Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)

[lch]

silhouette said:
Well, don't forget it may happen via collusion of more than one opponent as well. For example, if the leader of an MP game puts up the Forge global, and nobody is in a position to Dispel it, I would completely try to make an alliance of the other players who would each send a dozen items. It's a way to deny the one player use of forging, and it seems like a useful and valid tactic to me. And it is sort of self-balancing: if it's a one on one situation, you would have to commit X% of your lab/forging to deny the opponent the same percent of his capability.

Biggest waste of gems and mage time I ever heard of. I'm not saying that this isn't possible, just that it's impractical. You waste gems and mage time to donate magic items to your enemy, however useless those items might be. And you'd have to keep this up for the subsequent turns, too. So, let's see... Lowest gem count for forging an item is 5 gems. Magic lab can hold what, 50 items? So you'd need to send up to 250 gems worth of magic items, per turn, to your enemy. If I'd be that enemy, I'd die from laughter. Gem generating globals, dwarven hammers, clams, Forge of the ancient all have just one goal: To save/generate more gems than your enemies can. If you want to sacrifice as many gems as that for such a dubious plan, then your enemy doesn't have to do anything because you're playing into his hands by digging your own grave instead of, uh, the crazy idea of saving those gems that go into his free items, to override his enchantment or alchemize them to astral gems and dispel it?

[Edratman]

silhouette said:

Well, don't forget it may happen via collusion of more than one opponent as well. For example, if the leader of an MP game puts up the Forge global, and nobody is in a position to Dispel it, I would completely try to make an alliance of the other players who would each send a dozen items. It's a way to deny the one player use of forging, and it seems like a useful and valid tactic to me. And it is sort of self-balancing: if it's a one on one situation, you would have to commit X% of your lab/forging to deny the opponent the same percent of his capability.

Sill

The collusion angle of lab filling does present a whole new aspect to the ploy. I followed the thread (and many others) under the basic assumption that (occasionally) there are players who utilize tactics that the vast majority of players do not consider valid or in the spirit the developers intended because of various reasons. There is general, but not universal, consensus on almost all of these actions.


But when I read that two or more players may unite to fill an opponents lab presents a whole new perspective.

To be honest, I cannot even decide if it makes the ploy more valid or less valid. Previously I thought it would require a significent effort from a single player to forge adequate number of slave collars to effectively fill an opponents lab and block new forgings. But to learn that 2, 3 or 4 players would think that this is a good move and thus each would contribute an easily manageable quantity of items to fill one players lab is entirely different.

[Kuritza]

For the communion thing, making slaves passive will render many nice mages like Astrapelagists or LA Marignon's seafaring mages (whatever) semi-useless, and others like Celestial masters quite average. Also, the nice synergy betweeen communion and sabbath is gonna suffer.
So if this communion thingie is gonna be fixed, make it so that 'slaves dont cast if at least one master has cast anything the same turn', not 'slaves dont cast spells at all'. Thus communions will become more balanced, but still usable. Otherwise they will exist perhaps for casting heavy BF enchantments only.

Regarding VotD - this spell goes against the logic and normal game mechanics. This exception should be fixed if only because there's no protection against it (as against the Mind hunt) and its selective. MR *will* fail you sooner or later, most likely sooner.

Immortal demons - gosh, its not OK and it wont ever be. These who advocate it are either clueless or abusers themselves. Dakini, for example, are damn dangerous even naked; make them immortal and Lanka becomes undefeatable period.

[Twan]

I'm a fan of reverse communions as well.

I think this possibility add to the game and isn't bad for balance of astral nations betwenn each others (nations with only S mages having other paths or good levels vs nations with ultra cheap S only professionnal communiants).

Alas it also adds a level of microgestion, which is never good, and strengthen an already (too?) powerful path even more.

I'd like if Illwinter can find a way to balance the reverse communion and reduce microgestion instead of simply making it impossible (ie : once the bug can be fixed, add a third communion spell to allow a mage to be an "active slave", with slightly increased requirements say S2 or 40 fatigue, allowing some form of reverse communion without the actual micro-gestion resulting from mages ID to consider).

[thejeff]

The other option for communions, even if they worked as designed, would be to retreat the masters after they'd cast their buffs and boosters. Or to attack with them

A "Remove from communion" spell that took a mage out of communion, but left any buff effects in place could work.