View unanswered posts | View active topics * FAQ    * Search
* Login 




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Yossarin
 
PostPosted: Thu, Mar 03 2011, 21:38 PM 



Player

Joined: 23 Jan 2006

Well, I'll just address it in saying that I like the risky atmosphere. The "See Invis" or "True Seeing" visual FX has always bothered me because I am more than well aware of how much it contributes to metagaming. Not knowing whether someone can see your or not makes it amazingly exciting, to me, and in the grand scheme of things should start putting money in the pockets of professionals.


 
      
IronAngel
 
PostPosted: Thu, Mar 03 2011, 21:54 PM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Yep, that's exactly how I feel about it. It's actually my number one motive, all the other spells effects would just be a bonus. I guess I'm biased in that I rarely PvP directly so I'm not that interested in spells that have no subtle application outside PvP. Can't say it wouldn't be nice to get rid of some shamelessly ugly VFXs like that of the elemental protection spells, but that's almost completely an aesthetic issue.

_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!


Last edited by IronAngel on Thu, Mar 03 2011, 21:56 PM, edited 1 time in total.

 
      
ainjyll
 
PostPosted: Thu, Mar 03 2011, 21:55 PM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Location: wilmington, nc

Yossarin wrote:
Apparently you thought I was joking when I suggested the compromise of having to take a feat to have non-visible spell effects. I wasn't. I have a hard-on for wanting us to use the custom feat option we got, and I have an even bigger hard-on for making you [removed] up your precious builds in order to get the little gifts you want, especially ones like this one that can have a noticeable effect on PvP.


Somehow I missed that suggestion, but I think it's a great idea.

_________________
Image

"I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III


 
      
Liz
 
PostPosted: Thu, Mar 03 2011, 23:53 PM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 28 May 2010
Location: Smallville

Yossarin wrote:
Well, I'll just address it in saying that I like the risky atmosphere. The "See Invis" or "True Seeing" visual FX has always bothered me because I am more than well aware of how much it contributes to metagaming. Not knowing whether someone can see your or not makes it amazingly exciting, to me, and in the grand scheme of things should start putting money in the pockets of professionals.

I agree completely... this sort of thing is precisely what I meant by saying the VFX "provide information which the game would be better off with other players not knowing." The thing is, though, that it's not really metagaming, is it? If the swirly eyeballs are visible IC, then reacting to them IC is perfectly legit. Better to have the swirly eyeballs visible neither IC nor OOC.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026
Image
Character Portraits!


 
      
TormakSaber
 
PostPosted: Fri, Mar 04 2011, 0:01 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere

Nothing can be "neither IC or OOC". It either is or it isn't,and they are IC. Maybe you do not have floating eyeballs but there is some other immediate obvious tell that shows you can currently see things beyond normal.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham


 
      
Liz
 
PostPosted: Fri, Mar 04 2011, 0:24 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 28 May 2010
Location: Smallville

I'm not sure what you mean... the thread is largely about whether it's a good idea to change the scripting of spells to remove the IC-visible VFX. If that's done, then the VFX would be "visible neither IC nor OOC," and there would be no "immediate obvious tell." This is what I'm saying would be a good thing, especially in the case of TS/See Invis.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026
Image
Character Portraits!


 
      
TormakSaber
 
PostPosted: Fri, Mar 04 2011, 0:27 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere

And you would be incorrect. It is a bad thing, for reasons already elaborated on in this topic. You can have your opinion but opinions can be right or wrong even if you're allowed to have one.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham


 
      
serbiris
 
PostPosted: Fri, Mar 04 2011, 2:57 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. What about changing the obnoxious true seeing VFX to something more subtle? Like glowy eyes or something (probably not that 'cos it could mess with monks and stuff, and doesn't show through most helmets). That way it's still visible/obvious enough to represent the effect, but without being so obtrusive and silly.

On the other hand, it may be too much coding for too little gain, whilst still not satisfying the "(most) VFX are silly and should go away!" crowd. Just throwing the idea out there is all.

...The spell could still go without the twinkle sound effect though, really.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293


 
      
Fox Nightshade
 
PostPosted: Fri, Mar 04 2011, 12:55 PM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Location: UK

Yossarin wrote:
Well, I'll just address it in saying that I like the risky atmosphere. The "See Invis" or "True Seeing" visual FX has always bothered me because I am more than well aware of how much it contributes to metagaming. Not knowing whether someone can see your or not makes it amazingly exciting, to me, and in the grand scheme of things should start putting money in the pockets of professionals.


Totally agree! Playing a shadowdancer I find half the fun is working out 'who' can see me and who can't, it adds a sense of anticipation especially when sneaking somewhere dangerous or following Evil Drow or Banites... ahem... or Eternal Order (hi Richard).

Also if I've noticed a chain reaction effect with truesight/see invisibility someone walks in and notices two people have it cast so... *shazim* until everyone is sitting there with flying eyes. Fair enough if someone casts it and another wizard or sorcerer might think! "ah, a fine idea!" or "I wonder what made him do that" *Cast* but if someone uses an item like 'faded ball' I don't really see why everyone would immediately truesight it up if the spell isn't 'cast' its purely: "oooh flashly lights someone with invisibility got to close to them!" *Cast*.

Aaaand there is not IC reason for the invisible sneaker, unless has the spellcraft to identify the spell as it is cast, to run away or avoid those who can see him, unless they give themselves away.

For me I don't really care about the animations to much but it would be nice for a list of spells which are generally considered visual IC (as seen) and those which are only visible OOC.. (maybe with a small description of IC effect).

EDIT:

serbiris wrote:
Not sure if this has been mentioned before. What about changing the obnoxious true seeing VFX to something more subtle? Like glowy eyes or something (probably not that 'cos it could mess with monks and stuff, and doesn't show through most helmets). That way it's still visible/obvious enough to represent the effect, but without being so obtrusive and silly.

On the other hand, it may be too much coding for too little gain, whilst still not satisfying the "(most) VFX are silly and should go away!" crowd. Just throwing the idea out there is all.

...The spell could still go without the twinkle sound effect though, really.


This sounds pretty cool though!

_________________
ImageImage

Characters: Fox Nightshade, Liyra, Madison Harker (Log in: MD88) (Amia Chat)


 
      
Fox Nightshade
 
PostPosted: Fri, Mar 04 2011, 13:02 PM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Location: UK

Yossarin wrote:
Apparently you thought I was joking when I suggested the compromise of having to take a feat to have non-visible spell effects. I wasn't. I have a hard-on for wanting us to use the custom feat option we got, and I have an even bigger hard-on for making you [removed] up your precious builds in order to get the little gifts you want, especially ones like this one that can have a noticeable effect on PvP.


hehe... 'Subtle Spell' meta-magic! ^_^

_________________
ImageImage

Characters: Fox Nightshade, Liyra, Madison Harker (Log in: MD88) (Amia Chat)


 
      
Yossarin
 
PostPosted: Fri, Mar 04 2011, 15:47 PM 



Player

Joined: 23 Jan 2006

Yeah, that's what I called it over on page 1.


 
      
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group