Blowing my own trumpet here, but I feel that my Witch's Blood idea has the potential to accomplish the same ends (being able to more effectively attrition, particularly mana) as Consume, while avoiding the problem of stacking in group combat (since it's an aff) and without diminishing effectiveness in single combat. Further, it is significantly more simple, and fairly unique.

Idea reposted below:

foolofsound:

Witch's Blood
By infecting your foe's blood with Wyrden energy, you confound his ability to heal himself.
2 Power. Single Target. Focus Spirit cure. Whenever your foe actively heals one of his vitals, his other two vital vitals fall by 25% of the amount restored. (ex. Enyalida sips health for 3000, Enyalida loses 750 Mana and Ego)

The low power cost and high cost of curing ensure that an opponent will generally leave this in effect while they are activly fighting the SD, and attrition to mana (in the case of active health damage (though Nightkiss or similar)) or health (in the case of mana damage though Lash) both contribute to kill conditions fairly rapidly.

I don't like the Witch's Blood idea. Glomdoring already has plenty of bleeding (which drains the mana) and giving them a focus spirit aff (heavy mana loss for the cure) that will cause more loss on h/m/e gains is just too much.

Also, it makes scrolls and sparkleberries less effective too by a severe amount. Your 500 health gained from sparkle reduces the mana and ego by 25% (500 to 375) and then each of those hit each other (375 to 281.25) and of course the health will take the two hits from mana and ego and go from 500 to 281.25. So...rather than a 500/500/500 you get a 281/281/281 which is a 44% reduction overall. Assuming that it doesn't take a flat out 50%, of course.

You keep confusing Shadowdancer combat with Glomdoring combat. We do not have access to Crow, ecology, music, druidry, shamanism, and so on by ourselves. If choke is being deleted, and if the idea is to give Shadowdancers something we can do to replace the caster/victim aeon, the replacement needs to be focused on improving Shadowdancer combat, not how a Shadowdancer can help a Glomdoring army.



Besides-- if we're going to start ignoring ideas because of a potential synergy, all of Hallifax needs to be edited.

Also, it makes scrolls and sparkleberries less effective too by a severe amount. Your 500 health gained from sparkle reduces the mana and ego by 25% (500 to 375) and then each of those hit each other (375 to 281.25) and of course the health will take the two hits from mana and ego and go from 500 to 281.25. So...rather than a 500/500/500 you get a 281/281/281 which is a 44% reduction overall. Assuming that it doesn't take a flat out 50%, of course.

What if we made it Health/Mana/Ego potion only? Or not affect effects that heal multiple vitals?

Rainydays:

I like the idea as a concept.

I am against regeneration blocking. We have music boxes already for that general reducing effect, but the broad room effect of full regeneration blocking is just a bit too much.

Sparkleberry blocking and BC's could be scary!

Also, how viable would it be in debates? I'm not much of a debater, so I don't really know, but Glomdoring already has a nice perk in Faelings being their spec race, penumbra, etc.

Fine tuning aside, it seems like a good starting point!

TBH, I forgot that musicboxes are already here, so I can remove the shadow thing. It can be envoyed anyway.

And assuming that consume is aggressive, you can't do it during peaced revolts. You can do it during violent revolts, but I figure murdering is a bigger problem when it comes to that kind of event.

Druken:

You keep confusing Shadowdancer combat with Glomdoring combat. We do not have access to Crow, ecology, music, druidry, shamanism, and so on by ourselves. If choke is being deleted, and if the idea is to give Shadowdancers something we can do to replace the caster/victim aeon, the replacement needs to be focused on improving Shadowdancer combat, not how a Shadowdancer can help a Glomdoring army.



Besides-- if we're going to start ignoring ideas because of a potential synergy, all of Hallifax needs to be edited.

I think I made it very clear I wasn't confusing Shadowdancer combat with Glomdoring combat when I said, "Glomdoring already has plenty of bleeding (which drains the mana) and giving them a focus spirit aff (heavy mana loss for the cure) that will cause more loss on h/m/e gains is just too much."

Synergy has to be taken into account. Too much IS an issue no matter how you slice it, and my point is that Glomdoring's synergy in this area is already very, very good.

That's not to say synergy doesn't happen elsewhere. That's not to say that it isn't strong or even OP elsewhere. That's to say that there can definitely be too much of one thing in an org. The "let's not balance around group combat" argument is nothing but absolute BS that everyone likes to use when it's convenient and disregard when it's not. Want to see what I mean? Go look at the report on Ninukhi ("It's too great for groups!") and then some other random report that was envoyed because of its power in group. Either we balance around group combat or we don't, and the lesser of the two evils is to focus on the group combat as that's what determines villages, domoths, ascension...everything in particular, pretty much.

I agree with you, though, that it should be helping Shadowdancers. No where did I not say that, but it should be done in a way that does not add more bleeding/mana loss to the Glomdoring army. Anything you add will, in fact, help the Glomdoring army; I know this, but there are definitely different levels of help. Glomdoring has enough of this type of synergy; there's no need for more of it.

Synergies are particularly frustrating when other orgs just don't have the same level of skill meshing. Or it was deemed too good and torn out.

I like Shuyin's idea, because, properly balanced, it is not only potent, but flexibile. Will it suck to be hit with in group combat? Most definitely. Should group combat be taken in to account?

Yes.

Why?

Because a big part of why we're even having this discussion is the impact of a skill on group combat. It is all well and good to scribble theories on a napkin and bind them with assumptions of 1v1 scenarios, but it isn't particularly realistic.

It is like economists. Economists tend to couch everything they do in a series of assumptions, that, if true, allow their theories to work. It reminds me of a joke.

A chemist, a physicist, and an economist are stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean. Lacking food, they are overjoyed to find a sealed can of tuna wash up on shore. But, they are completely without means to open it.

They physicist says, "I will open it. I will climb up to the top of this tree, and drop the can on a rock. The impact will fracture the can and allow us to pry it open." So he climbs the tree, and drops the can, and it bounces harmlessly off the rock, denting it slightly but producing no fracture.

The chemist says, "I will open it. I will place it upon the rock, and the hot noon sun will cause the fluid inside to excite and expand, bursting the can!" So, she places the can on a rock, and the trio sit and wait. Noon comes, then the afternoon, as as the day wears on, it becomes apparent that the can will not burst.

The economist says, "I will open it. It is very simple. Assume a can-opener."

Problem solved.

The same issue arises when we only balance assuming 1v1 combat. It is simple, it is pretty, but it just isn't very realistic.

All that said, please don't confuse the statement:

"We must consider group fight implications!"

with

"We cannot allow the new ability to be useful in groups!"

They are two very different things.

I don't fully get the joke. :(

Almost everything in economics is based on assumptions instead of cold hard facts like the real sciences.

AquaNeos:

I don't fully get the joke. :(

The economist has a theory that works very well for opening the can. It works perfectly, given that the assumptions laid out regarding the theory are true. Therefore, by "assuming a can-opener" the economist can then propose the theory "we use the can-opener to open the can", which is perfect. Except for the fact that the assumption is unrealistic and unattainable.

The analogy is, saying that we must balance only in regards to 1v1 is akin to being the economist. It is creating an assumption that is frequently, even usually, not true, and using that assumption to create a framework to solve the problem in.

Rainydays:

All that said, please don't confuse the statement:
"We must consider group fight implications!"
with
"We cannot allow the new ability to be useful in groups!"

They are two very different things.

Well said.

The perceived Glom synergy is due to two factors:
- excellent leadership / calling
- groups that LISTEN.

Half of our "synergised" group is from Gaudiguch and Celest. We take out targets based on a priority order, we focus fire and we hinder > damage.

Choke was just an excuse. Are you really sure you want to replace Choke with something underpowered? What will you blame then?

Naia:

Well said.

The perceived Glom synergy is due to two factors:
- excellent leadership / calling
- groups that LISTEN.

Half of our "synergised" group is from Gaudiguch and Celest. We take out targets based on a priority order, we focus fire and we hinder > damage.

Choke was just an excuse. Are you really sure you want to replace Choke with something underpowered? What will you blame then?

Mag does the same thing. It just...hasn't in a very long time.

However, synergy and how well a group works together are two different things. Glomdoring skillsets synergize well with each other. Glomdorings also work well with each other.

Glom does synergize well (bleeding, mana drain), though so does Mag (hunger, disease, high damage), Hallifax (timewarp), Gaudi (command rejection rejection). I'm sure Celeste and Seren have things too, I just haven't groupfought with them/played as one enough to find out.

Choke was particularly nasty in group combat, though we have no intention to replace it with something underpowered. Please bother to read though the suggestions before you make accusations.

I feel that Consume is interesting, but is overly complicated and has the potential to be rediculous in group combat, even small groups, as 2 SD can prevent you from sipping essentially constantly. Even with fine tuing for balance, I feel that it is too complicated. Remember that Estarra asked for a simple idea.

Celest: judge judge judge judge judge judge judge. They actually don't have any other good synergy I can think of.
Seren: ???

Razenth:

Celest: judge judge judge judge judge judge judge. They actually don't have any other good synergy I can think of.
Seren: ???

Celeste also has Inquisition, and a lot of aff/vitals helaing and buffing.
I really can't think of anything for Seren though.
/derail

Razenth:

Celest: judge judge judge judge judge judge judge. They actually don't have any other good synergy I can think of.
Seren: ???

Too true :/

foolofsound:

Celeste also has Inquisition, and a lot of aff/vitals helaing and buffing.
I really can't think of anything for Seren though.
/derail

Healing doesn't kill people. And I don't have Inquisition.

Shuyin's idea is interesting, but I think it's rather poor as a replacement.

Why? All you would get is help via heal denies in group fights, rather significant. 1v1 would be rather sub-par.

Edit: 1v1 would be either about guaranteed, or totally worthless depending on the numbers. I don't see any room for in between.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the have to have a person's shadow requirement take care of the potential 2 SD keeping you from sipping issue? Or can the shadow be passed back and forth?

Shadowdancer 1: consume consume hinder consume consume
Shadowdancer 2: lash lash lash lash toadcurse

At least, that's how I view the scenario.

One of the big problems with choke was that it could be fairly easily avoided 1v1 (though it still shut down opposing combat 90% of the time, soooo), but in groups it was too powerful. That seems to be a problem with this suggestion also, as cool as it sounds?