I am wondering if the invis spells are going to be able to wear off early like they did in EQ1, this was really the only thing i didn't like i hated invising my grp and right when i started to run to our destination someone invis wore off like 3 steps going forward, now if it does than it does but imo, i would rather the invis last for 3 minutes and know it going to last than long than it be a 18 minute buff but can wear off 6 seconds after putting it on, but this is just me.
In EQ1 this is a common thing, especially in old EQ and the TLP servers, and honestly like i said if it is a thing i have to deal with than i will gladly do so, but if the simply knock down the duration dramatically but made sure it last that long would be a better solution imo. just like i know people didnt like doing against mobs that mass aoe'd dispelled everyone at once at random buffs til everything was gone in ToV, but we lived through it and went on, but that was a bit different becuase we knew it was going to happen and not much you could do about it, as for this was always completely random and could cuase your grp to wipe either by bad timing, and all kinds of other things, usually didnt cuase the whole grp to wipe but it at least cuase the preson who lost the invis to die.
I complely agree. I've always played a wizard as my main and I *hate* random duration invisibility. I would rather have invisilbility that lasted for 15 seconds (and always 15 seconds, as long as you don't break it yourself) than one that lasted 15 minutes but would randomly drop anywhere from 1 second to the full 15 minutes.
I too hated the classes who's invisibility was random because, invariably, if I was just standing around invis it would last the entire duration yet if I needed that invis to get past just ONE mob? It would immediately drop at the point where I was closest to the NPC.
Later on, when items with insta-click invis came into the world then that random duration became completely irrelevant. That is what I mind most. Don't introduce some 'rule' or other mechanics only to then replace it with some item, etc that makes that rule irrelevant.
Duration ranges is a great mechanic to have on powerful spells. Charm, for example. Being 100% invis with no risk of it dropping trivializes things. It's MUCH better to have a duration range on certain abilities. It keeps you on your toes, it makes you hold your breath at times. That's good.
Vandraad said:I too hated the classes who's invisibility was random because, invariably, if I was just standing around invis it would last the entire duration yet if I needed that invis to get past just ONE mob? It would immediately drop at the point where I was closest to the NPC.
That's just not true.
Vandraad said:Later on, when items with insta-click invis came into the world then that random duration became completely irrelevant. That is what I mind most. Don't introduce some 'rule' or other mechanics only to then replace it with some item, etc that makes that rule irrelevant.
This is an idictment of the clicky, and not of invisibility having a duration range.
Note on invisibility. If you are invisible, you should be not visible by your group unless they have see invis ability or spell.
I agree with Porygon: It was'nt that bad. You got a red error message stating that you are about to appear. Of course, you had to watch out for that message, and search a safe spot to recast invis, but that is a pretty exciting situation.
If i remember right, there was a fixed duration invis in higher levels (51 or so).
That being said: I like the feature of randomly fading invis, but only with a message so that you have some time to find a save spot, in panic, with a pumping heart.
Invisibility is ok as long as it's temporary and there are plenty of mobs that can see through it. Also you should not be able to mount up or dismount when invisible nor remain invisible after diving into water or jumping off a high place.
The suggestion of becoming invisible towards your own groupmembers is great. Not sure how functional it is.
There are already things up in the air concerning seeing invis so, how long would the use of invisibility last within a group?
I agree with invisi having a short timer. So I'm not running invis through an entire forest or dungeon. Personally, it can have fix timers. As long as you keep them short enough, so that I should be looking for safe places to refresh or having the risk of crossing a great distance and losing the invis on the way. That works well enough for me.
I liked the randomness of invisibility. The better you were at base skills, the more reliable your spells are. I don't know the mechanics of how they worked together but like melee skills, a spell used a base skill to determine its effectivenss. The better you were at the skill the more reliable your ability was. The better you were at one-hand blunt, the better you were at using a club. The higher my evocation was the more effective my damage spells were. I always assumed it worked the same with utility spells as well where the better you were at diviniation, the more reliable your invisbility was. In my opinion, this was implemented perfectly. As a wizard in EQ1, it forced me to spend a little time practice-casting my very few diviniation spells to get better at it.
I liked that invisibility wore off, but I wanted it to start working again after a period of time. If you were someone who could cast invis, then you would hide somewhere and re-cast invis. If you had invis cast on you by someone else, then you would be in a significantly bigger pickle. If the fun gameplay is watching for your invis message and running to a safe place when it weakens, then why not allow all players to do that same thing. Just let it pick back up after it weakens for a while.
Porygon said:Eq1 gave you a 2.to 3 tick window in where your invis fell off. That's a long time to find a safeish spot or let your group know. It was not as bad as people make it out to be.
You had 6 seconds to find a safe spot, once the warning came up, and even if it was longer if you had to re invis that person and started to move again another grp invis starts to break so than you reinvis someone and start moving and again and than someone invis starts to break and you invis them and if you lucky you actually got to where your going, i remember one time it actually took me 15 minutes to get to a camp that was like 2 minutes away in lguk, it was so annoying, but like i said if i have to deal with it i will, and if your talking about only invising yourself than the situation isnt that bad but if you have to invis an entire grp and keep running into people losing invis and have to keep refreshing it than its an entire different story.
Riahuf22 said:Porygon said:Eq1 gave you a 2.to 3 tick window in where your invis fell off. That's a long time to find a safeish spot or let your group know. It was not as bad as people make it out to be.
You had 6 seconds to find a safe spot, once the warning came up, and even if it was longer if you had to re invis that person and started to move again
You had longer than 6 seconds. And the point of the group being notified was so they could come back to you and kill whatever mob might have aggroed.
I think I agree with those who favor the randomness of the invis; within reason. I like having the "fear" of randomly losing invis and potentially gaining unwanted aggro. It creates adventure and helps us fear our surroundings a bit more. I do agree that later on, invis should be more powerful and allow for a more defined duration. This will allow for player interactions too since lower level characters may ask for a higher player to invis them, etc. All in all, I think it becomes too trivial if the invis was a set duration that never changes.
Ainadak said:I liked that invisibility wore off, but I wanted it to start working again after a period of time. If you were someone who could cast invis, then you would hide somewhere and re-cast invis. If you had invis cast on you by someone else, then you would be in a significantly bigger pickle. If the fun gameplay is watching for your invis message and running to a safe place when it weakens, then why not allow all players to do that same thing. Just let it pick back up after it weakens for a while.
Are you suggesting that invis spells should be able to toggle off and on for players that can not cast the spell on themselves? Or am I reading this wrong?
Barin999 said:Are you suggesting that invis spells should be able to toggle off and on for players that can not cast the spell on themselves? Or am I reading this wrong?
Sorry no, I was suggesting that any player who has an invis spell active on them should have the spell weaken and return to full strength without any activity on the player's part. If you are a warrior and a wizard casts invisibility on you then...
1: You would be invisible for X seconds (X chosen by some RNG formula)
2: Then you would get a warning that your invisibility was failing
3: Then Y seconds later you would become visible
4: You would be visible for Z seconds (Z chosen by some RNG formula)
5: Then you would get a message saying that your invisibility had returned
6: Return to 1
The cycle of failing/returning would occur until the actual buff duration ran its course.
This is a fairly minor change relative to how EQ did it, where step 4 was "you lose your invisibility buff" and you had to get a new one cast on you, which I think is clunky design.
Over all I prefer some type of randomness, just for the reason that it adds danger into the world, but I think the issue with EQ was just how random it was. Spent a little time in this last year playing on one of the progression servers and can tell you without doubt it was not over 6 seconds, some times you got no warning, instead you just got an "You have appeared" message within two feet of where you were when you cast the spell. Nothing was worse then buying invis potions from Freeport and Shammies(had to have both invis and invis versus undead) so that you can get through LGuk (after you have made it through UGuk), or you just tipped your local caster to make you invis.....get two feet and its gone. So I would say I am in support of randomness, but maybe the algorithm needs to be a little better, so that there is some sense of reliability.
I would honestly like invis to work more like a "Hiding in the shadows" type spells rather then being invisible. Something where if you were not in the line of site of the mob, they are much less likely to see through. This was one area where I thought WoW actually did a decent job with, when dealing with Rogues.
I'm all about the unexpected for Pantheon, and randomness of many spells, invisibility included is part of that.
I do question the idea that at higher levels we should lose a feature like randomness? We seem pretty much in agreement that in the case of invisibility random is a good thing, why would it be less of a good thing at level 50 than it is at level 5?
As was described earlier in this thread, in EQ the reliability appeared to reflect the players skill level in Divination. Players were capable of 5 skill points per level so a level 5 player with Div of 25 should have just as reliable of invisibility as a level 50 with 250 Div. A level 5 with Div of 20, not so reliable as with a level 50 and Div of only 245.
The higher level spells could have longer possible max duration or invisible to a wider range of mobs. But I think the unpredictability should remain for all levels.
I suppose if the Caster dropped down to a lower level Invisibility spell he could improve its reliability until he raised his skill. So the level 50 player with Div of 245 casting a level 40 invis could be NEARLY (but never) 100% reliable.
I feel spells like invis should not just be a randon algorithm to determine success. Rather, I would like for it to be based on a couple of different things:
1) The spellcaster's fluency/proficiency in casting that particular spell
2) the recipient's experience with having the spell/buff cast on them
This would allow for a couple different scenarios:
1) The spell has a potential to last to maximum duration if the spellcaster is proficient, and the recipient has equitable experience wearing the buff
2) The spell could drop nearly immediately if neither the spellcaster nor recipient have much experience
3) One is proficient and the other is not, it's more random.
4) Both are "in between" and it's random, but can expect a duration of maybe halfish?
I think of it like playing catch... just because someone can throw a ball doesn't mean the person their throwing to can actually catch it at first, and vice versa.