Celestial Seal vs Powders - It's About Time It Was Resolved

About time someone takes this up.
As a cleric I always ask when the squard is formed if there is anyone who use powder/orbs before i use Celestial.
But I can not count the times I have been in squard with other clerics and they group buff with this even though I told them not to.
Ohh ups sorry forgot.

Fix it please.
If it can not be made to stack then at least let the less useful fail.

Personally, I would like to see everything stack, but I think there are more options to consider to solve/address this problem. Keeping the original three ideas and adding comments, I have also added a few more option to the list.


1. Do nothing ... just keep it the way it is. Obviously, this is easiest, but leads to a lot of confusion and hard feelings, especially from younger/newer players who are just trying to help.


2. New buff fails if existing buffs are better. What about if the old buff is about to run out? I have a 10 minute Focus Powder that has about 10 seconds left on it and the squad cleric redoes the party buff. Since I am regenerating at +50 MP / second, and she is only adding +10 MP / second regeneration, I do not get the buff, and 10 seconds later I am regenerating at +0 MP / second.


3. Powder and Buff Stack. Again, this does not address the issue of time, nor does it address a lower level buff applied after a higher level buff. Perhaps it is good to have the powder not ruined, but what about the +10 dropping to +1 or the time going from 1 hour to only 30 minutes?


4. Player Choice. If stacking is likely to cause a game imbalance, then allowing the player to choose the replacement buff could be a solution. This might be like the Resurrection option pop-up that would offer the different buffs as button options. Or it could be a setting, added to the Protections window (click the shield under the mini-map) which offered "Take buff with greater regeneration rate" and "Take buff with greater length of time remaining".


5. Split powders and buffs. That is, make them two different things with different icons and different additional bonuses. A powder and a magic buff can exist at the same time with different additions (applied cumulatively) and different periods before they expire. Adding a new buff only replaces/refreshes the existing buff, while adding a new powder only replaces/refreshes the power.


6. Separate Powders and Squad Buffs and Individual Buffs. Okay, this might be a bit radical, but make the Squad Buff subject to the existence of the member who cast it. That is, if a Barb casts Beast King Inspiration on everyone in the party, then so long as that Barb is in the party, the bonus applies. In other words, the buff is on the caster, not the subject. If the Barb leaves the party, so does the buff. If more than one Buff of the same type exists in the party, everyone gets the better rate, however, the time of the buffs remains with the caster, so when one runs out, another might continue.

In addition, however, casting an INDIVIDUAL buff is now a SEPARATE thing again, so a person could stack a Powder, the best Squad Buff and an Individual Buff all at the same time (of course, the length of time that each was effective would be different, so they would each run out at different times).

If adopted, a player could get +50 MP for a Focus Powder for 10 minutes, +10 MP for a Cleric with a Level 10 Squad Buff on her for an hour and +10 MP for 30 minutes for an individual buff cast on the player giving a total of + 70 MP / second regeneration (and there could be more bonuses on equipment and for natural skills). It sounds like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things it is not. After 10 minutes the Focus Powder ends and the bonus is only +20 MP. To stay at the maximum, a play would still have to use a steady stream of focus powders. Even now, the Concentrate Orb gives a +100 MP / second regeneration bonus (this is available for players level 60+) and there are other powders and orbs with similar bonuses.


Obviously I like Option 6 the best *smile*.


While I am on the subject, another thing I would like to see is an indication on the buff of its effect and duration. This would be for any of the options (including the way it is now). If I hover my mouse over my icon, it would display the regenerating rate and the time remaining. This way, I would be much better able to decide when it would be good to rebuff, rather than having buffs go out half-way through a big battle.


Good Luck.

My comment about option 3 (stacking) is that it does not consider what happens based on the length of time the buff lasts. In theory, one could say that everyone will always want the buff with the highest NUMBER of bonus MP or HP points given out per second, but that does not always result in the best combination in all cases.


For example, Cleric 1 has a Level 10 buff, Cleric 2 has a Level 9 buff.

29 minutes ago you were buffed by Cleric 1, and you have +10 MP/sec running for 1 more minute. At this time, you join a squad with Cleric 2. Cleric 2 buffs the squad with +9 MP/sec for the next hour.

The program has to know how to decide what to do in this case. If maximum bonus is the criteria, then the original buff from Cleric 1 will stay on, and the buff from Cleric 2 will be ignored. But that means that 1 minute later, you have NO BUFF!

[At least, that is how I read Option 3 would work.]


Option 4 would either pop-up a message saying "Buff Change Requested" and let the player select the buff they wanted, OR would use a selected rule (Greatest Points or Greatest Duration) to decide for the player (based on a setting selected previously).


Option 5 would simply replace the old Cleric buff with the new one, as the Powder buff would be separate.


Option 6 would keep both buffs for 1 minute as the buff from Cleric 1 was an Individual buff and the buff from Cleric 2 was a Squad buff, and after 1 minute the individual buff would expire but the squad buff would continue.


One other point about programming ... I am a game programmer: there is nothing hard about any of these suggestions. What is difficult is being 100% clear about what should happen in EVERY situation that can occur. We as humans make natural decisions that we don't even think about, but a computer needs to be told what to do in every situation and for any suggestion to be adopted there would need to be a very clear understanding by the programmer of what is to happen in every case.

I could easily make a full specification for Option 6, or in fact any option. The difficulty first is to determine what level of game balance change is acceptable. Option 1 and 4 do not see any change to the game balance, however Option 4 does attempt to address the issue (overriding better buffs) by giving the player some say in what happens. Option 2 needs to have a clear definition of what "Better Buff" means, as rate AND duration would be factors. All the other options change the game balance slightly, and therefore might be rejected simply because the game would change.


One more thought re: Options 2 and 4: "Better" could be defined as the maximum number of points that could be generated. This would be Rate x Duration, so a Level 10 Cleric Squad Buff would be +10 MP/second x 60 minutes x 60 seconds/minute = 36,000 MP (Maximum) while a Focus Powder would be 50 MP/second x 10 minutes x 60 seconds/minute = 30,000 (Maximum). If this was the criteria used, a full focus powder would not be able to replace a brand new Level 10 Squad Buff. The point is, there has to be a clear indication of what "Best Buff" means.


Good Luck!

Having powders and buffs act separately is "Option 5" and I would like to see that change as well. To be honest, anything would be better than what it is.


At issue for me to start, is what would the Game designers accept? I can see three potential answers:

1) Game Balance CANNOT change.
2) Game Balance can change slightly, just so long as it is not excessive.
3) Game Balance is not an issue as they are willing to look at making the game better.


Under condition 1, the following options would exist:

1.a) Do nothing. Let the powders and buffs wipe each other out. Let low level buffs obliterate high level buffs (regardless of class, btw ... this is not solely a Cleric problem). Let individual buffs of short duration wipe out squad buffs with long durations. (This is Option 1 above.)

1.b) Add detailed information about the buff to the Icon. In this way, nothing has changed regarding the game balance, but the caster of the new buff can see if someone has a powder with +50 or +100 running or has a few seconds left or has a lot of time remaining and choose an appropriate action. (This is basically a new option.)

1.c) Prompt or add rules to allow you to have some control over what buffs you get, so other players, either ignorant of the problem or maliciously trying to harm you (by eliminating your nice buffs), do not automatically change your buffs. You at least have a way to block them. (This is Option 4 above.)


Under condition 2, the following options would exist:

2.a) Apply the "best" buff (for this to happen, we would need to define what "best" is.) (This is Option 2 above.)

2.b) Stack the buffs. Unfortunately there would have to be a limit, which might be 1 powder and 1 buff can be stacked together. Powders could replace powders and buffs could replace buffs but there would not be a crossover between them. (This is Option 3 above.)

2.c) Split the Powders and Buffs into Separate things with their own icons, effects and durations. I think this one has the most merit so far and is most likely easier to define and easier to implement than either 2.a or 2.b. There is no "best" consideration as well, so a buff could be wiped out by another buff and a powder can be wiped out by another powder. (This is Option 5 above.)


Under condition 3, the following rather radical changes would be possible:

3.a) Same as 2.c but add a third icon for "Squad Buffs". All three effects can stack: Powders, Individual Buffs and Squad Buffs. Squad Buffs, however, stay with the caster. Players who come into the squad instantly get the buff, while players who leave the squad instantly lose the buff. If a squad has two players with the same squad buff, the squad gets the higher effect while it is active. (This is Option 6 above.)


While I really like 3.a (Option 6), I think the majority of players would be happy with 2.c (Option 5). However, if condition 1 must be met, then at least give us 1.b! And, 1.c would be nice too (i.e., add BOTH 1.b and 1.c: effect/duration information and prompts or rules to allow player to refuse a bad buff).

===

taintedwhite, in order for the poll to be effective, I think you have to restart the thread. Discuss the issue as above and ask first if players would be willing to see changes that meet Condition 1, 2 or 3. A lot of people have been playing this game a long time and have gotten used to this situation. If condition 1 won the poll it would mean that while players might want some kind of fix, they are not willing to completely change the situation to make players and/or squads unnaturally stronger. Also, it might be best to assume that PWI will not agree to anything that does not meet condition 1, and therefore all suggestions from 2 and 3 would fall on deaf ears.

Or perhaps restart the thread with these options:

1: Same but better: Add icon information and a method to confirm/block unwanted buffs.
2: Split powders and buffs to have their own icons and effects. Powders can override powders, buffs override buffs but the two are separate and can both apply (stack).
3: Create a new way of handling squad buffs which include the changes from 2 but also treats Squad Buffs as separate, stackable effects, but they stay with the caster (caster must be in the squad for players to get the bonus effect).

Once it is determined what level of change is desired/acceptable, then we can hone in on the change(s) that would be most appropriate. Once that is done, the details from the poll and the thread can be submitted as a ticket to the PWI staff with enough detail to allow a programming team to make the changes.

However, I think it could be months or even years before such changes might be made. While this might be nice to have/fix from the players' perspective, it really does not change the PWI bottom line. The fact is, there are simply dozens if not hundreds of changes like this that could be made, but PWI is not concerned about changing things that work (even if the way they work is frustrating to players) as much as they are about changing and/or adding things that will generate income. I agree it is annoying, but unless players are going to go somewhere else because of this issue, it is unlikely to ever become a priority.

BTW: I did see that happen in another game. A series of small problems like this one eventually got so annoying to players that they left the game on mass (I was one of the last holdouts, but eventually even I had to leave). I checked the game out about a year after I left and they had finally done several of the things players had been screaming for, but it was too late. The majority of the players were gone (many of them coming to PWI *smile*) and it is unlikely they will ever return.

Good Luck!

I serious doubt that "bug fixing" is even on their priority list at all or they would have been taken care of long before now.