Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Normal time in game for me, a day, is about 8 hours. This, of course, is subject to change.
-Dartellum Waddle
Vote for DR: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>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.
And I really don't want you to be under the impression that I for one feel otherwise, and apologize for any rudeness you felt from my posts or feelings about the XP model.
> And I really don't want you to be under the impression that I for one feel otherwise, and apologize for any rudeness you felt from my posts or feelings about the XP model.
I have been in and out of this game for nearly 20 years. I have very thick skin.
Transparency is a good thing. Intelligent conversation can be had. I just felt like it started slipping into a spiral of negativity and I don't want to see that happen.
I was telling a good friend yesterday ... no apologies are needed. I'll let you know if they are. ;)
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim..."
I have been in and out of this game for nearly 20 years. I have very thick skin.
Transparency is a good thing. Intelligent conversation can be had. I just felt like it started slipping into a spiral of negativity and I don't want to see that happen.
I was telling a good friend yesterday ... no apologies are needed. I'll let you know if they are. ;)
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim..."
>>DR-Armifer: What, exactly, is "normal playing?" How many hours a day / days in a week should we anticipate is normal?
It really depends on what demographic you're looking at. If you use people who don't work full time (or can play from home) as your baseline, you're going to get much higher play-times than if you use people who work full time. Then there is the measure of average. If you use the mean, it is skewed by outliers (people who are scripting all day, every day).
And as Thayet hinted, even just looking at log-in time isn't always a reliable indicator of training time. (I spend a lot of time logged into the game but not seriously training.) You would probably have to look at the amount of time where new field experience is being gained in more than X skills.
>>DR-Ssra: 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.
For most players, it's not the first 30 circles but the end-game grind, which requires hours of very repetitive activity to make even slight progress in your top skills. This frustration can be exacerbated by the impression among players that experience benchmarks are designed around people who play DragonRealms like a full-time job.
You would be hard-pressed to find a game that takes as long to reach the "end-game" level as DragonRealms. Just as one data point, I am a reasonably sophisticated player/scripter with a higher-than average play-time. I started my oldest character 11 years ago. She is 132nd circle, and her top skill has 1048 ranks. (My other character, who is about to turn 9, is 155th circle, and her top skill has 1115 ranks.) Granted, I don't play as efficiently as possible, but I daresay that if you told a new player up front that you're looking at a time investment of a decade to have a high-level character -- and you still won't be at the top -- you would not have as many new players.
This time horizon can be particularly daunting when you consider that MUD players are an aging demographic with work, family, and other responsibilities/interests that prevent them from playing as much as they might have played when they were younger.
>>Badgopher: Where did that happen?
It was an offhand remark by Kodius in the context of how many crafting ranks should be required to cap Tier 6 items. http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/Combat%20-%20Weapons%20and%20Armor/Crossbows/view/1545
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
It really depends on what demographic you're looking at. If you use people who don't work full time (or can play from home) as your baseline, you're going to get much higher play-times than if you use people who work full time. Then there is the measure of average. If you use the mean, it is skewed by outliers (people who are scripting all day, every day).
And as Thayet hinted, even just looking at log-in time isn't always a reliable indicator of training time. (I spend a lot of time logged into the game but not seriously training.) You would probably have to look at the amount of time where new field experience is being gained in more than X skills.
>>DR-Ssra: 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.
For most players, it's not the first 30 circles but the end-game grind, which requires hours of very repetitive activity to make even slight progress in your top skills. This frustration can be exacerbated by the impression among players that experience benchmarks are designed around people who play DragonRealms like a full-time job.
You would be hard-pressed to find a game that takes as long to reach the "end-game" level as DragonRealms. Just as one data point, I am a reasonably sophisticated player/scripter with a higher-than average play-time. I started my oldest character 11 years ago. She is 132nd circle, and her top skill has 1048 ranks. (My other character, who is about to turn 9, is 155th circle, and her top skill has 1115 ranks.) Granted, I don't play as efficiently as possible, but I daresay that if you told a new player up front that you're looking at a time investment of a decade to have a high-level character -- and you still won't be at the top -- you would not have as many new players.
This time horizon can be particularly daunting when you consider that MUD players are an aging demographic with work, family, and other responsibilities/interests that prevent them from playing as much as they might have played when they were younger.
>>Badgopher: Where did that happen?
It was an offhand remark by Kodius in the context of how many crafting ranks should be required to cap Tier 6 items. http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/Combat%20-%20Weapons%20and%20Armor/Crossbows/view/1545
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>You would be hard-pressed to find a game that takes as long to reach the "end-game" level as DragonRealms
Well of course not, DR wasn't supposed to have an end-game. The fact that there's a skill-cap now is an artificial constraint of the engine, though Developers have always commented on how DR never got the kind of players the developers expected. And now I am going to harp as usual on how the whole concept of PVP in DR is just welded on to an incomparable sandbox design...
Your search-fu is pig dung!
Well of course not, DR wasn't supposed to have an end-game. The fact that there's a skill-cap now is an artificial constraint of the engine, though Developers have always commented on how DR never got the kind of players the developers expected. And now I am going to harp as usual on how the whole concept of PVP in DR is just welded on to an incomparable sandbox design...
Your search-fu is pig dung!
>You would be hard-pressed to find a game that takes as long to reach the "end-game" level as DragonRealms.
Which is why I think it was a mistake to set the end cap so high, instead of taking the 'reach the cap? try a new character!' paradigm of every other MMO.
Most of the other MUDs out there have much lower time investment player caps, and people have to either RP, try other things, or roll new characters. I am still surprised at how many people don't know more than 1-3 guilds worth of in game information.
>> Which is why I think it was a mistake to set the end cap so high, instead of taking the 'reach the cap? try a new character!' paradigm of every other MMO.
Ehh other MMOs are a bad comparison. There is nothing to do at "endgame" in DR other than hunt more; in PvE player skill is a negligible factor in overall effectiveness now. Other MMOs are so strikingly different once you reach the level cap they could fairly be called completely different games, not to mention gradually easing into modes of play that emphasize player skill over hard numbers.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
Ehh other MMOs are a bad comparison. There is nothing to do at "endgame" in DR other than hunt more; in PvE player skill is a negligible factor in overall effectiveness now. Other MMOs are so strikingly different once you reach the level cap they could fairly be called completely different games, not to mention gradually easing into modes of play that emphasize player skill over hard numbers.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
Lots of people commenting on how to assess normal play, and there are a ton of ways to look at that question. I think the second part of Armifir's question is more interesting. And I'd ask a couple in return.
Why do we want to make an assumption about normal play? Once we make that assumption, how do we view the deviants?
I think the answers to those questions are going to define what we decide is normal more than the statistics that describe peoples' playtime.
Mazrian
Why do we want to make an assumption about normal play? Once we make that assumption, how do we view the deviants?
I think the answers to those questions are going to define what we decide is normal more than the statistics that describe peoples' playtime.
Mazrian
<< Why do we want to make an assumption about normal play?
We don't. This has no real relevance.
It doesn't matter if you play casual hours or hard core hours, you still get less for the same amount of time invested. The current exp model favors hard core play and the hard core players already have the edge by putting in more hours. It's a rich get richer world.
I guess the argument was that it's not "that" big of a difference but it is something and something is better than nothing. I think i can consider myself among the rich in this analogy, so not that concerned about it either way but to me it's a bit of an issue about fairness and principle. No matter how big the difference.
We don't. This has no real relevance.
It doesn't matter if you play casual hours or hard core hours, you still get less for the same amount of time invested. The current exp model favors hard core play and the hard core players already have the edge by putting in more hours. It's a rich get richer world.
I guess the argument was that it's not "that" big of a difference but it is something and something is better than nothing. I think i can consider myself among the rich in this analogy, so not that concerned about it either way but to me it's a bit of an issue about fairness and principle. No matter how big the difference.
Dare I mention that some people look at 'time invested' or 'how many hours can I put into DR' as a comparison of their 15 dollars PER monthly fee?
This factors into those 'script all day all night' players that can skew the 'normal play' range.
I know some players want to max their time played'/game advancement to the max because...we are paying at least 15 bucks a month...so how many hours can one play to justify playing?
Example: If one plays 80 hours per month (20 per week) and pays $15 per month, that is roughly 5.3 hours of game play per dollar spent.
How much bang for my RL buck am I getting out of the game for those 5.5 hours? And how can I maximize my character advancement to justify paying a monthly fee.
Other factors that can skew what 'normal' is include people that have computer/desk jobs so they can basically play DR a lot more.
Paying to play the game is not liberty to play the game in whatever fashion you like and be immune to GMs attempting to make quality of life changes for people who do not play it like it's a second job.
That DR even allows you to bot at all is exceptional. Try that in WoW and see how fast you get banned. Try the "but I pay to play! I can play however I choose!" argument there and see how far it gets you.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
That DR even allows you to bot at all is exceptional. Try that in WoW and see how fast you get banned. Try the "but I pay to play! I can play however I choose!" argument there and see how far it gets you.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
>>Julian: Why do we want to make an assumption about normal play?
Because skill/experience benchmarks are presumably designed with such expectations in mind.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Because skill/experience benchmarks are presumably designed with such expectations in mind.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>>That DR even allows you to bot at all is exceptional. Try that in WoW and see how fast you get banned.
IMO, you're mixing two rules, let alone two different contexts for gameplay.
DR allows you to use third party software (ie: Genie), WoW doesn't. This is correct. This also isn't explicitly "botting," it's just a blanket rule of no third party programs that pull/parse WoW data. If I wanted to play WoW as a text-based game and run WoW data through a text-only client, I'd be violating WoW's policy. If I wanted to run DR as a graphics-based game and ran DR data through a graphical client, I wouldn't be violating DR's policy.
Both games let you automate things, only WoW has stronger rules on what to automate and how. For example, WoW does allows you to make plugins that work with their client within the constraints they define, and you can use their own scripting language (Lua) to perform tasks via toggles/macro commands/etc.
Both games also won't let you run the game AFK, which is the bigger rule they both follow.
Along with that, WoW is less complex, so there's just less to automate as a whole. DR requires a robust script to make 10x broadswords. WoW just requires a macro that checks for a mat, crafts the item, then repeats. It's an apple and orange situation.
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.
IMO, you're mixing two rules, let alone two different contexts for gameplay.
DR allows you to use third party software (ie: Genie), WoW doesn't. This is correct. This also isn't explicitly "botting," it's just a blanket rule of no third party programs that pull/parse WoW data. If I wanted to play WoW as a text-based game and run WoW data through a text-only client, I'd be violating WoW's policy. If I wanted to run DR as a graphics-based game and ran DR data through a graphical client, I wouldn't be violating DR's policy.
Both games let you automate things, only WoW has stronger rules on what to automate and how. For example, WoW does allows you to make plugins that work with their client within the constraints they define, and you can use their own scripting language (Lua) to perform tasks via toggles/macro commands/etc.
Both games also won't let you run the game AFK, which is the bigger rule they both follow.
Along with that, WoW is less complex, so there's just less to automate as a whole. DR requires a robust script to make 10x broadswords. WoW just requires a macro that checks for a mat, crafts the item, then repeats. It's an apple and orange situation.
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.
Well, one thing we could do is define a baseline through a mechanical system. We need a baseline when we're describing QoL improvements so as not to make things too easy for the power players, right? Well, let's posit a new Alternate Experience System as a thought experiment and go about as extreme as we can:
New System: It doesn't use training by doing, doesn't use the mindstates, doesn't use the existing pools. Essentially, you switch it on, and so long as you do ONE action that would normally gain you experience for the skill for the DAY. At a known pre-defined hour, the game rolled over day and gave you the appropriate amount of experience in each skill based on your mental stats. Say the equivalent of 1 hour or so worth of solid training on each of those skills that you did SOMETHING with, which would not necessarily be all skills. You COULD NOT gain experience in any other way if this system is turned on for you. Perhaps there could be some brakes on switching to keep people from having full-training and auto-training days each week.
1) Would you want to use this system?
2) Would you like the way this game would change if this were in place?
- Saragos
New System: It doesn't use training by doing, doesn't use the mindstates, doesn't use the existing pools. Essentially, you switch it on, and so long as you do ONE action that would normally gain you experience for the skill for the DAY. At a known pre-defined hour, the game rolled over day and gave you the appropriate amount of experience in each skill based on your mental stats. Say the equivalent of 1 hour or so worth of solid training on each of those skills that you did SOMETHING with, which would not necessarily be all skills. You COULD NOT gain experience in any other way if this system is turned on for you. Perhaps there could be some brakes on switching to keep people from having full-training and auto-training days each week.
1) Would you want to use this system?
2) Would you like the way this game would change if this were in place?
- Saragos
>That DR even allows you to bot at all is exceptional. Try that in WoW and see how fast you get banned. Try the "but I pay to play! I can play however I choose!" argument there and see how far it gets you.
There are a bazillion bots in all MMOs. I played EVE for ages, and the game, an economy simulator with a combat side, is entirely driven by botters pushing the economy. WoW was no different, and every couple of months a wave of banning a slosh of people doesn't really stop things. The only difference is scale. I've never actually played an MMO that doesn't have botting or automation as an understood element of the game.
SARAGOS System -
I would, and I think it would be a great way of letting people feel like they could RP or participate in events without letting their training suffer. But, I still think the problem is the spread of numbers.
>> IMO, you're mixing two rules, let alone two different contexts for gameplay.
Fair. Other MUDs would be a fairer comparison. The main point was that I think the "but I pay to play" argument is spurious as hell is all. Paying to play is irrelevant in this context. Especially since most casuals pay to play too.
I've advanced at a good clip since returning, but my play time is not typical, and no, I'm not "mad" about anyone passing me -- I've actually passed up almost all of my friends at this point, including the ones who have had their characters for years. DR's rate of advancement should not be balanced around the assumption that the amount of time people like me play is a normal thing. Determining what is casual vs median vs hardcore play is important because as Isharon points out, this is how you determine benchmarks -- how long should X milestone take to reach assuming Y hours of play/active training per day, that sort of thing. And the problem with having this discussion on these forums is that frankly the only voices you're gonna get here are people who are dead serious about the game. I've tried to encourage new and casual players to come post but we all know the forums are a nightmare.
It's not about allowing perfect parity between them and someone who does play more, because yes, putting in more time should mean you do get more for your efforts, and that would continue to be true. But say you offered an experience bonus for the first few hours a week of active skillgain -- how does that hurt hardcore players? What might hurt them is putting an exp/treasure throttle in that kicks in for people who play for amounts of time that are physically impossible to be completely ATK for. That might be an effective AFK deterrent, and sure, that's relevant to the discussion too.
So where should a person be after, say, a year of playing if they only train five or ten hours a week? That's a legitimate question that deserves an answer.
I hope this all clarifies where I'm coming from.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
Fair. Other MUDs would be a fairer comparison. The main point was that I think the "but I pay to play" argument is spurious as hell is all. Paying to play is irrelevant in this context. Especially since most casuals pay to play too.
I've advanced at a good clip since returning, but my play time is not typical, and no, I'm not "mad" about anyone passing me -- I've actually passed up almost all of my friends at this point, including the ones who have had their characters for years. DR's rate of advancement should not be balanced around the assumption that the amount of time people like me play is a normal thing. Determining what is casual vs median vs hardcore play is important because as Isharon points out, this is how you determine benchmarks -- how long should X milestone take to reach assuming Y hours of play/active training per day, that sort of thing. And the problem with having this discussion on these forums is that frankly the only voices you're gonna get here are people who are dead serious about the game. I've tried to encourage new and casual players to come post but we all know the forums are a nightmare.
It's not about allowing perfect parity between them and someone who does play more, because yes, putting in more time should mean you do get more for your efforts, and that would continue to be true. But say you offered an experience bonus for the first few hours a week of active skillgain -- how does that hurt hardcore players? What might hurt them is putting an exp/treasure throttle in that kicks in for people who play for amounts of time that are physically impossible to be completely ATK for. That might be an effective AFK deterrent, and sure, that's relevant to the discussion too.
So where should a person be after, say, a year of playing if they only train five or ten hours a week? That's a legitimate question that deserves an answer.
I hope this all clarifies where I'm coming from.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
The only reason I brought that up the play aspect was not to justify the 'I pay to play' aspect.
I brought it up because the question of 'What is normal play?' was brought up.
I am pretty sure we all have a wide range of daily routines, life details, etc that dictate our ability to play.
We might need to phrase the question in a different way. Or have a poll made to find this answer out.
I brought it up because the question of 'What is normal play?' was brought up.
I am pretty sure we all have a wide range of daily routines, life details, etc that dictate our ability to play.
We might need to phrase the question in a different way. Or have a poll made to find this answer out.
>>So where should a person be after, say, a year of playing if they only train five or ten hours a week? That's a legitimate question that deserves an answer.
Not just that but also wonder how many years of that calculation should be applied to the same character.
So that year of advancement might be good, but does it hold up when done for two years? three years? five years? ten years? Hell, I'm pretty sure my account is 15+ years old, and that's not even counting my MSN Zone time.
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.
Not just that but also wonder how many years of that calculation should be applied to the same character.
So that year of advancement might be good, but does it hold up when done for two years? three years? five years? ten years? Hell, I'm pretty sure my account is 15+ years old, and that's not even counting my MSN Zone time.
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.
>Honestly, after reading the numbers I really wish I had chosen human as a race. I loved my tog until finding out that to get my int/wis from 40 to 60 is going to cost me around 8k tdps, and then that climb only gets worse to get them to 90. WTB race change.
Yeah, but presumably you moved your Str/Stam pretty high, and that cost you very little. If you're looking at the long term, of getting all stats to 100 (very long term), all races are equal for how much that's going to cost.
<<If you're looking at the long term, of getting all stats to 100 (very long term), all races are equal for how much that's going to cost.
Two technicalities, which only have a small impact on this statement:
1. Because of the way stat costs round, the cost of getting everything to 100 or some other arbitrary number varies from race to race. It's only a small percentage of difference when compared to total cost, so it isn't really worth worrying about. I think the difference from the cheapest race to the most expensive is around 1000 tdps compared to total tdp costs of 40-50,0000 tdps. Someone else can confirm the actual math.
2. Non-human races have an advantage over humans when training to equal stats across all stats, because they can train their cheaper ones first. This means that humans will always have less stats than a non-human race while training up until the very point that all stats are equal at which point the non-human will immediately gain the advantage again on the next stat to be trained. This of course only applies if training all stats equally and a non-human trains at least one of their bonused stats first leaving the penalized ones for last.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Two technicalities, which only have a small impact on this statement:
1. Because of the way stat costs round, the cost of getting everything to 100 or some other arbitrary number varies from race to race. It's only a small percentage of difference when compared to total cost, so it isn't really worth worrying about. I think the difference from the cheapest race to the most expensive is around 1000 tdps compared to total tdp costs of 40-50,0000 tdps. Someone else can confirm the actual math.
2. Non-human races have an advantage over humans when training to equal stats across all stats, because they can train their cheaper ones first. This means that humans will always have less stats than a non-human race while training up until the very point that all stats are equal at which point the non-human will immediately gain the advantage again on the next stat to be trained. This of course only applies if training all stats equally and a non-human trains at least one of their bonused stats first leaving the penalized ones for last.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
I figured out a different take on this I think.
Let's decouple race from stats. Make it a simple choice at character creation. Keep the stat arrays we currently have but allow people to choose which one they want for their character. So a tog could choose to have the gnome bonus and penalties. Then race shifting becomes a bit less problematic and race becomes a more RP centric tool.
Plus it makes a bit more sense to me.
Let's decouple race from stats. Make it a simple choice at character creation. Keep the stat arrays we currently have but allow people to choose which one they want for their character. So a tog could choose to have the gnome bonus and penalties. Then race shifting becomes a bit less problematic and race becomes a more RP centric tool.
Plus it makes a bit more sense to me.
> Let's decouple race from stats
> Keep the stat arrays we currently have but allow people to choose which one they want for their character.
What is wrong with the way things are now that would demand development time towards something like this? And before this question is given more thought think about the exact same argument above towards skill set placement.
> and race becomes a more RP centric tool
Fixing this one for you...and race becomes only an RP tool
> Honestly, after reading the numbers I really wish I had chosen human as a race
While I do understand the points about tog intel/wisdom I do not sympathize with it. This is coming from a person who chose halfling as a race (for RP purpose) and guilded as a thief (again RP purposes). When the other players who were building this same RP left the game I decided to start training the character. It was such a hard blow when I learned that halflings got a penalty to discipline and that khri 2.0 wanted more of it. This toon ended up with 99 discipline at the expense of all other stats, it was an extremely tough decision but was one that made sense. Not once have I regretted it.
It really is not a doing it wrong kind of thing to not have min/maxed everything. There are benefits and penalties all over the place in DR. Enjoy your tog, nothing has changed other than your perception of their learning rate.
The comments made by Absolon are correct to the best of my knowledge.
> Keep the stat arrays we currently have but allow people to choose which one they want for their character.
What is wrong with the way things are now that would demand development time towards something like this? And before this question is given more thought think about the exact same argument above towards skill set placement.
> and race becomes a more RP centric tool
Fixing this one for you...and race becomes only an RP tool
> Honestly, after reading the numbers I really wish I had chosen human as a race
While I do understand the points about tog intel/wisdom I do not sympathize with it. This is coming from a person who chose halfling as a race (for RP purpose) and guilded as a thief (again RP purposes). When the other players who were building this same RP left the game I decided to start training the character. It was such a hard blow when I learned that halflings got a penalty to discipline and that khri 2.0 wanted more of it. This toon ended up with 99 discipline at the expense of all other stats, it was an extremely tough decision but was one that made sense. Not once have I regretted it.
It really is not a doing it wrong kind of thing to not have min/maxed everything. There are benefits and penalties all over the place in DR. Enjoy your tog, nothing has changed other than your perception of their learning rate.
The comments made by Absolon are correct to the best of my knowledge.
>>Julian: Why do we want to make an assumption about normal play?
>>Because skill/experience benchmarks are presumably designed with such expectations in mind.
That's one way to do it. In a game like DR, where you presumably have clusters of subscribers who have very different play habits, is the most useful way to think about the problem designing your exp system around an arbitrarily normal measure? If you set the norms up around the casuals then some characters will race ahead. Set them up around the power trainers and the game may seem too grindy to many players. You might set them up somewhere between and provide some boosts for casuals and some brakes for power trainers, which is sort of what we have now minus the brakes, but you'll always have the problem of what to do for players whose behavior breaks your assumptions if you have heterogenous habits.
Another way would be to define an acceptable growth rate and construct the exp system so that play time is less relevant to hitting that rate - then you don't need a strong assumption about what normal play looks like and it doesn't matter as much if players deviate from an average. A system like that could have larger experience pools that take longer to drain (say, full to empty over 24 hours counting time logged out), and TDP gain from only, for instance, your top 15 skills. Or TDPs only from your circling requirements (no idea how this math works out, just an example). There are pros and cons to that, too, of course.
Or a third way. You might decide your acceptable maximum growth rate, which doesn't relate to what you decide normal play is, necessarily. Then keep more or less the current system and throttle people back as they get close to your growth limit through something like the old Tired But Alert mechanic or some other mechanism. This is probably the most doable thing given that DR is already almost 20 years old.
Mazrian
>>Because skill/experience benchmarks are presumably designed with such expectations in mind.
That's one way to do it. In a game like DR, where you presumably have clusters of subscribers who have very different play habits, is the most useful way to think about the problem designing your exp system around an arbitrarily normal measure? If you set the norms up around the casuals then some characters will race ahead. Set them up around the power trainers and the game may seem too grindy to many players. You might set them up somewhere between and provide some boosts for casuals and some brakes for power trainers, which is sort of what we have now minus the brakes, but you'll always have the problem of what to do for players whose behavior breaks your assumptions if you have heterogenous habits.
Another way would be to define an acceptable growth rate and construct the exp system so that play time is less relevant to hitting that rate - then you don't need a strong assumption about what normal play looks like and it doesn't matter as much if players deviate from an average. A system like that could have larger experience pools that take longer to drain (say, full to empty over 24 hours counting time logged out), and TDP gain from only, for instance, your top 15 skills. Or TDPs only from your circling requirements (no idea how this math works out, just an example). There are pros and cons to that, too, of course.
Or a third way. You might decide your acceptable maximum growth rate, which doesn't relate to what you decide normal play is, necessarily. Then keep more or less the current system and throttle people back as they get close to your growth limit through something like the old Tired But Alert mechanic or some other mechanism. This is probably the most doable thing given that DR is already almost 20 years old.
Mazrian
FUN FACT TO REMEMBER: The Forums sample is a very skewed population. Remember that if most players were so heavily min-max focused, this table would shift waaay toward Elotheans and Gnomes:
Not that it de-legitimizes the discussion, but it's worth keeping in mind that the effect of mentals on experience != the apocalypse. Races with what I would call sub-optimal mentals are three times as prevalent as the best-learnin' races.
Which also, I think, speaks to the bimodal distribution of DR players, especially with free-to-play. I don't personally have a motivation to be the very best (like no one ever was), and my play schedule reflects that: most weeks, about 0 hours, some weeks maybe up to like 8 hours total.
~Kashik
| Dwarves | 5.32% |
| Elotheans | 10.46% |
| Elves | 21.10% |
| Gnome | 5.32% |
| Gor'Togs | 5.32% |
| Halflings | 3.99% |
| Humans | 25.86% |
| Kaldar | 4.37% |
| Prydaen | 6.46% |
| Rakash | 3.04% |
| S'Kra Mur | 8.75% |
Not that it de-legitimizes the discussion, but it's worth keeping in mind that the effect of mentals on experience != the apocalypse. Races with what I would call sub-optimal mentals are three times as prevalent as the best-learnin' races.
Which also, I think, speaks to the bimodal distribution of DR players, especially with free-to-play. I don't personally have a motivation to be the very best (like no one ever was), and my play schedule reflects that: most weeks, about 0 hours, some weeks maybe up to like 8 hours total.
~Kashik
Honestly, bigger exp pools would be great from a purely selfish standpoint, because I'd love to be able to spend an hour or two locking stuff and then just chill for the rest of the day while my stuff ticks down ala GS. I don't know that this would be something other players would enjoy as much?
Placing caps on the amount of TDPs you can gain per skillset and increasing the TDPs you get per circle would be something I'd love to see done but again probably won't happen. There would probably be a lot of screaming from the train-every-single-skill crowd if that happened even if it was better for most players overall.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
Placing caps on the amount of TDPs you can gain per skillset and increasing the TDPs you get per circle would be something I'd love to see done but again probably won't happen. There would probably be a lot of screaming from the train-every-single-skill crowd if that happened even if it was better for most players overall.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
> Honestly, bigger exp pools would be great from a purely selfish standpoint, because I'd love to be able to spend an hour or two locking stuff and then just chill for the rest of the day while my stuff ticks down ala GS. I don't know that this would be something other players would enjoy as much?
It's certainly feasible but I would advise that such a system would require us to look into EXP drain at login.
I think at this point in the life cycle of the game (largely open ended, constrained only by time) it is prudent to revisit some of these mechanics. My opinion of things these days is that DR is a great collaboration between GMs and players. Many of you have been playing this game long enough with different characters to understand the ripple of cause and effect. Your thoughts and ideas are welcome input.
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim..."
It's certainly feasible but I would advise that such a system would require us to look into EXP drain at login.
I think at this point in the life cycle of the game (largely open ended, constrained only by time) it is prudent to revisit some of these mechanics. My opinion of things these days is that DR is a great collaboration between GMs and players. Many of you have been playing this game long enough with different characters to understand the ripple of cause and effect. Your thoughts and ideas are welcome input.
/salute
-Ssra
"Following our will and whim..."
>Placing caps on the amount of TDPs you can gain per skillset and increasing the TDPs you get per circle would be something I'd love to see done but again probably won't happen. There would probably be a lot of screaming from the train-every-single-skill crowd if that happened even if it was better for most players overall.
I think this would be great, but sort of feel the damage has already been done.
>I think at this point in the life cycle of the game (largely open ended, constrained only by time) it is prudent to revisit some of these mechanics.
There should be a poll to get an idea of how people want to play. I agree with THAYET, that larger XP pools properly adjusted for offline drain would give people even more freedom to RP for longer, instead of getting itchy to train again when their primary skills drain.
And FWIW, GSs model isn't like this - full to clear drain in GS is shorter than even primary skillset full to empty drain in DR, and AFAIK, in GS, drain is maximized at increased mind states, just like our old XP model. It's not a good way of doing it, I feel.
>>I think this would be great, but sort of feel the damage has already been done.
Not really. TDPs can always be refactored, and I think it'd be healthier for the game in general to cap skill-based TDP. The only question is if it's worth the screaming.
-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
Not really. TDPs can always be refactored, and I think it'd be healthier for the game in general to cap skill-based TDP. The only question is if it's worth the screaming.
-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
>>The only question is if it's worth the screaming.
If it was done correctly I think it would be, personally I would love to stop training 3 extra armors, and 6 extra weapons that I just use for TDPs.
Thinking about how you would cap and rebalance it is daunting though, I wouldn't want that job.
If it was done correctly I think it would be, personally I would love to stop training 3 extra armors, and 6 extra weapons that I just use for TDPs.
Thinking about how you would cap and rebalance it is daunting though, I wouldn't want that job.
In other games with similar mechanics I've played you'd continue to tick down while logged off, just at a slower rate. Since I think the trend is to encourage people to log out with offline drain, maybe put it at 1:1 or some other formula based on which behaviors you wish to encourage.
The pools in the game with my favorite exp system in it could last for days as well if you built your buffer up and I think it was designed with 1 hour of grinding = 1 day of drain in mind with a cap based on your level. At baseline intelligence, your buffer held exactly as much experience you needed to level, and positive or negative modifiers would alter the buffer. This wasn't a huge deal though since buffers at the high end got so huge it was days regardless.
I wouldn't say something exactly like that would be good, but I will say this for it: it encouraged interaction. It ensured you weren't penalized in any way for sitting around and shooting the crap with other players. The heavy roleplayers advanced level-wise exactly as fast as the people grinding all the time.
This obviously doesn't port perfectly to DR, but I think that's a model worth eyeballing.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
The pools in the game with my favorite exp system in it could last for days as well if you built your buffer up and I think it was designed with 1 hour of grinding = 1 day of drain in mind with a cap based on your level. At baseline intelligence, your buffer held exactly as much experience you needed to level, and positive or negative modifiers would alter the buffer. This wasn't a huge deal though since buffers at the high end got so huge it was days regardless.
I wouldn't say something exactly like that would be good, but I will say this for it: it encouraged interaction. It ensured you weren't penalized in any way for sitting around and shooting the crap with other players. The heavy roleplayers advanced level-wise exactly as fast as the people grinding all the time.
This obviously doesn't port perfectly to DR, but I think that's a model worth eyeballing.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
>>I would love to stop training 3 extra armors, and 6 extra weapons that I just use for TDPs.
But no one has to do this. People want to because they want to compete in a race where there is no end in sight.
3.0 initially planned this, kinda, and IIRC the board response was generally apathetic toward negative.
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.
But no one has to do this. People want to because they want to compete in a race where there is no end in sight.
3.0 initially planned this, kinda, and IIRC the board response was generally apathetic toward negative.
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.
> 3.0 initially planned this, kinda, and IIRC the board response was generally apathetic toward negative.
The issue with the 3.0 tdp change is that it was trying to serve two incompatible masters. Socharis mentioned that he was given two design goals:
1) Slow down tdp gain.
2) Keep current PCs at about the same number of tdps.
Since there are PCs at all points of the advancement curve, there's no way to achieve (2) without keeping the same basic tdp curve. If you're going to adopt a substantively different tdp system, you need to make your peace with the fact that there are some PCs who will be wildly shifted by it.
The issue with the 3.0 tdp change is that it was trying to serve two incompatible masters. Socharis mentioned that he was given two design goals:
1) Slow down tdp gain.
2) Keep current PCs at about the same number of tdps.
Since there are PCs at all points of the advancement curve, there's no way to achieve (2) without keeping the same basic tdp curve. If you're going to adopt a substantively different tdp system, you need to make your peace with the fact that there are some PCs who will be wildly shifted by it.
If nothing else I'd think on the dev side it would be easier, at least marginally, to balance things if the rate of growth was less all over the place in general. Training a lot of things could still give you some advantage by allowing you to reach that TDP cap sooner too.
But yeah, there's gonna be some wailing and gnashing of teeth no matter how you rebalance it. I'd just prefer the bullet got bit and it got done, but I also stand to benefit from it, so I'm admittedly biased.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
But yeah, there's gonna be some wailing and gnashing of teeth no matter how you rebalance it. I'd just prefer the bullet got bit and it got done, but I also stand to benefit from it, so I'm admittedly biased.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
