1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Make Protection spell work like Attunement

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Xalan Dementia, Feb 11, 2009.

  1. Xalan Dementia

    Xalan Dementia Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    81
    Perhaps you could make protection work similar to Attunement, in that it runs out after so much dmg/hits. Dont put a timer on it tho like attunement, but make it so after lets say 4 spells are uninterupted it wears off and caster must recast. would require protection mages to get alil more playin skill.
     
  2. MissEcho

    MissEcho Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    767
    hmm NO

    Using protection gives you a major penalty to phys resist and takes 30 skill points from magic resist which is penalty enough. This proposed change would only 'suit' the pvp crowd. Pvm would again be screwed by this, as you can be hit with 4 spells in seconds in a crowded mob and the protection spell would be rendered totally useless. Leave it alone.
     
  3. Radun

    Radun Guest

    I think it should last longer than 4 ticks, but I like the sound of the idea...
    all of the penalties from protection spell can be overcome by equipment, except for the FC cap reduction.
    It's actually not much of a trade off if you've got the right gear to compensate for every other penalty.

    no timer, but it should last a while... more than 4 ticks for sure... more like 50 or even more maybe.
     
  4. Clog|Mordain

    Clog|Mordain Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    9
    No! Leave It Alone. It does what it is intended. Changing this would destroy the all ready unbalanced game.
     
  5. MissEcho

    MissEcho Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    767
    Exactly, so yes lets make pvm mages be forced to not only have to find the extra 15 points in physical resist they lose just to bring them back to what they started with, make them find two bits of +15 jewelry or jewelry/spellbook combo to just 'give back' the -30 skill points they lose, but of course forcing them to forgo other decent mods on jewels or spellbooks depending on what they used to 'get back' that penalty, plus we will keep the FC penalty as well just for the 'fun' factor. So yes now we all want to have to recast this continuously over and over so that we don't 'benefit' too much from using the spell, can't just have the existing penalties to cast, we need more!

    So why not for necro's make vamp embrace, which only loses a bit of fire resist to have it on, lose 30 skill points and get a FC penalty as well? Oh and while your at it make sure that needs to be cast every time they get hit with a few spells as well.

    What about all the animal forms? Lets do the same to them as well, why should they be allowed any 'change' without incurring a resist penalty as well as lose 30 skill points and incur a fast cast penalty as well?

    I am so sick of pvm chars being put up for the 'nerf' to cater to either pvp playstyle or cheaters.

    I have watched these 'changes' nerf pretty much something in every one of my characters and am pretty sick of it.

    Leave it alone *end sarcasm*
     
  6. Heartseeker

    Heartseeker Guest

    I agree MissEcho.

    Mages are nerfed beyond belief as it is now.

    They are secondary in PVP and getting weaker in PVM also.

    So no, leave it alone.
     
  7. Nylan

    Nylan Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with MissEcho also.
    Enough of the nerf stick.
    What does protection hurt in PvM?
    And if it only for PvP, do what we are always told to do, Adapt.
     
  8. LordNoximos

    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    8
    Make it work like reactive armor use to.
     
  9. Viper09

    Viper09 Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    824
    Nah, make reactive armor work like it use to. lol
     
  10. Tom_Builder

    Tom_Builder Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,396
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and make magic reflect work like it use to. You know reflect magic. While your at it, make resisting spells resist spells again. I could go on and on, but I will just shut up now.

    Tom
     
  11. Harlequin

    Harlequin Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    32
    I say leave protection as it is as well. Mages are indeed the weakest class right now.

    On top of that, protection already has a penalty that cannot be overcome by any amount of equipment - FC capped at 0 and no higher. You can never reach FC 2.



    Just to check, doesn't the ward removal talisman still remove protection? If so the OP can consider adding that tactic to your repertoire.
     
  12. Radun

    Radun Guest

    exactly

    @ echo.. i so clearly see your point about how different things in the game working different than eachother.... It's kind of like if I tried to counter your point by saying something along the lines of:

    Why should Protection be a toggle spell and confidence not? evasion not a toggle spell?

    the reason is because they do totally different things and have their own upsides and downsides... for vamp, you leech hp and can't be poisoned with anything below Lethal, but you also can't drink cure pots or heal with magery at all... if we had everything made to be the same, we'd end up with one spell called 'toggle' that adjusted your resistances, made it so you can't be interrupted, casts slower, regens hp/stam/mana faster, leeches hp/mana from opponents, increases spell damage, increases melee damage, forces you to be dismounted, forces you to move at walking speed, prevents the use of cure pots, damages you when you cast magery healing spells, poisons your opponent automatically whenever you hit them from 1 tile away, poisons any opponent whenever they hit you with a fist or weapon, etc, etc, I think you should have got the point...

    realize that what I said was in no way asking for protection to be nerfed... that was just how I think it could be better than it is.
    Protection is possibly the furthest thing from needing to be nerfed in pvp, in the entire game actually... anyone who really knows what they're doing will smash a protection mage 1vs1, at least a majority of the time if not all the time... the -2fc makes that much of a difference.
     
  13. Tomas_Bryce

    Tomas_Bryce Rares Collector Extraordinaire | Rares Fest Host
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    3
    1) To compensate for the penalties incurred by equipment, you have to make other sacrifices. It does remain a trade-off even in today's high end equipment era.

    2) FC penalty is quite a big one.
     
  14. MissEcho

    MissEcho Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    767
    Yes I realise, but my counter-counter would be "make them toggle spells but take permanently 15 resist points, 30 skill points and lose your FC ability", then you would be in the same 'realm' of penalty to cast. Using a bit of mana to cast confidence and evasion, or a mage casting bless or a spellweaver casting attunement, - whatever - is in no way a comparable spell cost. That was the thrust of my point, the penalty for the benefit is probably already the 'steepest' cost in the game compared to other spells and buffs. And yes I realise most spells have their upsides and downsides, but the OP was suggesting making one more downside to an existing spell that currently has probably the highest cost in the game on a permanent basis to use, add in casting it every time you get hit with 4 spells and it would basically make it useless.

    Basically my point on the 'other' spells such as vamp form etc etc was they do not cost anywhere near the penalty as does protection, and if you want to 'nerf' the pro spell then you need to look at similar type buffs eg vamp form, that is on permanently and doesn't cost anything other than a bit of 'fire resist'. For that you don't get poisoned, you leech life every hit, and anyone 'hitting' generally 'heals' with aids, not magery, and the need for 'cure' pots is hardly an issue given that other than lethal you don't get poisoned. I have a necro too, and trust me, the 'cost' for vamp form is nowhere near the permanent cost to run a mage with pro on. I was basically being sarcastic to the 'nerf', not suggesting that the other spells need to have the 'same' penalty.

    The problem with these boards from what I have seen is someone starts the 'convo' on nerf this or that spell, everyone rages about it, the pvp set then complain how unbalancing it is, a few more whine whine whines from the pvp'ers happen, probably a warrior who can't kill a mage etc, then next thing you know is the devs think it is some major problem, even tho the spell has been quietly used for sheesh 5-6 years or longer without complaints, and next you know it is on TC being nerfed to death and rendered useless, and again due to some pvp'er whining every mage in the game who pvm's is drastically effected and cops the 'nerf' when the majority don't pvp.

    It is the same as ppl whining about script looters, as they should, but the devs kill the bos, effecting every player, instead of fixing the cheaters, and making playing and looting a drag for the majority.

    The same for lumberjacking/miners, whiners about the 'donators' and scripters, what happens?, we nerf all wood and mining nodes and make it nearly impossible to get anything worth donating instead of dealing with the 'cheaters' we shall just nerf anyone who lumberjacks/mines legitimately.

    Same for killing vamp form with 'items' another pvp whine, which drastically effected pvm chars. And before you all shout you should have the 'skill' to cast it then the same applies to every 'tamer' who uses skill jewelry, every stealther with + stealth items etc. Not to mention that those of us who 'used' vamp form spell for pvm, sacrificed 30-40 skill points to necro from another skill, to be able to 'item' up to 100 so the cost for that ONE spell was permanently 30-40 skill points (depending on items), not 'free' as it was made out. Not to mention you either had to return to the bank each time to resuit and recast upon death and/or carry two suits and pay double the insurance on every death plus the time 'out' to do so. Please don't say most used 'soulstones' to get it, as stoning after every death was NOT the way 99.9% of players operated it. The ability to cast ONE spell with items had a pretty 'hefty' cost attached to it, but again the whiners 'won' and the ability was 'nerfed' for everyone.

    I really 'wonder' what nerf is in the pipeline now for 'pets' due to the pvp whiners, as again the vocal 'minority' has the devs now looking at this area. I guess I can expect a nerf to my tamer again soon in the next 'effort' to balance pvp.

    All I have seen, and the above are just the tip of the iceberg for examples, are that pvp and cheaters rule this game while the silent majority cop it over and over. UO is becoming very 'un fun' for a lot of us.
     
  15. Splup

    Splup Guest

    Ehh... I see no point. Protection is not causing any unbalance to the game atm I think.
     
  16. Radun

    Radun Guest

    uhhh echo... who said they have to keep the same penalty?
    cry cry cry about their current downsides, while we're talking about revamping/changing how it works... doesn't make any sense at all.

    If they applied the pro spell drawbacks to vamp embrace, they would need to add the benefits thereof... and as I had already outlined in a prior post, we would end up with just one toggle spell that does 'all of the above'.

    and fyi, the vamp change *probably* had nothing to do with pvp. the main reason for that change was because the game had progressed to a point where the spell was making some builds too powerful... soloing peerless. It wasn't a pvp change, barely anyone even uses/used vamp in pvp. There's just too many drawbacks to be exploited. It was a pvm change.

    you also missed a few downsides of using vamp... just one example, not being able to chug a cure is a huge downside when you don't have any way to remove a lethal level poison... take extra damage from undead slayers... There's more too... look beyond the tool-tip in the spellbook next time you do your debating research.


    Since your only valid point is 'the drawbacks are already too big', then wouldn't it make sense to suggest that the drawbacks be reduced a bit if they were going impliment this?

    I don't think it needs to be changed, I'm not whining that it's not fair... I do however think that it should be a limited duration spell.
    Whatever drawbacks the spell has don't apply if the spell is turned off, so they would turn off if the spell runs out of duration/uses. Consider that and realize that's not a valid reason for it to never run out or get used up.

    If the drawbacks are too much if they made it a limited duration/uses spell, they can tone down the drawbacks...
    just a rough example, numbers aren't based on anything:
    lasts for 30 ticks/interruptions, -20resistspells, -10phys, 0fc cap

    You can try being constructive once in a while.
     
  17. WildStar

    WildStar UO Baja News Reporter
    Reporter Professional Governor Stratics Veteran Campaign Benefactor BRPA

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    417
    No, the real issue here is that another player can cast recall and still get away because they are using protection. Therefore the attacking player loses a victim - consentual or non-consentual.

    WildStar
     
  18. sandersism

    sandersism Guest

    Why? It's not broken... why change it?
     
  19. MissEcho

    MissEcho Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    767
    Since when? If you are being attacked, you always get the 'you can't flee your in the heat of battle' rubbish.
     
  20. WildWobble

    WildWobble Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    15
    Original Poster you need to redo your character if a protection mage killed you its not hard to heal threw the spells they sling considering they cast so so slowly if you Want this nerf because the protection mages allways get away on you well HAHA learn to track or detect hidden A protection mage is messed up by the spell with all the -'s to it if ya want to get them try and use paralisis on one might be happy with results resist spells is important but if running a pro mage you might find them without.
     
  21. Lynk

    Lynk Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    6,032
    Likes Received:
    145
    You spent all that time typing and your point is you dont want anymore nerfs - we get it. No one read your full post.

    To be clear, it wasn't PvPers who complained about vampiric embrace. I heard more cries from tamers because they weren't getting the best DPS anymore.
     
  22. MissEcho

    MissEcho Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    767
    Think you have totally MISSED my entire point.

    Firstly I don't have any problem with pro as it currently stands, with it's current penalties. So there is no cry cry cry on my part. The OP wants to add an additional penalty and made NO mention of changing the existing penalties so "uhhh echo... who said they have to keep the same penalty? " the OP would answer that. The OP suggested just making it blow off after 4 spells which is in addition to existing penalties.

    You have taken the example of vamp form and turned it into a debate, when the intent was just to highlight that this is another 'duration' spell that does not wear off (unless dead) and the cost to 'use' that is in no way reflective of the cost of having pro on, on a tit for tat basis. As were the other examples, just that 'examples' of buff and duration spells that do NOT have anywhere near the same penalties to use on a comparative basis, ie benefit vs penalty. There has not been any suggestion on my part that they need to be 'changed' or 'equaled' or have anything done to them, my argument is just this, with the existing penalties that pro has there is absolutely NO NEED to even change it, let alone add any additional penalty to its use. And if you want to 'add' any kind of additional penalty to use it you really need to look at every other spell in the game as pro is one of the few spells that has a permanent high cost to apply and has sufficient penalties already in comparison to other duration and/or buff spells. So read what I have said before claiming any debating skill or who is 'constructive' skill.

    as for : "Since your only valid point is 'the drawbacks are already too big', then wouldn't it make sense to suggest that the drawbacks be reduced a bit if they were going impliment this?"

    How about you read what I have said, absolutely no where have I said the drawbacks are too big, I don't consider they are, I consider them a 'fair' trade for the use of the spell, and maybe you should ask the original poster if it 'makes sense' to suggest it without addressing the existing drawbacks, not me. Saying that is my 'only valid point' is a bit silly when it is NOT a point I have made, lol. You need to actually 'read' what I have written.

    LOL anyways, you get ONE benefit with protection, the ability to not be disrupted when your casting, this costs you - 15 physical resist (permanently applied) - 30 skill points (permanently applied) and NO faster casting (permanently applied) find me one other spell in the game with a similar benefit v cost ratio to use and maybe there is a debate worth having.
     
  23. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Sage
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think protection as it is at the moment, work fine.
    The casting speed sucks with having that spell on, but therefor you can hide, recall, heal (if you don´t die while casting..lol) or anything else without trouble. You can do nearly everything, except challenging a mage without that spell active. Well you can challenge him, but I doubt you´ll win with that casting slowlyness ;)

    Isn´t that a fair balance of advantage/disadvantage?
     
  24. What possible purpose other than to keep an unwilling victim from recalling away could this possibly serve? Sorry, I've heard some boneheaded ideas over the years, but this one is up in the top 5 for sure. Your suggestion would make Protection useless in PvM, which is where it gets the most use.


    Do you expect a PvM'r to recast/reread a spell/scroll every 2 seconds? That's how long you're suggesting the spell would last against ANY spellcasting mob.

    Off to the dunce corner for you.:dunce:


    Seems to me that if you're getting killed by a mage with protection cast on themselves, they've already got skill enough, and then some. Most PvP mages refuse to use protection because of the FC 0, which means their spellcasting is slow as molasses. I suggest you actually learn how to fight a mage before suggesting changes to a spell that hinders them, not helps.
     
  25. Radun

    Radun Guest

    Well you can think whatever you want and it doesn't mean it's true.

    You point was along the lines of [we don't need drawback D because drawbacks A B and C are already a lot]... right? So I didn't miss your point. It was a (read: the only valid) point that you made.

    What I was saying was that it wasn't constructive input.. it was "No no no! *tantrum* There's already enough penalty!"
    Not constructive.

    Taking that very same point that you made, I shaped it into an example of a constructive thought. Penalties A B and C can be reduced, to compensate for the additional penalty of D.

    There's not really a lot more I have left to say about it, and I'm assuming you'll repeat yourself a 3rd and 4th time, so I prbly won't bother revisiting this thread.
     
  26. WildStar

    WildStar UO Baja News Reporter
    Reporter Professional Governor Stratics Veteran Campaign Benefactor BRPA

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    417

    If I am attacked by another player and do not attack him/her back (no physical reflect), then I can use recall to escape the situation.

    WildStar