Andor's Trail

now I can see why there wouldn't be stackable effects for like fear or confusion but what about minor negative effects like bleeding or weak posion effects vs opponents?

has it ever been talked about? or is it one if those things that don't have a chance of being employed to the game?

I believe all effects must be stackable +ive or -ive. The conditions for the players to strike on monsters is anyways significantly weak. Very few offer effects with 20% chance. I have raised this issue in the past asking for effects to range between 30 to 50% through items. All must also stack.

Osho wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:13 pm I believe all effects must be stackable +ive or -ive. The conditions for the players to strike on monsters is anyways significantly weak. Very few offer effects with 20% chance. I have raised this issue in the past asking for effects to range between 30 to 50% through items. All must also stack.

I dont know what "+ive" or "-ive" means but are saying ALL possible effects on monsters should stack? If so that would be too overpowered.

I feel like that any stackable effects vs monsters should be lowered to like 5-10%

"I believe all effects must be stackable"

Yes, all of the actor conditions are stackable but not all are configured that way. In fact, I cannot think off the top of my head of an actor condition put on the NPCs that is configured to stack.

The Gray wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:15 pm
I dont know what "+ive" or "-ive" means but are saying ALL possible effects on monsters should stack? If so that would be too overpowered.

Yes. ALL.
It's easy to configure the %chance to make certain effects less overpowering. One can also counter +ive with -ive condition to dilute the overall effect. Like a poison immunity ring does! Or, certain potions quickly remove the effects.

Also, by stackable, I am talking about conditions imposed through items. Monsters have innate ability while players have NONE. So monsters are already overpowered. What this topic and me are suggesting is fairness.

Players are not allowed access to certain conditions seen on monsters descriptions.

Are Monsters really overpowered?
My PD-character has killed 75057 monsters. In the beginning I had to be a little picky, but now I feel free to choose which of these little buggers I want to slay next.

Although I'd love some conditions to stack or at least t last longer (taunt...)

After sometime monsters naturally become manageable because there is no level scaling. Let players decide whether to make it easy or difficult. I have control over how I build my stats.

Also, stackable shall only increase the challenge. Monsters have an unfair advantage too. Their effects last more rounds than the players strike on them.

Lam al Adie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:39 am Are Monsters really overpowered?

Well monsters may not be overpowered individually but it really depends on what monsters you are up against: do they have any conditions that they can inflict on you? Are they stackable? Does the monster have allies nearby that can fight for him? Etc, etc. I personally think that kind of question is more complicated than a "yes" or "no"

Osho wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:19 am Let players decide whether to make it easy or difficult.

No offense but thats not the type of thing that should he added to the game. new weapons, skills (maybe even slightly improving some existing ones) , armor, etc should be added. It adds new ways to approach the game; variety.

Even when I die in a perma death character I dont ask "why cant the game be easier?" I come back to the game even more prepared than my last character.

We can give our ideas to the devs but we should let them choose how they employ our ideas into the game, assuming its even an idea they would consider.