Dirty, rotten, filthy changes (classic Elder Scrolls diseases)

tinythinker · October 2015

Reaper_5334 wrote: »

I would love this, would really add to the "elder scrolls" part of the game.

BRogueNZ wrote: »

No thanks. I remember how damned annoying it was

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Do not want.

Thanks for adding your voices, @Reaper_5334, @BRogueNZ, and @DaveMoeDee. Good to get honest feedback, whether or not you like the idea

By the way, because this thread has caught a little traction I've gone back and updated the starting post with mechanics I hadn't originally mentioned in order to keep things brief, and I've clarified them/expanded on them. I don't expect that to change the minds of everyone who is against the idea of bringing in named diseases, but it does show the underpinning/guts of the idea in actual working terms and why I think these diseases can be imported into a game like ESO.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

The area of effect diseases would be stuff like "don't go into that cloud, you'll catch something", or as mentioned, action-reaction dependent (don't go jumping in the water fully clothed in eastmarch, you'll catch something if you run around with wet clothes in the cold). Could even be interaction dependent... The point is, diseases should have more contagion vectors then "rat bite", some avoidable, some... less so.

I had considered something like this too for that contagion skill I previously linked, but I used it instead for my anti-zerging idea. But I am not sure how popular such vectors would be. In any case, you are right, there are lots of ways to play with the basic mechanics.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

I'd love to fear certain types of mobs, not for their combat prowess, but for the low chance my poor characters might catch something... brings back memories of hating the mummies in D&D for the "mummy rot" chance (still better then the darn experience-stealing wraiths though, those were crossing a line!)
And I'd love to have diseases that may require finding some special ingredient for the cure somewhere instead of just paying the local cleric of popping a potion. As long as they are rare enough to make it an adventure, and not a daily chore...

Yeah, @TheShadowScout I notice that they added a chance for an AoE damage effect called unconsecrated ground to proc when a zombie dies to make them more interesting. It's the same reasons I figured adding a disease chance to some mobs might make fights with them more than ***-hum.

BlackEar wrote: »

Good idea but my concern is the gold drop off. For a lot of people this would merely be a nuiseance.

Slurg wrote: »

I could see this being an interesting mechanic for solo PVE play.

But if you're doing a pledge in a formal group or capturing resources in Cyrodiil (which you may have had to queue to get into), it would be an unreasonable burden to drop everything and head to a major city for a cure just because you happened to run by a wolf or a skeever on the way to your objective and you don't want to drag down your group with your disease.

Sure if there was a potion you could carry it would be less of a burden for you and your group. But it better be really easy to obtain, because if it's so hard to get it goes into the crown store as a 'convenience' item - you just got bit by a wolf, open crown store now to buy a potion or drag down your group! - that will leave a lot of people angry about the game creeping closer to and hovering at the edges of P2W.

That is the challenge @BlackEar and @Slurg, to make disease matter but not make it super-annoying to most players (and I say "most" because let's face it, every single thing in the game annoys at least some players). I've talked more about those mechanics in the comments once the thread got more attention, but I am going to add have added some of it into the original post to make my ideas clearer to those new to the thread and hopefully to get feedback on those mechanics as well and not just on the basic idea of named diseases.

Of course, whatever players come up with in a thread like this after going over the pros and cons of different ideas doesn't mean that such diseases will be added, or added how we would like, but, it's worth a shot and it may inspire people to ask for other fun things in the game from previous installments of the Elder Scrolls series

rb2001 · October 2015

I support all of this.

ZOS would do well to start expanding gameplay, not just keep adding on content to the existing gameplay structure.

To those saying they don't want this because it would suck to deal with, your lack of imagination disturbs me.

The only reason a video game is fun is because there are challenges and solutions provided for them within the gameplay.

That is the core of what it is to be a video game.

The more reasonable challenges which players can control and manage, the better the gameplay (as long its done in a meaningful way).

Sometimes players rejecting ideas like this (or having to drink water) sound very ignorant. It is as if you would say "I don't want the mobs to have weapons" if that had been the standard that they don't, and you would be missing out what we have now, which is duel with mobs that also have weapons.

Adding things to the game that you don't want is precisely how to make the gameplay meaningful. You have things to avoid, actual reasons to perform certain actions to not get X event to happen, and actual incentives to think about the world and your preparedness in it.

This isn't a flipping arcade game. It's a real-time persistent world RPG, and its gameplay should expand and start modeling more realism.

In other words:

It's not very much fun to beat a boss when it only takes 1 hit.
It's not very much fun to gain 10 gold when you can easily gain 1 million a day.
It's not very much fun to fight in a diseased sewer when you can't have any actually risk to get a disease.
It's not very much fun to get a new sword when you get 200 new swords each play session.
It's not very much fun to find a treasure chest when you get 10 a day and already know only junk is inside it.

Fun comes from being able to deal with and react to real challenges within the game world.
Gaining 10 gold is fun when you are barely scraping by, and are trying to save up for a new item.
Killing a boss is fun when it takes you to your very limits, and you feel like there are reasonable ways to overcome it.
It's very, very fun to find the Master Sword, because there is only one of it, and it is the last sword you will ever need. And because you didn't find 20 swords already today, all of which were green vendor trash.
Finding treasure is fun when you don't expect it.
Exploring a ruined sewer with gross enemies is fun when you have to fear being there or spending too much time there, or need to think ahead about disease preparedness.

notimetocare · October 2015

No, never. This idea should die before it begins. If you want them to be short term rebuffs, cool. Require Skyrim mechanics to cure? He'll no

notimetocare · October 2015

rb2001 wrote: »

I support all of this.

ZOS would do well to start expanding gameplay, not just keep adding on content to the existing gameplay structure.

To those saying they don't want this because it would suck to deal with, your lack of imagination disturbs me.

The only reason a video game is fun is because there are challenges and solutions provided for them within the gameplay.

That is the core of what it is to be a video game.

The more reasonable challenges which players can control and manage, the better the gameplay (as long its done in a meaningful way).

Sometimes players rejecting ideas like this (or having to drink water) sound very ignorant. It is as if you would say "I don't want the mobs to have weapons" if that had been the standard that they don't, and you would be missing out what we have now, which is duel with mobs that also have weapons.

Adding things to the game that you don't want is precisely how to make the gameplay meaningful. You have things to avoid, actual reasons to perform certain actions to not get X event to happen, and actual incentives to think about the world and your preparedness in it.

This isn't a flipping arcade game. It's a real-time persistent world RPG, and its gameplay should expand and start modeling more realism.

In other words:

It's not very much fun to beat a boss when it only takes 1 hit.
It's not very much fun to gain 10 gold when you can easily gain 1 million a day.
It's not very much fun to fight in a diseased sewer when you can't have any actually risk to get a disease.
It's not very much fun to get a new sword when you get 200 new swords each play session.
It's not very much fun to find a treasure chest when you get 10 a day and already know only junk is inside it.

Fun comes from being able to deal with and react to real challenges within the game world.
Gaining 10 gold is fun when you are barely scraping by, and are trying to save up for a new item.
Killing a boss is fun when it takes you to your very limits, and you feel like there are reasonable ways to overcome it.
It's very, very fun to find the Master Sword, because there is only one of it, and it is the last sword you will ever need. And because you didn't find 20 swords already today, all of which were green vendor trash.
Finding treasure is fun when you don't expect it.
Exploring a ruined sewer with gross enemies is fun when you have to fear being there or spending too much time there, or need to think ahead about disease preparedness.

Dull repetitive stuff is not fun. Ask that they add something interesting. If i want to deal with this lame stuff ill go back to skyrim.
MMORPG, this is not Skyrim.
I don't want it, but getting herpes makes life more interesting.
Long story short, Skyrim in that way. I think that is what you are looking for. You clearly don't understand MMORPG.

rb2001 · October 2015

notimetocare wrote: »

rb2001 wrote: »

I support all of this.

ZOS would do well to start expanding gameplay, not just keep adding on content to the existing gameplay structure.

To those saying they don't want this because it would suck to deal with, your lack of imagination disturbs me.

The only reason a video game is fun is because there are challenges and solutions provided for them within the gameplay.

That is the core of what it is to be a video game.

The more reasonable challenges which players can control and manage, the better the gameplay (as long its done in a meaningful way).

Sometimes players rejecting ideas like this (or having to drink water) sound very ignorant. It is as if you would say "I don't want the mobs to have weapons" if that had been the standard that they don't, and you would be missing out what we have now, which is duel with mobs that also have weapons.

Adding things to the game that you don't want is precisely how to make the gameplay meaningful. You have things to avoid, actual reasons to perform certain actions to not get X event to happen, and actual incentives to think about the world and your preparedness in it.

This isn't a flipping arcade game. It's a real-time persistent world RPG, and its gameplay should expand and start modeling more realism.

In other words:

It's not very much fun to beat a boss when it only takes 1 hit.
It's not very much fun to gain 10 gold when you can easily gain 1 million a day.
It's not very much fun to fight in a diseased sewer when you can't have any actually risk to get a disease.
It's not very much fun to get a new sword when you get 200 new swords each play session.
It's not very much fun to find a treasure chest when you get 10 a day and already know only junk is inside it.

Fun comes from being able to deal with and react to real challenges within the game world.
Gaining 10 gold is fun when you are barely scraping by, and are trying to save up for a new item.
Killing a boss is fun when it takes you to your very limits, and you feel like there are reasonable ways to overcome it.
It's very, very fun to find the Master Sword, because there is only one of it, and it is the last sword you will ever need. And because you didn't find 20 swords already today, all of which were green vendor trash.
Finding treasure is fun when you don't expect it.
Exploring a ruined sewer with gross enemies is fun when you have to fear being there or spending too much time there, or need to think ahead about disease preparedness.

Dull repetitive stuff is not fun. Ask that they add something interesting. If i want to deal with this lame stuff ill go back to skyrim.
MMORPG, this is not Skyrim.
I don't want it, but getting herpes makes life more interesting.
Long story short, Skyrim in that way. I think that is what you are looking for. You clearly don't understand MMORPG.

MMORPG doesn't stand for "has to keep the exact same crap every other game labeled MMORPG has, can't innovate and can't ever be a better game" FFS.

I mentioned "as long as it is implemented in a meaningful way". Have some imagination, man. You could look at every mechanic ESO currently has, and before conception say "oh it'll be dull and repetitive" (well, you'd mostly be right there, but the fact is we are now asking for things to be LESS dull).

Please don't bring Skyrim into this. Skyrim is a rubbish game. I wouldn't play Skyrim if it was the last game on earth.

The reason many of us are playing ESO is because it DOES NOT do everything like every other boring MMO. No, I don't "not understand" MMORPG. I don't like "MMORPG". I like multiplayer in an interesting world, and a game that is not afraid to break boundaries (ESO).

ESO should continue breaking the boundaries and giving us more complex gameplay.

Ironically you don't want this because you don't want "dull", but you are wanting to keep the game lacking complexity, i.e. dull. You want to keep beating down mobs over and over with no thought in your head.

tinythinker · October 2015

notimetocare wrote: »

No, never. This idea should die before it begins. If you want them to be short term rebuffs, cool. Require Skyrim mechanics to cure? He'll no

Mechanics are open for debate, though shrines/cure disease potions fit previous elder scrolls games pretty well (not just Skyrim). In any case, I've updated the original post with more details than originally offered about the proposed mechanics of named diseases and how the mechanics translate such diseases into ESO.

I don't expect them to change the minds of people opposed to the basic concept of adding additional challenges to mobs in the form of lingering effects that require specific actions involving an investment of time or gold, but at least it gives the details of what they are objecting to. In any event, thank you for taking the time to express your opinion on the concept.

Asherons_Call · October 2015

Crabs: effect run speed by -20% and has a 10% chance trigger loss of concentration to cause spell failure

Gidorick · October 2015

I think many of the annoyances could be addressed by adding potions of Cure Disease to the game and adding a way for players to make them in the alchemy skill line.

I would personally prefer a mechanic that saw a different cure for every disease. So if there are 10 diseases in game, there are 10 cures... but in the Elder Scrolls there is one catch-all potion.

tinythinker · October 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

I think many of the annoyances could be addressed by adding potions of Cure Disease to the game and adding a way for players to make them in the alchemy skill line.

I would personally prefer a mechanic that saw a different cure for every disease. So if there are 10 diseases in game, there are 10 cures... but in the Elder Scrolls there is one catch-all potion.

Oh, very nice. Say, might I interest you in the more detailed mechanics overview I added to the original post. For your convenience, let me just re-post that here...

An understandable concern is that named diseases would be too disruptive to regular game play. Sure, some people don't realize that being inconvenienced and having mechanisms to overcome obstacles is a part of gaming, or maybe they just don't want this particular type of obstacle, and I respect that. But done right I think named diseases could add some serious Elder Scrolls flavor to ESO. The mechanics I talk about here are what toggle that level of impact. The sweet spot between "challenge" and "annoying" will vary from player to player, but these are the levers I have in mind to adjust that balance. How far you would would move each lever is of course your own view. My numbers are for the purpose of illustrating the levers and any numbers would need to be adjusted after internal game testing and time on the PTS if some version of this concept were adopted. These mechanics translate such diseases from a single player RPG format to a version suitable for an RPG/MMO hybrid like the Elder Scrolls Online.

1. Vector of transmission. That is, how is a disease spread? Exposure to foul water? Spoiled food? The bite of an infected animal (such as a skeever, wolf, bear) or the bodily fluid of an infected host (such as zombie spew)? The easiest and simplest way to control how and when named diseases are encountered is to decide which mobs can transmit a disease, which disease they transmit, and how. The most logical and simple mechanism for a triggering event is an attack by the mob. It could be a regular attack (bite/swipe from an animal) or a special attack (like the aforementioned zombie spew).

2. Rate of Transmission. Or in gaming terms, how often does it proc upon the occurrence of a triggering event? The bookends are a zero percent chance of transmission (which we have now -- no attack ever transmits a named disease) and one hundred percent. In general, the more likely it is for transmission to proc, the less interesting and more frustrating the mechanic becomes. If the rate of transmission/chance to proc an infection gets too low, the whole concept becomes invisible and pointless. The rate of transmission has to be balanced with the rate of progression (how quickly it gets worse over time), so these levers will be discussed together.

3. Disease Stages and Rate of Progression. These exist already for another named disease -- Vamprisim. The way this lever works is to determine the initial impact (the penalty acquired at the moment of infection) and ongoing impact while your character is infected. This can be divided into stages of the disease or, more simply, into degree of impact per unit time. For the named diseases described above, the latter is the better choice. The importance of this mechanic is that it directly controls how eventful getting a disease will be. If the initial penalty is low and the progression is a slow burn (it takes a relatively long time, in gaming terms, for the penalty to build up to something really debilitating) then the risk of being infected doesn't automatically slow your game play. You could still try to finish a quest or two or a grind session before needing to worry about a cure.

So then we are talking about whether a particular named disease should have a high, medium, or low initial impact and a fast, moderate, or slow burn.

This can then be combined with higher or lower rates of transmission. If you have a higher rate of transmission, for example, a low or medium initial impact and a slow burn would help keep the frustration of frequent infection in check. Take Brain Rot as an example. If you had a really high chance (60-75%) of contracting it whenever your character fought the carrier mob, but, it initially had an impact of 1% reduced max magicka and the disease progressed at the rate of losing one additional percent per every real world hour, it would take a real world day to get to the maximum effect of a 25% reduction to max magicka. You don't get to 25% right away, so you have time to decide what to do, but, if you just "let it go" it gets really bad.

Playing with these levers, lets up the initial impact a bit and greatly boost the rate of progression. For example, right away a 5% penalty. After ten minutes, a 10% penalty. After thirty minutes, a 15% penalty. After an hour, a 25% penalty. Even if we give a somewhat lower rate of disease transmission, say, 35-40% per fight with a set of infected mobs (a set can be one individual or two/three depending on how they are typically encountered but the odds of infection would be the same per set, which means skeevers would individually have lower rates of transmission than bears since the former tend to be found in groups of two and three), your character is impacted less frequently and yet quickly and so the presence of disease in the game would be far more noticeable.

For really low rates of transmission (say, 2-6% per set of infectious mobs), having a high initial impact might make more sense if the goal is to have a higher impact, and the numbers for rate of progression would change to reflect that. So for Brain Rot, a staggered approach could start at 10% and add 1% per minute until reaching the maximum 15 minutes after infection. You would know you have to go seek treatment right away. You could slow down the rate of progression *or* lower the initial impact to draw things out a bit but if you used a 2-6% infection rate, a 1% initial impact, and a 1% per hour rate of progression, Brain Rot would have a very low impact on the game *unless* we adjusted another lever, that of cures and cool-downs.

4. Cures and Cool-Downs. Cures are a big lever, and in previous Elder Scrolls games these tended to involve either finding a temple/shrine or obtaining a Cure Disease Potion. As named diseases they would not be curable by Purge or Cleansing Ritual unless rates of transmission, initial impact, and rate of progression were all very high for all of the diseases. High values for all of these levers at once for all named diseases would make the concept an unfun annoyance and is rejected. Cool-downs refers to how long (30 minutes? 1 hour?) after being you cured you become immune to all named diseases.

By playing with the cure and cool-down levers, you can greatly alter the significance of vectors, rates of transmission, initial impact, and speed of progression. For instance, in the previous example of Brain Rot having a 2-6% infection rate, a 1% initial impact, and a 1% per hour progression, if you could easily acquire a large stack of Potion of Cure Disease, having the disease in the game is meaningless. You could just pop the potion any time within an hour of being infected and never see any real impact, knowing that the odds you would encounter the mob carrying it AND getting infected again any time soon are really low. And even if it happens, easy peasy. Just pop another cheap cure potion.

On the other hand, if shrines/potions were rare or expensive enough, you couldn't just leave off dealing with the disease because it was such a slow burner.

How to tweak the vectors, rates of transmission, initial impact/rate of progression, and cure/cool-down levers to find a suitable balance for an engaging and interesting mechanic is an open question. Each named disease should have its own unique formulation of vector, transmission rate, and initial impact/progression, but should the cure/cooldown mechanic should be uniform for all of them? Again, another angle to work with.

I would be remiss not to mention on last lever...

5. Immunity. In prior Elder Scrolls games, Vampires, Lycanthropes, and Argonians were all immune to such named diseases. How this should play out in ESO is an open question, but it would definitely be a boost to choosing to play as an Argonian character.

Mechanics summary: You can make a named disease as visible as you want, and have its frequency, degree, and immediacy of impact adjusted the way you want, by playing with the above levers. Thus the design of the disease mechanic proposed can allow things like Ataxia, Bone Break Fever, and Rockjoint to be made into an appropriate bit of flavor/challenge for a game like ESO.

notimetocare · October 2015

tinythinker wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

No, never. This idea should die before it begins. If you want them to be short term rebuffs, cool. Require Skyrim mechanics to cure? He'll no

Mechanics are open for debate, though shrines/cure disease potions fit previous elder scrolls games pretty well (not just Skyrim). In any case, I've updated the original post with more details than originally offered about the proposed mechanics of named diseases and how the mechanics translate such diseases into ESO.

I don't expect them to change the minds of people opposed to the basic concept of adding additional challenges to mobs in the form of lingering effects that require specific actions involving an investment of time or gold, but at least it gives the details of what they are objecting to. In any event, thank you for taking the time to express your opinion on the concept.

The sweet spot between "challenge" and "annoying" is something you will never reach. Not with something like this. MMO combat does not need the same immersion levels as a single player game. Diseases like these in previous TES games are about immersion. This can only be a nuisance.

notimetocare · October 2015

rb2001 wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

rb2001 wrote: »

I support all of this.

ZOS would do well to start expanding gameplay, not just keep adding on content to the existing gameplay structure.

To those saying they don't want this because it would suck to deal with, your lack of imagination disturbs me.

The only reason a video game is fun is because there are challenges and solutions provided for them within the gameplay.

That is the core of what it is to be a video game.

The more reasonable challenges which players can control and manage, the better the gameplay (as long its done in a meaningful way).

Sometimes players rejecting ideas like this (or having to drink water) sound very ignorant. It is as if you would say "I don't want the mobs to have weapons" if that had been the standard that they don't, and you would be missing out what we have now, which is duel with mobs that also have weapons.

Adding things to the game that you don't want is precisely how to make the gameplay meaningful. You have things to avoid, actual reasons to perform certain actions to not get X event to happen, and actual incentives to think about the world and your preparedness in it.

This isn't a flipping arcade game. It's a real-time persistent world RPG, and its gameplay should expand and start modeling more realism.

In other words:

It's not very much fun to beat a boss when it only takes 1 hit.
It's not very much fun to gain 10 gold when you can easily gain 1 million a day.
It's not very much fun to fight in a diseased sewer when you can't have any actually risk to get a disease.
It's not very much fun to get a new sword when you get 200 new swords each play session.
It's not very much fun to find a treasure chest when you get 10 a day and already know only junk is inside it.

Fun comes from being able to deal with and react to real challenges within the game world.
Gaining 10 gold is fun when you are barely scraping by, and are trying to save up for a new item.
Killing a boss is fun when it takes you to your very limits, and you feel like there are reasonable ways to overcome it.
It's very, very fun to find the Master Sword, because there is only one of it, and it is the last sword you will ever need. And because you didn't find 20 swords already today, all of which were green vendor trash.
Finding treasure is fun when you don't expect it.
Exploring a ruined sewer with gross enemies is fun when you have to fear being there or spending too much time there, or need to think ahead about disease preparedness.

Dull repetitive stuff is not fun. Ask that they add something interesting. If i want to deal with this lame stuff ill go back to skyrim.
MMORPG, this is not Skyrim.
I don't want it, but getting herpes makes life more interesting.
Long story short, Skyrim in that way. I think that is what you are looking for. You clearly don't understand MMORPG.

MMORPG doesn't stand for "has to keep the exact same crap every other game labeled MMORPG has, can't innovate and can't ever be a better game" FFS.

I mentioned "as long as it is implemented in a meaningful way". Have some imagination, man. You could look at every mechanic ESO currently has, and before conception say "oh it'll be dull and repetitive" (well, you'd mostly be right there, but the fact is we are now asking for things to be LESS dull).

Please don't bring Skyrim into this. Skyrim is a rubbish game. I wouldn't play Skyrim if it was the last game on earth.

The reason many of us are playing ESO is because it DOES NOT do everything like every other boring MMO. No, I don't "not understand" MMORPG. I don't like "MMORPG". I like multiplayer in an interesting world, and a game that is not afraid to break boundaries (ESO).

ESO should continue breaking the boundaries and giving us more complex gameplay.

Ironically you don't want this because you don't want "dull", but you are wanting to keep the game lacking complexity, i.e. dull. You want to keep beating down mobs over and over with no thought in your head.

In many ways, MMORPG means exactly that. If you add something that is a nuisance you cause problems.

The issue is it cannot be implemented in a meaningful way unless it is a predictable debuff like any other skill, which is the exact opposite of the idea in this post.

You are delusional about what boundaries ESO has 'broken.' You don't what it to be dull, so you say, but you are asking for irritation to be added, not a challenge.

Lol...you are asking for Skyrim mechanics, of course I am going to bring it in.

Face the facts, there is very little that ESO does that differently from other MMOs and many of those are bad things: lack of structured pvp, bad balance, no endgame pve, terrible dungeon finder... the list can go on. And by going on, I mean like how much you say ESO is 'different' with no proof of how its different (other than the negatives I just stated).

I could love a more challenging game. Running to a shrine or downing a potion to cure a disease is not challenging. If you think it is, I will again refer you to Skyrim or perhaps Oblivion.

tinythinker · October 2015

notimetocare wrote: »

The sweet spot between "challenge" and "annoying" is something you will never reach... This can only be a nuisance.

notimetocare wrote: »

I could love a more challenging game. Running to a shrine or downing a potion to cure a disease is not challenging. If you think it is, I will again refer you to Skyrim or perhaps Oblivion.

Thank you for your additional responses. I would like to sincerely ask, without eye-rolling or putting my tongue in my cheek, if I understand your objections correctly.

You don't want the convenience of a shrine or potion because it isn't a sufficient challenge, but there is nothing else that can be added that isn't a nuisance. And even if there was, there is no point trying because the concept in question is related to a degree of immersion that has no place in an MMO.

Is that right?

I am not saying you are wrong (or that you are right), I just want to verify the message I am getting. And I am sincere in my appreciation of criticisms and objections. They inspire me to think of things I might never have come up with otherwise. I like knowing just what it is that isn't supposed to be possible or realistic when I start exploring ways to make that very thing work. I may not succeed but the attempt is just so fun!

I've already got some new thoughts to build on from the basic mechanics I've laid out based on the feedback I've received thus far, so I will be working on them as I get the chance.

Paazhahdrimaak · October 2015

I want skooma, with a skooma addiction feature.

Good buffs while your on it. Negative when your not.

tinythinker · October 2015

Paazhahdrimaak wrote: »

I want skooma, with a skooma addiction feature.

Good buffs while your on it. Negative when your not.

Excellent @Paazhahdrimaak . In that case I direct you to this thread: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/142459/crafting-skooma-after-the-release-of-the-justice-system

This comment in particular has quotes and replies dealing with the effects of taking skooma: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/1416297/#Comment_1416297

I encourage you to share any buffs and penalties you would think appropriate for addiction

Paazhahdrimaak · October 2015

@tinythinker awesome!

Selique · October 2015

I really like this idea. Having the diseases progress the longer you leave them untreated is an awesome thought! There could be graphical changes to your character's appearance as well, to alert you (Along with a debuff icon or what have you). Similar to vampirism, but maybe less extreme.

You know, green skin and yellow eyes or something lol.

GreySix · October 2015

Thread title reminded me of this:

dodgehopper_ESO · October 2015

I love it, although I think Purge and Cleanse would classify as 'Cure' spells for sake of argument here. I love the idea of bringing in more to alchemy and more to disease complexity.

notimetocare · October 2015

dodgehopper_ESO wrote: »

I love it, although I think Purge and Cleanse would classify as 'Cure' spells for sake of argument here. I love the idea of bringing in more to alchemy and more to disease complexity.

Non-templars and non-PVPers would be unfairly punished unless you have something like a potion, which then you just add something that is a fly in the eye for some and a money dump for others. Not a good goal.

notimetocare · October 2015

tinythinker wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

The sweet spot between "challenge" and "annoying" is something you will never reach... This can only be a nuisance.

notimetocare wrote: »

I could love a more challenging game. Running to a shrine or downing a potion to cure a disease is not challenging. If you think it is, I will again refer you to Skyrim or perhaps Oblivion.

Thank you for your additional responses. I would like to sincerely ask, without eye-rolling or putting my tongue in my cheek, if I understand your objections correctly.

You don't want the convenience of a shrine or potion because it isn't a sufficient challenge, but there is nothing else that can be added that isn't a nuisance. And even if there was, there is no point trying because the concept in question is related to a degree of immersion that has no place in an MMO.

Is that right?

I am not saying you are wrong (or that you are right), I just want to verify the message I am getting. And I am sincere in my appreciation of criticisms and objections. They inspire me to think of things I might never have come up with otherwise. I like knowing just what it is that isn't supposed to be possible or realistic when I start exploring ways to make that very thing work. I may not succeed but the attempt is just so fun!

I've already got some new thoughts to build on from the basic mechanics I've laid out based on the feedback I've received thus far, so I will be working on them as I get the chance.

That sums it up well enough. Adding something really long term or permanent until cleaning it ends up just being a nuisance. Either you have to waste time cleansing it, which could interfere with group play (as someone else mentioned prior), a gold sink/something that unfairly pressures specific people/forces people to do something they have no desire to do (pvp) to deal with the mechanics (I addressed this before this message to another person), or it ends up going live only to be nerfed or removed because of a mass outcry of how unfun it is. In the case of potions, it also opens up the door for a crown store 'convenience item' that you may be forced into getting (someone else reached this idea before me as well, but I take it beyond the concept of just so you don't annoy your group by saying just to keep from annoying yourself)

Gidorick · October 2015

Since Vamparism is a disease... and so is Sanies Lupinus (werewolves) I would really like if there were diseases that, if unchecked, could transform the player in the same manner. The Blight or Corprus could perhaps be a disease that could turn a player into a zombie...

Many places ZOS could go with the mechanics they have established with Vamparism and Lycanthropy.

The same core mechanics would work for the whole idea of adding drugs to ESO as well. What with addictions with negative and positive effects.

As for the idea of it being annoying... my honest response to that is: Well yea... they're DISEASES!

Whatever argument that can be made for diseases being an un-fun and annoying part of a game could be extended to gear that needs to be repaired. Food that needs to be re-eaten. Materials that need to be gathered. All of that is tedium. At least diseases would bring something NEW to the MMO landscape. Like how ESO has done with the justice system.

dodgehopper_ESO · October 2015

notimetocare wrote: »

dodgehopper_ESO wrote: »

I love it, although I think Purge and Cleanse would classify as 'Cure' spells for sake of argument here. I love the idea of bringing in more to alchemy and more to disease complexity.

Non-templars and non-PVPers would be unfairly punished unless you have something like a potion, which then you just add something that is a fly in the eye for some and a money dump for others. Not a good goal.

Its not that bad. Just ask another player to hit either skill for you in town. Bam, you're healed. If you want to take it to the next level, you can even have npc cures. I'd also like to point that a Cloak morph has a form of purge built in as well.

TX12001rwb17_ESO · October 2015

tinythinker wrote: »

phreatophile wrote: »

Vampire's and Werewolves must also be resistant.

Or perhaps have different reactions (some less severe, or more severe) to some of the diseases?

Why do u think Vampires can't be werewolves and vice versa? because they are immune to the disease which bestows the curse of the other and if they are immune to them they should be immune to all diseases (Vampires drink blood, if they were effected by disease they wouldn't last for very long considering what they drink), that can be the buff for werewolves and vampires especially to even it up as the last thing they need is another weakness which would make absolutely no sense as they both have been immune to disease in very single ES game so making them able to catch disease would be both unlorefriendly and immersion breaking.

tinythinker · October 2015

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

phreatophile wrote: »

Vampire's and Werewolves must also be resistant.

Or perhaps have different reactions (some less severe, or more severe) to some of the diseases?

Why do u think Vampires can't be werewolves and vice versa? because they are immune to the disease which bestows the curse of the other and if they are immune to them they should be immune to all diseases (Vampires drink blood, if they were effected by disease they wouldn't last for very long considering what they drink), that can be the buff for werewolves and vampires especially to even it up as the last thing they need is another weakness which would make absolutely no sense as they both have been immune to disease in very single ES game so making them able to catch disease would be both unlorefriendly and immersion breaking.

Yeah, that was raised and acknowledged earlier in the thread, but thank you for your comment and interest.

tinythinker · October 2015

Building on the revised original post and your feedback

[CC: @dodgehopper_ESO @Gidorick @TheShadowScout @notimetocare and others who liked or disliked the idea and have taken the time to comment.]

If you haven’t read the basic mechanics section added to the original post, which outlines the levers for altering the direct impact of named diseases in the game, I will be using ideas/terms from that summary. Most are obvious, but in any case that is the basic framework upon which I will be fleshing out my idea(s) for adding such diseases. They are very basic and common sense, but feel free of course to point out any problems you see.

When I first posted the idea of introducing named diseases from the Elder Scrolls universe to ESO, I just wanted to get the idea out there. I had some general ideas of how it might look/work, but, I didn’t want to prejudice other opinions or ideas so I left it vague. Now that there is more feedback, I’ve not only added in the mechanics framework but would like to go beyond that to look at how that system would actually fit into the game on another level.

The base mechanics look at disease vectors, rate of transmission, rate of disease progress, cures/cool-downs, and susceptibility/immunity. All pretty obvious and standard topics to deal with. But none of that really says what one *would* do with named diseases in a game like ESO, only what you *could* do with them. That’s what I am working on a more enticing model for the disease concept.

Part of my inspiration comes from the objections that named diseases would be a tiring nuisance. Part of it comes from my desire to see Peryite in the game

In the interest of hiding the wall of text that follow, I offer the courtesy of placing the bulk of it within spoiler tags. There is a quick summary at the end. The following has also been added to the original post.

The direction I am currently looking at involves asking why people wouldn’t just do whatever is most expedient to cure any named disease their character might acquire. I think that successfully answering this question is the difference between adding something that some people will see as a fun, minor bit of immersion from past games yet that others will see as a petty nuisance, and adding something that allows for constructive immersion with a fun risk-taking experience.

What if there were a potential upside to acquiring a named disease?

OK, so I had quite a bit of this in mind last time I was posting here, but, I didn't have time to fully develop it. I also wanted to take time to see what else occurred to me. So here is what I ended up with.

1. Some diseases will have a stronger, more sudden onset, then subside for slower progression. Others will start off small with a slow burn and higher maximum penalty numbers. But generally, they are just a bit of flavor. They can easily be treated in any number of ways, like Cleasning Ritual (but *not* Purge, since it doesn't give the player a choice to decline and stay ill). If left untreated, they have a random chance each hour of progress to the next degree of penalty, or of heading the other way decreasing in severity as the character goes on the mend. Once you start getting better it doesn't switch back, you just have the penalty decrease at the same rate you got worse.

Many people will be somewhat penalized and then get better on their own. Others will eventually need to seek treatment as they approach the max penalties for a disease, but again, these diseases are easily remedied. Disease resistance works to prevent being infected and also increases the odds from each RNG tick that you will start getting better rather worse. In the end, then, the amount of unwanted complication is minimized. Even if you do nothing, odds are good you will just experience a small to moderate penalty then it goes away. Or you just cure it the next time you are in town, the next time a healing Templar shows up, with a generic cure disease potion from your bag, etc.

2. The named diseases are divided into three major stages. How many hours it take a disease to get to each stage, that is, how many RNG ticks for progression, is still up in the air.

- The first stage is exactly like what is described in bullet one. It is entirely manageable and may go away on its own. If players get a named disease, this is typically how far it will progress. A good rate for stage one, after the initial penalty (which would range from 1% to 5%), would be either 0.5% or 1% per hour. Again these numbers vary by disease and the max penalty, so that reaching the next stage/having it get serious isn't something you couldn't easily see coming and avoid.
- Stage two differs in that the chances you will get better on your own are gone. Now, you have to use a Cleanse, a cure potion, pay a priest -- whatever. The RNG for remission is gone. If you do nothing, you will, without a doubt, reach the maximum penalty for the disease. The rate of progression/penalty accrual greatly increases.
- The third stage is reaching maximum penalty. You have the full-blown version of the disease. Cleansing Ritual, generic cure disease potions, etc, will have no effect because the illness has firmly taken root.

3. There are two types of options at this point.

One could involve players with max level Alchemy skills making a rarer type of cure than a generic cure potion; or going to a specific (type of) shrine/master healer, not just any old NPC healer; or something along those lines. Time, money, effort (quest), or some combination thereof. But you would be totally cured. It wouldn't overly intensive effort or super expensive, just more than "Oh let me pop this cheap common potion or have my friend cast a quick spell."

But why would someone be so dumb as to take a disease to stage three? Just curiosity? Boredom? Laziness? Stupidity?

Well, OK, maybe. For some people. But a reasonable answer is the other option. Traveling to a shrine to Peryite and praying to the Daedric Prince of Pestilence. And why would you seek out the God of Disease? Because there is a chance he will bestow a blessing on you for accepting his "gift". If he does not accept your offering, that's when you go for option one. Unless you want to wait. You can pray to Peryite once per day if you do.

4. "Peryite's Blessing" is dependent upon the disease you get. I haven't worked out what the bonus(es) would be, but, the idea is that it would be worth the risk to some players. Also, the bonus(es) would need to last a decent amount of time, some number of days to a week, maybe a little more. You still keep a small bit of the penalty (the initial negative hit you take before the first progression tick), but again, this is outweighed by the type, strength, and length of the bonus. After the blessing period ends, the disease is gone as well.

5. Like all named disease, you are limited to one at a time, so those with Vampirism or Lycanthropy are immune. Once you are infected with something like Rock Joint, you can't also get Ataxia at the same time. Nor could you get Vampirism or Lycanthropy. Once you are cured or the blessing ends, you are eligible for all named diseases once again.

6. I was thinking about having racial reactions to diseases other than Argonians/Boser having a passive for increased resistance to all diseases. Maybe magicka-heavy race are more or less susceptible to magicka-based disease, and vice versa for stamina-focused races. But, this is an optional addition to the basic premise described.

SUMMARY: If you have higher disease resistance your chance of getting infected with a named disease or the disease progressing/getting worse is low. Disease progression is divided into stages, and it is slowest in stage one. In stage one there is a chance each progression tick that you will start getting better and if that happens you will keep getting better. Once progression goes so far you enter stage two, in which case the chance of getting better on your own with no effort disappears. You also get sicker (penalty gets bigger) *much* faster. In stages one and two, quick, easy to obtain, and cheap cures work just fine. Stage three means you have reached the full penalty and those cheap/easy cures are no longer an option. Something with more cost (gold, or effort, or something else) is required to be fully cured. Or you go to Peryite's Shrine and seek his blessing, which removes most of the penalty and gives a significant bonus for an extended period of time.

Lord-Gibson · November 2015

This is actually an awesome idea and would love to see it implemented at some point. This would also keep people from grinding with no worries. You would have a chance of contracting something from mobbing so to speak. Great idea though and hope something comes of it.

nimander99 · November 2015

Yeah, cause Rockjoint was my favorite thing about Morrowind... I just loved it when I had to port to Vivec or Balmora and get cured because of a fight I had with a Cliffracer... this is truly missing from ESO and I hope it gets added... not

Joking aside, anything that makes this game more like the other's is a plus.

Gidorick · November 2015

nimander99 wrote: »

Yeah, cause Rockjoint was my favorite thing about Morrowind... I just loved it when I had to port to Vivec or Balmora and get cured because of a fight I had with a Cliffracer... this is truly missing from ESO and I hope it gets added... not

Joking aside, anything that makes this game more like the other's is a plus.

Isn't it interesting how annoyances can be fun?

tinythinker · November 2015

nimander99 wrote: »

Yeah, cause Rockjoint was my favorite thing about Morrowind... I just loved it when I had to port to Vivec or Balmora and get cured because of a fight I had with a Cliffracer... this is truly missing from ESO and I hope it gets added... not

Joking aside, anything that makes this game more like the other's is a plus.

No porting unless you let it go for hours...

SanderBuraas · November 2015

I like this. As you said, it would add an Elder Scrolls flavour to the game.