Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Why can't my necromancer be armor prime and get spell slots at a primary magic guild rate. All these walls are really harshing my roleplay.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
So one disparity is okay, but the other isn't? Several guilds already advantage one set of stats over another, with mentals effectively double-dipping in terms of the benefit you're getting from them since, as you say, ranks determine everything and everyone needs ranks, even the physical powerhouse Barbarian.
I reiterate that I don't expect or necessarily want it to actually change at this point in the game, this is merely an abstract I-wish scenario -- specifically, I wish that the experience system had been built and balanced independently of stats and that stats were solely the driving force behind access and efficacy of abilities. But from my perspective the two stances -- disparities in rank gain due to race/guild are okay, but buffs aren't -- are contradictory.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
I reiterate that I don't expect or necessarily want it to actually change at this point in the game, this is merely an abstract I-wish scenario -- specifically, I wish that the experience system had been built and balanced independently of stats and that stats were solely the driving force behind access and efficacy of abilities. But from my perspective the two stances -- disparities in rank gain due to race/guild are okay, but buffs aren't -- are contradictory.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
>Why can't my necromancer be armor prime and get spell slots at a primary magic guild rate. All these walls are really harshing my roleplay.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
I expect better Tev.
>Several guilds already advantage one set of stats over another, with mentals effectively double-dipping in terms of the benefit you're getting from them
You'll have to be specific. Being able to boost physical stats doesn't convert ranks faster. It might allow you to do X sooner, faster, or with less risk, which has the secondary effect of exp gain. But that's the nature of a game; risk vs. reward means more risk means more reward. With mentals buffs there is zero risk, just flat reward. A strength boost is only useful in combat, which is an inherently risk vs. reward situation.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
I expect better Tev.
>Several guilds already advantage one set of stats over another, with mentals effectively double-dipping in terms of the benefit you're getting from them
You'll have to be specific. Being able to boost physical stats doesn't convert ranks faster. It might allow you to do X sooner, faster, or with less risk, which has the secondary effect of exp gain. But that's the nature of a game; risk vs. reward means more risk means more reward. With mentals buffs there is zero risk, just flat reward. A strength boost is only useful in combat, which is an inherently risk vs. reward situation.
If you want to see less homogenization of stat choices, XP should be decoupled from mentals. As it stands now, every guild must train Wis/Int to maximize learning.
The reason I feel this is particularly problematic for long term play as well as killing diversity of build choices is that magic users, i.e., guilds that need Wis/Int as a modifier of damage output from TM, and debilitators for Mind/Magic contests, double dip on the benefit of training Wis/Int. Training Wis/Int for every other guild, i.e., guilds that rely on weapon damage or other contests than those focusing on Wis/Int, are effectively double penalized for choosing to focus their character on a legitimate training strategy that also happens to negatively impact how quickly they gain ranks. I know nothing will change, but I do wish that XP rates were based solely on skillset and ranks. As an unpopular opinion, I also wish the XP cap was lower, so truthfully, I'm not terribly worried about +1000 ranks in anything.
This has nothing to do with races, mind you, and it's an entirely separate discussion about whether races should have stat training differences. I am all for them having so, though agree that ultimately race choice should be principally an RP one.
Thanks for posting the numbers Armifer - I'm surprised, truthfully, that at the top range, it's a 30% bonus to XP. That seems huge to me.
>>As it stands now, every guild must train Wis/Int to maximize learning.
This assumes everyone wants/needs to maximize every opportunity for EXP. Not everyone trains every weapon, uses a script to maximize critter grind, etc.
I won't lose any sleep if exp gain is normalized (aka: nerfed), but I also wonder if the "maximize every drop of everything" demographic would just use the opportunity to shove int/wis to the wayside just like they [sometimes] do charisma. So we'd get less "stat diversity" and more heavy pumping of tdps into strength/stamina/reflex/agility.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
This assumes everyone wants/needs to maximize every opportunity for EXP. Not everyone trains every weapon, uses a script to maximize critter grind, etc.
I won't lose any sleep if exp gain is normalized (aka: nerfed), but I also wonder if the "maximize every drop of everything" demographic would just use the opportunity to shove int/wis to the wayside just like they [sometimes] do charisma. So we'd get less "stat diversity" and more heavy pumping of tdps into strength/stamina/reflex/agility.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
>>I'm surprised, truthfully, that at the top range, it's a 30% bonus to XP. That seems huge to me.
While that may seem huge on paper, in practice it really isn't that big of an advantage. Your normal player will take all of their stats to 100 before taking anything over 100. For this you need to be 150th circle + have ~36,000 total ranks. To then get intel/wisdom to 120 you are going to need ~45,000 total ranks (or more depending on race). At this point you are going to have the majority of your skills above 1k ranks, and at that level it can take over a week to get a single rank. So that 30% boost in exp isn't some crazy buff that makes people rocket up the ranks. It really just evens out exp gain over the long term.
>>I also wonder if the "maximize every drop of everything" demographic would just use the opportunity to shove int/wis to the wayside just like they [sometimes] do charisma. So we'd get less "stat diversity" and more heavy pumping of tdps into strength/stamina/reflex/agility.
I said it earlier in the thread, but as someone who prefers playing NMUs this is exactly what I would do. If you don't plan to be in PvP regularly or use magic then mental stats would no longer have a use.
While that may seem huge on paper, in practice it really isn't that big of an advantage. Your normal player will take all of their stats to 100 before taking anything over 100. For this you need to be 150th circle + have ~36,000 total ranks. To then get intel/wisdom to 120 you are going to need ~45,000 total ranks (or more depending on race). At this point you are going to have the majority of your skills above 1k ranks, and at that level it can take over a week to get a single rank. So that 30% boost in exp isn't some crazy buff that makes people rocket up the ranks. It really just evens out exp gain over the long term.
>>I also wonder if the "maximize every drop of everything" demographic would just use the opportunity to shove int/wis to the wayside just like they [sometimes] do charisma. So we'd get less "stat diversity" and more heavy pumping of tdps into strength/stamina/reflex/agility.
I said it earlier in the thread, but as someone who prefers playing NMUs this is exactly what I would do. If you don't plan to be in PvP regularly or use magic then mental stats would no longer have a use.
>Your normal player will take all of their stats to 100 before taking anything over 100
Agreed - and I think that normal players are taking all or most stats to 100 in the first place is an issue, especially for anyone who thinks we should avoid homogenizing characters and stat allocation choices.
> "maximize every drop of everything" demographic would just use the opportunity to shove int/wis to the wayside just like they [sometimes] do charisma. So we'd get less "stat diversity" and more heavy pumping of tdps into strength/stamina/reflex/agility.
Sure, maybe, but the choice of where to put stats should be based on how that stat affects your guild. Wis/Int double dipping is a problem for physical guilds. Freeing physical guilds to be able to pump tdps into str/stam/refl/agl instead of also worrying about wis/int means they can have more control over how they develop their character.
>If you don't plan to be in PvP regularly or use magic then mental stats would no longer have a use.
And that's a good thing - player choice based on what activities they want to get up to.
Personally, I think if someone wants to min-max their learning, doing so should be a training choice not a stat allocation choice. Someone who trains 10 weapons shouldn't learn magic better than someone who trains 1 weapon.
Agreed - and I think that normal players are taking all or most stats to 100 in the first place is an issue, especially for anyone who thinks we should avoid homogenizing characters and stat allocation choices.
> "maximize every drop of everything" demographic would just use the opportunity to shove int/wis to the wayside just like they [sometimes] do charisma. So we'd get less "stat diversity" and more heavy pumping of tdps into strength/stamina/reflex/agility.
Sure, maybe, but the choice of where to put stats should be based on how that stat affects your guild. Wis/Int double dipping is a problem for physical guilds. Freeing physical guilds to be able to pump tdps into str/stam/refl/agl instead of also worrying about wis/int means they can have more control over how they develop their character.
>If you don't plan to be in PvP regularly or use magic then mental stats would no longer have a use.
And that's a good thing - player choice based on what activities they want to get up to.
Personally, I think if someone wants to min-max their learning, doing so should be a training choice not a stat allocation choice. Someone who trains 10 weapons shouldn't learn magic better than someone who trains 1 weapon.
>stats and stuff
You could decouple stats from learning, normalize experience learning, and add two skills called Comprehension and Pedagogy (probably better to call it Andragogy) that would act as a modifier to experience drain per pulse and pool size, respectively. They would increase as one learns other skills, then over time as your character learns more they will learn more more. Since everyone increases their Wis/Int to learn, the higher skilled characters will have more Comprehension and Pedagogy and thus learn as if they had pumped TDPs into Wis/Int.
Now you can put stats into whatever is best for your character/guild/race/whatever.
/thread
You could decouple stats from learning, normalize experience learning, and add two skills called Comprehension and Pedagogy (probably better to call it Andragogy) that would act as a modifier to experience drain per pulse and pool size, respectively. They would increase as one learns other skills, then over time as your character learns more they will learn more more. Since everyone increases their Wis/Int to learn, the higher skilled characters will have more Comprehension and Pedagogy and thus learn as if they had pumped TDPs into Wis/Int.
Now you can put stats into whatever is best for your character/guild/race/whatever.
/thread
<< I also wonder if the "maximize every drop of everything" demographic would just use the opportunity to shove int/wis to the wayside just like they [sometimes] do charisma.
Wow, this argument is so one-sided. Aren't magic users already dumping everything to int/wis? Why would a moon mage train str/sta right now? We're already doing the same thing but the other way around, it's only a matter of magic users getting sort of a double bonus.
There's no way decoupling isn't justified but if it's doable at this point and time, i don't know. If necessary, there's always ways to add more bonuses to those stats to make them more appealing.
Wow, this argument is so one-sided. Aren't magic users already dumping everything to int/wis? Why would a moon mage train str/sta right now? We're already doing the same thing but the other way around, it's only a matter of magic users getting sort of a double bonus.
There's no way decoupling isn't justified but if it's doable at this point and time, i don't know. If necessary, there's always ways to add more bonuses to those stats to make them more appealing.
>I'm not sure if you were being glib, but I like the idea.
I wasn't, then I was, now I'm not.
Now that I'm actually really thinking about it, a "capacity to learn" skill for each subset of skills Armament/Fortification(Armor), Enlightenment(Lore), Thaumaturgy(Magic), Subsistence(Survival), Martial Prowess(Weapon) could make sense, that way each guild's affinity for learning a subset would help de-homogenize characters, or make guild choice even more meaningful.
I wasn't, then I was, now I'm not.
Now that I'm actually really thinking about it, a "capacity to learn" skill for each subset of skills Armament/Fortification(Armor), Enlightenment(Lore), Thaumaturgy(Magic), Subsistence(Survival), Martial Prowess(Weapon) could make sense, that way each guild's affinity for learning a subset would help de-homogenize characters, or make guild choice even more meaningful.
<< I'm surprised, truthfully, that at the top range, it's a 30% bonus to XP. That seems huge to me.
It's a sizable bonus. I was always boosting my mentals under the impression that it would grant a bonus in a range of a few percentages at most in the high end.
In the light of this new evidence, i'm considering going all out from now on. Ranks matter!
It's a sizable bonus. I was always boosting my mentals under the impression that it would grant a bonus in a range of a few percentages at most in the high end.
In the light of this new evidence, i'm considering going all out from now on. Ranks matter!
> Sure, maybe, but the choice of where to put stats should be based on how that stat affects your guild. Wis/Int double dipping is a problem for physical guilds. Freeing physical guilds to be able to pump tdps into str/stam/refl/agl instead of also worrying about wis/int means they can have more control over how they develop their character.
Let's cover just this point from a different perspective
> Wis/Int double dipping is a problem
Should moonmage magic reqs be lowered to the point of being equal with barbarian weapon ranks? If not then the above statement is unfair to moonmages.
Should trader's trading reqs be lowered to the point of being equal with NMU combat reqs? Again if not then the above statement is unfair to traders.
If I were to train my WM with these stats...
Strength : 50 Reflex : 50
Agility : 50 Charisma : 50
Discipline : 100 Wisdom : 100
Intelligence : 100 Stamina : 50
I assume, from your arguments, that "OOH...DOUBLE DIPPING".
Now consider his limitation with physicals... If that example does not help you see what maxing mentals could look like for a mage consider this one
Strength : 20 Reflex : 20
Agility : 20 Charisma : 20
Discipline : 50 Wisdom : 100
Intelligence : 100 Stamina : 20
That looks pretty horrible does it not. And I am sure anyone interested in PvP at all would not mind facing a WM with either of those stat allocations chosen.
> Freeing physical guilds to be able to pump tdps into str/stam/refl/agl instead of also worrying about wis/int means they can have more control over how they develop their character.
While this statement is not false it is one sided. And as far as the more control part my barb is building reflex/stamina. He learns just fine and is in no "real" way at a disadvantage from learning rates.
Oh, and fixed this for you...
>> Freeing physical guilds to be able to pump tdps into str/stam/refl/agl instead of also worrying about wis/int means they can ignore the current exp system and still develop their character.
Let's cover just this point from a different perspective
> Wis/Int double dipping is a problem
Should moonmage magic reqs be lowered to the point of being equal with barbarian weapon ranks? If not then the above statement is unfair to moonmages.
Should trader's trading reqs be lowered to the point of being equal with NMU combat reqs? Again if not then the above statement is unfair to traders.
If I were to train my WM with these stats...
Strength : 50 Reflex : 50
Agility : 50 Charisma : 50
Discipline : 100 Wisdom : 100
Intelligence : 100 Stamina : 50
I assume, from your arguments, that "OOH...DOUBLE DIPPING".
Now consider his limitation with physicals... If that example does not help you see what maxing mentals could look like for a mage consider this one
Strength : 20 Reflex : 20
Agility : 20 Charisma : 20
Discipline : 50 Wisdom : 100
Intelligence : 100 Stamina : 20
That looks pretty horrible does it not. And I am sure anyone interested in PvP at all would not mind facing a WM with either of those stat allocations chosen.
> Freeing physical guilds to be able to pump tdps into str/stam/refl/agl instead of also worrying about wis/int means they can have more control over how they develop their character.
While this statement is not false it is one sided. And as far as the more control part my barb is building reflex/stamina. He learns just fine and is in no "real" way at a disadvantage from learning rates.
Oh, and fixed this for you...
>> Freeing physical guilds to be able to pump tdps into str/stam/refl/agl instead of also worrying about wis/int means they can ignore the current exp system and still develop their character.
>Now that I'm actually really thinking about it, a "capacity to learn" skill for each subset of skills Armament/Fortification(Armor), Enlightenment(Lore), Thaumaturgy(Magic), Subsistence(Survival), Martial Prowess(Weapon) could make sense, that way each guild's affinity for learning a subset would help de-homogenize characters, or make guild choice even more meaningful.
I like this idea even more! A skill that is trained by training skills within that skillset that acts as a field xp drain multiplier for skills in that skillset. Want to learn a ton of weapons as a Moonie? Train a ton of weapons, and lo, your capacity to learn weapons will increase! The only issue I see is normalizing it to skillsets with different numbers of skills. It may be super easy to train 10 weapons, but not terribly easy to train 10 survivals. Armors even less so. Maybe cap learning capacity based on the skillset with least skills (I believe Armor).
Of course, this isn't going to happen, but it's nice to think about.
>Wow, this argument is so one-sided. Aren't magic users already dumping everything to int/wis? Why would a moon mage train str/sta right now? We're already doing the same thing but the other way around, it's only a matter of magic users getting sort of a double bonus.
Indeed, many HLCs I know of completely separate their tert skills from their primaries for training and PvP. I know at least 3 HLC Moonie and Necro PvPers that have less than 30 Str/Agl, and load up on mentals and reflex. How fortunate for them that they also benefit from experience benefits from those mentals.
I don't understand the comparison you just made with the two stat allocations for a WM, other than seeing the second has significantly lower stats.
>Should moonmage magic reqs be lowered to the point of being equal with barbarian weapon ranks? If not then the above statement is unfair to moonmages.
I think a perfectly valid circling goal is for all guilds to have approximately the same number of TDPs from skill requirements at circle. I don't know how off the mark this goal is.
> I don't understand the comparison you just made with the two stat allocations for a WM, other than seeing the second has significantly lower stats.
It's about the feasibility of doing that. Would it help you to look at a hypothetical barbarian like this...
Strength : 100 Reflex : 100
Agility : 100 Charisma : 50
Discipline : 10 Wisdom : 10
Intelligence : 10 Stamina : 50
This is an extreme example of what your statements would create. GMs have stated just how difficult it is to balance systems due to the odd ways players train stats, granted there is more to it than that, but following up with a change so combat guilds could completely ignore mentals is not really a good place to go either.
> I think a perfectly valid circling goal is for all guilds to have approximately the same number of TDPs from skill requirements at circle. I don't know how off the mark this goal is.
Almost everything would have to change.
I am also of the mind to say if a skill has to be a governing factor for learning rates then it only makes sense that these "learning skills" would be in the lore skillset.
It's about the feasibility of doing that. Would it help you to look at a hypothetical barbarian like this...
Strength : 100 Reflex : 100
Agility : 100 Charisma : 50
Discipline : 10 Wisdom : 10
Intelligence : 10 Stamina : 50
This is an extreme example of what your statements would create. GMs have stated just how difficult it is to balance systems due to the odd ways players train stats, granted there is more to it than that, but following up with a change so combat guilds could completely ignore mentals is not really a good place to go either.
> I think a perfectly valid circling goal is for all guilds to have approximately the same number of TDPs from skill requirements at circle. I don't know how off the mark this goal is.
Almost everything would have to change.
I am also of the mind to say if a skill has to be a governing factor for learning rates then it only makes sense that these "learning skills" would be in the lore skillset.
>Would it help you to look at a hypothetical barbarian like this...
Such a character obviously has favored physicals over mentals, and is likely extremely dangerous in physical combat, and extremely easy to land vs Willpower on. That's a fine choice to make for building a character - if someone isn't interested in PvP, they should be able to allocate stats accordingly. And, more to the point, if someone wants to stat a character that is a physical brute, doing so should not come at the expense of learning experience.
>Almost everything would have to change.
Oh, I sincerely doubt we'd see any sort of change to this system at this point in time.
> I am also of the mind to say if a skill has to be a governing factor for learning rates then it only makes sense that these "learning skills" would be in the lore skillset.
I don't agree - Melee or Missile Mastery are a good example of why thematically and game design wise, 'muscle memory' doesn't need to be a lore based skill.
<< It's about the feasibility of doing that. Would it help you to look at a hypothetical barbarian like this...
This is only hypothetical for a barbarian but flip those stats around and you have a very real functioning moon mage.
Strength : 10 Reflex : 100
Agility : 10 Charisma : 50
Discipline : 10 Wisdom : 100
Intelligence : 100 Stamina : 50
Why is this okay to do for a magic user but not okay for a non magic user?
This is only hypothetical for a barbarian but flip those stats around and you have a very real functioning moon mage.
Strength : 10 Reflex : 100
Agility : 10 Charisma : 50
Discipline : 10 Wisdom : 100
Intelligence : 100 Stamina : 50
Why is this okay to do for a magic user but not okay for a non magic user?
>>Wow, this argument is so one-sided. Aren't magic users already dumping everything to int/wis? Why would a moon mage train str/sta right now?
Because they don't want to be glass cannons who can't carry things.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Because they don't want to be glass cannons who can't carry things.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
>>Yes, stamina doesn't belong. I was thinking of str/agi, that would be better fitting for the argument.
Given that Moon Mages are survival/lore secondary, I don't know if you'd want to include agility in this example, either.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Given that Moon Mages are survival/lore secondary, I don't know if you'd want to include agility in this example, either.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
> Why is this okay to do for a magic user but not okay for a non magic user?
Why would be ok for a NMU to get the benefit of not having to train mentals at all when it takes a simular ammount of TDPs for every race to get all stats to 100. And really we are talking barbarian here as a thief that does not train disc/intel would be choosing to give up their buffs (calling a spade a spade). So what I am really getting out of this is you want your barbarian to not have to train mentals and not be gimped in the process.
Everyone has to give up something if they are going to "cap" a single stat or a few stats. There is no real difference between guilds or races there. If a magic user wants to leave their physicals at character manager levels why should this bother you? They are the epitome of the term "Glass Cannon". With the end of one shots with 3.0 why is this an issue?
> flip those stats around and you have a very real functioning moon mage
Would someone choose to do this. Sure. Do they have weaknesses? Refer to glass cannon comment. Would they have to be extremely careful in combat? Refer again to glass cannon comment.
Homogenization of DR is a horrible idea. One of the things that I really do like about the game is the fact that I can choose what stats to raise. Every time I raise a stat I have to give up training another at that time. How is it bad for the game to have to make hard choices for your toon?
If we have to have it then get rid of all races and all guilds. We now are all the same. Everyone is a commoner. No buffs, no abilities, no perks. Oh and while we are at it get rid of all stats so everyone stays the same too.
Why would be ok for a NMU to get the benefit of not having to train mentals at all when it takes a simular ammount of TDPs for every race to get all stats to 100. And really we are talking barbarian here as a thief that does not train disc/intel would be choosing to give up their buffs (calling a spade a spade). So what I am really getting out of this is you want your barbarian to not have to train mentals and not be gimped in the process.
Everyone has to give up something if they are going to "cap" a single stat or a few stats. There is no real difference between guilds or races there. If a magic user wants to leave their physicals at character manager levels why should this bother you? They are the epitome of the term "Glass Cannon". With the end of one shots with 3.0 why is this an issue?
> flip those stats around and you have a very real functioning moon mage
Would someone choose to do this. Sure. Do they have weaknesses? Refer to glass cannon comment. Would they have to be extremely careful in combat? Refer again to glass cannon comment.
Homogenization of DR is a horrible idea. One of the things that I really do like about the game is the fact that I can choose what stats to raise. Every time I raise a stat I have to give up training another at that time. How is it bad for the game to have to make hard choices for your toon?
If we have to have it then get rid of all races and all guilds. We now are all the same. Everyone is a commoner. No buffs, no abilities, no perks. Oh and while we are at it get rid of all stats so everyone stays the same too.
>> i think this topic should be taken up for discussion by internal development team at least.
If I have one critical thing to say it would be the discussion has turned a bit myopic. The fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that the development group has and will continue to discuss systems.
Your opinions are welcomed. I would simply caution against argument for the sake of argument.
Shooting a crossbow is bonused by your agility much in the same way your intelligence is a bonus to learning. Ignoring agility to "learn crossbow faster" is not something I'd recommend.
Balanced stats are a good thing. DR is a complex world.
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim.."
If I have one critical thing to say it would be the discussion has turned a bit myopic. The fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that the development group has and will continue to discuss systems.
Your opinions are welcomed. I would simply caution against argument for the sake of argument.
Shooting a crossbow is bonused by your agility much in the same way your intelligence is a bonus to learning. Ignoring agility to "learn crossbow faster" is not something I'd recommend.
Balanced stats are a good thing. DR is a complex world.
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim.."
Ranks and buffs compensate for lower stats. Or you can choose to emphasize abilities and skills that use your mentals, and get both benefits. Nothing compensates for lower mentals.
When you're talking about a difference of months or years of play time to get a character to the same place, not to mention the difference in speed at which you'll be able to get new TDPs because that system is completely broken and stupid too, this is not a small deal.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
When you're talking about a difference of months or years of play time to get a character to the same place, not to mention the difference in speed at which you'll be able to get new TDPs because that system is completely broken and stupid too, this is not a small deal.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
>>When you're talking about a difference of months or years of play time to get a character to the same place
You are exaggerating the impact that mentals have on exp drain. In my experience time played and training/scripting knowledge is a much bigger factor in how quickly you advance than how many TDPs you put into intel/wisdom. Maybe if you left mentals at 10 on one character and raised nothing but mentals on another you might see that big of a difference in the time to reach the same mark, but with normal playing mental stats are not going to create that big of disparity.
You are exaggerating the impact that mentals have on exp drain. In my experience time played and training/scripting knowledge is a much bigger factor in how quickly you advance than how many TDPs you put into intel/wisdom. Maybe if you left mentals at 10 on one character and raised nothing but mentals on another you might see that big of a difference in the time to reach the same mark, but with normal playing mental stats are not going to create that big of disparity.
If the board monitors don't mind the tangent, this actually gets into something we've discussed at the SGM level a few times.
What, exactly, is "normal playing?" How many hours a day / days in a week should we anticipate is normal?
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
What, exactly, is "normal playing?" How many hours a day / days in a week should we anticipate is normal?
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
What is "normal" in this context?
Given the numbers posted, the time periods involved, and some napkin math, months at minimum really isn't far off the mark depending on how many ranks you're reaching for and how many hours per day of training time you're willing to put down.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
Given the numbers posted, the time periods involved, and some napkin math, months at minimum really isn't far off the mark depending on how many ranks you're reaching for and how many hours per day of training time you're willing to put down.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
>What, exactly, is "normal playing?" How many hours a day / days in a week should we anticipate is normal?
I'm actually surprised there's not some sort of metrics on this from the server.
Personally, I get to play about 4 hours a day M-F and about 12 hours total on the weekend. I feel like I'm on the lower end of normal (that's just a gut feeling, I have no evidence whatsoever)
I'm actually surprised there's not some sort of metrics on this from the server.
Personally, I get to play about 4 hours a day M-F and about 12 hours total on the weekend. I feel like I'm on the lower end of normal (that's just a gut feeling, I have no evidence whatsoever)
>What, exactly, is "normal playing?" How many hours a day / days in a week should we anticipate is normal?
Honestly? I think DR's 'normal' is a full percentage point or two higher than 'regular' games just because of the scripting. It's difficult (shut up) to bot in WoW, but very easy to do so in DR.
So while I don't think players manage the same level of immersed game play for DR that they do for WoW (since I can read the forums, and watch my arcana script run right this second), I suspect we log more overall time in-game per day/week.
I could google statistics, but you guys should have the time spent in-game available to them, and it seems like with less than 2000 sample points (player base) you could build a simple statistic analysis for the mean/mode. From there, plus or minus your percent as desired. And since I know for a fact at least 5 of you GMs are way smarter than me (and figure the rest are, but I haven't met you), I don't see how the discussion is much good.
Though I guess that answers what I would consider 'normal' play time. Exclude the outliers and make the math.
Honestly? I think DR's 'normal' is a full percentage point or two higher than 'regular' games just because of the scripting. It's difficult (shut up) to bot in WoW, but very easy to do so in DR.
So while I don't think players manage the same level of immersed game play for DR that they do for WoW (since I can read the forums, and watch my arcana script run right this second), I suspect we log more overall time in-game per day/week.
I could google statistics, but you guys should have the time spent in-game available to them, and it seems like with less than 2000 sample points (player base) you could build a simple statistic analysis for the mean/mode. From there, plus or minus your percent as desired. And since I know for a fact at least 5 of you GMs are way smarter than me (and figure the rest are, but I haven't met you), I don't see how the discussion is much good.
Though I guess that answers what I would consider 'normal' play time. Exclude the outliers and make the math.
In the context of the experience system it helps to delineate "normal play time" into time spent actively training vs. time spent doing anything else, such as socializing.
The national average for playing multi-player games online is about 6.5-7 hours per week and has been trending upwards for some years. Given the nature of DR, I would anticipate that to be higher on average, but not significantly so (because we're presumably people with jobs and families and crap) -- I'd call it anywhere from 10-15 hours a week. Of those hours, how many of them do people spend actively training multiple skills (not merely passively such as with classes)? Probably still a goodly chunk of them, but I'd still wager it's like 8-10 if not lower.
Honestly, the perception of skillgain rates have been intensely skewed by people who play the game as though it is a part or full time job. This is not normal or average and I think it's actually been actively damaging to the game in the places where it has affected GM perceptions of rates of advancement. This has put us in a Red Queen situation where GMs get this notion in their heads then make mechanical changes intended to slow down what they view as too-fast advancement, which ends up only having the effect of incentivizing and rewarding those scripters while slowing down players who aren't scripting 100% efficiently in Genie for anywhere from 30-50 hours a week.
I'm glad this is a question that's being asked both here and behind the scenes, but I despair at how late in the game's life cycle it apparently happened.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
The national average for playing multi-player games online is about 6.5-7 hours per week and has been trending upwards for some years. Given the nature of DR, I would anticipate that to be higher on average, but not significantly so (because we're presumably people with jobs and families and crap) -- I'd call it anywhere from 10-15 hours a week. Of those hours, how many of them do people spend actively training multiple skills (not merely passively such as with classes)? Probably still a goodly chunk of them, but I'd still wager it's like 8-10 if not lower.
Honestly, the perception of skillgain rates have been intensely skewed by people who play the game as though it is a part or full time job. This is not normal or average and I think it's actually been actively damaging to the game in the places where it has affected GM perceptions of rates of advancement. This has put us in a Red Queen situation where GMs get this notion in their heads then make mechanical changes intended to slow down what they view as too-fast advancement, which ends up only having the effect of incentivizing and rewarding those scripters while slowing down players who aren't scripting 100% efficiently in Genie for anywhere from 30-50 hours a week.
I'm glad this is a question that's being asked both here and behind the scenes, but I despair at how late in the game's life cycle it apparently happened.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
I'm currently a graduate student, so my 'work hours' are very odd, and accordingly, I'm on DR basically between (est) 9-6, with gaps depending on what my day looks like, and then again that evening depending on what I'm working on. I routinely see the same people who have been scripting for at least the last full day, so assume that my play hours are actually not on the high end of things.
But the skillcap is 1750 ranks and 200 circles. Lets not pretend that's not a goal players are going to work towards, and lets not pretend that's anything other than an enormous time sink. I think the solution to making that be a mostly unaimed for goal is to either crack down on scripting, or lower the skillcap.
But yeah. Players have reached that skillcap. And I'd be willing to bet most of them did it with maxed mentals, and I'd be further willing to bet that even physical guilds felt the need to max menatls.
> Maybe if you left mentals at 10 on one character and raised nothing but mentals on another you might see that big of a difference in the time to reach the same mark, but with normal playing mental stats are not going to create that big of disparity.
I'm not sure what makes you say this - the numbers were just posted, and they were pretty significant.
> This has put us in a Red Queen situation where GMs get this notion in their heads then make mechanical changes intended to slow down what they view as too-fast advancement, which ends up only having the effect of incentivizing and rewarding those scripters
Ranks play a great deal in efficiency and the numbers have been skewed to actually help new players starting the game get up to speed much more quickly. Going from the character manager to circle 30 has never been faster and that is a more recent implementation. I'd present that the narrative, or should I say your notion, is false.
We presented the data precisely so a thoughtful discussion may occur. We can't change the past but we can change the future so keep thinking forward. I understand your (general you) opinions are as varied as those of the GMs. The one thing we do have in common is a desire to "do good" and enjoy what all of us consider to be a great community, environment, and game.
I don't know about you guys but I'm going to go have a Snickers(tm).
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim..."
Ranks play a great deal in efficiency and the numbers have been skewed to actually help new players starting the game get up to speed much more quickly. Going from the character manager to circle 30 has never been faster and that is a more recent implementation. I'd present that the narrative, or should I say your notion, is false.
We presented the data precisely so a thoughtful discussion may occur. We can't change the past but we can change the future so keep thinking forward. I understand your (general you) opinions are as varied as those of the GMs. The one thing we do have in common is a desire to "do good" and enjoy what all of us consider to be a great community, environment, and game.
I don't know about you guys but I'm going to go have a Snickers(tm).
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim..."
I'll add that I don't think it's done maliciously or with the intent to throttle casual players, but when I see sentiments like "you pretty much roll out of chargen with 300 ranks" pop up from ASGMs, that's when I get concerned.
And an example recent change was rolling back the tert skill learning bonus from 100 ranks to 50. I don't believe that helped new players either, particularly judging by the sentiment I've heard from a number of them.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
And an example recent change was rolling back the tert skill learning bonus from 100 ranks to 50. I don't believe that helped new players either, particularly judging by the sentiment I've heard from a number of them.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
>What, exactly, is "normal playing?" How many hours a day / days in a week should we anticipate is normal?
I'm honestly not sure how to answer this. What feels normal to me, in my life, would be to have between 5-15 hours per week of training. That said... Having come back to the game at a very late date compared to many people, I find the census numbers drive my playtime very heavily - there are a lot of people out there with very high ranks and I'm a competitive person who doesn't like being pushed around. 100th circle seems to be about the median? Ok...
So as a result I've alternated between nearly no playing when life has gotten in the way or doing my baseline 5-10 hours per week to going all the way up to legitimately training 40 hours per week. Thank having an awesome employer for that. ;) So that drives a lot of my play. DR has so much of my attention because I like the coding challenge of making the numbers go up efficiently, I like roleplaying, and I like well-done PvP. Two of those are enhanced by numbers.
So, to me, that drives normal.
- Saragos
I'm honestly not sure how to answer this. What feels normal to me, in my life, would be to have between 5-15 hours per week of training. That said... Having come back to the game at a very late date compared to many people, I find the census numbers drive my playtime very heavily - there are a lot of people out there with very high ranks and I'm a competitive person who doesn't like being pushed around. 100th circle seems to be about the median? Ok...
So as a result I've alternated between nearly no playing when life has gotten in the way or doing my baseline 5-10 hours per week to going all the way up to legitimately training 40 hours per week. Thank having an awesome employer for that. ;) So that drives a lot of my play. DR has so much of my attention because I like the coding challenge of making the numbers go up efficiently, I like roleplaying, and I like well-done PvP. Two of those are enhanced by numbers.
So, to me, that drives normal.
- Saragos
