Fast Travel in Raids

Mannimar

I'll ignore the long ass page of bickering and just comment on the abilities...

Raido: blocked by Monolith, stuttering, silence

Universe: not instant, a short window to chase through after first traveller. (pretty easy to guess where people are going when running)

Pathfinder: only returns to room summoned in, limited summons, can be killed damage/orb sigil, can follow through

Dolls: limited use, only works when other player is on, blocked by broken arms, prone, probably paralysis. Will probably have shield and enemy doll in hand most of the time.

Orb of Confinement: Mostly useless. suggested changes would only make it less likely to be used.

Ernam

@Daslin - from your responses.

Comparing Angel Sacrifice to an unstoppable fast travel ability is [a silly comparison].  Angel sacrifice only affects a single person (the user) and doesn't involve traveling into/out of cities with entire raid groups following you (which Raido does).  It also can only be used once, and devoids the user of a skillset for upwards of 5 minutes, which is not an attribute shared in any way by Raido (or any of the other abilities I listed).  Raido can be used, resketched, and re-used, and in combination with earrings, creates an unstoppable 2-way fast-travel into/out of cities, neither of which can be stopped by Monoliths, piety, etc.

Stating that we have to venom-lock / sleep lock raiders to have a chance of killing them in general is also just silly.  Raid combat for the most part revolves around damage, be it either melee or LoS.  Asking for a raid defense group to venom/sleep-lock everyone in a raid group is absurd (and impossible).


Universe Tarot's windup isn't a channel and unlike any other windup in the game, has an open-ended result.  Things like angel refuge, gare, and even earring, can be stopped with well-timed proning or afflictions.  Universe, however, once up, remains up, and can be used for an amount of time that makes shielding/spamming TOUCH NEWTHERA etc absolutely unstoppable, particularly if used early in combat (which it usually is).

Everything else:

1v1 class balance is balanced around mobility and movement.  Almost all classes in the game have access to some form or another of hindrance, that are designed to allow either momentum building or completion of kill sequences.  Abilities like Raido, Puppet travel, Uni, etc that completely ignore these mechanics are completely ignoring one of the core things that balance most classes combat balance structure.

It makes no sense, for example, that Occultists have the ability to keep someone in their room, sometimes permanently, using Tentacles, but can instantly leave the room via any of 3-4 methods, bypassing all forms of other hindrance methods, such as hamstring, pinshot, block, piety, gravehands, etc.

All forms of movement, including fast travel, should respect movement hindrance, to some degree or another.  This is a claim made knowing that it'd massively impact combat, but I firmly believe (after playing every class in the game (-alch), that it'd be an improvement for all of them, even if seen as a "nerf" for people using these methods to ignore hindrance mechanisms.

Daslin

Only going to respond to one thing in particular here, mostly because I really do feel like I'm bashing my skull into a brick wall. So here goes the one thing I'll respond to.

Ernam said:

Stating that we have to venom-lock / sleep lock raiders to have a chance of killing them in general is also just silly.  Raid combat for the most part revolves around damage, be it either melee or LoS.  Asking for a raid defense group to venom/sleep-lock everyone in a raid group is absurd (and impossible).

Oh god. am I stuck in the quote box? I hope not... Anyways. Can't sip health/eat potash/say raido while asleep. Curare/delphinium. Have all your dsl'ers toss those on, have one do double delph. Teach Kyttin to only snipe delph. TONS of ways to sleep someone, man. Think outside the box! Be Taco Bell. Even if the're outside the bun. But seriously. Lots of ways to keep someone prone/para/sleep in a raid.

Ernam

Metawake.

[SETALIAS]
Eat Magnesium.
Stand.
Attach Mushroom to Monolith
Say "Ride home."

Thank you for your on-topic responses, they're appreciated, and I'm not trying to belittle them.  Just stating that there are easy, instant ways to avoid all/most of what you're saying.

Also keep in mind that once Raido is activated, raiders are typically earringed back in 3-6 seconds with full health and another raido sketched.

Bluef

Ernam said:

All forms of movement, including fast travel, should respect movement hindrance, to some degree or another.  This is a claim made knowing that it'd massively impact combat, but I firmly believe (after playing every class in the game (-alch), that it'd be an improvement for all of them, even if seen as a "nerf" for people using these methods to ignore hindrance mechanisms.

All forms of movement... Like evade? So it should be stopped by walls and such? 

Honestly, I am not trolling you here, Ernam. I'm asking why you think it's okay to call everyone else's ideas "ridiculous" when your own are almost completely grounded in a collective reality of one. I understand you have more kills than Bluef does (she's hardly an everyday fighter) but the classes you're singling out are those you fight regularly and as a result of that, and your inability to read the numerous posts showing direct contradictions to your assertions that no sufficient counter balances already exist, your concerns are read more as complaints about your own inability to nail these classes down and get kills than authentic game-oriented issues that could help everyone. 

Jarrod

There should be more to a group fight than 'bash the other side to death'. Trying to homogenize every travel ability to require some form of windup is extremely bad for the game, as it drastically limits class diversity and turns them all into generic 'travel' abilities. It's fine if a beginner group in a group fight wants to rely purely on damage to kill their opponents, but they should, and will, lose to a group that is significantly more coordinated than them. That's one of the great things about Achaea PK, even in group situation skill plays a significant role to which side will win.

It is -entirely- possible to lock every target in a raid, we've done it multiple times. It takes coordination and a team of people willing to work towards that goal. It is a more advanced tactic in group fights because it requires this coordination, but it has the advantage of trumping the majority of defensive measures the other side can take, such as those travel abilities.

There is some merit to them potentially needing more viable counters in 1v1 situations, but it depends how you believe 1v1 should be balanced. If it should be based around an arena 1v1 for example, none of these abilities are worth noting. If you're considering a 1v1 duel on clouds where it's a respectable fight, then these tactics should either be discussed beforehand or not used. If it's a fight where people are using everything they can, including the intentional/unintentional assistance of others, then there are loads more abilities with similar 'lame' effects that should be addressed, but it has generally been shown that these kinds of fights are not something the combat balance is set around.


TL;DR Travel abilities are not overpowered in groups unless looked at through the lens of base-level group fighting strategy, and only in 1v1 when one side wishes to play in a 'lame' fashion.

Austere

Ashtan really does use venom lock a ton, which is why I steal so many kills (lolmagi).  Damage is definitely not the best option all of the time.  

Ernam

Jarrod said:

It is -entirely- possible to lock every target in a raid, we've done it multiple times. It takes coordination and a team of people willing to work towards that goal. It is a more advanced tactic in group fights because it requires this coordination, but it has the advantage of trumping the majority of defensive measures the other side can take, such as those travel abilities.

Eat magnesium
stand
attach mushroom to monolith
say "ride home".

Not hard to do this prior to a truelock.  Easier, in fact, than using it to avoid damage stacks.

Reference: Every raid we've experienced since the earring nerf / mass switch to runewarden/shaman.

Jarrod

So our strategy is ineffective because you're not capable of implementing it well? That's terrible logic from any viewpoint.

Nemutaur

Don't you have a few knights or blademasters that could impale?

Ernam

Bluef said:

All forms of movement... Like evade? So it should be stopped by walls and such? 

Honestly, I am not trolling you here, Ernam. I'm asking why you think it's okay to call everyone else's ideas "ridiculous" when your own are almost completely grounded in a collective reality of one. I understand you have more kills than Bluef does (she's hardly an everyday fighter) but the classes you're singling out are those you fight regularly and as a result of that, and your inability to read the numerous posts showing direct contradictions to your assertions that no sufficient counter balances already exist, your concerns are read more as complaints about your own inability to nail these classes down and get kills than authentic game-oriented issues that could help everyone. 

Nobody is talking about Evade (which is not fast travel).  Evade does "respect" movement balance and hindrance concepts, as it is specifically designed to only move a single room, and takes significant balance, and thus can be easily countered in both 1v1 and group combat.  Blademaster evade/prep is a bit of an issue, this isn't the time or place for that discussion.

Bluef said:

Honestly, I am not trolling you here, Ernam. I'm asking why you think it's okay to call everyone else's ideas "ridiculous" when your own are almost completely grounded in a collective reality of one.

Yes, you are, even if not intentionally.  Mentioning things like Evade in a discussion purely based on balance of world-wide fast travel has no relevance here.  Continuing to attack me personally, the general (ie not specific) qualities of my suggestions or ideas, and specifically mentioning that you aren't basic any of this on actual knowledge of the abilities or experience is pretty much a dead giveaway.  I apologize if this sounds mean to you, but you yourself have stated that you lack the knowledge to actually contribute anything.  If that isn't the case, you are more than welcome to actually respond to any of the suggestions.

Tael

Bluef said:

Ernam said:

All forms of movement, including fast travel, should respect movement hindrance, to some degree or another.  This is a claim made knowing that it'd massively impact combat, but I firmly believe (after playing every class in the game (-alch), that it'd be an improvement for all of them, even if seen as a "nerf" for people using these methods to ignore hindrance mechanisms.

All forms of movement... Like evade? So it should be stopped by walls and such? 

To be fair, it should be pointed out that Ernam has advocated, at length, for BM EVADE to be stopped by hindrance (though not walls). And I honestly think he's probably right about that, at least as far as its 1v1 utility goes. Serpent evade (as he himself has pointed out in that thread) is fine given that serpents don't have any means to fully-prep someone - at most they can use evade while implanting suggestions, but they still have to stay in the room for a while to actually make an attempt to score a kill.

Back to the topic at hand: I really, really think the solution is something that prevents moving in AND out for BOTH SIDES. This adds to the tactical complexity rather than simply giving defenders an advantage. And I don't think it's true that cities would never use it. Should you use it during a raid when the enemy is at the gates? Of course not - you would be preventing your own forces from getting into the city while doing nothing to keep the enemy out since they could just cross the area border and then fast travel. Should you use it when the enemy is deep in the city with a tank down? In that case, you can exploit the gates to get reinforcements in and you cut them off from escape and from being able to instantly re-enter the fight after dying. There is actually a tactical element to positioning of an invading force within the city other than the ability to break radiances more easily.

If you gave it to a class, say, Alchemists, as an ability that could be used similar to DISRUPT, then it would even add more tactical choices. Does the enemy force invade and then put it down themselves to prevent you from getting reinforcements in, cutting themselves off, but cutting you off before you have a chance to get defenders into the city? Do either of the cities disrupt the area outside the city?

Hell, given how infrequently DISRUPT is used right now, it could just be tacked onto the ability: have disrupt prevent fast travel in and out of an area in addition to cutting off communication.

Then to add even more of a tactical element to it - make it dependent on the alchemist to stay up. Make it the alchemist equivalent of PROP TOTEM. Give the alchemists something to do aside from using DISPLACE over and over. Make the group protect the alchemist. If either group wants to maintain a fast-travel barrier in the area outside of the city, make them defend an alchemist out there too. If the invading force wants to get reinforcements in, give the sneaky classes a target that gives a purpose to being able to do things like phase in and backstab someone in the middle of an enemy group.

I am absolutely sure that there is a tactically interesting way to limit fast travel and I can't imagine just about any outcome that wouldn't make raiding more interesting than it is right now with all the fast travel flying around all the time.

Jhui

Ernam is trying to create a very boring Achaea.  Good thing no one takes him seriously.

Ernam

A font alternative to pure damage increase (weaken) that prevents fast travel would be fine, as well, and would be of limited duration.

Really solid thoughts, @Tael.

Jarrod

Radiance is actually a very strong point against a city-wide all-travel block.

If it blocks all form of travel in and out of the city, it would have to come with a significant nerf to Radiance (otherwise it would effectively force you to include Monks in your raid team, which is something they haven't done with any class in the past).

If it blocked only certain types of travel, this same 'issue' would arise with other forms of travel in the future.


Overall, I don't see it as an issue in either groups or 1v1. In duels there's are loads of 'lame' tactics, some of these skills included, that should be discussed ahead of time if the duel is serious. In groups there are loads of counters to all of these skills. Using them effectively is easier than countering them, but that's how it is with all defensive skills, really.

Ernam

Tael said:

I am absolutely sure that there is a tactically interesting way to limit fast travel and I can't imagine just about any outcome that wouldn't make raiding more interesting than it is right now with all the fast travel flying around all the time.

Jhui said:

Ernam is trying to create a very boring balanced and fun Achaea.

Bluef

Ernam said:

Bluef said:

All forms of movement... Like evade? So it should be stopped by walls and such? 

Honestly, I am not trolling you here, Ernam. I'm asking why you think it's okay to call everyone else's ideas "ridiculous" when your own are almost completely grounded in a collective reality of one. I understand you have more kills than Bluef does (she's hardly an everyday fighter) but the classes you're singling out are those you fight regularly and as a result of that, and your inability to read the numerous posts showing direct contradictions to your assertions that no sufficient counter balances already exist, your concerns are read more as complaints about your own inability to nail these classes down and get kills than authentic game-oriented issues that could help everyone. 

Nobody is talking about Evade (which is not fast travel).  Evade does "respect" movement balance and hindrance concepts, as it is specifically designed to only move a single room, and takes significant balance, and thus can be easily countered in both 1v1 and group combat.  Blademaster evade/prep is a bit of an issue, this isn't the time or place for that discussion.

But you said, "All forms of movement, including fast travel, should respect movement hindrance, to some degree or another." So I'm bringing it up, why not evade if we're talking about forms of movement and their need to respect movement hindrance?

Bluef said:

Honestly, I am not trolling you here, Ernam. I'm asking why you think it's okay to call everyone else's ideas "ridiculous" when your own are almost completely grounded in a collective reality of one.

Yes, you are, even if not intentionally.  Mentioning things like Evade in a discussion purely based on balance of world-wide fast travel has no relevance here.  Continuing to attack me personally, the general (ie not specific) qualities of my suggestions or ideas, and specifically mentioning that you aren't basic any of this on actual knowledge of the abilities or experience is pretty much a dead giveaway.  I apologize if this sounds mean to you, but you yourself have stated that you lack the knowledge to actually contribute anything.  If that isn't the case, you are more than welcome to actually respond to any of the suggestions.

No, I'm really not. You opened the door for that question when you made the comment about movement (all forms) respecting movement hindrance. I apologize for saying that I find your posts funny; that was unnecessary even if it is true, but again that's not a personal attack it's an opinion on the quality of your posts the last few days. I'm sorry if that sounds mean but you really lack the emotional disconnect to actually contribute anything yourself here or elsewhere on forums at the moment. As for responding, I already have as have several others and it just seems like the only posts you're looking for are "Oh yeah, I totally agree." Not going to happen from me because I think you're blowing this movement thing way out of proportion. 

Ernam

Bluef said:
Not going to happen from me because I think you're blowing this movement thing way out of proportion. 

Disregarded everything that has nothing to do with the thread.

Since you insist on making this personal, let me respond with: You have no frame of reference for this conversation, as you (and Hashan) are not on the receiving end of 2-5 hours of earring/raido raids on a daily basis.

Also worth mentioning that receiving tons of negative forum beratement has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I'm correct, or whether or not the general playerbase would agree/disagree, since the forums are a very small, and biased, portion of the community.

Bluef

Ernam

Just get out please.

Nobody is forcing you to read this thread, and it's evident that you have nothing to say of value.

Tael

Jarrod said:

Radiance is actually a very strong point against a city-wide all-travel block.

If it blocks all form of travel in and out of the city, it would have to come with a significant nerf to Radiance (otherwise it would effectively force you to include Monks in your raid team, which is something they haven't done with any class in the past).

If it blocked only certain types of travel, this same 'issue' would arise with other forms of travel in the future.


Overall, I don't see it as an issue in either groups or 1v1. In duels there's are loads of 'lame' tactics, some of these skills included, that should be discussed ahead of time if the duel is serious. In groups there are loads of counters to all of these skills. Using them effectively is easier than countering them, but that's how it is with all defensive skills, really.

I thought about that issue with Radiance when I wrote that post. It would have to be nerfed, yes. Though I also think Radiance is a boring and decidedly outdated mechanic given to a class that already has plenty to do in raids, so I wouldn't particularly mind seeing it nerfed. And if this ultra-DISRUPT worked like prop totem, monks in particular would be very useful for dealing with disrupting it during raids, so...I think they would come out looking just fine from that arrangement.

As for your other points, I'm not sure what to think. It seems like a goal of balancing the game should be to reduce "lame" tactics. We wouldn't need to balance anything if we just worked out a balanced subset of class abilities and we all agreed to only use those. But we do balance classes. We do try to add counters to "lame" tactics rather than just telling everyone that there's no point since they can all agree not to use them. That seems like a good thing to do, though certainly agreement not to use things is a useful bandaid that helps to address the impossibility of total balance.

Regarding this: "Using them effectively is easier than countering them, but that's how it is with all defensive skills, really.", it seems to me that the game has been trying to move away from that with things like the changes to active healing.

Regarding this: "In groups there are loads of counters to all of these skills.", people keep saying this but I don't buy it. There are counters, yes. While there may be argument over whether certain abilities do or do not possess viable counters, I don't think that's really the heart of the issue. The real heart of it is that you cannot possibly expect to counter an entire group's fast travel for any realistic duration of time. You can stop one person from using fast travel, and if you can identify the leader that might work until everyone just follows someone else (or just escapes on their own). If you were unrealistically coordinated, you might even be able to counter most or even every individual member of the opposing force. But you can't maintain that counter. Sleep might stop fast-travel, but you can't realistically sleep an entire group for several minutes. Maybe long enough for the melee to go ahead without people escaping, but by the time a melee has begun, escape should probably be impossible anyway. And it does nothing during ranged engagements, which are extremely common. The fact that an invading force can go into the heart of a city, start a raid, fight at range for a while, and then just leave essentially instantly whenever they want has always seemed like a design oversight to me.

I think the central issue is that raiding should involve a commitment. I may be in the minority for desiring this I guess - this thread certainly makes me think so - but I think that invading a city should come with substantially more risk than it currently does. I would like to see more raids end with one side winning and one side dying and fewer raids ending when one side just decides that they can't win and instantly teleports home. If you get into a raid situation that isn't looking good, you should either have to fight your way out of the city or accept that you got yourself into a bad situation and that has consequences.

Tael

Man, I am going to be writing so many classleads next round.

Ernam

Jarrod said:

Radiance is actually a very strong point against a city-wide all-travel block.

If it blocks all form of travel in and out of the city, it would have to come with a significant nerf to Radiance (otherwise it would effectively force you to include Monks in your raid team, which is something they haven't done with any class in the past).

If it blocked only certain types of travel, this same 'issue' would arise with other forms of travel in the future.

Really good point, but I don't think it'd be nearly as big of a problem as fast travel itself is, and there are a handful of easy ways to get rid of radiance without leaving the area (other than just mind locking the target).  Alchemist summon for instance, among others.

My personal suggestion (although I don't expect everything to be accepted as good to implement) was to keep 3rd party summons (deliver, empress, etc) unaffected by orb or font isolation.

Another thing is that, if feasible coding-wise, fast-traveling within the city should be fine (assuming windups or other implementations are implemented), which would allow for various split-party tactics within a city being raided to travel to/summon people in harms way.  This would be helpful for raid defenders, and would be a powerful tool for raiders (as it currently is).  Only thing it would stop is fast-traveling to Ashtan guard stacks while guard bashing us, or triggering Raido under 20% health, etc.

Addama

I agree that we could do more to coordinate our offensive capabilities.  Everybody seems to hit with aconite/curare/prefarar when we could have our knights split on curare/prefarar, aconite/prefarar, delph/delph and impale/DSB.  Even lowbies can be useful if they're applying the right venoms/afflictions.

Tael

Ernam said:

Another thing is that, if feasible coding-wise, fast-traveling within the city should be fine (assuming windups or other implementations are implemented), which would allow for various split-party tactics within a city being raided to travel to/summon people in harms way.  This would be helpful for raid defenders, and would be a powerful tool for raiders (as it currently is).  Only thing it would stop is fast-traveling to Ashtan guard stacks while guard bashing us, or triggering Raido under 20% health, etc.

I definitely meant to imply this in my proposal.

Fast-travel within the city adds interesting options and adds more utility to classes that can sneak around during raids, which is, at least in my opinion, always a good thing (it is more interesting to incentivize having a few people doing useful things outside of the room your whole force is stacked in than for it to just be a bunch of people in one room for most of the time - and it gives sneaky classes something to do during combat that fits their class themes better). Imagine you start a raid and you realize it's not going as well as you'd prefer, so you want to pull out, but you're stuck in the middle of the enemy city. You have a few options - brute force your way out just by walking, have a backstab squad try to take out the alchemist, try to get a monk to disrupt the alchemist, get an occultist to AF near the gates and a magi to portal your group right next to the gates, letting you easily get out, etc.

Jarrod

Agreed that Radiance is definitely boring and outdated.

In terms of the 'lame' tactics point, I generally only consider them as things you would think were 'lame' in a purely 1v1 scenario. All those abilities have their places where they fit in other situations, such as escaping ganks, helping teammates, etc. I think they're good skills and they work for what they're intended to work for, but result in a very unfun situation for at least one side when used in an 'everything to win' duel.

The changes to Priest's defensive capabilities, especially active healing (from what I understand based on the discussions and playing against it) were due to Priest being literally unkillable in the hands of a skilled player, as well as making their entire team unafflictable. This has thankfully been toned down so it's less of an issue. Priest healing being nerfed was an outlier, not the rule, from my perspective, and most other defensive abilities are nowhere near as overpowering as Priest healing was pre-changes.

As far as being able to lock down entire groups: I agree that it's impossible vs any group with real curing and shouldn't be expected. However, you can guarantee a kill on any individual with effective tactics, which is the main point of nerfing these travel abilities, I assume. There will always be a way to move between areas for groups, unless there is a drastic change on policy for what is available for cities to defend against it. If you're focusing the group leader and they fail to escape because you're using your abilities well, you can possibly kill more. Still, if the fight is underway, and the group leader successfully bails, they'll lose a lot of their group to being off balance/eq, and you can probably kill more. If you're not on the group leader and they start bailing, your target at least and potentially others won't be able to bail with them if you're executing properly.

That last paragraph got a bit convoluted, but the idea is that locking down the entire group to prevent all of them simultaneously from escaping is not and should not be the goal. Occasionally it's possible with things like tricking them into a totem + retardation, but that's not the norm. The goal is quickly taking out your groups' target  while simultaneously denying them from taking out their target, until their group leaves through escapes or praying.

In terms of ranged engagements, there are things you can do to make it harder to escape for the target, but you're right that it's easier to escape. That's fine though, because purely ranged fights should not be encouraged in any way. They're easier to do and should have the drawbacks therein of being easier to escape from.

Tael said:

I think the central issue is that raiding should involve a commitment. I may be in the minority for desiring this I guess - this thread certainly makes me think so - but I think that invading a city should come with substantially more risk than it currently does. I would like to see more raids end with one side winning and one side dying and fewer raids ending when one side just decides that they can't win and instantly teleports home. If you get into a raid situation that isn't looking good, you should either have to fight your way out of the city or accept that you got yourself into a bad situation and that has consequences.

This is largely the case though. Re: the bolded, that would make raids very, very boring from what I see. If you cannot get out of a city, because fighting your way is literally impossible without huge numbers because of city guards, then you are encouraged to bring overwhelming numbers to ensure you can't lose. This means the defenders are less inclined to attack you because you're bringing enough that you can win regardless if they active 'city lock' or not.

Jarrod

Ernam said:

My personal suggestion (although I don't expect everything to be accepted as good to implement) was to keep 3rd party summons (deliver, empress, etc) unaffected by orb or font isolation.

The problem I see with this is that, eventually, the same issues will arise with whatever you don't exclude from the theoretical defense. It may very well work in the short term to minimize what you see as a problem, but I think it would just result in more people with "<Name> tells you, "Emp."" triggers. I know some people have them already, but I think more would have them if a change like this came around. Yes it adds in latency to the potential escape, but there are ways to address this with timings for proficient coders (which you and most of the people who are aware/use the higher level raid tactics are).

Tael

Yes, guards would likely have to receive some attention too so that it's theoretically possible for an invading force to actually escape. I can think of a number of fairly simple ways to do this though, so that's not particularly crazy.

No matter how you slice it, I think it is immensely boring that so many raids involve a group coming in, setting up shop, trading maybe one or two kills, and then just leaving. That's incredibly lame. I was so disappointed to come back to that - with the tank changes and the emphasis on reducing the availability of area-range attacks, I was really hoping raiding had been overhauled more substantially. But no, ninety percent of raids are still just groups sniping back and forth and trying to radiance each other for a few minutes before giving up.

I'm not sure what you mean about ranged engagements should be easier to escape from. If you want to discourage them, you should make it harder for an invading army to start a ranged engagement and then escape without any risk. The invading force is largely the one that determines whether ranged combat is the order of the day. They're the one who has somewhere to fast-travel to. The availability of fast-travel to the defending force is practically a non-issue in determining how frequent ranged encounters are. The issue isn't whether or not defenders can use fast-travel to get out of the way of ranged attacks, it's that enemies can invade, ranged for a while to see how it goes, and then escape largely without any negative repercussions. They can go in, range for a while, and escape at the first sign that the enemy might be grouping up to try to melee them. And they certainly wouldn't need to bring massive forces to ensure that they can win (any more than they already do) - getting a single telepathy attack through on the alchemist is not asking so much, nor getting a single serpent through to backstab or to snipe.

Ernam

@Jarrod

Deliver only works on single targets (can't be used on large groups), and of course, requires someone actually devoted to being safely outside the raided city, effectively eliminating an entire fighter in order to have the benefit of being Delivered by them.

It also uses up a lot of Devotion, which is a very real limiting factor during raids, and is stopped by monoliths at either side (something which is currently being used to justify Raido being "preventable").

The main purpose of my suggestion for allowing Deliver/Empress through prospective City/Font Isolate would be to simply allow a means of travel into/out of the city in the event that gates are blocked (which they frequently are).  Portals should also be allowed since they're more than fair and preventable mid-combat (thanks to their windup), but currently almost all six cities are significantly short on Magi.

If at all else, if these other things were implemented, giving Deliver and Empress 'standing' requirements or something of that nature could be used to help alleviate it "replacing" fast-travel abilities in conflicts.  I think the fact that it requires leaving a group member out of combat is fair enough though, as is.

Jarrod

Not at all. The counter to the prevalence of ranged engagements is to make ranged worse.

If ranged is not a viable tactic for either side, because pure ranged is not a viable tactic (I sincerely wish this were the case), then melee fights would have to be engaged. Melee fights in general are much bloodier than ranged ones, because of the added difficulty to disengage for the person being targeted. My wish for artefact bows is that their accuracy were bumped back up a bit, and their damage was severely gutted. Make them something primarily for afflicting, and force you to get in room if you want to deal serious damage.

The choice of fight type is largely up to room prep and the defenders. If there is no room-prep leading to the raiders, it is entirely up to the defense how to engage. Generally there is some hindrance in place to prevent an easy melee, be it adjacent retardation or rooms with piety/gravehands on the path to the raiders, but there are also generally ways to get around them (not always of course).

Ernam said:

@Jarrod

Deliver only works on single targets (can't be used on large groups), and of course, requires someone actually devoted to being safely outside the raided city, effectively eliminating an entire fighter in order to have the benefit of being Delivered by them.

It also uses up a lot of Devotion, which is a very real limiting factor during raids, and is stopped by monoliths at either side (something which is currently being used to justify Raido being "preventable").

The main purpose of my suggestion for allowing Deliver/Empress through prospective City/Font Isolate would be to simply allow a means of travel into/out of the city in the event that gates are blocked (which they frequently are).  Portals should also be allowed since they're more than fair and preventable mid-combat (thanks to their windup), but currently almost all six cities are significantly short on Magi.

If at all else, if these other things were implemented, giving Deliver and Empress 'standing' requirements or something of that nature could be used to help alleviate it "replacing" fast-travel abilities in conflicts.  I think the fact that it requires leaving a group member out of combat is fair enough though, as is.

Deliver works on the group if you target the leader, right? (I honestly don't know, haven't touched Deliver in ages for the specifics of how it works on groups) I know Empress lets you pull the whole group through, so I assume Deliver is the same.

The point I was making is that there will always be something else that's just as fast to do what you're trying to do. If it's get a single person out of the city, that static deliver/emp bot is worth it. Generally there is a non-com who is willing to help, or someone who can setup a trigger while they're doing something else. If it's to move a large group, then you can plan and use it on the leader of the group, or possibly just portal the whole group in.

I meant to test this the other day but haven't gotten around to it yet, but are portals that have already been opened stopped by dropping a monolith on them? I don't believe that's the case (because I know you can't post-close grove gate like that, so I assume the others are similar), and if I'm right then you could open a portal preemptively and, assuming you can stand, use that to escape.

An advantage that Ashtan would have, due to the average level of the raiders, is most would have TRACK available too. What I'm trying to say is that even if you cut off certain fast travel things for moving large groups around, there will always be others to use, and I don't think those fast travel abilities are strong enough in a melee to justify further prevention methods, but that's my opinion.