Casting Sneak / Invisible Outside of Party?

[svengalis]

Well when we usually do VW there's usually only two whitemages in our alliance. Sometimes there's always that one person who forgets medicine... long story short would be nice if we could cast sneak / invisible on alliance members outside of our party.

[cidbahamut]

How do people manage to leave their mog house without oil and powder?

You can't use "people are stupid" as an argument for changing something.

[Tsukino_Kaji]

How do people manage to leave their mog house without oil and powder?

You can't use "people are stupid" as an argument for changing something.I can if there was a point that they ever took it out of their inventory inthe first place. Like ninja tools, they should neve not be in your inventory, even if you're a whm/sch.

[Rezeak]

How do people manage to leave their mog house without oil and powder?

You can't use "people are stupid" as an argument for changing something.

i do all the time .... my solution is Twilight set and Crimson pants

[Dragoy]

How do people manage to leave their mog house without oil and powder?

You can't use "people are stupid" as an argument for changing something.
I've used those items on maybe three (3) occasions total, during 5 or more years. One of them was probably my first journey to Jeuno.

So personally, I never really needed them. Then again, I've always had other sources for the effects (magic, ninjutsu, job abilty). I do sometimes carry some of them with me in case someone else needs them and I'm not as a magey job at the time.

But yeah, guess I'm stupid in that regard as well!
As for the suggestion itself, are you actually against it, or what is it that is being your point? :]

I, for one, can't think of a reason why it should not be done, even though I would not benefit from it at all.
If we could cast those spells on non-party members, then I might rarely have a use for it but even so, not much.

Still, I'd definitely see it as a positive change fer sure.

[Rukkirii]

Currently, the way that spells/abilities are set up fall into one of three categories: Self/Party Members/Anyone. Therefore, we can’t just make an adjustment to allow something to reach alliances only. If we were to do this, it would have to be done so that the spell applies to "Anyone."

In that case, we have to worry quite a bit about harassment and griefing that could result from that change. For example, when players have to be visible to interact with something (like a door), someone can cast invisible on them to grief them repeatedly. Secondly, players would be able to disrupt someone who is trying "pull with sound aggro" by casting sneak on them before hand. Furthermore, casting invisible on someone else and making them disappear without their consent is a major point of harassment.

These reasons are why we haven't moved to change the properties of Sneak/Invisible beyond their current party member limitation.

[cidbahamut]

Are you serious?

[Zubis]

Isn't that why /blockaid exists? Uh, I'm not sure if that exists anymore, haven't used it in years.

[Aleste]

Im content with it being party only.... I still get grief from players who need to be sneakd and inivsd everywhere.

Ive gotten to the stage where I burn stratagem charges on sneak and invis just to avoid people asking for it. You just know if you get to camp and theres 1+ people without it then you're going to end up having to go back and babysit them the way there... Whereas, if you leave them, theres a pretty good chance theyll die and youll have to go back anyways.

Having it alliancewide would just give more people the excuse not to bring tools/meds on the grounds that someone else will deal with it.

[Zhronne]

These reasons are why we haven't moved to change the properties of Sneak/Invisible beyond their current party member limitation.
This doesn't make much sense.
If Player A wants to harass Player B by casting spells on him, he could do it with several other spells like Cure, Haste etc.
Player A can defend himself from Player B's harassing behaviour by using the command /Blockaid
The same command could be used to defend against Invisible/Sneak.

I don't see the logic, please try to rephrase your (well, the dev team's) point of view so I can better understand their worries.

[Kalilla]

Blockaid...

[Javelin]

Currently, the way that spells/abilities are set up fall into one of three categories: Self/Party Members/Anyone. Therefore, we can’t just make an adjustment to allow something to reach alliances only. If we were to do this, it would have to be done so that the spell applies to "Anyone."

In that case, we have to worry quite a bit about harassment and griefing that could result from that change. For example, when players have to be visible to interact with something (like a door), someone can cast invisible on them to grief them repeatedly. Secondly, players would be able to disrupt someone who is trying "pull with sound aggro" by casting sneak on them before hand. Furthermore, casting invisible on someone else and making them disappear without their consent is a major point of harassment.

These reasons are why we haven't moved to change the properties of Sneak/Invisible beyond their current party member limitation.

This doesn't make any actual, logical sense, as you can cast, oh I don't know, like 20 other spells on non-party/alliance members...

[nyheen]

Currently, the way that spells/abilities are set up fall into one of three categories: Self/Party Members/Anyone. Therefore, we can’t just make an adjustment to allow something to reach alliances only. If we were to do this, it would have to be done so that the spell applies to "Anyone."

In that case, we have to worry quite a bit about harassment and griefing that could result from that change. For example, when players have to be visible to interact with something (like a door), someone can cast invisible on them to grief them repeatedly. Secondly, players would be able to disrupt someone who is trying "pull with sound aggro" by casting sneak on them before hand. Furthermore, casting invisible on someone else and making them disappear without their consent is a major point of harassment.

These reasons are why we haven't moved to change the properties of Sneak/Invisible beyond their current party member limitation.

people could just spam protect,cure and may other way to harassment people, but that why /blockaid exists.

[Byrth]

In that case, we have to worry quite a bit about harassment and griefing that could result from that change. For example, when players have to be visible to interact with something (like a door), someone can cast invisible on them to grief them repeatedly. Secondly, players would be able to disrupt someone who is trying "pull with sound aggro" by casting sneak on them before hand. Furthermore, casting invisible on someone else and making them disappear without their consent is a major point of harassment.

Solution:
Allow people to operate doors and interact with objects while invisible. It's stupid that I can't open a door that can't see me. The door doesn't need to see me. I feel I do a pretty good job hiding from doors irl (I may never have been seen by one), and I still manage to open and close them.

Wut?:
Spamming sneak on someone that is trying to pull with sound aggro? You realize that sneak falls whenever a monster swings at you, right? This is the biggest non-issue that ever wasn't an issue. As long as you aggro one monster (by canceling sneak while standing near it) then pulling the rest wouldn't be a problem at all. This is apart from the fact that no one would ever bother to do that.

[Urteil]

/blockaid.


I'm using the word stupid in regards to the dev team, because it was just proven.

[SpankWustler]

I don't even know how to respond to that reasoning. I can feel bits of my brain wrestling with each other because no particular region wants to deal with it.


Furthermore, casting invisible on someone else and making them disappear without their consent is a major point of harassment.

Oh, a MAJOR point?! Yes, I'm sure having a status applied that can be easily removed is a grievous offense. Far worse than not being cured by someone incompetent or needing to waiting 20 minutes while someone microwaves his or her cat or about a billion other things that are fairly commonplace in Final Fantasy XI that I do not want to experience.

I very seriously doubt anyone would mind being forcibly made invisible, which can be easily prevented by blockage, compared to all the truly annoying things that strangers can inflict on people over Final Fantasy XI already.


I feel I do a pretty good job hiding from doors irl (I may never have been seen by one), and I still manage to open and close them.

Automatic doors may be more vigilant than you're giving them credit for. Sometimes, I can feel the entryway to Wal-Mart looking deep into my soul and asking "Did the depressing atmosphere of Wal-Mart finally give you the final push and inspire you to drive off a bridge on your way home? No? Always next time..."

[Behemothx]

Yeah. Like I wanna be able to sneak/invis all the alliance cause they're too cheap to buy oils/prism, No thanks ;D

[Alhanelem]

Blockaid pretty much negates these reasons not to do it.

[Daniel_Hatcher]

Would'a been better to say:

"We're not doing it because we don't want to."

[Taube]

Would'a been better to say:

"We're not doing it because we don't want to."

Maybe they consider it better to be thought of as idiots rather than dicks?

[Tamoa]

Since whm is one of my 2 main jobs, I have to say I don't want to be burdened with having to sneak/invis other people any more than I already do.

However, the reasons just given to us by SE for not making sneak/invis "outside party" spells, are pretty damn pathetic.

[Lokithor]

I want to harass people by casting deodorize on them then pointing and laughing.

[svengalis]

Its not a big deal anyway just thought it was something that could be easily fixed.

[Taube]

Its not a big deal anyway just thought it was something that could be easily fixed.

This isn't about your suggestion anymore. This is about SE using stupidity as their excuse.

[svengalis]

This isn't about your suggestion anymore. This is about SE using stupidity as their excuse.

Well I can see where he is coming from. It will just lead to more problems that they have to fix. People do dumb things. I guess just leave well enough alone.

[Damane]

Currently, the way that spells/abilities are set up fall into one of three categories: Self/Party Members/Anyone. Therefore, we can’t just make an adjustment to allow something to reach alliances only. If we were to do this, it would have to be done so that the spell applies to "Anyone."

In that case, we have to worry quite a bit about harassment and griefing that could result from that change. For example, when players have to be visible to interact with something (like a door), someone can cast invisible on them to grief them repeatedly. Secondly, players would be able to disrupt someone who is trying "pull with sound aggro" by casting sneak on them before hand. Furthermore, casting invisible on someone else and making them disappear without their consent is a major point of harassment.

These reasons are why we haven't moved to change the properties of Sneak/Invisible beyond their current party member limitation.

there is a reason why /blockaid exists ¬.¬. This is a seirous lame excuse from SE...

[Midorikaze]

Why not make it:

Self/Party OR Alliance/Everyone?

Win-win, Sneak/Invis is still contained in Parties/allied characters, and no "griefing" should occur, since only Alliance members would be able to receive it. Also, there is always /blacklist?

In my book, Alliance people are still party members.

Three Parties in a Party :p

[Raksha]

Why not make it:

Self/Party OR Alliance/Everyone?

Win-win, Sneak/Invis is still contained in Parties/allied characters, and no "griefing" should occur, since only Alliance members would be able to receive it. Also, there is always /blacklist?

In my book, Alliance people are still party members.

Three Parties in a Party :p

this

When someone says something retarded like "the game doesn't work that way" My knee-jerk response is "well make it work that way"

[Midorikaze]

SCH ability Accession >> Sneak/Invisible doesn't even really have to apply to all 18 members either, cause that might be overkill, lol. Graphics intensive much? =D
Maybe just that one person in one of the other parties who forgot their pots and powders. I've done it before. Not everyone subs /NIN or /WHM or /DNC at all times. Nobody is perfect ^^

[RAIST]

not trying to defend SE and all, but there could potentially be instances where someone is trying to do something in competition with other groups (liike pop a chest, force pop an NM) that requires invis to be down in the current design scheme and they have not put up /blockaid yet (for whatever reason). A group could have some mages spam invis on them to prevent them from trading/clicking the marker/chest and effectively "steal" the opportunity from them.

I know, slim to no chance of it happening.....but if the exploit is there, SOMEONE is going to be a douche and abuse it eventually. So, if they were to implement a change from party only to anyone for these spells, they would need to first fix the issue with not being able to trade/open things while invisible first--which, honestly I think would be a more important tweak, as there are items that can be crafted/purchased/traded by the players to apply sneak/invisible.

[Zerich]

not trying to defend SE and all, but there could potentially be instances where someone is trying to do something in competition with other groups (liike pop a chest, force pop an NM) that requires invis to be down in the current design scheme and they have not put up /blockaid yet (for whatever reason). A group could have some mages spam invis on them to prevent them from trading/clicking the marker/chest and effectively "steal" the opportunity from them.

I know, slim to no chance of it happening.....but if the exploit is there, SOMEONE is going to be a douche and abuse it eventually. So, if they were to implement a change from party only to anyone for these spells, they would need to first fix the issue with not being able to trade/open things while invisible first--which, honestly I think would be a more important tweak, as there are items that can be crafted/purchased/traded by the players to apply sneak/invisible.

again, /blockaid on remedies this.

they could also spam buffs and cures

[Tamoa]

again, /blockaid on remedies this.

they could also spam buffs and cures


Exactly. Any spell cast on them would event skip them and thus preventing them from most interactions with npcs/chest/???/whatever.

On this note - SE could you for the love of god fix how both campaign npcs and monsters can event skip you while in the allied tags npc menu??? Since I now do a lot of campaign for voiddust (and by the looks of it, I'm far from the only one doing this), this has become a nuisance (again) and much more of a nuisance than other players casting unwanted spells on me has ever been.

[Catsby]

If you design your game around griefers then it's bound to be really shallow. Also, /blockaid.

[Windwhisper]

Are you serious?


i fear they are dead serious

[RAIST]

again, /blockaid on remedies this.

they could also spam buffs and cures

but that auto recovers--you can just spam your macro or whatever. If you are invised, you have to tab up to the icon and remove invis, requiring an extra step. So, invis is more intrusive than Event Skipped or cure spell lock.

[Mifaco]

I've never seen such a fail response by the developers. Do they even play their own game?

[Sarick]

On a side not why can't these spells overwrite weaker versions?

We don't have /cancel so if the spell is up it has no effect.

[Windwhisper]

/blockaid on
/blockaid off

what more needs to be said? do we harass people with Haste nowadays too?

[Yinnyth]

For example, when players have to be visible to interact with something (like a door), someone can cast invisible on them to grief them repeatedly.

While we're on the topic, why can't we interact with stuff while we're invisible? That would be the biggest point of griefing caused by out-of-party buffs anwyays- the fact that people could prevent other people from interacting with NPCs and points of interest.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

While we're on the topic, why can't we interact with stuff while we're invisible?

Castle Zvahl Keep.

Parts of the game were designed around that particular mechanic, putting doors in places to make you vulnerable to aggro.

[Alhanelem]

It's pretty much so you can't 100% bypass everything without at least a little risk.

[Yinnyth]

Castle Zvahl Keep.

Parts of the game were designed around that particular mechanic, putting doors in places to make you vulnerable to aggro.

You mean the old school Zvahl Keep? The one where the beastmen no longer aggro ever since level 75? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that this becomes an issue in more areas than just the one you gave as an example. But for one thing, the game has slowly been getting easier in many many ways. For another, if it's so crippling to balance that you cannot interact with ???s while impossible to aggro, why does sneak not interfere with your ability to interact with them? If it's your goal to force people to fight things around the ??? they want to check, why not simply make those enemies true sight/sound?

My suspicion is that they made it impossible to interact with ???s while invisible because it would make your character transparant in any CS the ??? may give you.

[Dragoy]

My suspicion is that they made it impossible to interact with ???s while invisible because it would make your character transparant in any CS the ??? may give you.
More than likely it is indeed something like a "PS2-limitation" than anything.

You are allowed to use stuff while under the effect of Sneak, or should I say, while snucked, but it's a no-no for Invisible?

Makes no sense.

Just like it makes no sense that you are allowed to re-cast invisibility without cancelling it or waiting it to wear off, even in front of a monster, but for sneaking it's a no-go? OK, it does make sound... but come on... you can make lots more sound otherwise and not be detected. ^^;
So all in all, it is not balanced, yeah, I said it! It's not balanced between the beastman who can hear you, and the beastman who can see you. Equality, dang it!

As mentioned, if they don't want you to get somewhere without the possibility of aggravating some monsters, they can cheat, and give them "true-sight/hearing".

On another note, using items cancels invisibility as well, but not sneaky sneak.

Hmmm.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

why does sneak not interfere with your ability to interact with them?

Because that would affect the Mute/Afflictor gameplay in Beadeaux.


If it's your goal to force people to fight things around the ??? they want to check, why not simply make those enemies true sight/sound?

Because first you'd need to catalog and change each and every one where that particular mechanic was relied upon (or maybe even just accidentally affects) and change them all, consuming a whole mess of man-hours in the process. This is much more complicated than just flipping a bit on a single spell.

In the past, it was apparently easier to just make new content affected by these new ideas rather than try to change the older content. For example, ToAU introduced puddings rather than making the bombs in Ifrit's Cauldron aggro /ja's.

Think of the ten-year-old code like a game of Jenga...

[RAIST]

They could just make invis wear when you open a door, chest, click a ??? for a cutscene, trade items to pop an NM, etc., much in the same way sneak wears when you open a coffer/chest. Guess that logic was too simple for them.....

[Quetzacoatl]

/BLOCKAID, harrassment problem solved

No more excuses; get back to work!

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

The unspoken reason why they're not going to do it: botting.

Imagine a "PC" standing around that automatically casts invisible on any player that /pokes them.

[Karbuncle]

You mean the old school Zvahl Keep? The one where the beastmen no longer aggro ever since level 75?

Have you ever even set foot in Castle Zvahl (S) >_>?

[wildsprite]

no no, don't you get it? the real reason they aren't going to do it is because Carbuncle wont allow it :P

[Llana_Virren]

Damn that luminescent rat!

[Nala]

thought he was a radioactive squirl not a rat.

[Windwhisper]

Id say the whole harassment comment was a shot backwards into Squares own knee.

There is a feature that allows us to avoid uninted curing, unintended hasting, unintended anything. Use it.

Please dont keep ignoring your own invented features.

[Meyi]

They could just make invis wear when you open a door, chest, click a ??? for a cutscene, trade items to pop an NM, etc., much in the same way sneak wears when you open a coffer/chest. Guess that logic was too simple for them.....

Beat me to it.

Stupid excuses for not implementing this make me sad. :( -sigh-

[wildsprite]

as it was mentioned in an earlier post, why not make it so you can use these spells through an entire alliance? such restrictions in an alliance are kinda silly honestly, if I'm in an alliance and cast sneak and invis or protectra and shellra it only hits my party members, I think if I'm in an alliance I should be able to use those spells on all alliance members, especially if there are no other WHMs

[Llana_Virren]

...especially if there are no other WHMs

It might be a little broke if 1 WHM in an alliance of 18 can Curaga IV with Orison Pantaloons +2 for "Infinite Heal."
(Not to mention that the intent behind alliances is to allow multiple parties to assist each other... so each party should be responsible for it's own healing.)

I think the current set up of "party-wide" buffs remaining party-wide makes sense. Curaga/Protectra/Erase-ra effects going on 18 people is a bit extreme.

However, I think that the single-target buffs should be able to be casted on anybody, in alliance or not.

[Iakothm]

/blockaid might not work. Does it stop your alliance from healing/buffing you if the whm isnt in your party?

[Meyi]

Why not make it:

Self/Party OR Alliance/Everyone?

In my book, Alliance people are still party members.

Three Parties in a Party :p

Or, make alliance have party status. Then sneak/invis doesn't have to be touched. In fact, lots of goodies become available, such as regen and -na spells. And, alliance should become party status because of what you mentioned; alliance people are still party members.

[Llana_Virren]

Or, make alliance have party status.

Please refer to my previous comment:


It might be a little broke if 1 WHM in an alliance of 18 can Curaga IV with Orison Pantaloons +2 for "Infinite Heal."
(Not to mention that the intent behind alliances is to allow multiple parties to assist each other... so each party should be responsible for it's own healing.)

Single-target party-only buffs should be extended to alliance members if not made open-target (non-party specific), but to make an alliance considered as a single party in scripting would absolutely break the game in ways that you cannot even imagine.

[Arcon]

Infiinite heal would only work if everyone was a) in range and b) damaged enough to recover enough HP. And guess what, you don't need 18 people for that to work, but only 6 (possibly even 5 with a very well decked out WHM). The enmity accumulation would also be a massive problem if you were to go about it that way. This really isn't an argument against it.

Imo it should really be only three kinds of spell targeting types, self-only, alliance and all.

[Llana_Virren]

Arcon I am one of those decked-out WHMs, and I can tell you, party-wide spells should not be alliance-wide.

Additionally, SE's design for alliances is "groups of parties," not a hodgepodge of players who can superbuff all 18 people with one fell swoop. We don't need 2 BRDs insta-buffing 18 people with 3-4 songs each instantly, while 2 CORs put 4 rolls on each person instantly, 1 SCH Emprava-ra'ing everyone with a single cast, and 1 (or 2) WHMs spamming Infinite Heal Curaga IIIs. That's not a zerg, that's a Ba-Ba-Ba-Balance Breaker on crack.

Now, for single-target spells, sure, extend party-wide to alliance wide. But -not- for any multi-targetting spell. In other MMOs it might work, but FFXI's system would be totally thrown into sh!t by allowing that.

[Byrth]

One BRD per alliance. One COR per alliance. One WHM per alliance. I'd love it. Bring it on!

Obviously they'll never do it, but it's nice to pretend.

[Arcon]

Arcon I am one of those decked-out WHMs, and I can tell you, party-wide spells should not be alliance-wide.

I never said they should. I said that every party spell should be able to be cast on the alliance. I was just bringing an argument for why your argument was invalid. The BRD one does hold more water, but honestly, I don't think it's "overpowered" in an absolute sense. We're just used to thinking that you need 2~3 BRD to be fully efficient as an alliance. And even if this was changed, having 2~3 BRD would still be useful to get different buffs on. Especially in battles where AoE dispels are as common as in pretty much any new content this means even less of an impact on regular playstyle.


Additionally, SE's design for alliances is "groups of parties," not a hodgepodge of players who can superbuff all 18 people with one fell swoop.

Again, that's no argument for anything, as SE's design is precisely what I'm criticizing. Saying it's meant to be like that carries no weight if I'm questioning SE's competence or foresight on this matter. And to be honest, I don't even believe that they intended it to be this way for game mechanic purposes but for ease of implementation.


We don't need 2 BRDs insta-buffing 18 people with 3-4 songs each instantly, while 2 CORs put 4 rolls on each person instantly, 1 SCH Emprava-ra'ing everyone with a single cast, and 1 (or 2) WHMs spamming Infinite Heal Curaga IIIs.

Why not? SCH and WHM can already do what you're saying (and for WHM it's not a very smart thing to do, neither now nor if they changed it). 2 BRD and 2 COR? That's more of a support than any alliance has even now. And don't think it would be an easy job for them, because there's no way they'd get everyone in the cast anyway. Weak people staying back, mages spread out, mages and melee standing too close, etc. And also don't think that it would be twice as good, even if (for whatever reason) you'd have 2 of each. The best songs/rolls would already be applied by 1 BRD or COR, the extras do less efficient ones.

Also, what does your normal setup look like? Do you have 18 melee that can even benefit from a BRD? No, at best you have ~8 active melee (Voidwatch zerg situation), some of which may miss songs/rolls or not profit as much from certain songs as others. The biggest advantage from this would be that one BRD could buff mages and melee seperately, even if in different parties, as long as they stand close by. And again, you'd only consider that overpowered from a relative perspective, because up until now that was impossible. As you said yourself, it's no big deal in other MMOGs and there they do it all the time. We just suffer from a skewed perception of the situation.

[Llana_Virren]

You missed a key detail: I pointed out that by making party-wide AOE spells alliance wide, these spells and effects could be applied with a single cast. And with DDs capping Enmity, a few would have to die before the Infinite Heal WHM drew hate, and if he's capable of spamming Curaga III+ on an alliance and getting 100% MP back, none of them should be dying anyway.

Sorry, but if we're talking party-only spells that are single target, I can understand. But AOE buffs need to remain party-wide only.

The argument of "it is supposed to be that way" is perfectly valid: you're arguing about competency when competency is irrelevent. There's no benefit with the suggestion except to further break game balance for the sake of feeling leet.

[Arcon]

Two things. First of all, there is no "infinite heal WHM". They would run out of MP very fast. The point is that there is not enough to heal. Someone would have to be hurt all the time for the WHM to keep their free cures up, otherwise it's a very efficient MP drain.

Secondly, melees capping enmity means little, because a WHM would cap enmity just as fast. If there actually are a lot of people to heal, WHM would gain enmity equivalent of curing all the people with it. That's Cure IV enmity times 10, or more. That means just one single Curaga III would completely cap their VE and get their CE way halfway to cap. Two Curagas and the WHM's hate is capped as well. Sure, the melee could get it back easily with just one swing, but it would still chase after the WHM for that time. And it puts the WHM in a bad position for future cures. If melee actually do die, it would take them a while to get hate back from the WHM.

These are the reasons why it doesn't work already. WHM could already cure for almost 0 MP, but the conditions to keep it up are almost never met, and they wouldn't be with alliance-wide curing range either.

I couldn't care less for feeling "leet". How would this, in any way, even make me feel that? That seemed like a completely arbitrary statement. And I don't particularly care for this anyway, I just replied to your WHM statement. I'd be perfectly happy with just being able to target alliance members and keep certain spells party-wide. Embrava did it very right in that regard.

[Llana_Virren]

First of all, I guess I need to educate you on what "Infinite Heal" means. The phrase "Infinite Heal" is referring to the MP restored via Empy pants... so there would be no MP loss, which you're ignoring in order to say that a WHM will run out of MP. Since every NM out there now has massive AOE moves, notwithstanding the NMs that use TP moves as their regular attacks, there will -always- be a need to cure. Curaga->Curaga II->Curaga III (get MP back) repeat.

As for enmity, if you're capping out enmity with one or two Curaga's you're doing it wrong. I've double-tapped Curaga III for full effect 2 times without drawing hate, so either you need to take off your +enmity gear and merits (and /war voking, which you'd HAVE to be doing to draw hate with 2 cure spells), or you need to not stand directly behind the melees and misinterpret AOE damage as a hate-drawing attack.

If you think that two Curaga's is enough to have ANY NM chasing the WHM around, I strongly suggest you find a new linkshell.

But, most importantly, you're trying to argue my point while fundamentally agreeing with it ("Embrava did it very right" which is my argument for keeping things the way they are nowy).

But my point is not that "Other MMOs can do it!" My point is that other MMOs are fundamentally designed for that kind of gameplay. FFXI was not and should not head in that direction.

What you're seeing here (and in other threads) is the consequence of time. As FFXI gets older, they make things easier for new players to jump into the thick of things. This makes the parts of the game appear "old" or "hard" or "unnecessary" and suggests things are much worse than they actually are. (Reference the question of "why can't we access doors or ??? while invisible?" comment....

We don't need to allow 1 WHM or 1 BRD or 1 COR to be doing alliance-wide buffs just because other MMOs do it. We don't need to say "well, it'd make things better!" because it wouldn't... We need to see this for what it is.... a suggestion to remove difficulty for players that just don't want to work for the kill.

But let's get back to the actual topic in this thread: Sneak and Invis.

They shouldn't be party-only to begin with, they should be open-target spells.
The issue I have with this is that the suggested "fix" would have consequences beyond the intent of the OPs remarks (reference our back-and forth).

[Arcon]

First of all, I guess I need to educate you on what "Infinite Heal" means.

No, you don't. I am very well aware of what you mean, and I mean the exact same thing. But here's what you're ignoring: you need to actually heal some HP to get the effect. The pants do not restore MP based on HP that you would have cured, but only HP which you have actually cured. So unless you constantly have people in orange that all need curing, you will not be casting free cures.

Also, and I said this three times before, this will be my last: this is already very doable. Even more so with the recent cure formula changes. Curaga III costs 180 MP, 162 MP after Light Arts. That means you need to cure a total amount of 3240 to get all the MP you used up back with Orison Pantaloons +2 (as 5% of 3240 is 162). As Curaga III will cure about 800 HP for each person it hits, you only need to cure 4 people to get a free Curaga III. This was possible even before the changes with Accession + Cure IV on five people and it's a lot easier now.


As for enmity, if you're capping out enmity with one or two Curaga's you're doing it wrong.

Math is wrong? You get enmity for every person that cure lands on. Cure IV cure power hitting 10 targets means ~8k HP cured. The CE modifier for cures is roughly 0.5 at 99, so you'd get 4k CE for it (10k is cap). The VE modifier is roughly 3.0, which means you'd get 24k VE, which instantly caps your VE (also 10k). Even with capped enmity reduction (50%) you'd still hit the VE cap with one cure, and you'd need ~5 cures to hit the CE cap.


But, most importantly, you're trying to argue my point while fundamentally agreeing with it ("Embrava did it very right" which is my argument for keeping things the way they are nowy).

First of all, I never argued your point, I'm arguing your argument. Alliance cures are a bad example because a) they already do what you say would "break the game" and b) they would be just as impossible to maintain as they are now. Secondly, Embrava doesn't do it right by itself, Accession makes it behave that way, which I don't have a problem with, because it's always instantly available when you're casting Embrava (no charges, no recast time during Tabula Rasa).

We both make the same point, only you say that you don't wanna push it further because you think it breaks the game. I humbly disagree.


But my point is not that "Other MMOs can do it!" My point is that other MMOs are fundamentally designed for that kind of gameplay. FFXI was not and should not head in that direction.

How do you know it wasn't? And who are you to say it shouldn't? As I said before, I believe that the only reason why they added party-based alliances is because of ease of implementation, not because of any gameplay mechanics.

[Meyi]

As far as I'm aware, the reason my groups brought so many WHMs (and RDMs) was so that there'd be enough curing power to go around. This would still be needed even if the alliance was considered a party. While curaga might hit more people at once, I would imagine that would be problematic. I haven't examined any spreadsheets on enmity so I won't say for certain, but I would imagine more healers would still be a good idea.

As for "excess bard songs", my linkshell would also do this. We'd have a bard per party, and for big boss events, we'd have the BRDs Soul Voice, put up two songs, and switch out and give the same two songs to a different party. That way they had four songs with half the slots being consumed by unwanted bards.

I'm not saying that every spell needs to hit every member at once in the alliance, but it would be nice if alliance members could be targetted with the spell. For example, the leader of party two could be hit with curaga by the white mage of party one, and all of party two is curaga'd. But, the white mage would need to hit each party separately.

[Llana_Virren]

As far as I'm aware, the reason my groups brought so many WHMs (and RDMs) was so that there'd be enough curing power to go around. This would still be needed even if the alliance was considered a party. While curaga might hit more people at once, I would imagine that would be problematic. I haven't examined any spreadsheets on enmity so I won't say for certain, but I would imagine more healers would still be a good idea.

As for "excess bard songs", my linkshell would also do this. We'd have a bard per party, and for big boss events, we'd have the BRDs Soul Voice, put up two songs, and switch out and give the same two songs to a different party. That way they had four songs with half the slots being consumed by unwanted bards.

I'm not saying that every spell needs to hit every member at once in the alliance, but it would be nice if alliance members could be targetted with the spell. For example, the leader of party two could be hit with curaga by the white mage of party one, and all of party two is curaga'd. But, the white mage would need to hit each party separately.

Absolutely agree... alliance members should be easily targettable for party-only spells, just not the AOE ones.
Of course, alliances have been doing BRD and COR rotations for years... just imagine the chaos with WHM rotations :P

[Llana_Virren]

That means you need to cure a total amount of 3240 to get all the MP you used up back with Orison Pantaloons +2 (as 5% of 3240 is 162). As Curaga III will cure about 800 HP for each person it hits, you only need to cure 4 people to get a free Curaga III. This was possible even before the changes with Accession + Cure IV on five people and it's a lot easier now.

Math is wrong? You get enmity for every person that cure lands on. Cure IV cure power hitting 10 targets means ~8k HP cured. The CE modifier for cures is roughly 0.5 at 99, so you'd get 4k CE for it (10k is cap). The VE modifier is roughly 3.0, which means you'd get 24k VE, which instantly caps your VE (also 10k). Even with capped enmity reduction (50%) you'd still hit the VE cap with one cure, and you'd need ~5 cures to hit the CE cap.

As I was saying... making these spells and abilities affect the -entire alliance- (the part you're missing, still) means that you would easily get 75+% MP back per cure regardless. As for hate cap, again, if none of the DD die thanks to Infinite Heal, there will be no consequence for enmity on the WHM, so the argument of maxing the hate cap is irrelevent.


How do you know it wasn't? And who are you to say it shouldn't? As I said before, I believe that the only reason why they added party-based alliances is because of ease of implementation, not because of any gameplay mechanics.
Because I know how to read, and I know how to read between the lines when it comes to SE's published notes, in-game dialogue, and conference calls.

Protip: There's nothing to say that this won't change; my concern is limited solely to the realm of "Sneak/Invis should be open-target; party buffs can be alliance-target, but leave AOE buffs to party-target only."