard discordantchords, costing 6p (so regen is immaterial anyway).
Obviously a very narrow band, but I haven't bothered to refine it at all. And you can shorten by, say, prepping with manabarbs (and watching for metawake triggering it to be sure it's not cured).
You could even encore without refresh. Encore early enough (>16-20s before sequence) and you'll regain the power in time to dchord. This cuts a fair chunk of time off the skysforzando!
And modelling the metawake times is awkward, so I tried to be generous (the first sleep hit doesn't block anything, it takes the active sleep to block another command). Proper timing might even cut that down, but I don't know how reliable that would be.
Bard hits with anorexia/lust, watches to see if target cures anorexia (i.e. if they eat/drink). If not, start sequence assuming they do not know about anorexia:
This makes the whole strat a no-go.
anorexia/lust is a 4s eq, expecting them not to cure anorexia over 4s unhindered is silly.
Eh, it'd be hard to time the passive sleep to hit right when you want it to, though. If this lands a kill, it'll be more luck than a problem with the skills.
Bard hits with anorexia/lust, watches to see if target cures anorexia (i.e. if they eat/drink). If not, start sequence assuming they do not know about anorexia:
This makes the whole strat a no-go.
anorexia/lust is a 4s eq, expecting them not to cure anorexia over 4s unhindered is silly.
Next?
Maybe. Still, there's no definitive line to send an anorexia check: if you don't hit them with something else to cure (or they don't hit earwort/horehound), they're not likely to notice. Certainly easier to hide the lust, and it's certainly a tactic that was not around before dramaturgy. Remember we're dealing with 1v1, where it's a bit easier to control what they're hit with. Groups I'd suggest SS followed by climax for disabling so other people can kill.
Eh, it'd be hard to time the passive sleep to hit right when you want it to, though. If this lands a kill, it'll be more luck than a problem with the skills.
Bard ticks are every 9s. Wicca pull off more difficult timing.
Although ... if we're going to get into a big discussion of dramaturgy + symphonium, might it be time to move it to its own thread?
You can send 'enemy <target>' on every attack you do. You can send it on any line which potentially could include lust. You check ALLIES every half second and gag the spam, just displaying if you're lusted to an enemy.
Is it potentially annoying? Sure.
Does it potentially lag your system? Sure.
Is lust a stupid mechanic in general? I think so.
Neither of those, however, are evidence of hidden lust being possible on anyone who takes the effort to properly defend against it.
Eh, sending allies every half a second and gagging the spam is clearly an unwise thing to do, not just because of processor speed problems. I'm sure you suggested it as a hyperbole to emphasis your point that it's possible if someone wants to keep full track of lust. Sending enemy <target> on every attack or checking every time you see a line which could potentially include lust are probably the more effective and reasonable of your suggestions.
I may not have made the exact same suggestions, but certainly, capable combatants will strive to be aware of who they are lusted to in about as frequent a time frame as what those suggestions mean: every few seconds. Note that this timeframe (a few seconds) is what I used in my post as well. And even with this time frame, it is possible for the lust to fall off the radar of a combatant, and for a user to take advantage of it.
Will this ever happen with a combatant who is 100% focused on you? Very near nil. But it is certainly possible in team fights for such gaps in actively checking for lusts to be extended due to the sheer amount of things a combatant has to do. In these niche scenarios, and they certainly are niche, it's possible to take advantage. To brush aside these possibilities and claim it is flat out impossible is factually unsound.
(My point about dramaturgy's lust still stands as well, on top of this.)
I check ALLIES pretty religiously, even when I'm just idling at the Nexus, it's a habit I developed when I was a Mage. I can't recall a recent example of where a lusting has surprised me (aka since I returned from my break). I admit I haven't scripted an auto ALLIES checker, but it's something I've thought about before, but haven't yet needed it that much (I would also support adding the ALLIES table to gmcp, making it even easier). I think you're referring to sap/aeon when saying it'd be bad to do, but that should be fairly trivial to work around. I don't think Dramaturgy hidden lust is a problem either, both because of the restrictions on the scene writing (must include the dramaturgist's name, meaning at the very least, it's possible to notice it with a name highlighter), and due to the eq cost of the scene being more than enough to check if you're lusted.
Now, what will kill you with lust, is that it takes eq to reject. This makes it equivalent to a cleanse cure, without the ability to buy soap to reduce the time. Personally, I'd rather lust be a purely defensive thing. If it becomes a requirement for offensive actions, it just even more incentivises lust-reject wars that are very uninteresting. I would like to change the requirement for Skysforzando, Empress and Jealousy to something else, though I'm not sure what that would be specifically.
Please don't use 'hidden lust' as an argument. Even if it's technically true, it's effectively meaningless due to the ease of checking it.
Hidden lust is not "effectively meaningless". Let's put aside the cases when people don't check their ally lists (which happen, but which is their own fault, of course). Let's also put aside the cases when people KNOW they have been lusted (because it was given unhidden), but either choose not to reject and to maintain their offense, or are unable to do so because they are alread off balance. These situations also happen, but are irrelevant to the lust itself being hidden.
Let's look at hidden lusts via fool tarot. It is possible to trigger a fool tarot line to send "enemy caster". It is, however, not wise because fool might have been hiding aeon, and you'll simply be delaying your own cure for no reason. Battle savvy combatants will, however, periodically check for lusts against a tarot user, and a fool tarot line, even if they don't trigger it to automatically check, will alert them to the need to do so asap. Against experienced combatants, fool hidden lust will remain hidden for at most a handful of seconds. Those who are fighting Loralaria users will only ignore lust with the knowledge that they are deliberately risking double aeon. Here's the important point: All this taken into consideration, it is still possible to hide lust for those handful of seconds, and possibly take advantage of it. Hidden lust is in no way a WHOA tactic, nor does it boost vanilla lust above great levels. That much I acknowledge, and I also do not dispute. However, to say it is "effectively meaningless" is also false. It is plenty meaningful even after we have disregarded the two scenarios I listed in my previous paragraph. If you take into account those two other scenarios, lust certainly stands to benefit from being hidden, though the actual benefit is variable.
On the other hand, Dramaturgy lust is hidden on another level - it cannot be triggered, and with the Leprechaun pot, it can even be masked entirely in battle spam. It also doesn't give aff-lines for the lust effect. While it may be arguable that hiding lust via fool tarot only boosts vanilla lust's effectiveness by a small and marginal amount, dramaturgy lust is on a different level. We have yet to see it in use widely enough to make a firm statement, but it is clear that it is more effective than fool tarot at the very least.
You can send 'enemy <target>' on every attack you do. You can send it on any line which potentially could include lust. You check ALLIES every half second and gag the spam, just displaying if you're lusted to an enemy.
Is it potentially annoying? Sure.
Does it potentially lag your system? Sure.
Is lust a stupid mechanic in general? I think so.
Neither of those, however, are evidence of hidden lust being possible on anyone who takes the effort to properly defend against it.
Wait... your reasoning is that you should spam "allies" on every command you do?
What the bleep?
Who even does that? If nothing else you're just adding even more commands to your general alias for stupidity to turn in to SECRETS... because it's going to be affecting you in group fights too, and against people who abuse stupidity / fractured skull / other command denial things.
Hidden lust is most definitely possible for that reason; it's just not reasonable to expect the entire playerbase to send to the game ALLIES or ENEMY *full enemy list* with every single bloody command.
If Dramaturgy scenes are a 4s balance, and Ollie is using an anorexia/lust scene where we are saying he is, ie. before the sleep hit, Elanorwen should have always noticed that she was hit with anorexia. RedRubato and VioletVibrato hit 3s before the sleep hit, so while timewarp may have eaten focus mind's curing of it, it should have been spotted by not being able to eat kombu. If the scene was cast after that song tick, Ollie should not have been able to stick the sleep barring a curing issue on the part of Elanorwen.
What's really annoying is that when LoralAria was what it was before Dramaturgy, nobody (to my knowledge) really tried to help them out or tried to "balance" them, but now it's all "NERF NERF NERF"
Please keep in mind for the double sleep to hit, it's a 50% chance and even so it easily countered by metawake. Just ask Rivius, Xena, Ciaran, Ushaara. All people I've used the tactic against and all people who've put the smack down on me
Please don't use 'hidden lust' as an argument. Even if it's technically true, it's effectively meaningless due to the ease of checking it.
Hidden lust is not "effectively meaningless". Let's put aside the cases when people don't check their ally lists (which happen, but which is their own fault, of course). Let's also put aside the cases when people KNOW they have been lusted (because it was given unhidden), but either choose not to reject and to maintain their offense, or are unable to do so because they are alread off balance. These situations also happen, but are irrelevant to the lust itself being hidden.
Let's look at hidden lusts via fool tarot. It is possible to trigger a fool tarot line to send "enemy caster". It is, however, not wise because fool might have been hiding aeon, and you'll simply be delaying your own cure for no reason. Battle savvy combatants will, however, periodically check for lusts against a tarot user, and a fool tarot line, even if they don't trigger it to automatically check, will alert them to the need to do so asap. Against experienced combatants, fool hidden lust will remain hidden for at most a handful of seconds. Those who are fighting Loralaria users will only ignore lust with the knowledge that they are deliberately risking double aeon. Here's the important point: All this taken into consideration, it is still possible to hide lust for those handful of seconds, and possibly take advantage of it. Hidden lust is in no way a WHOA tactic, nor does it boost vanilla lust above great levels. That much I acknowledge, and I also do not dispute. However, to say it is "effectively meaningless" is also false. It is plenty meaningful even after we have disregarded the two scenarios I listed in my previous paragraph. If you take into account those two other scenarios, lust certainly stands to benefit from being hidden, though the actual benefit is variable.
On the other hand, Dramaturgy lust is hidden on another level - it cannot be triggered, and with the Leprechaun pot, it can even be masked entirely in battle spam. It also doesn't give aff-lines for the lust effect. While it may be arguable that hiding lust via fool tarot only boosts vanilla lust's effectiveness by a small and marginal amount, dramaturgy lust is on a different level. We have yet to see it in use widely enough to make a firm statement, but it is clear that it is more effective than fool tarot at the very least.
You can send 'enemy <target>' on every attack you do. You can send it on any line which potentially could include lust. You check ALLIES every half second and gag the spam, just displaying if you're lusted to an enemy.
Is it potentially annoying? Sure.
Does it potentially lag your system? Sure.
Is lust a stupid mechanic in general? I think so.
Neither of those, however, are evidence of hidden lust being possible on anyone who takes the effort to properly defend against it.
Wait... your reasoning is that you should spam "allies" on every command you do?
What the bleep?
Who even does that? If nothing else you're just adding even more commands to your general alias for stupidity to turn in to SECRETS... because it's going to be affecting you in group fights too, and against people who abuse stupidity / fractured skull / other command denial things.
Hidden lust is most definitely possible for that reason; it's just not reasonable to expect the entire playerbase to send to the game ALLIES or ENEMY *full enemy list* with every single bloody command.
Well, I'm apparently pretty crazy. Specifically I send these commands on every offensive action I do, and several defensive things:
stand
concentrate
enemy <target>
That includes a colorful highlight for when someone is already enemied or is allied. I also tend to spam my commands a lot in combat (and I don't use Stratagems) so it does tend to check every half second or more on my primary target at the very least (which coincidentally, lusters are often high priority targets).
I also check ALLIES at the very least when there's a lull in the fighting, and often after I've run away, or after I've been targetted and hindered.
So basically, I've not had a problem with lust. I obviously consider these steps reasonable or I wouldn't do them, but if others disagree, then I suppose that is understandable, if a bit surprising to me.
Please don't use 'hidden lust' as an argument. Even if it's technically true, it's effectively meaningless due to the ease of checking it.
Hidden lust is not "effectively meaningless". Let's put aside the cases when people don't check their ally lists (which happen, but which is their own fault, of course). Let's also put aside the cases when people KNOW they have been lusted (because it was given unhidden), but either choose not to reject and to maintain their offense, or are unable to do so because they are alread off balance. These situations also happen, but are irrelevant to the lust itself being hidden.
Let's look at hidden lusts via fool tarot. It is possible to trigger a fool tarot line to send "enemy caster". It is, however, not wise because fool might have been hiding aeon, and you'll simply be delaying your own cure for no reason. Battle savvy combatants will, however, periodically check for lusts against a tarot user, and a fool tarot line, even if they don't trigger it to automatically check, will alert them to the need to do so asap. Against experienced combatants, fool hidden lust will remain hidden for at most a handful of seconds. Those who are fighting Loralaria users will only ignore lust with the knowledge that they are deliberately risking double aeon. Here's the important point: All this taken into consideration, it is still possible to hide lust for those handful of seconds, and possibly take advantage of it. Hidden lust is in no way a WHOA tactic, nor does it boost vanilla lust above great levels. That much I acknowledge, and I also do not dispute. However, to say it is "effectively meaningless" is also false. It is plenty meaningful even after we have disregarded the two scenarios I listed in my previous paragraph. If you take into account those two other scenarios, lust certainly stands to benefit from being hidden, though the actual benefit is variable.
On the other hand, Dramaturgy lust is hidden on another level - it cannot be triggered, and with the Leprechaun pot, it can even be masked entirely in battle spam. It also doesn't give aff-lines for the lust effect. While it may be arguable that hiding lust via fool tarot only boosts vanilla lust's effectiveness by a small and marginal amount, dramaturgy lust is on a different level. We have yet to see it in use widely enough to make a firm statement, but it is clear that it is more effective than fool tarot at the very least.
You can send 'enemy <target>' on every attack you do. You can send it on any line which potentially could include lust. You check ALLIES every half second and gag the spam, just displaying if you're lusted to an enemy.
Is it potentially annoying? Sure.
Does it potentially lag your system? Sure.
Is lust a stupid mechanic in general? I think so.
Neither of those, however, are evidence of hidden lust being possible on anyone who takes the effort to properly defend against it.
Wait... your reasoning is that you should spam "allies" on every command you do?
What the bleep?
Who even does that? If nothing else you're just adding even more commands to your general alias for stupidity to turn in to SECRETS... because it's going to be affecting you in group fights too, and against people who abuse stupidity / fractured skull / other command denial things.
Hidden lust is most definitely possible for that reason; it's just not reasonable to expect the entire playerbase to send to the game ALLIES or ENEMY *full enemy list* with every single bloody command.
Well, I'm apparently pretty crazy. Specifically I send these commands on every offensive action I do, and several defensive things:
stand
concentrate
enemy <target>
That includes a colorful highlight for when someone is already enemied or is allied. I also tend to spam my commands a lot in combat (and I don't use Stratagems) so it does tend to check every half second or more on my primary target at the very least (which coincidentally, lusters are often high priority targets).
I also check ALLIES at the very least when there's a lull in the fighting, and often after I've run away, or after I've been targetted and hindered.
So basically, I've not had a problem with lust. I obviously consider these steps reasonable or I wouldn't do them, but if others disagree, then I suppose that is understandable, if a bit surprising to me.
So what you're saying is that you don't even do what you're suggesting everyone else do.
Checking ALLIES between skirmishes is one thing, checking it every single attack is something entirely different.
Edit: So can we just agree that it is, in fact, possible to afflict someone with hidden lust? That's the only reason I'm even in this discussion right now anyways- the insistence that it "cannot be hidden". It seems pretty obvious to me that it can indeed be done. And if a dramaturgist was to do it on you who wasn't your primary target, you would in fact be lusted to them without knowing for the duration of the fight, until your regularly scheduled lull.
At that point you fix it, but that's really no different than someone checking DIAGNOSE to see the hidden afflictions they were given and cure them as well imo. You had the affliction until you checked for it, and there was no indication that you received it, so in between the time you were lusted to them and the time you checked you suffered the malus. I don't see any other way to describe that other than "being afflicted with hidden lust". :P
Please don't use 'hidden lust' as an argument. Even if it's technically true, it's effectively meaningless due to the ease of checking it.
Hidden lust is not "effectively meaningless". Let's put aside the cases when people don't check their ally lists (which happen, but which is their own fault, of course). Let's also put aside the cases when people KNOW they have been lusted (because it was given unhidden), but either choose not to reject and to maintain their offense, or are unable to do so because they are alread off balance. These situations also happen, but are irrelevant to the lust itself being hidden.
Let's look at hidden lusts via fool tarot. It is possible to trigger a fool tarot line to send "enemy caster". It is, however, not wise because fool might have been hiding aeon, and you'll simply be delaying your own cure for no reason. Battle savvy combatants will, however, periodically check for lusts against a tarot user, and a fool tarot line, even if they don't trigger it to automatically check, will alert them to the need to do so asap. Against experienced combatants, fool hidden lust will remain hidden for at most a handful of seconds. Those who are fighting Loralaria users will only ignore lust with the knowledge that they are deliberately risking double aeon. Here's the important point: All this taken into consideration, it is still possible to hide lust for those handful of seconds, and possibly take advantage of it. Hidden lust is in no way a WHOA tactic, nor does it boost vanilla lust above great levels. That much I acknowledge, and I also do not dispute. However, to say it is "effectively meaningless" is also false. It is plenty meaningful even after we have disregarded the two scenarios I listed in my previous paragraph. If you take into account those two other scenarios, lust certainly stands to benefit from being hidden, though the actual benefit is variable.
On the other hand, Dramaturgy lust is hidden on another level - it cannot be triggered, and with the Leprechaun pot, it can even be masked entirely in battle spam. It also doesn't give aff-lines for the lust effect. While it may be arguable that hiding lust via fool tarot only boosts vanilla lust's effectiveness by a small and marginal amount, dramaturgy lust is on a different level. We have yet to see it in use widely enough to make a firm statement, but it is clear that it is more effective than fool tarot at the very least.
You can send 'enemy <target>' on every attack you do. You can send it on any line which potentially could include lust. You check ALLIES every half second and gag the spam, just displaying if you're lusted to an enemy.
Is it potentially annoying? Sure.
Does it potentially lag your system? Sure.
Is lust a stupid mechanic in general? I think so.
Neither of those, however, are evidence of hidden lust being possible on anyone who takes the effort to properly defend against it.
Wait... your reasoning is that you should spam "allies" on every command you do?
What the bleep?
Who even does that? If nothing else you're just adding even more commands to your general alias for stupidity to turn in to SECRETS... because it's going to be affecting you in group fights too, and against people who abuse stupidity / fractured skull / other command denial things.
Hidden lust is most definitely possible for that reason; it's just not reasonable to expect the entire playerbase to send to the game ALLIES or ENEMY *full enemy list* with every single bloody command.
Well, I'm apparently pretty crazy. Specifically I send these commands on every offensive action I do, and several defensive things:
stand
concentrate
enemy <target>
That includes a colorful highlight for when someone is already enemied or is allied. I also tend to spam my commands a lot in combat (and I don't use Stratagems) so it does tend to check every half second or more on my primary target at the very least (which coincidentally, lusters are often high priority targets).
I also check ALLIES at the very least when there's a lull in the fighting, and often after I've run away, or after I've been targetted and hindered.
So basically, I've not had a problem with lust. I obviously consider these steps reasonable or I wouldn't do them, but if others disagree, then I suppose that is understandable, if a bit surprising to me.
So what you're saying is that you don't even do what you're suggesting everyone else do.
Checking ALLIES between skirmishes is one thing, checking it every single attack is something entirely different.
Well, I can script that real quick if you'd like? I haven't had need of that much yet, so my simple precautions have served me just fine. To clarify, do others at least send ENEMY <target> with their attacks? I'm honestly curious at the level other dedicated combatants go to.
edit:
I apologize for my rash arguments, but I'll try and explain my view a little more now.
Hidden lust has never been a problem for me, so that's why I reacted in the way I did to Lerad. I'm curious if other dedicated combatants experience real problems with hidden lust, not just a theoretical concern. If you do, perhaps the difference is in the amount of precautions we take on the matter, and it's something that can be looked into for improving your system. If that's the case, then hidden lust isn't a balance problem, it's a system problem. So I'm curious about other's experiences with hidden lust and how much they try and defend against it.
You haven't needed it because it hasn't really existed until now and you're not facing people who can abuse it in group scenarios.
Speaking for myself, I have nothing that really operates off of the enemy list excepting two Crow abilities, so I am usually fine with just manually checking allies and rejecting the people who need it. Re-enemying a specific target doesn't gain me anything and I am already putting a lot of other commands through with attacks.
PS: please check the edit. I do realize it was a little slow but I did not wish to double post.
So as of yet, hidden lust hasn't been a problem for you. Has Ollie's hidden lust been a practical problem for you yet? I'm curious if this has really been a problem for people.
Anyway, I also check ALLIES regularly while in combat, especially when I'm targetted, and not just at the end of a skirmish, so it hasn't afffected me.
And I apologize for my own slow edit. I had the thread up unrefreshed while I was doing other things then came and made the edit.
Comments
Edit2: apparently Ciaran editted his post after I posted, so the remarks in this post about his "three points" might not make much sense.
I'm not the one asserting anything. If you notice, the block of text you quoted from me begins with a question. Elanorwen is the one asserting that double aeon + double sleep + anorexia is OP'd. I'll direct you to her to defend that thesis.
That aside, your three points are rather illogical.
1) Masked anorexia in aeon is accessible to many classes in the game. It was not, however, previously accessible to Loralaria users. Loralaria users, obviously, do not have the same repertoire as any other guild in the game. Therefore, there is the possibility that giving them this access might unbalance them in light of what else they might do. Just because other classes have access to it doesn't mean Loralaria users being able to do it is not potentially unbalancing. There is no correlation between other classes having access to it, and its balance in the hands of Loralaria users.
2) I'm not the one who is asserting this is overpowered. I'm not even a victim of it. However, even basic combat theory will inform you as to why passive sleep (note that both Elanorwen and I also put emphasis on passive in our respective posts) can make aeon+hiddenanorexia very dangerous. That doesn't mean it is overpowered, however, but being able to passively put an opponent to sleep, and possibly strip kafe to add even more delays to curing while allowing the user to continue their offense without having to upkeep aeon is definitely an extremely potent tactic.
3) Getting sleeplocked is a perfectly viable strategy in the game. It is one of the only strategies that can beat even fully prepared, highly experienced players just by sheer dint of bad luck or good timing. I am, of course, referring to wiccan sleeplocks here. However, other guilds also have access to weaker versions of sleep tactics, and they are all 100% viable. To post a reply that implies I am inexperienced in combat, or that sleeplock is somehow not effective against anyone who "hits the arena" is a either a thinly veiled insult, a poorly veiled attempt at distracting from the discussion, or just a plain show of incompetency.
It is possible to hide a lust via tarot fool, I believe. It thus no longer tells the target they've been so affected, but it does let them know they may have a hidden affliction.
Dramaturgy does this, but it also removes the ability to trigger the line to let the target know they may have a hidden affliction. Like I said, this is a minor advantage afforded to scenes that account for their slow balance. Effectively, dramaturgy has not added to Loralaria users any extra ways of hiding lust beyond what a tarot user already could, except for a slight advantage against targets who are not familiar with how scenes work.
The above is what I mean by "hidden lust" - giving the effect without explicitly informing the target so. Just because it is easily checked doesn't mean that it "can't ever really be hidden".
Ciaran, just because Loralaria was "weak" before dramaturgy, doesn't mean that giving them hidden anorexia + hidden lust will not unbalance them. Even putting aside the dubious claim that Loralaria's underpowered status was "undisputed", the logic simply doesn't flow. I am in no way saying that it is overpowered. I am, however, supporting the point that it could be, and that if anything as to be changed, it would be SkySforzanwhatever.
Not all of the other classes that use sleep tactics employ dominate tactics, Ciaran. Pinleg/rend with morphite is a variation of the sleep strategy that is used by non dominate classes, and which is also highly effective. The sleep effect of that specific tactic is only a minor icing to the real cake (pinleg), yes, but morphite is chosen because of its ability to possibly keep the target trying to wake up (if they don't have metawake up) and delay clotting/sipping. Dreamweavers have a dominate ability, but that's also not used for their sleeplocks. They don't, obviously, sleep lock in the same way wiccans do, but instead use exhaustion (sleepiness level) as their main sleeping tactic, but that doesn't change the fact that their sleep tactic is still viable. My main objection to your third point, Ciaran, was that you were implying sleep tactics of all kinds are unviable. That is patently false, even for classes that use sleep tactics without dominate abilities.
Now, to address the new point you made about Loralaria not having dominate ability and its relevance to double aeon + hidden anorexia. I would like to point you to read my post again, more carefully. I am not saying that Loralaria sleeplock is OP'd, or that Loralaria aeon is OP'd, or that Loralaria anorexia is OP'd. I'm saying that all three together, along with the consideration that Loralaria sleep is passive, highlights a potential problem. Whether or not this actually warrants a change is still debatable, but it is with no doubt a tactic that is highly potent. It is effectively a second layer of anorexia layered on top of it, to prevent curing aeon. There are other afflictions that do this as well, for example slit-throat, or crushed windpipe. Like anorexia, they require an additional command to be sent before sip phlegmatic. Sleep does the same thing. The wake delay from not having metawake (or kafe) up is bonus. The important thing here is that Loralaria gives double sleep, passively. Where a single passive sleep will give the opponent time (two tics) before he his hit with an affliction that prevents aeon cure, here, it becomes an immediate block, ON TOP of anorexia. In the past, Loralaria users never had access to anorexia easily, not to mention hidden or untriggerable anorexia. This change definitely made them much more potent.
Now, I want to end off with the disclaimer that I am not neccesarily saying it is OP'd. But it is a point that envoys might certainly want to discuss as potentially OP'd.
Why are you obfuscating my clear explanation of how to counter his combo with inaccurate statements about combat?
Explain to me how a Loralaria user can lock you down with metawake up and you win a prize!
The bolded parts are the parts you arbitarily left out of your counter-argument, as though they were somehow insignificant. Please don't do that. Putting metawake up will not make pinleg/rend with morphite suddenly "countered", as you claim. It will give the target a slightly better chance to get out of the lock, but it doesn't nullify it. If you're going to say I am undermining my own argument, the least you could do is quote the entire point with which you claim I do so, and not half of it.
I fail to see how your first fact is relevant at all to this discussion about sleep. Neither sap nor mages are mentioned or even implied when I posted about dreamweaver sleep. If you're assuming that I am saying that dreamweaver sleep tactics are effective on the premise of sap as a support ability, then you're putting words in my mouth. Please stop doing that as well.
As for your second fact, it is true, dreamweaving does have dominate. However, I also have acknowledged that in my post. Why are you writing as though I am unaware of this fact? If you are disputing my argument that dominating metawake off is not as important for dreamweavers, that's fine, but please read my argument about dreamweavers: their main tactic is via exhaustion, not the wiccan style. They get their targets to an exhaustion level where they fall asleep every other second, and there is where the delays to sipping and curing show up.
Your edit is correct that sap curing is irrelevant to aeon curing. I would like to remind you that it is also irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is sleep tactics without dominate. I think you are mixing up the thread of discussion. This entire sub-thread about sleep was spawned because of your comment in your first post (and I quote verbatim:) "If you're getting sleeplocked you need to stop playing forums and hit the arena!" This comment, incidentally, was formatted on its own line before your edit, which was why I responded to it as its own point in my posts. I objected to the idea that sleeplocks are ineffective on anyone who spars. I was also offended at your implication that I don't, but we'll put that aside. If you are somehow confused about what we're talking about, please ask for clarification. It is a waste of time for us both if we're not on the same wavelength.
I am not obfuscating anything, not least any explanation of how to counter Ollie's tactic. I have raised absolutely zero objections with Rivius' suggestions. In fact, I think his suggestions are certainly the best things anyone can do, though this is an opinion and I didn't voice it.
The validity and wisdom of Rivius' suggestions, however, have nothing to do with whether or not Loralaria users being able to give hidden anorexia + hidden lust is balanced or not.
I have already explained how Loralaria users being given access to hidden anorexia and hidden lust with their existing repertoire of double sleep passively and double aeon when lusted can be dangerous, and how metawake doesn't really affect it. Perhaps my phrasing was hard to understand. Let me try to summarize what I have said thus far:
1) Being able to give double aeon while having passive double sleep means that a Loralaria user can bypass both speed and insomnia defence (the latter passively). This is the case from before, and hasn't changed.
2) Dramaturgy allows a Loralaria user to give hidden lust to enable double aeon. This was already possible via tarot as well.
3) Dramaturgy allows a Loralaria user to give hidden anorexia. This is new.
Together, these allow a Loralaria user to add another command (via anorexia) a person has to enter before he can cure aeon. Because double sleep is passive, this means that a Loralaria user can continue with his offense without needing to upkeep aeon. Effectively, Loralaria's aeon has been boosted.
Note here that I am not making a statement on whether this is balanced or not, just noting how it works and how any changes, if any were to be made, should be implemented. This is also the fourth time in five posts I am disclaiming this.
Hidden lust is not "effectively meaningless". Let's put aside the cases when people don't check their ally lists (which happen, but which is their own fault, of course). Let's also put aside the cases when people KNOW they have been lusted (because it was given unhidden), but either choose not to reject and to maintain their offense, or are unable to do so because they are alread off balance. These situations also happen, but are irrelevant to the lust itself being hidden.
Let's look at hidden lusts via fool tarot. It is possible to trigger a fool tarot line to send "enemy caster". It is, however, not wise because fool might have been hiding aeon, and you'll simply be delaying your own cure for no reason. Battle savvy combatants will, however, periodically check for lusts against a tarot user, and a fool tarot line, even if they don't trigger it to automatically check, will alert them to the need to do so asap. Against experienced combatants, fool hidden lust will remain hidden for at most a handful of seconds. Those who are fighting Loralaria users will only ignore lust with the knowledge that they are deliberately risking double aeon. Here's the important point: All this taken into consideration, it is still possible to hide lust for those handful of seconds, and possibly take advantage of it. Hidden lust is in no way a WHOA tactic, nor does it boost vanilla lust above great levels. That much I acknowledge, and I also do not dispute. However, to say it is "effectively meaningless" is also false. It is plenty meaningful even after we have disregarded the two scenarios I listed in my previous paragraph. If you take into account those two other scenarios, lust certainly stands to benefit from being hidden, though the actual benefit is variable.
On the other hand, Dramaturgy lust is hidden on another level - it cannot be triggered, and with the Leprechaun pot, it can even be masked entirely in battle spam. It also doesn't give aff-lines for the lust effect. While it may be arguable that hiding lust via fool tarot only boosts vanilla lust's effectiveness by a small and marginal amount, dramaturgy lust is on a different level. We have yet to see it in use widely enough to make a firm statement, but it is clear that it is more effective than fool tarot at the very least.
I may not have made the exact same suggestions, but certainly, capable combatants will strive to be aware of who they are lusted to in about as frequent a time frame as what those suggestions mean: every few seconds. Note that this timeframe (a few seconds) is what I used in my post as well. And even with this time frame, it is possible for the lust to fall off the radar of a combatant, and for a user to take advantage of it.
Will this ever happen with a combatant who is 100% focused on you? Very near nil. But it is certainly possible in team fights for such gaps in actively checking for lusts to be extended due to the sheer amount of things a combatant has to do. In these niche scenarios, and they certainly are niche, it's possible to take advantage. To brush aside these possibilities and claim it is flat out impossible is factually unsound.
(My point about dramaturgy's lust still stands as well, on top of this.)
Bard ticks are every 9s. Wicca pull off more difficult timing.
I agree @shedrin
What the bleep?
Who even does that? If nothing else you're just adding even more commands to your general alias for stupidity to turn in to SECRETS... because it's going to be affecting you in group fights too, and against people who abuse stupidity / fractured skull / other command denial things.
Hidden lust is most definitely possible for that reason; it's just not reasonable to expect the entire playerbase to send to the game ALLIES or ENEMY *full enemy list* with every single bloody command.
Please keep in mind for the double sleep to hit, it's a 50% chance and even so it easily countered by metawake. Just ask Rivius, Xena, Ciaran, Ushaara. All people I've used the tactic against and all people who've put the smack down on me
@Elanorwen y u no put up metawake?
But
Edit: ignore this. iPhone woes
Checking ALLIES between skirmishes is one thing, checking it every single attack is something entirely different.
Edit: So can we just agree that it is, in fact, possible to afflict someone with hidden lust? That's the only reason I'm even in this discussion right now anyways- the insistence that it "cannot be hidden". It seems pretty obvious to me that it can indeed be done. And if a dramaturgist was to do it on you who wasn't your primary target, you would in fact be lusted to them without knowing for the duration of the fight, until your regularly scheduled lull.
At that point you fix it, but that's really no different than someone checking DIAGNOSE to see the hidden afflictions they were given and cure them as well imo. You had the affliction until you checked for it, and there was no indication that you received it, so in between the time you were lusted to them and the time you checked you suffered the malus. I don't see any other way to describe that other than "being afflicted with hidden lust". :P
Edit: it rejects the target and enemies at the same time
Speaking for myself, I have nothing that really operates off of the enemy list excepting two Crow abilities, so I am usually fine with just manually checking allies and rejecting the people who need it. Re-enemying a specific target doesn't gain me anything and I am already putting a lot of other commands through with attacks.
PS: please check the edit. I do realize it was a little slow but I did not wish to double post.