Talk:General Discussion

From ProphWiki

Replacing the forum's General Discussion thread. Please use the triple-equals header to head up a new "thread", and indent replies with a colon (not forgetting to *sign*). Unsigned comments will be removed.

Contents 1 Clan Merge Idea 2 RP Grading 2.1 Kessik's Proposal 2.2 Noran's Proposal 2.3 Harakan's musings 2.4 What you've all been waiting for (Torasin on behalf of the Immortal Staff) 3 Sorcs 4 Prophecy Updates 5 Main Page 6 Align 7 Ideas 8 Aquest Rewards 9 Abriam's thoughts 9.1 New areas 9.2 New skills/spells 9.2.1 Ideas 9.3 Existing skills/spells 9.3.1 Acid blast

[edit] Clan Merge Idea

Moved to Talk:Adv_Shep_Merge since this topic is becoming rather extensive. This keeps general discussion relatively clutter free. Harakan 13:16, 16 July 2007 (CEST)

[edit] RP Grading

[edit] Kessik's Proposal

Here is Kessik's proposal (I cut it down to shorten space, edit this if I screwed something up)

Formula is as follows (for each story):

• number of words * 0.007 * quality * 0.33 = points

This formula was created based on an average of 400 words per story, using a maximum of 15 stories to be graded for each person and a quality scale of 1 to 10. As it stands now, a person would rarely gain more than 100 points. A rewards system was created based on this and is listed below.

number of words: This is the total number of words in all of the stories being rewarded for this person. This removes the issue of one person writing a story with 200 words and still getting a massive reward over someone who writes a story with 1000 words.

0.007: This number is fixed so the reward remains consistent throughout grading.

quality: This could really be a scale of any sort, 1 to 10 being the simplest to deal with, 1 being the worst, 10 being the best. The quality itself should be based on a combination of grammar, spelling, punctuation and content. Each of these should be graded equally and the score based on the quality of all the stories being graded. This quality score is the total quality of all 15 stories. For example, if you have 11 stories where there aren't many errors at all, but you have 4 with really bad grammar etc, you might get a quality score of 4 or 5. If you have 15 stories and the grammar is horrid, sentence structure is really bad, everything's misspelled, you get a 1. If you have 15 stories, and their all grammatically correct and they're well written and nothing's misspelled, you'll get a 9.

0.33: See above.

points: The points will correspond with a set reward. The reward itself could vary. Each reward is assigned a number. In this case, 50 points = 1 rppt. So the rewards could be as follows:

• 50 pts = 1 rppt
• 45 pts = 3 qps
• 40 pts = 2 qps
• 35 pts = 1 qp
• 30 pts = .5 qps
• 25 pts = 100 aqps
• 20 pts = 50 aqps and 5000 gold
• 15 pts = 5000 gold
• 10 pts = 1000 gold

Examples:

For these examples the story cap is 15.

Person 1 writes 13 stories. The total number of words written is 4781. The cumulative quality score is 7.

4781 * 0.007 * 7 * 0.33 = 77

Person 1's rewards are: 1 rppt and 100 aqps (50 pts + 25 pts. The extra 2 pts are discarded).

Person 2 writes 27 stories. The total number of words written in the first 15 stories is 5723. The cumulative quality score is 2.

5723 * 0.007 * 2 * 0.33 = 26

Person 2's rewards are: 100 aqps (25 pts. The extra 1 pt is discarded).

Ideas? Issues? Anything?

• First: I would much rather have 3 qps than 1 rppt, as 1rppt = 2 qp except in matters of stuff you can only really buy finitely (and small) many times (oh, and RPEQ, but no one uses that afaik). So I'm wondering about the scale about you're using there. Noran 11:21, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

no one uses rp eq because no one can afford it. simple as that. rp needs to be rewarded with rp rewards. if you'd rather have qps, join quests. Hafwen 17:04, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

• • Oh, and suppose someone gets 120 points. Then they have (4*30) 2 qps, or (3*40) 6 qps, or (45*3+15) = 9 qps + 2000 gold? In the event of 'adding points' as you've put together above, the total result can be ambiguous. Noran 15:25, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

how to reward that would be up to the grader. if they get 120 points, chances are good they'll get 2 rppts and whatever else to make up the rest of the points. in my system, if you check the formula and do some math, it's *very* hard to get 120 points. that's why i chose the numbers that i chose. Hafwen 17:04, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

• Second: The real problem with RP grading, IMHO, is not coming up with a system per se, but getting someone to actually read all the stuff. I mean, let's face it, some of it is pretty repetitive. That's the problem that really needs to be solved. Noran 11:20, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

we have someone to read it. the problem isn't that we have no one to do it, the problem is that every system that's been come up with so far has been discarded completely, except for the ones you see here, which obviously haven't been accepted. Hafwen 17:04, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

I also like this system a lot. It makes sense, is fairly quick to calculate, and makes the big rewards something that has to be worked hard for. I also like it because it could/will promote the use of RPeq, which isn't around much. It should be. Lathale 16:47, 18 July 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Noran's Proposal

My idea is predicated on the fact that articles on the internet are similar, in some ways, to RP stories - hard to judge algorithmically, large in size, and generally hard to deal with. But the Internet, in its infinite wisdom, has solved this problem with sites such as digg, google news, &c. Here is my idea: assign to each player a certain number of votes. There are many ways to do this - by activity in the RP community, by level, by gold... but somehow automatically. Perhaps 1 per storyboard of a certain length (though this would encourage folks to break up their storyboards, so perhaps just 1 per n characters). Then each player can vote (like digging) a certain story, if they think it is good after reading it. No one, then, needs to read every story, just folks who like to read the storyboards reading them. Make it public who voted for what, so as to prevent alt abuse (sockpuppeting) and collusion (meatpuppeting). Then assign awards monthly based on the number of votes received in total by a given author, the value of which should scale linearly with the number of votes received. The exact rewards should be variable by some immy command (so they set the value of a vote), to accommodate changes in economy, &c. Noran 15:32, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

I've already offered to grade RP, and I don't feel it's tedious or burdensome. A voting system seems rather chaotic IMO and it's hard to determine who really is within the realm of the "RP community" to establish who gets voting points especially when RP has dwindled down to nothing. Also, I worry that your idea might turn into a popularity contest or that there simply won't be enough people voting to warrant fair rewards. --Maeyja 02:31, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

i have to agree with Maeyja here. voting causes all sorts of problems, not the least of which is the popularity issue. for example, if a person is generally disliked but writes stupendous stories, chances are good no one will vote for them because they're disliked. quite frankly, grading rp without reading stories is not a good idea. if people take the time and energy to write stories, then the least they deserve is someone who is willing to read them before grading them. Hafwen 17:07, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Harakan's musings

Both Hafwen's and Maeyja's systems have their merits and their drawbacks. I've been toying with a system somewhere in between which would take good parts from both.

• Rewards should be absolute, not based on relative RP activity during a period. 2 stories of good quality should always have the same rewards.
• Quality is very important. Rewarding quality over quantity can be done in two ways.
  • Have a non-linear grading scale for quality for each story, for example multipliers of 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0 (or 1, 3, 6, 10) for bad, decent, good, excellent.
  • Reward mostly on quantity with a slight quality modifier, but keep rewards lower. Add additional rewards based on individual story merit instead of overall score.
• Rewards should be based on words written, not amount of stories, but not in such a way that just writing twice as many words would discount for lack of quality.
• Spelling and grammar ARE important, but non-native English speakers shouldn't suffer (though a spellchecker can do wonders)
  • Not to mention the fact that even some native English speakers seem to have trouble with their language

Note I haven't mentioned any fixed numbers yet, since I'm not quite sure about the average RP activity over a given period. (This also depends on the length of periods, clearly) Harakan 09:50, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

you make some very good points. the reason for using a fixed number in the system that Kessik came up with (let's give credit where it's due) is to keep grades consistent. we're not relying on one person to set the standard. as for quality, the issue becomes how to decide what a "good" story is. there has to be some basis for that. which is why i suggested using the overall structure of a story. the fact that English is not everyone's first language should, of course, be taken into account. but even a non-native English speaker can write a decent story, if they take the time to do so. what i want to avoid is people who throw up a story in 30 seconds just to get a reward. let's reward the people who are trying to improve RP both for themselves and the mud in general. otherwise, instead of seeing occassional RP, we're going to start seeing none at all. Hafwen 17:13, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

[edit] What you've all been waiting for (Torasin on behalf of the Immortal Staff)

After discussing this for a few hours with the immortal staff, here is what we've worked out as a proposal which is agreeable to us all and workable (if still needing minor tweaking, particularly with respect to storypoint values and in game RP).

The main difference with what has been done in the past is that each storyboard post will be treated as an individual entity, and rewarded as such. We're still working on this, so please do post edits with your comments. The general idea is that you will be rewarded on a regular basis (i.e. as soon as your story is graded) with "storypoints". Storypoints will be added to your character. You can horde them to little hearts' content, or trade them in with the RP imm at the following values:

• 2500 storypoints = 1 rppt
• 1000 storypoints = 1 qp
• 500 storypoints = 50 aqpts

Storypoints will be personal, that is to say rewards will be credited to score, and you will not be able to directly trade storypoints.

In order to determine the reward for each storyboard post, the following formula will be used:

rounddown(#words*language score*quality score*0.4) | (min 1, max 240)

Where language score is defined as:

• 0.25 (many spelling and grammar errors)
• 0.5 (moderate spelling and grammar errors)
• 0.75 (few spelling and grammar errors)
• 1.0 (no spelling and grammar errors)

and quality score is defined as:

• 0.1 (poor quality)
• 0.3 (low quality)
• 0.6 (average quality)
• 1.0 (excellent quality)

Two points: first, who will be doing the grading? Second, let me give an account of what went on on OOC (though I don't now have logs). I said some stuff about RPEQ taking at this rate 417 stories minimum. Harakan indicated to me that RPEQ would also be changed. This might be useful to know in the discussion. - Noran (Playerweb|Talk|Contribs) 02:36, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

for those of us less mathematically inclined, could you give an example using numbers and the formula you've worked out above. so far it looks doable (as long as someone says "Yes, do this") and i can't find any reason to object to it. i would like to see it in numbers though, just to clarify it in my own mind. also, how often would the stories be graded? once a month? twice a month? as soon as they're posted? what i want to avoid is it taking 6 years to collect 2500 storypoints (yes, that's an extreme exaggeration, but you get my point). Hafwen 04:20, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

Noran- The grading will be done. Plans are in place for the grading. Don't worry. As far as RPEQ, lets deal with one thing at a time. Above, you say that no one uses it. I don't *think* I've ever seen it in game. Quite frankly, I don't like it (particularly since as I read the helpfiles, you can buy RPEQ not specific to your race and class and trade it or give it to an alt, which I think stinks. Being able to loot it would be good for PK, as I suppose you could hold it hostage in exchange for some QeQ, but how many PKers RP atm?) Lets deal with how to grade RP, then we'll move on to the next set of problems.

Hafwen- I'm not mathematically inclined either. Lets assume someone writes a story of 300 words with few spelling and grammatical errors and average quality. This would give them a score of 300*0.75*0.6*0.4= 54 storypoints. If for some reason there was a decimal in the storypoint, it would be rounded down. The minimum storypoint for a VALID story (don't forget "useless" stories are punishable, and people trying to abuse the system will be dealt with in addition to given 0 storypoints) and the maximum is 240. This maximum works out to a 600 word story of best quality and spelling/grammar. Given the length restrictions on storyboard posts, it would be hard to get much more than 600 words per post. As far as how often would they be graded, this will be up to the grading staff, and should be done as often as possible.Torasin 12:17, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

seeing it in numbers helps tremendously, thank you. it's a very good system and i would love to see it imped and put to use as soon as possible. -Hafwen (who signed below)

in response to your RPeq observation: currently no one uses because, well, who can afford it? the helpfile says that RPeq is, indeed, race/class restricted. it will be set to the race/class of the person buying it, and since RPpts cannot be traded, there's no way to purchase RPeq for an alt. it is also lootable. i'm not sure which helpfile you read, but pwhelp roleplay_eq on live brings up the one that we were directed to when the file was updated (sometime last year, i think). also, when you say "per post", do you mean that each storyboard, regardless of whether it's continued or not, will be counted for points? it would probably decrease the number of rambling storyboards (i do tend to go on), so that's not a bad idea. i'm just curious. Hafwen 13:40, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

OK, I suppose our interpretation of "set to the race of the person buying it" is a little different... don't forget people have RPd their way into different situations, so I can imagine them RPing that "my character is currently race X, but I've RPd them as race Y in disguise, so it is currently race Y". While this would probably be squashed, I'd rather not deal with it. In any event, once we actually apply a system of grading for storyboards, and make the necessary modifications for in game and RP channel, I will move on to RP eq. As far as "per post", that is exactly what I mean. Stories that are "continued" as you say will not be considered as a whole (for simplicity, we do agree that they require a bit more effort, but there are limitations to everything). We also thought it would be better to let the quality modifier vary between actual posts, because quite frankly the beginning of your story might suck, and the end might be better, and so should have different scores. Or you forgot to turn triggers off for the last post because you were tired, and there are a smattering of "drink"s in there....... --Torasin 14:47, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

Upon discussion, it seems far more sensible to basically "merge" storypoints and rppts. As the idea stands at the moment, Storypoints are basically just "1/2500 of an Rppt". Yes, this is good, yay, granularity, more sensible grading, etc. However, it then seems redundant to have the two. So, what seems most sensible to do instead is to devalue the rppt by a value of 2500 (the conversion rate suggested in the original idea, obviously, this number can be tweaked). We then update helpfiles and pfiles to reflect the devaluation...and, well, yay! Objections/thoughts? - Anheg 13:08, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

can't think of any reason why this would be bad. i say go for it. Hafwen 13:26, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

I agree, sounds like a plan. For those interested, I'm about 20% of the way through the backlog. Back to grading! --Torasin 17:13, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Grading is now complete. I will be discussing with the rest of the immstaff the grades and the grading system to see how it works, and if any tweaking is necessary. Grading of new storyboards will be a continuous affair, and rewards will be given as the grading takes place. Feel free to post/note me with questions, comments or concerns. --Torasin 02:08, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Sorcs

Sorcs are often talked about, so I thought they should get a section here. For instance, I've noticed that with recent (fsvo recent) changes to how a certain miniquest works, by making a room that used to have kittens a bunch nogate (how much can I say without giving away secrets...), it becomes almost impossible for sorcs to run that miniq, not having mana at the end. I obviously wish this weren't so, and wonder at solutions. - Noran (Playerweb|Talk|Contribs) 00:10, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

You can cast a nexus out. Heal up your mana, then go back by the portal and whack the monster. -Rasfene (who should have signed in his post)

Bring a tent/sleeping bag/whatever and just take a rest :) This mini was designed that you have to pass through a few mobs before getting to your final target. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from sleeping on the way though. Yes, this will decrease your speed through this specific mini, but that was the whole point of the changes. Harakan 10:20, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

Healing up mana takes a lot longer / more money than, say, sitting at the old kitten room and logging out after taking a few hundred damage (heals much faster than a full mana). Even so, huge advantage for meleers. - Noran (Playerweb|Talk|Contribs) 11:49, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

That is why Anheg said he is going to fix armor class and make it less "perfect". So even if you have -1200ac melee warrior, you will still receive some dmg next time when the code is modified. Until then, one can keep whining so that the code get modified faster. Rasfene 06:49, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

sorry, but i'm trying to figure out your logic here. meleers have to heal up just like everyone else. you're assuming that all meleers have insane h/d and ac, and that we just wade through the mobs without taking any damage at all. quite frankly, this focus on sorcs really annoys me. in an rp sense, there were very few sorcerers in Eddings' world while there were plenty of meleers. so why all the focus on making sorcs impervious to damage? basically, you're saying that sorcs should be able to be lazy while doing miniquests. i agree with Harakan: there's nothing stopping you from resting in a tent or whatever while you're doing the miniq. just because you don't want to take the time it takes to do that doesn't mean they should change the class to accommodate your laziness. also, you make the argument that potions are expensive. isn't everyone talking about how there's too much gold on the mud anyway? so start spending it on potions. that's why builders make them. apologies if this sounds harsh, but as someone who's used both sorcs and meleers, i don't think changing a miniq so that sorcs can be lazy and cheap is necessary. Hafwen 20:03, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

I don't play any meleers, I'm just saying what I observe: I can watch them take down the relevant mob, logout, wait, login, repeat, very rarely healing. The meleers in question are not particularly buff afaik. And I can do the same thing (I realized) with an alt with nexus - I'm not that buff either. I'm not trying to make it "easy" or trying to be "lazy." I'm just pointing out an incongruity that I have observed. Were the roles reversed, that is, was there a miniquest that I ran often that I realized was much easier as a sorc, I would make the same point - although my person actions are irrelevant here. As to your point on the quantity of sorcerers in Eddings, that's a separate issue, and I encourage you to start a new thread under this heading regarding it. Cheers, - Noran (Playerweb|Talk|Contribs) 12:54, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

forgive my ignorance, but what the hell is the point in logging out constantly? just get a tent and heal up for pete's sake. i see what you're saying, but it just seems like a tremendous waste of time to me. and my statement about laziness applies here: just because people (not you, just people in general) are lazy and don't want to take the time to heal up doesn't mean that classes should be changed to accommodate them. Hafwen 16:48, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

The idea of logging out is that the area repops faster. When one is going for a rareload, somewhat algorithmically, people often attempt to figure out how they can tweak things to maximize the number of times they kill the mob in question per, say, hour, therefore increasing their overall return. This is smart, not lazy. Thus, if it can be done without waiting and healing in between, there is economical advantage. - Noran (Playerweb|Talk|Contribs) 03:58, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

There are, yes, two things that need to be fixed wrt combat, one mostly affecting meleers, the other, casters. These would be the effect of AC on hitting (too easy, now that old aqeq isn't used, to get an AC to the point where no-one lands hits), and the use of a charmie. However, I don't get your point, Noran. Why can't *you* just nexus out and heal, or quit and come back, or sleep? Yes, you have to regenerate mana too, but I don't see the issue. You get to dispel sanc, and (as of yet, *ahem*) mobs don't have the intelligence to do anything about that. Anyway, in a bit, I'll test this with a stock caster and stock meleer to see if there's some sort of general gaping disparity, otherwise, I genuinely can't see any issue - Anheg 11:02, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

ah yes, ok, now i see what you're saying. my only issue with that is, if you were getting your ass kicked by a kid on the bus because you attacked him for his leather jacket, you'd eventually have to stop and get your stitches sown. yeah, i know, RP SchmarP, but you see my reasoning there. Hafwen 17:07, 16 July 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Prophecy Updates

Oftentimes, mortals get upset because they feel like they're left in the dark by the Immortal staff. If something were to be implemented like what Porenn used to do where we had a weekly update of what was going on, then mortals would be happier because they would understand what Immortals are working on or going through. Although there is an Immortal task list, it's hard to see what progress has been made on it. It's much different seeing a note that says "Working on saves" once a week rather than a task list that doesn't change very often. It would create a greater connection between the Immortals and the mortals. In return, mortals wouldn't have a right to complain that Immortals aren't doing anything. It would also lessen the sense of stagnancy that the Mud seems to have. --Mortiris 10:25, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

I would like to point you towards this page to view what important is going on and to stay active in PWiki :). Deranged Horja Fri Aug 3 08:56:14 2007

but that doesn't tell us what's actually being done. it just tells us the enormous amount of things Anheg has on his list to do. maybe he could cross out things on the list as they get done? Maeyja is right, if mortals don't see progress, it tends to translate into "Imms aren't doing anything". i know imms are working, many other people know imms are working, but it's really nice to actually see it right there in black and white. i've heard that imms think mortals are being ungrateful by asking for this communication, but that's not it at all. when we can look at something and say "Oh, hey he got that done! how awesome!" it makes us feel a whole lot better about the mud in general. when we see a list that doesn't appear to be changing at all, the thought becomes "wow, look at all that stuff he has to do. it'll never get done". and i'd like to ask a question of the imms now: why are you so against letting us know on a regular basis what's happening? if all it does is make us feel better, what's wrong with that? Hafwen 12:06, 3 August 2007 (CEST)

Fair point; I'm a fan of transparancy in processes as much as possible; do people have specific ways they'd like to receive updates? - Anheg 12:02, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

[edit] Main Page

There are indications that the main page is going to be messed with. This section is for discussion of what the main page should look like. I think it should have these components, in this order:

• A good introduction: what is a MUD, what is Prophecy, who is Eddings, what makes Proph special (important)
• Any recent news or changes (like the boards of those names)
• Links to newbie-related helpfiles
• Links to a helpfile category

What do others think? - Noran ($$$|Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 20 July 2007 (CEST)

Yes - design isn't my strong point, so if anyone wants to mock something up, that would be both appreciated, and possibly funded (in the qp sense) - Anheg 12:01, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

[edit] Align

I'm wondering what would happen if we removed alignment from the game. As I see it, it doesn't serve too much practical function, except dictate where you level and what eq you wear. I can see some use, RPwise, with certain characters not being able to wear certain things, like maybe a Grolim couldn't wear a holy UL amulet or something. But in general I think it seems like a hindrance that doesn't serve any real useful purpose. Let me know what you think. Dipheras

if you don't RP then you're right, there really isn't much of a point from an RP perspective. as for dictating eq and leveling spots, make alts of all three aligns and get them to level 91. experiment with eq, check out places to level. it gives you something to do, really, when otherwise leveling would be an even more boring experience. also, align restrictions give builders a chance to make many varying types of eq. if aligns were removed, the possibilities for new eq would be reduced drastically. as it stands now, i can create an area with 3 comparable pieces of eq, each one for a specific align. so from a builder standpoint, align restrictions aren't an hinderance but a help. i think we should leave them as they are. Hafwen 12:02, 3 August 2007 (CEST)

Yep, Hafwen's pretty much got it. I don't really see how it's a negative hindrance (Unless you're neutral, which we're trying to fix, but right now, our priorities are hammering saves code into shape) - Anheg 11:23, 4 August 2007 (CEST)

My feelings on align are sort of leaning towards Dips. Builders too often make it so that every piece of equipment is align based. A generic vest shouldn't be compelled to zap off of someone with an evil heart. That makes no sense from an RP point of view, or a practical point of view. Now yes, having alignment is a good thing since you "can" use that as a builder to switch up things. What would make more sense from an RP point of view is that you can wear "anything". Certain affects could then be assigned as alignment specific affects. So, an example... There's a pendant a servant in the Temple of Belar is wearing. You somehow get that pendant from him. It's a very holy item with a carving of the likeness of the youngest of the gods on it. When a person of a pure heart, or possible even if just an alorn wears it, they get the "extra affects" base on align/race/class. If someone else wears it, they're still wearing a 15ac pendant with a bonus to mana, but are not receiving the protective saves that come from being one with the bear god. Erepitus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

i think one of the reasons for allowing align-based eq is so that people can make items that other people will actually want to use. if i make a neutral-only, level 50 sword that's better than the sword that's currently out there (just an example, i don't know if i can actually do that), then people who are neutral (tolnedrans, for example) will want to use it. so align restrictions are a good thing. it allows for variety in eq at the very least. it also gives builders a chance to build areas that are for specific aligns. level 50 neutral leveling, level 35 good align leveling, etc. if align restrictions were removed, we'd end up with one set of eq with no chance for variety. Vo Seldor, anyone? Hafwen 07:17, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

I actually quite like Erepitus's idea of "aligned" (in the more generic sense, rather than the g/n/e) bonus affects. Basically though, yes, what Hafwen says. We're already lacking in ways to vary eq as it is (with the new res system aiming to assist in that); I'm loath to detract from that any further unless there's something exceptionally compelling - Anheg 12:00, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

[edit] Ideas

After reading through notes and communicating with several different mortals and Immortals, I'm under the impression that Immortals are frustrated by nonconstructive ideas/criticism and mortals feel that Immortals simply don't listen, which then creates hostility across the playerbase. By considering these four things before making an argument should improve your argument and consequently improve the manner in which Immortals receive it:

1) Identify the problem 2) Explain what makes it a problem 3) Suggest a solution 4) Support why that solution is viable

To further explain, here is an axample: "I have been blinded 20 times in the last 5 minutes, which has caused such and such problems. My solution is to add more saves to new equipment. This will meet the demands of the new saves code and has the added benefit of having more customized equipment." I see that there's a problem, I've considered your solution, and I see elements that make it viable (although yes, there are other problems to consider). I’d say it sounds fairly reasonable even if it’s still a bit ambiguous. You have my ears, I’m willing to discuss and I don't feel like you're being unreasonable or hostile.

On the flipside, here's a "bad" idea: "Our playerbase sucks. We need to make PK mandatory and get rid of playerclans."

As you see, there is no explanation for why the problem is actually a problem and there is no reason for why the solution is viable. Not everyone will automatically agree and not everyone will automatically understand why your solution is practical. After reading that, I would not agree that it is a problem and certainly wouldn't understand how your solution is viable. It may be inherent to you, but the rest of us don't know. I'd also feel like you're being very hostile, which doesn't make me want to listen to you, which will make me ignore you and your argument.

Realize that with every idea you post, there will be people who will outright disagree with you. If you genuinely think you have a good idea, find ways to formulate your ideas with them in mind. Try to keep your tone neutral and open, regardless of how strongly you feel about the argument or the people listening.

Also realize that the staff will want to ask questions or give you reasons why it will/won't work so take it lightly as a discussion and not as if they are discounting your idea. In fact, I'd take it as a compliment that they see enough merit in your argument to further discuss it. Just because they ask a question doesn't mean they are "shooting down your idea."

I think much hostility could be removed if we all just held hands and made rationales to our claims. It's just like roasting idea marshmallows.

And yes, I realize there's some kind of irony in me posting this because I'm one of those incredibly irrational people who never backs up their claims drives Immortals up a wall.  :P --Maeyja 07:02, 30 August 2007 (CEST)

Just to echo the above, it really *really* helps - Anheg 11:57, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

[edit] Aquest Rewards

I don't know if this idea will be helpful. I think it might help get people aquesting again rather than sitting around afk. Activity in any sense would be a welcome change. Having said that here is the idea.

Harakan was kind enough to make new QP tokens which can be break down QP into as small of percentages as 1/60th. Would it be possible for Floyd to award some of these tokens for aquest rewards? It could be based on time taken to complete, mode of travel for aquest, and amount of aqp awarded. Level would also be considered but I will get to that in a second. I am not sure how this computation would work.

1)Maybe start the time from Floyd until completion and disregarding the time changes from Aquest start to aquest request to aquest complete. Set the time limit to 5 minutes total? You could still finish the aquest after that 5 minutes but not get a token.

2)Under mode of travel, a person would not be qualified for the token if travel spells are used. Basically the same criteria currently used to determine AQP currently awarded.

3)Here is the fun twist. If a token is awarded then the aqp would be included on the token as would the gold and would be half the normal aqp awarded. IE if you get 40 aqp for an aquest the token would be for 1/60th qp and 20 aqp.

4)Level would be taken into consideration for the amount of qp earned. Maybe a breakdown along EQ range levels. 1-24 would get 1/15th of a qp, 25-49 would get 1/20th of a qp, 50-74 would get 1/30th of a qp, and 75+ would get 1/60th. The reason for this breakdown would be to give lowbie and newbies a chance to earn more. It is also harder to aquest at lowbie levels and most people don't do it. Also, some quests are geared towards higher level chars and newbies/lowbies choose not to participate because of level. This would get quest points to lower level newbies.

Benefits would be that it would slowly infuse more QPs into the player base. It might get people to connect and aquest for the additional award. The tokens would be transferable and auctionable which could stimulate the economy of the mud. It would also give people a chance to Qenchant over time.

Again this is just a suggestion and I am sure there is room for improvement. Naloh 18:59, 12 May 2008 (CEST)

At this point, any change would be a good thing. Just one thing: You do not complete aquests at Floyd, you complete them with the mob that Floyd initially sends you to. Changing this would require a change in coding, as well as updating helpfiles. The currents coder(s), for whatever reason, are apparently no longer coding. I could be mistaken, but the lack of anything in the last .. year? .. suggests that they are doing other things. It's a good idea and a tweaking of the code to implement this, or something comparable, would be a huge step in the direction of getting this mud active again. Hafwen 19:05, 12 May 2008 (CEST)

[edit] Abriam's thoughts

[edit] New areas

I think an extremely hard area with one random piece of rewarding eq will make old-timers interested and motivated to start playing more. It would require players to team up to be able to finish it and preferably work out tactics, etc. I know it will require precious balancing and someone to build the area, and it would also require that standards are set so it won't be too powerful, but it should be highly sought-after eq. Preferably for a weapon, it should have a great base damage, some special flags but require it to be enchanted to be very powerful, so there's the risk of destroying it and having to team up again for another run. Same but with ac for any protective gear.

"A great base damage" is fairly meaningless, as essentially everything at 91 already uses the maximum (40) base. Making it happen will also be a slow process (build/check cycle), but yes, probably worthwhile - Anheg 11:33, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

[edit] New skills/spells

I believe that adding a new, class-specific skill or spell to every class will make it interesting for people to start exploring the mud again. It would have to be perfectly balanced to not ruin the balance the mud currently has. I would suggest that at least 3 ideas per class are thought out before choosing the ones that should be implemented so it's easy to choose equally good things.

[edit] Ideas

Circle (Thief and/or Poisoner)

The skill to circle around the target while in fight and perform a backstab.

This clearly wouldn't just be a lagless attack but constrained somehow.

Possible constraints would be that the target has to be blinded and/or slowed (if thieves can slow people?), the longest lag after the skill that you ever experienced, or that you have some major vulnerability after the circle and if it fails.

Doesn't seem to fit the style of bsers at all, they're supposed to be avoiding static melee, or am I missing something? - Anheg 11:41, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

Bull/Rush/Bullrush (Berserker)

Making it possible for a berserker to run from one (three?) rooms away to inflict a critical hit on the target, sending it yet another room away and/or knocking it to "sleep".

What sort of situations are you expecting to see this used; I suspect it's going to be too slow/faffsome for pvp? - Anheg 11:54, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

Knock (Berserker/Warrior/Guardsman)

A skill that knocks the target to "sleep".

Don't know if this exists already, "help knock" doesn't give anythink and the command knock for a sorc is for knocking on doors :)

How wouldn't this be a renamed sap, ooi? - Anheg 11:54, 28 June 2008 (CEST)

Magical insight (Priest/Sorcerer)

Lists the spells a target is affected by.

[edit] Existing skills/spells

[edit] Acid blast

This is the spell normally used as a base attacking spell for magicians on other muds.

However, on Prophecy it seems too bad to be used.

Instead, draconian spells are used as standard spells.

I would like to see a change in this.

The current situation with 20 mana for acid blast (which inflicts higher damage but has a much longer lag) and 10 mana for draconian spells with virtually no lag at all could be changed to make acid blast use less mana (ideally 10) and have just slightly longer lag than draconian spells.

It should really be slightly better than draconian spells (the lag of 10 blasts should make more damage than the amount of dracs dealt in the same time).

This would make spellsurge in battle more useful, make acid blast being used more (but still dracs being used because of vulns on mobs).

Not sure we want to make spellsurge much more useful than it is already - Anheg 12:30, 12 June 2008 (CEST)