Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Possibly some of the kickback here is the assumption that you'd still get the same number of TDPs you do now. I'd assume if we switched to a top-5 model the rate of TDP gain would be adjusted as well. Maybe that's a bad assumption but that's what I took from it.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
>> Maybe that's a bad assumption but that's what I took from it.
In my perfect world we ultimately cap TDPs at a level beneath 99-in-every-stat, but I wouldn't mind letting people get to the capping point as fast or faster regardless of how such a cap is implemented..
-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
In my perfect world we ultimately cap TDPs at a level beneath 99-in-every-stat, but I wouldn't mind letting people get to the capping point as fast or faster regardless of how such a cap is implemented..
-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
Here's some context, and this is just theoretical numbers right now.
After a brief discussion on this we tentatively kinda-sorta-maybe figure that it'd be good if a character reaches endgame in 2 years of normal play. Faster and slower is possible, but an average of two years sounded good to us for now.
This, of course, also depends on us creating an endgame. We have ideas there too, but nothing worth salivating over yet.
That is the goal I'd like to eventually like to reach and the yardstick we've created that I measure fast/slow by.
-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
After a brief discussion on this we tentatively kinda-sorta-maybe figure that it'd be good if a character reaches endgame in 2 years of normal play. Faster and slower is possible, but an average of two years sounded good to us for now.
This, of course, also depends on us creating an endgame. We have ideas there too, but nothing worth salivating over yet.
That is the goal I'd like to eventually like to reach and the yardstick we've created that I measure fast/slow by.
-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
>Trader? ...But that being said, they've got it better than anyone on crafting. Hell, it even trains their primary guild skill.
FWIW, as a 150+ Trader with 1100+ in forging and 1000+ in Outfitting, I can lock both craft skills and would have enough output to get roughly 17/34 in Trading on 980+ Trading.
Yeah, it teaches, but unless you have a PILE of product already, you're not going to lock. Back when I was at roughly 700 ranks in Forging/Trading, it was roughly 2 mindstates of forging to 1 trading. Now it's more like 4 to 1.
It takes me about 9 Tier 11 WO (18 items) to lock. I get about 32/34 forging with 5 MC needles or about 28/34 with 4 wool belts.
It's more a supplement to relock after locking by first selling gem pouches.
Naniaki Felyran
"I have faith in the current crop of GMs to not screw people over"
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
FWIW, as a 150+ Trader with 1100+ in forging and 1000+ in Outfitting, I can lock both craft skills and would have enough output to get roughly 17/34 in Trading on 980+ Trading.
Yeah, it teaches, but unless you have a PILE of product already, you're not going to lock. Back when I was at roughly 700 ranks in Forging/Trading, it was roughly 2 mindstates of forging to 1 trading. Now it's more like 4 to 1.
It takes me about 9 Tier 11 WO (18 items) to lock. I get about 32/34 forging with 5 MC needles or about 28/34 with 4 wool belts.
It's more a supplement to relock after locking by first selling gem pouches.
Naniaki Felyran
"I have faith in the current crop of GMs to not screw people over"
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
>>After a brief discussion on this we tentatively kinda-sorta-maybe figure that it'd be good if a character reaches endgame in 2 years of normal play. Faster and slower is possible, but an average of two years sounded good to us for now.<<
Armifer, how does this look for all the characters already in existence? I understand you are saying this is all theoretical talk currently. I am just curious on the impact on what currently exists.
"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade
Armifer, how does this look for all the characters already in existence? I understand you are saying this is all theoretical talk currently. I am just curious on the impact on what currently exists.
"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade
>>Armifer, how does this look for all the characters already in existence? I understand you are saying this is all theoretical talk currently. I am just curious on the impact on what currently exists.
If we did any TDP readjustment or capping, there'd be another stat reset.
Endgame considerations would be in addition to the grind that exists now, rather than replacing it.
I doubt the skill or circle cap will be lowered, though I hope we continue with the stance that guild progression stops at 150th.
-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
If we did any TDP readjustment or capping, there'd be another stat reset.
Endgame considerations would be in addition to the grind that exists now, rather than replacing it.
I doubt the skill or circle cap will be lowered, though I hope we continue with the stance that guild progression stops at 150th.
-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
> After a brief discussion on this we tentatively kinda-sorta-maybe figure that it'd be good if a character reaches endgame in 2 years of normal play. Faster and slower is possible, but an average of two years sounded good to us for now.
Doesn't that seem like a big departure from the game as it exists now? I mean, if Endgame is considered 150th circle, a WM requires 670 ranks of primary weapon in a secondary skill to get there. There are 730 days in 2 years. That means earning a rank almost every single day for 2 years. Now, that's no big deal at first, but over the course of all that time I'd estimate we're talking 4+ hours per day, almost every single day just on training and the stuff you do to prep for training, and lack of perfect efficiency.
Is that really the average of normal play? Because wow. Am I slacking that much? I would have thought 4 years was a more reasonable estimation.
- Saragos
Doesn't that seem like a big departure from the game as it exists now? I mean, if Endgame is considered 150th circle, a WM requires 670 ranks of primary weapon in a secondary skill to get there. There are 730 days in 2 years. That means earning a rank almost every single day for 2 years. Now, that's no big deal at first, but over the course of all that time I'd estimate we're talking 4+ hours per day, almost every single day just on training and the stuff you do to prep for training, and lack of perfect efficiency.
Is that really the average of normal play? Because wow. Am I slacking that much? I would have thought 4 years was a more reasonable estimation.
- Saragos
The two year mark is a theoretical goal, not a representation of the system that exists now. And I'm sharing it with the hopeful understanding that it is not something set in stone.
Though FWIW when I did a napkin design for an endgame system I started access at 100th.
-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
Though FWIW when I did a napkin design for an endgame system I started access at 100th.
-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
>After a brief discussion on this we tentatively kinda-sorta-maybe figure that it'd be good if a character reaches endgame in 2 years of normal play. Faster and slower is possible, but an average of two years sounded good to us for now.
The question is, what is 'endgame' in this discussion? Level 100? Rank 1000? Literal game cap (level 200, rank 1750)?
The question is, what is 'endgame' in this discussion? Level 100? Rank 1000? Literal game cap (level 200, rank 1750)?
Right now? The sketch I made was scaled between 100th and 150th.
-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
-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
<Real question: What is your definition of a HLC? I am curious how different people perceive this.
Good point, a lot of people out there assume 150th is a HLC. That is of course a joke because at a base 150th circle player your only about 1/3 or a little more of current max RANKS . Let alone the bits involved in the higher ranks.
Good point, a lot of people out there assume 150th is a HLC. That is of course a joke because at a base 150th circle player your only about 1/3 or a little more of current max RANKS . Let alone the bits involved in the higher ranks.
>>
Bye. But I bet you would. and would just adjust. because it wouldn't really change how anyone plays, except that you wouldn't be forced to train 18 weapons to earn as many tdps as possible. You still could if you enjoy that, and the ranks would still do their main role, which is help you use said weapon more effectively.
please stop posting this, no one, absolutely no one is forcing you to train all x skills, either you choose to do so or you don't. end of story.
also your callous response with "bye" could easily be turned back and applied to you in this situation, don't like it? bye. except that we are trying to have a conversation where many of us have invested massive amounts of time into developing our characters and gaining TDPs as a side bonus and i would not be appreciative of anyone flushing that time down the drain even if i get to keep the ranks and not the TDPs. i get that you're not happy with where TDP gain is currently let's continue the conversation but always remember that there are multiple ways to play the game and simply because you feel obligated to train x skills in order to feel like you're keeping up does not make this a race for the rest of us.
i play a moonie and have no issues with the way weapon primes are gaining whatever TDPs they are working on getting. there are already caps in place in the game in the amount of ranks you can gain and the top circle you can attain. we all train differently and should be rewarded based on the amount of time we are willing to invest.
Damian, a voice from the distant and long-forgotten past.
AIM:DamianDR
Bye. But I bet you would. and would just adjust. because it wouldn't really change how anyone plays, except that you wouldn't be forced to train 18 weapons to earn as many tdps as possible. You still could if you enjoy that, and the ranks would still do their main role, which is help you use said weapon more effectively.
please stop posting this, no one, absolutely no one is forcing you to train all x skills, either you choose to do so or you don't. end of story.
also your callous response with "bye" could easily be turned back and applied to you in this situation, don't like it? bye. except that we are trying to have a conversation where many of us have invested massive amounts of time into developing our characters and gaining TDPs as a side bonus and i would not be appreciative of anyone flushing that time down the drain even if i get to keep the ranks and not the TDPs. i get that you're not happy with where TDP gain is currently let's continue the conversation but always remember that there are multiple ways to play the game and simply because you feel obligated to train x skills in order to feel like you're keeping up does not make this a race for the rest of us.
i play a moonie and have no issues with the way weapon primes are gaining whatever TDPs they are working on getting. there are already caps in place in the game in the amount of ranks you can gain and the top circle you can attain. we all train differently and should be rewarded based on the amount of time we are willing to invest.
Damian, a voice from the distant and long-forgotten past.
AIM:DamianDR
Discussion over. We're done here. Further posting in this discussion will result in posts removed and can result in a forums time out.
If someone wants to start a new topic that's unrelated to the original post, and unrelated to the bickering and snark at each other. Feel free.
Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.
>> Compared to baseline pool size, for each stat you get are at...
Int/Wis 30 = 112%
Int/Wis 60 = 121%
Int/Wis 90 = 125%
Int/Wis 120 = 130%
This is news to me. I took both of them to around 150 on test and seen no difference after 100. That was about a year or two ago.
Assuming nothing has changed, are you sure this is working correctly?
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
Int/Wis 30 = 112%
Int/Wis 60 = 121%
Int/Wis 90 = 125%
Int/Wis 120 = 130%
This is news to me. I took both of them to around 150 on test and seen no difference after 100. That was about a year or two ago.
Assuming nothing has changed, are you sure this is working correctly?
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
strength is king #togforlife
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
