This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 9:35 AM by God.

Cost: [X] XP. [X] must be greater than 100.

Effect: Target one player and choose a word. If that poster makes a post that contains that word, they lose [X] XP and you gain [X]*2 XP. You cannot pick words from Oxford's list of 100 most commonly used words, and you cannot pick a word that another member has already used in a previous successfully cast Word Siphon. You can only have one active Word Siphon at any time, but you can cancel your active Word Siphon (you do not get reimbursed if done five minutes after casting Word Siphon). The target knows that you have cast the spell but does not know which word you have chosen. The target does not absorb any XP you have spent on this spell.

This is an interesting idea but it sounds like it could be hard countered by not posting, and I feel like getting away from the not posting-centric meta of old MW is one of the main goals of new MW.

This is an interesting idea but it sounds like it could be hard countered by not posting, and I feel like getting away from the not posting-centric meta of old MW is one of the main goals of new MW.

people complain and say that lurkers need buffs. i suggest a buff for lurkers and then people complain. the devs just can't win, now i know how Jeff Kaplan feels.

I like the idea, it would fit in nicely with user-centric spells which should be coming soon. 100 exp is too much to siphon though. I'd say each occurrence of the word should siphon 10-25% of the exp you paid

Can I put in their username?

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM by God.

Can I put in their username?

yes, but you could only successfully do that once. and do people really type their own username that much?

fuq that sounds intense. idk if i like it yet

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 5:23 PM by God.

I like the idea, it would fit in nicely with user-centric spells which should be coming soon. 100 exp is too much to siphon though. I'd say each occurrence of the word should siphon 10-25% of the exp you paid

it should be a salt-inducing amount. i like the idea of getting punished for more instances of the same word, it's a great counter to longform posters like @Puddin who have had ults that have been an unchallenged feature of tier 1 meta for a ridiculously long time. perhaps upon casting, the target receives [x]/2.5, but loses [x]/1.5 for each instance of the word in their post. that way if they trigger the siphon with only one instance, the hit isn't too bad. but they get stung if the siphon caster has skilfully baited them into using the word more than once.

we can ramp up the disrespect by having a permanent effect given to a Siphon'd post. The chosen word can be highlighted in red with some fancy background or something, and at the bottom of the post thre is a phrase saying

"Y successfully used Word Siphon on this post. Z lost [X] XP for saying a [x] times!"

when we introduce Skill Branches, perhaps players choose the Heel Skill Branch get access to a buffed version of the spell, whereby they can target anyone posting in a targeted thread, rather than just target one person.

would people know they've been siphoned and be able to react or would it be out of nowhere?

would people know they've been siphoned and be able to react or would it be out of nowhere?

The target knows that you have cast the spell but does not know which word you have chosen.

does this answer your question or did you mean something else?

ah, yea

does seem like it encourages not posting

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 7:19 PM by Yrrzy.

people complain and say that lurkers need buffs. i suggest a buff for lurkers and then people complain. the devs just can't win, now i know how Jeff Kaplan feels.

encouraging not posting isnt a buff to lurking, buffing lurking would be allowing a user to remain active in the community without needing to post

imo spells and ratings solve that already

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 7:28 PM by God.

(that post was a joke.)

also i really highly doubt people would actually not post because of this. but if people do decide to turtle because of it, it only adds an extra tek for players who want to use their spells to control the flow of the conversation. if i recall correctly, there was talks of there being an option to disable spells anyway (i dont know if that was implemented).

It was. You can disable them, at least I saw the option to

also there's just so many easy workarounds to this spell. if you think you're being baited into using a particular word, you can just use a synonym or misspell it (which would give a good buff to my patented rapid-type posting style and potentially encourage other players to try it out).

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 7:33 PM by God.

like if you're on point with your footsies game there should be no reason for this spell to ever successfully connect

welb. im convincd