Jump to content

Server

Expelliarmus

Started by FroschThink , Sep 18 2016 02:21 AM


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1

FroschThink
  • FroschThink
  • N.E.W.T. Student
  • Student
  • 205 posts
  • IGN:Josh Dun

Due to recent incidents, it has become clear to many that expelliarmus is way too OP.

 

I suggest ( If possible ) That instead of the wand sometimes flying directly into the caster's inventory, it be flung out (as usual) and instead of giving the wand glow effect visualization to the caster, to give it to the victim. Thus making it easier for their wand to be retrieved themselves. I also believe that it should only be able to be picked up by the victim (if possible)


  • 2

#2

Kaneki
  • Kaneki
  • N.E.W.T. Student
  • Student
  • 381 posts
  • IGN:Kaneki Shimada

Eh, for me, I'd personally not like losing my wand........ So, here's an idea..... When you cast expelliarmus, much like Silencio, whenever you try to cast a spell, it just says something like, "YOU'RE STILL SCRAMBLING FOR YOUR WAND YOU DINGUS."


  • 0

#3

Bella Scarlet
  • Bella Scarlet
  • Court Scribe
  • Student
  • 1275 posts
  • IGN:bella

having it flung out into the open is still really bad cause what if some1 burns it when its out i never liked it just getting dropped on the floor its really dangerous


  • 0

#4

Gareott Rimma
  • Gareott Rimma
  • Chief of the Wizards Council
  • Student
  • 614 posts
  • IGN:Gareott Rimma / 1toughninja

having it flung out into the open is still really bad cause what if some1 burns it when its out i never liked it just getting dropped on the floor its really dangerous

she is correct it is still bad


  • 0

#5

Aquilonn
  • Aquilonn
  • Wizengamot
  • Moderator
  • 5668 posts
  • IGN:Andrew Arima

What if instead of it leaving your inventory at all, it's made so you still have it, but simply are unable to use it for x amount of time? I think with some tweaking this would satisfy everyone. :)
  • 0

#6

Gareott Rimma
  • Gareott Rimma
  • Chief of the Wizards Council
  • Student
  • 614 posts
  • IGN:Gareott Rimma / 1toughninja

What if instead of it leaving your inventory at all, it's made so you still have it, but simply are unable to use it for x amount of time? I think with some tweaking this would satisfy everyone. :)

@taroshixela

@Pandette

@Crane


  • 0

#7

Veara Titan
  • Veara Titan
  • N.E.W.T. Student
  • Student
  • 403 posts
  • IGN:Veara Titan / Veara_

@taroshixela
@Pandette
@Crane


First of all, thanks for not counting me as a spell Dev... means a lot.

Secondly, I 100% agree with this post and I believe that Expelliarmus should be re-worked.

My idea is that when the wand flies out of a player's inventory:
A) It can't be picked up by other players BUT the target
B) It can't be burned

This would stop players from getting upset with each other because they stole each others' wands.
  • 1

#8

Gareott Rimma
  • Gareott Rimma
  • Chief of the Wizards Council
  • Student
  • 614 posts
  • IGN:Gareott Rimma / 1toughninja

First of all, thanks for not counting me as a spell Dev... means a lot.

Secondly, I 100% agree with this post and I believe that Expelliarmus should be re-worked.

My idea is that when the wand flies out of a player's inventory:
A) It can't be picked up by other players BUT the target
B) It can't be burned

This would stop players from getting upset with each other because they stole each others' wands.

OH MY GOD I FEEEL DUMB NOW I AM SO SORRY!!!!!


  • 0

#9

Kaneki
  • Kaneki
  • N.E.W.T. Student
  • Student
  • 381 posts
  • IGN:Kaneki Shimada

(Any1 pm me movements for the spell???? ^_^ xD)


  • 0

#10

Maximilian Arelle
  • Maximilian Arelle
  • N.E.W.T. Student
  • Administrators
  • 311 posts
  • IGN:Maximilian Arelle

I cannot say anything about the coding stuff. But if Expelliarmus would work like you suggested, it would lose most of it's canonic properties. Of course, Josh and Chessur went on my nerves, casting it while I was spell spaming, but Expelliarmus is as canon as possible, and that's pretty cool.

What I think is necessary, is a wand finding command. That wouod help in general, if someone lose the wand anywhere. It would make it possible (inbetween the time the drop doesn't disappear) to locate the wand (coords if it lay on the ground or IGN if it is in the inv of someone). But as far as I unerstand, I fear this woud the server make lagging...


  • 0

#11

Aquilonn
  • Aquilonn
  • Wizengamot
  • Moderator
  • 5668 posts
  • IGN:Andrew Arima

I cannot say anything about the coding stuff. But if Expelliarmus would work like you suggested, it would lose most of it's canonic properties. Of course, Josh and Chessur went on my nerves, casting it while I was spell spaming, but Expelliarmus is as canon as possible, and that's pretty cool.
What I think is necessary, is a wand finding command. That wouod help in general, if someone lose the wand anywhere. It would make it possible (inbetween the time the drop doesn't disappear) to locate the wand (coords if it lay on the ground or IGN if it is in the inv of someone). But as far as I unerstand, I fear this woud the server make lagging...

There comes a point though here you need to draw a line between canonicity and what's best overall for the server. Sure it's pretty canonic at the moment, but consider that in a duel it's pretty OP and not to mention it can be used to steal a wand and burn it, which isn't cool.

If you still want it to be canonic, I have an idea. What if it was made so that instead of the wand being dropped at all, it is placed in the inventory of the caster? The spell would just move the wand around in the inventory of the victim like the spell currently does at low levels of the caster's inventory is full as obviously you aren't gonna catch their wand like a pop fly with your arms full. This wand cannot be dropped by the caster(solving the problem of burning) and will automatically be returned to the victim after x amount of time even if put into a chest(solving the problem of theft and being quite as OP). I think this would still keep it pretty canon, but also make it more fair and less cruel.
  • 0

#12

Veara Titan
  • Veara Titan
  • N.E.W.T. Student
  • Student
  • 403 posts
  • IGN:Veara Titan / Veara_

There comes a point though here you need to draw a line between canonicity and what's best overall for the server. Sure it's pretty canonic at the moment, but consider that in a duel it's pretty OP and not to mention it can be used to steal a wand and burn it, which isn't cool.
If you still want it to be canonic, I have an idea. What if it was made so that instead of the wand being dropped at all, it is placed in the inventory of the caster? The spell would just move the wand around in the inventory of the victim like the spell currently does at low levels of the caster's inventory is full as obviously you aren't gonna catch their wand like a pop fly with your arms full. This wand cannot be dropped by the caster(solving the problem of burning) and will automatically be returned to the victim after x amount of time even if put into a chest(solving the problem of theft and being quite as OP). I think this would still keep it pretty canon, but also make it more fair and less cruel.


The problem with this idea is that, if the wand is in the castors inventory, then they move it in their inventory before the spell ends, the spell ends right there and the wand WON'T go back to the victim's inventory.
  • 0

#13

Aquilonn
  • Aquilonn
  • Wizengamot
  • Moderator
  • 5668 posts
  • IGN:Andrew Arima

The problem with this idea is that, if the wand is in the castors inventory, then they move it in their inventory before the spell ends, the spell ends right there and the wand WON'T go back to the victim's inventory.


I'm not quite understanding how moving it around in your inventory would mess up the spell since it would be returned as soon as the spell ends, but it's possible to make it so the wand cannot leave the caster's inventory or be moved around in it unless it's by the spell. I've seen this in many, many servers, so it can't be that hard.
  • 0

#14

Draco
  • Draco
  • Chief of the Wizards Council
  • Moderator
  • 605 posts

First of all, thanks for not counting me as a spell Dev... means a lot.

Secondly, I 100% agree with this post and I believe that Expelliarmus should be re-worked.

My idea is that when the wand flies out of a player's inventory:
A) It can't be picked up by other players BUT the target
B) It can't be burned

This would stop players from getting upset with each other because they stole each others' wands.

Although Pande has said it's not possible to make 1 specific item unburnable.. So


  • 1

#15

Pandette
  • Pandette
  • Special Advisor to the Wizengamot
  • Administrators
  • 2648 posts
  • IGN:iarepandemonium

I could consider making accio that when you say accio wand it searches for any wands that maybe be on the ground, and tries to move it towards you & searches player's inventories near you for a wand you own & if they have a wand you own, it drops from their inventory.  If we want to keep canon and stuff.


  • 1

#16

Aquilonn
  • Aquilonn
  • Wizengamot
  • Moderator
  • 5668 posts
  • IGN:Andrew Arima

I could consider making accio that when you say accio wand it searches for any wands that maybe be on the ground, and tries to move it towards you & searches player's inventories near you for a wand you own & if they have a wand you own, it drops from their inventory. If we want to keep canon and stuff.


I like this idea a lot. I think it should have a decent range though since Harry was able to use it in the Goblet of Fire to summon his broom to the arena presumably from the castle, which was a decent distance away.
  • 0

#17

Pandette
  • Pandette
  • Special Advisor to the Wizengamot
  • Administrators
  • 2648 posts
  • IGN:iarepandemonium

I like this idea a lot. I think it should have a decent range though since Harry was able to use it in the Goblet of Fire to summon his broom to the arena presumably from the castle, which was a decent distance away.

I was thinking it could have unlimited range, but it would only move stuff a certain distance depending on strength.


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Server

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users