AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

When you use a lesser mind blank potion you can see the spells affect circling around your head, I was wondering if that is seen as an IC situation or OOC situation.

I guess the general answer is "up to you, but don't expect other players to agree." That is, if it looks like something you can see IC, you can see it IC. "What you see is what you get." That doesn't mean you need to interpret it like that yourself, but someone else probably will and you can't fault them for it.

I doubt anyone actually thinks there are platters running around your head IC, but some kind of a spell effect may be visible.

Most spell VFXs should be disabled, though!

I asked a similar question regarding the general VFX, and was told by a DM that if you can see it, then your character can too.

I agree that spells are not visible for the most part after they have been cast, we RP at the D&D table that spells are not visible.

Go with the DM call.

IronAngel wrote:

Most spell VFXs should be disabled, though!

It would be awesome if all but the most overt spells(Acid Sheathe, Stoneskin, etc) only showed the VFX if you had the Spellcraft to recognize them, just like you have to be able to do to counter them.

But I'll admit, I treat VFX's IC, too. It's hard to ignore them to the point you just have to accept WYSIWYG, and instead of a kindly old man in a wizard's robe, I see a fuzzy ball of light, swirling with arcane sigils and depraved imagery of eyeballs and energy. Which... isn't a bad look on most epic mages, you know.

Some things like Ion stones are visible, I don't see why other spells shouldn't be, especially the spells that have a physical effect on their surroundings.

Generally, what you see is what you get, unless there's a good reason to deviate from this rule of thumb.

Dark Immolation wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

Most spell VFXs should be disabled, though!

It would be awesome if all but the most overt spells(Acid Sheathe, Stoneskin, etc) only showed the VFX if you had the Spellcraft to recognize them, just like you have to be able to do to counter them.

It doesn't have to be that difficult. Spellcraft doesn't give you the power to identify spells until you see their effects, and then you can determine it from those effects the old-fashioned way. So just disable the effects altogether. It's one of those improvements I'm baffled haven't been implemented a long time ago, because there's almost no downsides and a lot of coolness to be gained.

But anyway, whatever anyone says, there's no reason you have to assume you see spell effects if you don't want to. I think it's good sportsmanship to give others the benefit of the doubt, especially if they ask for it. If you manage to drink a potion of See Invisibility discreetly without me noticing, I won't spoil it by claiming to see eyes around your head. That's just stupid (though I know that good sportsmanship can't be enforced).

IronAngel wrote:

... just disable the effects altogether.

+1.

Lizzie wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

... just disable the effects altogether.

+1.

+2 (It also decreases lag)

No. It's a buff to casters. Fuck buffing casters.

TormakSaber wrote:

No. It's a buff to casters. [removed] buffing casters.

Look at me im a fully buffed caster that looks like a hermity old man! You attack me and explode for no reason!

Make a custom houseruled feat called Subtle Spell (aka coincidental magic) that removes your buff visuals. Wheeeee.

Let me get this straight. People who live in a fantasy world where they are inundated by magic at almost every second of their lives, cannot then see it's effect in the world around them?

Even a lowly fighter with no spellcasting and no spellcraft can drink a potion and appear ghostlike, becomming harder to hit in combat. Most magic should have a VFX. In a world infused with magic, everyone should be at least sensitive to it's effects and it's reasonable for it to be flashy and totally not subtle. Everyone should be able to see when a priest is infused by the power of their diety, wizards should be seen bending the Weave to their will.

This isn't street RP in Chicago or Amsterdam, it's Amia. It's a wonderful, mysterious, magical place where anything can happen. Maybe some other server can stand in for a little of the reality that I aassume most here are trying to avoid.

I'm on the fence for this one. I've played on a server that has the spell visuals for every spell except a very, very few disappear five seconds after casting and it worked well. And showing them here works well, too.

Silent2001 wrote:

Lizzie wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

... just disable the effects altogether.

+1.

+2 (It also decreases lag)

+3, but with a clause. Those spells that actually explicitly say they have a visual effect or suggest that there is one, should keep their VFX. But things like True Sight, Mindblank, etc., get rid of it. Slows PC's and looks stupid too.

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

Silent2001 wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

... just disable the effects altogether.
+1.
<Lizzie>
+2 (It also decreases lag)

+3, but with a clause. Those spells that actually explicitly say they have a visual effect or suggest that there is one, should keep their VFX. But things like True Sight, Mindblank, etc., get rid of it. Slows PC's and looks stupid too.

+4 I agree with o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o, only spells that say they have a visual effect sounds like a good idea. People can have a sneaky see invisibility on. (or the effect appears for only a few seconds but it just lets people have OOC spellcraft advantage really)

What about auras?

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

... and looks stupid too.

Especially Stoneskin and Barkskin. They look awful.

Also, I agree with your caveat; spells whose function implicitly includes the PC looking different than normal (Ghostly Visage, frex) should absolutely have the vfx. But the only reason why something like True Seeing should cause a PC to be surrounded by flashy lights is so the game designers can say, "Look, kids, flashy lights! You're playing a video game! Isn't that kewl?"

Against it. Simply because when someone casts a spell and your the opposing caster, you are meant to be able to tell what spells the person is casting and what spells they have on them. That's part of spellcraft. If you remove the VFX, then it suddenly becomes an exercise in cutting your own throat, as you need to read the battle logs in the middle of a fight to see what spells you identified as being cast or being on the magic-user.

Besides, its also a balance thing. Mages are already OP in almost every aspect. Lets not make them more OP, even to improve immersion.

Fox Nightshade wrote:

+4 I agree with o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o, only spells that say they have a visual effect sounds like a good idea. People can have a sneaky see invisibility on. (or the effect appears for only a few seconds but it just lets people have OOC spellcraft advantage really)

+5
1. Reducing lag is good.
2. Ups the PvP challenge level.

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

Fox Nightshade wrote:

+4 I agree with o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o, only spells that say they have a visual effect sounds like a good idea. People can have a sneaky see invisibility on. (or the effect appears for only a few seconds but it just lets people have OOC spellcraft advantage really)

+5
1. Reducing lag is good.
2. Ups the PvP challenge level.

1:Doesn't reduce lag like you think it will
2: Desn't up PvP challenge level simply akes it easier for casters to faceroll

This won't happen.

Man I like it when Tormaks 100 percent correct. I like don't have to say anything.

Every class face rolls. This game takes zero skill. I don't see how this is even a discussion point.

Although, I'm inclined to agree that you should just leave it how it is. It doesn't actually help anything or hurt anything.

TormakSaber wrote:

1:Doesn't reduce lag like you think it will

1. In some DM events, people are instructed to debuff or to buff without VFX. So there must be some truth to that.

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

1:Doesn't reduce lag like you think it will

1. In some DM events, people are instructed to debuff or to buff without VFX. So there must be some truth to that.

It's entirely client lag, not server lag, a.k.a the "get a better CPU" kind of lag.

TormakSaber wrote:

It's entirely client lag, not server lag, a.k.a the "get a better CPU" kind of lag.

What do the mist dragons and horses and auras contribute to?

Mist Dragons and horses are super high poly count mdoels comapred to the rest of NWN and thus client lag, but unavoiable in part due to how NWN's engine handles models.

Auras are server lag because they run off heartbeats which are the most poorly optimized script type in all of NWN's coding, which is why we minimize their use as possible.

TormakSaber wrote:

Auras are server lag because they run off heartbeats which are the most poorly optimized script type in all of NWN's coding, which is why we minimize their use as possible.

If it's a cosmetic aura, would that just be another VFX?
Since there's no heartbeat script associated with it?

We've always allowed the cosmetic auras. It's the effect that goes along with the aura. I fail to see where you're going with this. When we changed the aura spells in Amia, we changed the VFX to reflect that it's no longer an aura following you as well. It's the fact that heartbeat scripts are firing off into big groups of spawns, 6 times a second, every round, over and over, etc.

TormakSaber wrote:

I fail to see where you're going with this.

The questions you answer today will go a long way :wink:

I don't appreciate that sort of weaselly "anything you say will be used gainst you 2 years down the line when I want something" bullshit. I reserve the right to change my opinion and shoot down any stupid loopholes you try to accumulate by recording forum posts, for the record.

Lizzie wrote:

Especially Stoneskin and Barkskin. They look awful.

Oi! Don't you bad mouth my beautiful barkskin!

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

Lizzie wrote:

Especially Stoneskin and Barkskin. They look awful.

Oi! Don't you bad mouth my beautiful barkskin!

My objection to it isn't that it looks bad, per se, but that it's implemented so that it looks stupid. It's called "Barkskin," not "Barkpants." And yet somehow, it barkifies all your clothes, too. Stupid, stupid.

TormakSaber wrote:

I don't appreciate that sort of weaselly "anything you say will be used gainst you 2 years down the line when I want something" bullshit. I reserve the right to change my opinion and shoot down any stupid loopholes you try to accumulate by recording forum posts, for the record.

What you've provided is accurate technical info. Being technically informed goes a long way.
So don't worry, you're not shooting yourself in your future foot. :lol:

But by all means, feel free to flip the flop if you want to.

Lizzie wrote:

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

Lizzie wrote:

Especially Stoneskin and Barkskin. They look awful.

Oi! Don't you bad mouth my beautiful barkskin!

My objection to it isn't that it looks bad, per se, but that it's implemented so that it looks stupid. It's called "Barkskin," not "Barkpants." And yet somehow, it barkifies all your clothes, too. Stupid, stupid.

Well the only thing is you can't apply a vfx to just a PC's skin. It effects the total model overall. The only way to get around that would be to change PC's skin color to a bark-like hue for the duration. And even then, it'd look less like Barkskin and more like Blackface.

Edit: And prince, don't give the DMs shit. It's not flip flopping, it's called considering each situations as it comes, so people don't break the system we enjoy so much.

Immolation... that's the same thing I said.

I suppose I could have been more clear: when I said it's implemented stupidly, I meant that it's implemented unfixably stupidly in Bioware's original coding, not that there's some sort of flexible stupidity that Amia should be able to work around, to make it look less stupid. I'm agreeing with you, that only options are to accept the stupid as it stands, or pitch the VFX for the spell altogether... and I vote for Option B, there.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Against it. Simply because when someone casts a spell and your the opposing caster, you are meant to be able to tell what spells the person is casting and what spells they have on them. That's part of spellcraft. If you remove the VFX, then it suddenly becomes an exercise in cutting your own throat, as you need to read the battle logs in the middle of a fight to see what spells you identified as being cast or being on the magic-user.

Besides, its also a balance thing. Mages are already OP in almost every aspect. Lets not make them more OP, even to improve immersion.

You're supposed to identify spells as they're being cast, and you do. "I don't want to read the combat log" is a poor excuse. You're not supposed to recognize spells once they're in effect, unless you actually see their effect and then it's obvious to you OOC. So any spellcraft argument or "you should see magic around you" is simply not true in D&D and FR, no matter how magical and rainbow-colored some people want the world to be. Magic is subtle, for the most part. Novels and spell descriptions show this clearly.

Of course VFXs should only be removed from spells with subtle effects, not every spell. True Seeing, See Invisibility, Mindblank, Protection From Alignment, probably the Energy Resist line, and whatever higher spells have unintuitive, disruptive effects. Premonition comes to mind. Polymorph and Invisibility should probably keep their VFXs.

PvP balance is not a dealbreaker issue, even if some people like to use it as an unquestionable veto as if game balance was the authoritative discourse here. Those who know and care about it should find other ways to fix it, this is clearly a priority to many people. I don't see how it buffs mages anyway, because it's the mages who'd need to know if the PC they're fighting has drunk a Mindblank or See Invis potion, not the other way around. If you're fighting a mage, you should assume he's buffed anyway. So how does it buff mages more than it buffs casual potion-users?

Let me put it to you in a way you'll understand. Especially you Iron

.

I'm way to busy to dick around with this.

As the self appointed head of HR in regards to Development I'm not going to waste other peoples time on this.

Don't want to see the spells download the override.

Remind me in like 6 months when I've finished my current crop of awesome additions.

Well, that's really not an issue at this point. Once it's decided what to do, it can be added to the list of things to do even if it won't be done in a while. Saying "bring this up later" is just a method of diverting attention and seemingly making false promises, so that it can be turned down or postponed again. However busy you are doesn't stop us from coming to a conclusion and holding whoever do the Dev jobs to it whenever they have the time.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. It's a nice improvement with practically no downsides. It's just one of those small things that has been brought up over and over again for years now, so it's strange nothing's been done abot it. What makes it a big deal are the dishonest, nonsensical and crudely authoritative excuses pointed against it.

No saying bring it up later means exactly what I said it does. Bring it up later because I'm not going to waste my time reading two hundred posts of multiple +100 words of drivel when one sentences suffice.

"Please remove coloured light shows because it breaks my immersion"

Thats all that is required. Then I turn it over to the testers who discuss the pro and cons. At the moment they are busy and unless you bring it up again in six months it will be lost in the shuffle.

If I wanted to deflect you, I'd argue with you. What I am doing right now is telling you exactly how this works. I wont even look at this topic seriously again because it has no relevance to the current direction of development.

Last edited by IronAngel on Thu, Feb 17 2011, 14:46 PM, edited 3 times in total.

You have it a little backwards, though. You and the testers are just a safety net, and decisions like this should be handled publically and democratically as much as possible. That transparency and accountability is one of the things that have always set Amia above mediocrity. "The way this works" is that Amia as a collective comes to a rough consensus about what we want, and then you see if it can be done, if there are big problems with it, and if you have the resources. We can't tell you "remove shining lights because they ruin our immersion" if we haven't come to that decision as a collective, yet. (I wouldn't talk about immersion in this context, but whatever.)

Mind you, I'm under no illusions of direct democracy or polls. But simply enough, because decisions like these concern the entire playerbase and the sensible conclusion will inevitably arise from rational debate and that alone, it's best to rely on public discussion as much as possible. Besides, you couldn't possibly know what should be a developement priority if you didn't listen to the people who are the sole reason, measure and audience of that developement work.

In addition we get tons of attention for balancing and custom summons, re-designing them physically and mechanically again and again. But what is extremely neglected and always shot down are the small things that make the world richer in atmosphere. The things those who wish to roleplay plead for repeatedly. I am not very interested in pvp and pvm aspects, and care little if one class is overpowered above the other. But pvp and pvm seems to take a presedence over rp.

I do not get why the daylight ratio acting like a disco flashlight is less of a concern than combat. The same way why I do not understand why a change to make the world more as it should be, where magic is subtle and people do not look like the suburbs of New York at christmas is less important than Mosh's new super monster project XY and the re-design of the Yuan-ti number 56. Kinda like on an action server.

Well, there's a very simple reason for not dicking around with the daylight/darkness timers: it affects X^2 variables that ALL need to be rebalanced and tested, which would pretty much take resources from every other development because this isn't something just anybody should mess with.

Cost/benefit ratio not balanced.

Changes to atmosphere (small or large) are by default avoided by the statement that they are too much work for the little benefit you get (aka, they are not faction bases, new areas or balance stuff). However, the server would be far better for it. No one expects results for such a project by the end of the day or even month. When opening the area or critter, do 15 of those scripts. When you have an hour, use it then for it every now and again. Hardly the expectation to bind any designer or developer to their computer with a chain and say "No fun stuff until you did all of that." And perhaps 4-6 months from now it will be done..., which means we could have had it for years.

Edit: Hell, I would reapply for the designers just for that and go through the scripts, open, search line, if found: replace line, save and close only to move to the next one. The benefit from that change in my opinion is far cooler than the emd summon book.

You don't understand. It isn't just spell durations that are affected, but we got two modules and databases built over 6 years to match the time NWN uses. If we were to do this over a period of say, 6 months, there would be no updates and no fixes to anything else during those 6 months, because that could mean changing the scripts twice or more, depending on the changes done. It's something that cannot be done slowly over time but has to be changed in one go, in one update. No transition period possible. Not to mention it all would have to be tested, too.

We might as well scrap everything and start from scratch.

Last edited by IronAngel on Thu, Feb 17 2011, 15:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Considering all the magic the devs have done for Amia I have a hard time believing it's impossible, and I personally can't imagine any change that would be as necessary and beneficial as that one. Changing spell durations should be easy, especially since they usually run off of turns and rounds instead of the clock. I'm not sure what databases would be broken, but I can't imagine they couldn't be fixed over a few months starting from the ones with immediate exploit value. But that's outside the scope of this topic, I guess. It is just a good example, because it was brought up probably before half the scripts and databases we have now were in effect and it's never been considered seriously because it hasn't been seen as the priority one issue it is. I'd happily nuke half our areas and monsters for it.

I wouldn't put it in as extreme terms as Phearnun did, but it's true that there's a notable bias towards mechanical changes as well as area and monster additions at the expense of atmospheric details and fixes. I don't necessarily mind that because the work's been damn good so far, but there are plenty of things that should've been paid more attention to but weren't, because everybody was busy chased ambitious innovations.

IronAngel wrote:

What makes it a big deal are the dishonest, nonsensical and crudely authoritative excuses pointed against it.

IronAngel wrote:

That transparency and accountability is one of the things that have always set Amia above mediocrity.

I don't get it though. Dishonest and transparent at the same time?

I have to agree with Chris though, there's simply too many other things on the plate now, such as nerfing spells/classes and reinventing the summon wheel. Perhaps when there comes a time where there's nothing else better to do, we can bring up immersion issues like, resting in inns, longer day/night cycles and VFX free spells.

The point is you're essentially operating a black box. The total number of variables affected is unknown, and the damage done by forgetting some of them can be extensive.

It's not smart to touch it. Just isn't.

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

I have to agree with Chris though, there's simply too many other things on the plate now, such as nerfing spells/classes and reinventing the summon wheel. Perhaps when there comes a time where there's nothing else better to do, we can bring up immersion issues like, resting in inns, longer day/night cycles and VFX free spells.

Oh yay, another batch of summons and pvp/pvm stuff. But I think that just illustrated the point I wished to make rather well. Balance/Action/PvP before Immersion/Atmosphere/RP.

Nekhy wrote:

The point is you're essentially operating a black box. The total number of variables affected is unknown, and the damage done by forgetting some of them can be extensive.

It's not smart to touch it. Just isn't.

Not really a black box we can not know what will happen until we have done months of work. Set up an amia c and break it with it, you get to see issues. Scripts that run off the clock are affected, others are not. The rest you should be able to figure out rather quickly, and if one or two things are overseen those can be tuned in the work of progress. I can not imagine even an attempt is too much to ask.

Last edited by IronAngel on Thu, Feb 17 2011, 15:37 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

What makes it a big deal are the dishonest, nonsensical and crudely authoritative excuses pointed against it.

IronAngel wrote:

That transparency and accountability is one of the things that have always set Amia above mediocrity.

I don't get it though. Dishonest and transparent at the same time?

I have to agree with Chris though, there's simply too many other things on the plate now, such as nerfing spells/classes and reinventing the summon wheel. Perhaps when there comes a time where there's nothing else better to do, we can bring up immersion issues like, resting in inns, longer day/night cycles and VFX free spells.

Umm... yes, I am contrasting those two (crude athoritarianism and accountability, anyway). What's unclear about it? By dishonest I mean intellectual dishonesty, and that doesn't refer to any specific group but bad arguments in general. I am not pointing at DMs or Devs but at anyone whose poor points I'm arguing against.

But seriously, those things you list are certainly not more important or "cooler" than this, inns or day cycles. That's a prime example of what Phearnun is ranting about. Stop treating Amia as an arcade game and start focusing on carefully crafted details. Fact is, Amia is years behind many other RP servers in this department and while it's managed to make up for it in other fields, there's only so much you can do to compensate a lack of atmosphere. And even if those mechanical things are the priority now, that shouldn't stop us from deciding what we as a playerbase want, and then submitting it to the Dev team for implementation when they have the time. How and when they do their job is up to them. It's still up to us express our desires and come up with good ideas.

To be or not to be... OOC

Who is online