[QUESTION] -- Sig Concepts

-
That actually is plausible, from what I can tell. But yeah.... that's a big investment of Sig Points, lol. It's probably something I'll look in to once I get a bigger pool to work with.

In the meantime, though, Warrior's right around the corner from reaching Lv5, (and tbh I almost forgot about this thread until you brought it back up!), so I'm gonna write up a prettier/more comprehensible version of the Gem Cross Sig, and maybe pitch a few more ideas that I thought were a little silly but worth the effort.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gem Cross (Same concept, new format)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* This Signature is created assuming Warrior is at least Lv5, with a 20 Passive SP Cap.

* SP Cost: 10 (Object HP) + 20 (Equipable) + (20 * 3) (Random Pool [Passive Effects])]

[[b]Jewel Cross[/b]] -- [90 SP] -- [[u]3 CD[/u]]
[[i]Warrior's Emblem materializes infront of the target of this Sig. The emblem emanates a bright white light while spinning rapidly, slowly shifting its shape into a Cross-Shaped, Jewel-Pendant that gently attaches itself to the target's neck after it stops spinning. Once attached, the white-light bathing the pendant appears to shatter, revealing the material empowering the accessory...[/i]]
[PENDANT: 10 HP (Light + Equipable)]
[A RNG is used to determine the Pendant created, using the list below as reference]
--- (1) Rose Quartz Cross of Mobility
--- (2) Topaz Cross of Life
--- (3) Ruby Cross of Power
--- (4) Emerald Cross of Protection
--- (5) Sapphire Cross of Concentration




This is the Signature that this entire thread is basically about. I didn't really add anything to it, but attempted to simplify it in the most effective way possible.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Layered Barrier (Silly concept, but worth a shot)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I know that regular Barriers cannot have Effects imbued into them -- this would obviously be a Planar Barrier. Rather than explaining it before showing it to you, I'll go ahead and show you that concept, then say some words about it:

[[b]Multi-Layer Barrier[/b]] -- [60 SP] -- [[u]2 CD[/u]]
[[i]A thick barrier encompasses Warrior's body; one that cannot be destroyed by a single strike. Only layers of it will fall away at a time.[/i]]
[Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier. Counter(When Broken): Creates 'Barrier 2']
↳ Barrier2 [Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier. Counter(When Broken): Creates 'Barrier 3']
--- ↳ Barrier3 [Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier]


So yeah. I thought about it, then told myself "Now now, don't be daft. That's just silly." Then I thought about it some more and was like "Hey, that is silly. But I want it anyway." And now I find myself here, asking you all about it =D

I formatted it in like... the clearest possible way I knew how to. Basically, when the first barrier breaks, it immediately summons the second barrier (provided I'm standing on Non-Normal Terrain). Likewise, when the second barrier breaks, it immediately summons the third barrier. And then when the third one breaks, Warrior becomes a sitting duck. Think of it.... I guess think of it like Alpha's multi-layered... skin... stuff. Yeah.


Naturally, I'd throw something even sillier into the mix, like changing the panels instantly before summoning the first barrier:

[[b]Multi-Layer Barrier[/b]] -- [70 SP] -- [[u]2 CD[/u]]
[[i]A thick barrier encompasses Warrior's body; one that cannot be destroyed by a single strike. Only layers of it will fall away at a time.[/i]]
[Creates a Solar Panel beneath Warrior]
[Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier. Counter(When Broken): Creates 'Barrier 2']
↳ Barrier2 [Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier. Counter(When Broken): Creates 'Barrier 3']
--- ↳ Barrier3 [Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier]


I think the silliest idea of mine is that I want to make it have a Trap AND a Counter (clearly because I'm afraid of Impact negating my Counter). But I don't think multiple Traps can be active at once (or even sprung from the same source), so I'd only put it on the first Barrier. The end result would be:

[[b]Multi-Layer Barrier[/b]] -- [110 SP] -- [[u]3 CD[/u]]
[[i]A thick barrier encompasses Warrior's body; one that cannot be destroyed by a single strike. Only layers of it will fall away at a time.[/i]]
[Creates a Solar Panel beneath Warrior]
[Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier. Counter(When Broken): Creates 'Barrier 2'. Trap(Impact Attack): Dodge]
↳ Barrier2 [Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier. Counter(When Broken): Creates 'Barrier 3']
--- ↳ Barrier3 [Creates a 20-HP Planar Barrier]


So pretty much, if an enemy uses an Impact Attack, Warrior has a slight chance to dodge it before it crushes his barrier and makes him sad.

My main question is: Would this kind of a Defense be allowed? And if so... is there a clearer way of formatting it, or is that method the most clear (or clear enough) for now?

The progressive barrier is actually pretty much ok, I'm sure, though it would work best, I think, simply as a multi-stage trigger

(so, something like: Multi-stage: first (barrier), then, Trigger(on break), (barrier), then Trigger(on break) (Barrier)) etc. Like that.)

If you wanted to put the trap in, you could actually slip the trap function into the multi-stage quite simply, just as another stage between the setting of the first barrier, and the trigger for the next.

Mods correct me if I'm mistaken here,

EDIT: you asked about formatting, so, this is how I would formalise what you're looking at here, personally:

Multi-Layer Barrier:

Multi-Stage: First (Create a single solar panel underfoot), Then (20Hp barrier), Then (Trigger(Barrier Broken) 20Hp Barrier, Then (Trigger(Barrier Broken (20Hp Barrier))

You wouldn't need the trap here, since you can just set them up as triggers on the barrier breaking, and thus they wouldn't risk being negated by impact.

-
That sounds like a pretty sweet deal then. Also, it looks way more comprehensible than the way I wrote it, lol. I appreciate the help!


Now, I have another question about something I've been wondering for a while...

[th colspan="1"]Imbue Element[/th]

Imbue Element: 20 (40 if off-elemental) [Allows you to add an element to a Null Element attack. The element must be declared when you register this ability, and can only target a Null Element attack. You cannot use this ability on a Rapid Buster Attack (known as a Buster Shot), but it may be used on any Null-Element offensive or defensive ability. You cannot imbue multiple elements on a single attack. It costs 20 if you are imbuing your element, and costs 40 if it is any other element. You cannot select Null as a choice. Elemental Bonuses do not apply to attacks affected by this effect]

This is considered a 'Buff', so I assume it can also be applied to allies. Now... would I be able to aim this at enemies, as well? =3

[th colspan="1"]For Example[/th]

[[b]Sword of the Great Attack[/b]] - [20 SP] - [[u]1 CD[/u]] [[i]A great and mighty sword shoots an enemy after it runs past them. Spectators are boggled with confusion and unable to respond to what they've just witnessed, so it causes them to become Elec Element, because that's clearly the only logical way of reacting. The shenanigans are upon us![/i]] [Imbues target's next attack with Elec Element. This can be aimed Warrior, an ally, or an enemy.]

EDIT: Additionally, if I use '+20 Strengthen', but don't immediately put it to use, and then on the following turn I use another '+20 Strengthen', could I apply both of them to the same attack this way? Or do the effects of 'Strengthen' expire at the end of the turn?

Reference: The term 'Strengthen' in the Sig Attack Effect List doesn't clarify this. However, in the 'Terrain' Thread, 'Coal Panels' effect states that "Fire Elementals gain +20 Strengthen while on this Terrain each turn, but the effect must be allocated to Fire Element attacks only. As with normal Strengthen, it pools until used". This is what leads me to believe the it can, in fact, be applied to an attack multiple times over the course of two or more turns. Is this correct?

-

I'm not 100% certain on this, so, you'd probably be best to double-check with someone else on the chat, but, I don't believe you can apply Imbue to anything other than your own abilities. If only for the simple fact that it targets itself on an ability, and must be designated specifically by virtue of that, as far as I'm aware, thus, it's not really practically possible to hook it up to anything other than your own abilities, since you don't have control over what others re doing.

Working with allies may, possibly, be a feasible exception, in as much as, if you know what your ally is planning to do exactly, and can act in concert with them, it should be quite doable... but I'm pretty sure applying it to enemies is probably a no-go.... at the very least, I imagine you might be able to -try- tossing an imbue at an enemy target, but I think their behind-the-scenes for combat looks a bit different to players (not a mod, don't know for certain), so it may simply not work. Again, best thing to do would be to drop by the chat and ask someone this one.



Strengthen, however, does add up into a pool, which you are free to use some, all or none of with subsequent valid attacks. It's quite flexible, and is a favourite for using up left-over or excess points of a lot of folks here. Simply ,if a signature gives you 20 strengthen to use, as a part of its effect, you can use it at any time, but if you don't, it waits patiently for you to have a need for it, and if you apply further strengthen to yourself later, without using the first, it simply adds on.

Example:

1) Tess uses her signature "Some Strength" (40 Strengthen)
2) Tess uses her signature "A Punch Lacking Strength" (10 Null) + 30 Strengthen = (40 Null @ FakeTargetA)
3) Tess points and laughs at FakeTargetA.

(10 Strengthen remaining)

Turn 2

1) Tess uses her signature "More Power!" (80 Strengthen)
2) Tess uses her signature "Maximum Power!!" (80 Strengthen)
3) Tess uses her signature "A Punch with Potential" (10Null) + 140 Strengthen = (150Null @ FakeTargetA)

(30 Strengthen remaining)

And so on... please excuse Tess, she's not overly creative, being an example dummy that she is.

Quick question for a potential future sig: say that I use small area illusion to make a 'smokescreen' type signature that obstructs vision? Cab I make that illusion in any way selective? Ie. Allies see a light fog that allows then to see, enemies see a thick fog that blocks vision. Or the illusion appear different on the inside than it does on the outside. I'm guessing that the former is excessively powerful, but the latter is potentially feasible.
A good second question would be if I can have illusions dispersed by fan/wind effects.
I also had a question about slashing melee sig attacks, but adding take aim to a signature is only 10 points.

So, we have three types of illusion that cover different types of functions and, more specifically, different modes of application.
The key points to your question would be:

- Yes, an illusion can obstruct vision. The illusion of a solid brick wall cannot be seen through except by creatures unaffected by illusion.

- You cannot make an illusion 'selective' in any way beyond the modes described in the three different types: Hallucinating illusions, for example, are selective in that they only affect the targeted creature, and no-one who isn't specifically targeted sees (or hears) anything at all. A Small Area illusion, is a stand-alone illusion that everyone sees equally because it is what it is, and it's not in the scope of the illusion to look different to different targets.

- If the illusion filled a certain amount of space, you could design a Small Area illusion to have an internal visual different from its external visual, but it would still be the same for everyone, friend or foe.

Lastly, Illusions are intangible, and they are not affected by external effects - so, they cannot interact with real gusts of wind or other phenomena.

You *Might* be able to write a signature that conjures an illusion, and that also has a Counter trigger that you can reasonably describe that will end the illusion by directing a small amount of seeking damage at it when the effect that you want to cancel the illusion occurs in its space; it would need to be a counter since they are what respond to effects, and you could flavour and aesthetic it as the effect ending the illusion, but mechanically, under the hood, it wold be your navi delivering the counter to end the illusion, and they'd need to obey counter rules to do it. So, you might be able to do it, but it may feel messy and unsatisfying.

(And yes, I believe there is a long history of navis adding a cheeky Take Aim to sigs that they have added slashing to)

Thank you. That's mostly what I expected. I was thinking that the fog being dissappated by wind effects would be a WEAKNESS, given that the illusion's creator can move it around. It'll still be useful for crowd control, by reducing the accuracy of enemies that I don't want to engage.

(I still feel a little like melee signatures shouldn't get the penalty from slashing: swords don't have an inherent accuracy penalty, and shadow has a somilar disadvantage that applies specifically to ranged attacks. But it's minor.)

Remember also that what actual effects the illusion ha is ultimately up to moderator discretion - you can make an illusion with the intent and hope that it might make things harder for your foes, but you can't say that it gives an accuracy penalty because that's up to moderation. As a general rule, if you sell it well and don't try to over-reach, you're more likely to get what you're trying for.

Most sword chips are B accuracy, while basic buster work is A. Buster chips that make your buster into a slashing sword (not to be confused with Sword battlechips...) enforce that accuracy drop as well, if I recall correctly. Sword subtype navis can negate this with their passive that grants an additional accuracy rank to all sword chips they use, and lets that accuracy surpass A rank if appropriate.

(Edit: compare your Shotgun, Cannon and FireHit with your RageClaw and Sword chips - the adjustment is built in.)

Ah, okay, I see where the confusion is coming from. I was comparing sword chips to signature attacks, not shot type chips. A melee signature attack has a BASE accuracy of B, and then slashing further reduces accuracy by one rank to C. Compare this to a shot type attack without slashing; it simply has an accuracy of A, the same accuracy as most shot type attacks. And finally, most Sword chips have B accuracy and slashing. The closest analogues to sword chips are the fist series, which also have B accuracy (without slashing).
I'm just confused here; there's two ranks of accuracy drop for creating a melee sig with slashing, but melee chips with slashing only have one rank of accuracy drop.

There are a lot of ways in which the Signature system has gotten the raw end of the stick compared to the Chip system; the system was designed after the games and focused heavily around the assumption that using battlechips would be your bread and butter the vast majority of the time... My Lyntael is actually a very extreme outlier in her non-use of chips at all. (My biggest gripe with it is that ALL chip defences have StatusGuard baked in... and we have NO way at all to get StatusGuard with signatures)

You're not incorrect that attributing a signature as Melee, and then giving it Slashing gives you a default accuracy as C... but if you're a navi that specialises in neither Melee nor Swords, then it kind of makes a certain amount of sense that they might not be as proficient as they'd like with that combination... or at least you could look at it that way.

Here's what I can say: You don't, technically, have to attribute your signature to Melee if you don't want to; by default signatures are treated as having A rank accuracy in lieu of having a nominated range attribution, and you can stick with that, play the signature as you describe and register it, and no-one will complain. You won't get the perks of having it attributed to melee (such as getting effectively a free movement to target), that's all.

Huh...I didn't realize that Status Guard was completely unavailable to signatures. That actually does seem like an oversight.
That said, it makes some sense for chips to be stronger, since they only refresh after the battle ends, wheras signatures can potentially be used multiple times in a fight. It's possible that chips get status guard and signatures don't because you can run out of chips and can't run out of signatures. It does still feel like an oversight though: a trap with status clear triggered by recieving a status effect does something very similar for only 30 points, albiet at the cost of taking up the source's trap.
It might actually be worth having a discussion about whether status guard should be an option for signatures.
I checked, and navicust programs don't have any status guard either. It may be that the effect is intended to only be available via chips to prevent navis from being made effectively immune to status effects.

The main reasoning that I've always been given (it's no oversight - I've campaigned for it multiple times and been shot down by other mod staff) is that chips are meant to have things you can't access any other way and are meant to be better. These reasons never felt very satisfying to me, personally, but it is what it is... Like you say, there are ways around it that come at the sacrifice of other things.

Although, considering it... Our signature system used to have the option of passives, wherein you could pay 4x the signature cost, and (provided it was still under your individual sig limit), have the effect as a passive constantly. It eventually got a bit out of hand, because it threw the action economy out of balance and there was no way to rein it in outside of changing a lot of other things that didn't otherwise need changing... Now, at the value point the statusguard effect would have been, it would have been possible to make it a passive to any navis over level 20-ish... But, passives aren't a thing any more, so that 'risk' isn't really a danger now, so perhaps it might be worth looking into again, who knows ^.^

Okay, yeah, the potential of having passive status guard would definitely be a reason to NOT have status guard be an option for signatures. I saw a similar argument about a Necromancy sig effect, and they specifically said that they didn't want to have some effects barred from being part of passive sigs. And yeah, passives apparently badly messed up the action economy.