Stopping people using spell stones when they own the spells?

[Chewett]

@Blackshade Rider asked me to investigate an issue where his protector spell wouldn't be able to be stoned properly. He originally thought there was some blocking in MD but we haven't changed that at all.

 

After some investigation I found that he used a spellstone which "converted" his permanent spell into a temporary one! Ooops!

 

What do people think should happen when this occurs? Should it just refuse to be used and stop this occurring? Should we be able to have permanent and temporary spells?

 

Thanks
Chew

[Chewett]

Equally some people might disagree and say no spellstones at all: 

But my view so far is to disagree and let people do what people want to.

 

[Fyrd Argentus]

5 hours ago, Chewett said:

a spellstone which "converted" his permanent spell into a temporary one!

I don't understand this.  You mean stoning a spell only learned from a stone?  Perhaps a warning...?

[Chewett]

31 minutes ago, Fyrd Argentus said:

I don't understand this.  You mean stoning a spell only learned from a stone?  Perhaps a warning...?

Something happened where BSR has managed to "convert" his protector spells to ones that are temporary by using a spell stone

[Else]

That seems like a bug to me tbh, why would be a feature to turn "permanent" spells into temporary spells?

[Chewett]

On 7/2/2023 at 11:20 PM, Else said:

That seems like a bug to me tbh, why would be a feature to turn "permanent" spells into temporary spells?

Yeah definitely a bug. Solving it properly (allowing both temporary and permanent spells of the same type on a player) is a lot more work but maybe that’s valuable?

Or you just block redeeming a stone of something you already have

[Blackshade Rider]

Thank you for making this topic chew, sorry on a late response.

I've given this a lot of thought and consideration and I know how I can recreate this known bug. Also while thinking I feel this should probably be left as is for now. 

1 hour ago, Chewett said:

Yeah definitely a bug. Solving it properly (allowing both temporary and permanent spells of the same type on a player) is a lot more work but maybe that’s valuable?

I feel it should be considered that the temp spell turned to perm spell was a prot spell. I feel maybe it should stay as is for now. My reasons for this 

1) With currently little population there are only two mp6's. Myself and Syrian, and protectors are still in the works no?

2) I'd like it to be noted that I used the prot spell stone while I had dropped mp6. And I had thought I used all the casts and but noticed I did not. So when I regained mp6 I chose the same spell to try and replace the stone I was using to help another player as a prot while not current on mp6 of that time.

This gave me the casts I thought I needed (and did) but gave me a nice message saying (spells are set to vanish can not be stoned).

Not a big issue and I could had asked for help but Instead I made some comments publicly I do regret saying. I apologize to all for that. 

3) I feel until we get a more traditional population like old days that this should be put on hold as it is not a big deal. While yes I do feel maybe the work in fixing is a valuable fix I feel we currently need your expertise elsewhere. Maybe a simple fix for now could be a warning similar to how Fyrd was saying. If made mp6 maybe a small tab can click stating known bugs for mp6? 

 

Currently I've been testing everything I can with mp6 and it has its ups and downs. This could just stay as a downside for now. It has never happened with my other perm spells bought from the WP shop. So maybe this could be part of just being mp6? You still got your casts but since you used a prot spell while mp5 and going into mp6 maybe it can stay as a penalty for dropping mp6. A punishment of sorts?

[Else]

If this only affects MP6 spells, then it is best for MP6s to decide....

NVM I did not know you could keep MP6s spells after dropping back to MP5, probably block spell stones to avoid converting perm spells to temporary spells.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Else

[Chewett]

Any other comments?