Killsteal Concept

[eldoth_terevan]

I did a brief forum search and did not see anything like this. Sorry if I am reposting something already discussed, but I was having to listen to someone who was in the arena describing at length about another character stealing their kill, and I thought of this and wanted to mention it.

Two players are attempting to attack a rogue. Right now, one player engages the rogue in combat, and the other gets the message "You must be grouped with...". This of course leads to many IG rows between players, which become time wasted for other players and GMs when it gets heated.

Could the default action for the player who attacks slowest somehow be an ASSIST? This would mean that -- for one round at least -- the person who lost the draw would be helping the opposing player. I think that it might take the fun out of players harassing each other over mobs, and the rest of us having to listen to the arguments. Thank you.

[Parallo]

I like this idea but the problem would be the experience. Would the first player loose any? When you think about it he should because he didn't slay the mob by himself and that means there will be people assisting random people they don't even know for pp and I'm sure the first attacker wouldn't want to just give away his.

[zanzibar]

I did a brief forum search and did not see anything like this. Sorry if I am reposting something already discussed, but I was having to listen to someone who was in the arena describing at length about another character stealing their kill, and I thought of this and wanted to mention it.

Two players are attempting to attack a rogue. Right now, one player engages the rogue in combat, and the other gets the message "You must be grouped with...". This of course leads to many IG rows between players, which become time wasted for other players and GMs when it gets heated.

Could the default action for the player who attacks slowest somehow be an ASSIST? This would mean that -- for one round at least -- the person who lost the draw would be helping the opposing player. I think that it might take the fun out of players harassing each other over mobs, and the rest of us having to listen to the arguments. Thank you.

As assist function like the one you describe would simply open the door to kill stealing.  Imagine if anyone could just walk up to your mob and "assist" you in it.  My guess is that they'll be the most interested in "assisting" you to carry the loot.

[bilbous]

I like the idea that whenever two people attack the same critter it duplicates itself and if they continue it does too. Of course I wouldn't suggest this be implimented but it would be amusing to see.

[Akaye]

IF the players group, what you have suggested is exactly what happens.

[zanzibar]

IF the players group, what you have suggested is exactly what happens.

Right.  Basically, he's saying that players should automatically be grouped with one another should they attack the same NPC.

[Akaye]

Automatically being grouped because you go for the same NPC? I don't think that will go over very well with alot of planeshifters. I don't automatically want to group with anyone when I play unless I decide to. I want choice. Being grouped automatically is taking away choice.

[Parallo]

I don't think he ment automaticly grouped. He said for one round at least.

[bilbous]

There are  differences:  no group channel and  no connection should one or other walk away. The way mob claiming is currently implimented is not great. For one thing a claim should not expire before a second spell attack can be made, this puts wizards at a great disadvantage because it generally takes longer to attack and kill a monster with magic. Now it might be fair to say that wizards should not be using base levels spells for monsters mid level fighters require to use magic weapons to fight. I can't say for sure because I don't know how effective these spells might be at the upper levels of way expertise. I think these base spells should have a cap on their effectiveness as they are the easiest to get the glyphs for: weak glyphs should be common and the more powerful ones less so. There just isn't a great deal of magic implimented yet (more than I have managed to find).

Guess I'm straying from the topic again so I will let it go at that.

[Kalika]

what if you are attacking a particularly hardcore rogue who you have lowered his health to about 30 percent and try to heal yourself using crystal way and hten some other player comes up and takes the rogue even if you standing right in front of the rogue...and then you now cant take it because you hae to be "grouped"


is that a killsteal? cause it gets me reeeeaaallly p'oed..

sorry, but other players should have more consideration of one another to not do this.

[bilbous]

I agree and I hope I haven't been one of those although it is sometimes hard to tell. This goes along with what I was saying. It seems odd to me that spellcasting takes so long when the effect is relatively weak. I wonder when we can expect items which act as spell effect multipliers such as are implimented with "magic" or quality weapons. Perhaps though this is not in the cards except in the way of more powerful glyphs/spell combinations. Another problem with spellcasting is that it is not automated the same as weapon attack so that one casting is automatically followed by the next but rather the mage must manually cast the next spell which adds to the casting time.

[zanzibar]

1.  Yes, fighters get priority over magic users when claiming mobs.  HOWEVER, the only time this is ever an issues is when people are camping mobs, such as in the arena!  Camping is a OOC activity and I hope that it's eliminated in the future.

2.@Kalika:  If it's taking you forever to kill a rogue, and the rogue is so tough that you can't kill it without spending a considerable amount of time and energy on healing, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking the rogue.  Instead, you should attack things at the level of your character and let the stronger character attack the stronger mobs.

[bilbous]

the rogue is so tough that you can't kill it without spending a considerable amount of time and energy on healing, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking the rogue.  Instead, you should attack things at the level of your character and let the stronger character attack the stronger mobs.

There is a problem with this which I refered to in my previous post. With enough pots and 2 /10 weapons an inexperienced fighter can fight outside his weight class. Why should it, theoretically, be different for mages?

[zanzibar]

the rogue is so tough that you can't kill it without spending a considerable amount of time and energy on healing, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking the rogue.  Instead, you should attack things at the level of your character and let the stronger character attack the stronger mobs.

There is a problem with this which I refered to in my previous post. With enough pots and 2 /10 weapons an inexperienced fighter can fight outside his weight class. Why should it, theoretically, be different for mages?

They're going to remove the ability to drink large amounts of potions during a battle, and casting a spell leaves you vulnerable.  Casting a healing spell on yourself while someone is trying to kill you with a big sword or axe should create a problem for you.  You're basically running away from the mob.  And IMO, if you run away from it, then it's fair game for everyone else.

Really, healing mages and clerics should be supporting magic users for a group.  It used to be that we would always team up to fight the rogues, ulbernaughts, and briggands.  Now, it seems like almost no one fights as part of a group.  If you can heal yourself easily during a battle, then that's even less motivation for people to work together.

[eldoth_terevan]

Ah. I see, the assist function duplicates the behavior as it would be if the players were grouped.  Thank you akaye and zanzi. I was thinking then of it slightly different. Where the original player retained the rights to the combat and the kill, but the second player would end up inadvertently assisting then without the group benefits of experience or loot sharing. So you would help kill, but unless you explicitly grouped with them... no experience or loot.

I was just thinking of it as a "soft" resolution for these types of arguments, one that would discourage two players standing around trying to take a mob by who is quickest and insulting one another over it. I myself have had players repeat to me in game that KSing is a "bannable" offense... but that seems strange to me since nobody can be said to own a rogue, and it is usually coming from someone who wants the mobs. Funny that someone who posted here was orginally the one that was referenced by the player speaking to me from the arena... last night.

I see this thread spinning into all sorts of unrelated stuff... please lock if you wish Karyuu. Also, I think that the dynamic spawn system when implemented will take care of much of this sort of behavior. So... Soon(tm) we will have less arguments.