HITPOINT CHANGES - OFFICIAL DISCUSSION TOPIC

[Syrius]

Please use the space below for discussion regarding the changes to the hitpont structure.

PLEASE keep it constructive! Whining and non-constructive critisism has a high chance of being ignored by staff.

Please also keep it in this area, we don't need a lot of topics on the one subject. Thank you thank you!

HP changes are coming
@Creator MightyE – 2005-05-26 08:21:39
Coming up in another week or so, we're going to make changes to the way that max hitpoints work. This change will be retroactive, and will serve to rebalance an outstanding issue that's been around for some time.

Most non-dk-related hitpoint increases are going to become temporary, and reset when you kill the dragon. This is to address the ability for players to focus on becoming extremely hitpoint heavy, hence becoming practically invincible in PvP, or at least leading to PvP encounters that take an absurdly long time.

Because this change is retroactive, and because in the current code, we don't have any way to distinguish between the ways that hitpoints were gained, we're going to basically wipe the slate clean across the board. That doesn't mean that we're just going to rob you of your max hitpoints and hang you out to dry. You'll get reimbursed 2 gems for each hitpoint we take from you. You can re-spend them however you see fit, but beware that LoneStrider is still going to be hanging out in the forest, so I recommend you don't horde them.

We'll be tweaking exactly what does and does not give permanent hitpoint increases over time, initially probably only dragon kills will give permanent hitpoint increases.

We'll probably also work on tweaking the value of temporary hitpoint increases here and there to make some things a bit more worthwhile or less worthwhile as it becomes apparent that changes are needed.

You're welcome to submit constructive feedback regarding the changes, just be careful to distinguish your comments from whining, flaming, or other forms of non-constructive criticism. We will listen to you if you've got something to say, and can say it without being demeaning.

Thank you!
:D

[ElxBorracho]

Respectfully, I oppose this change.

What is the purpose of having "Toughest In the Realm" based on hit points, if hitpoints become dynamic?

I'd really like to know all the reasoning behind this proposed change before I make a full rebuttle.
Is it souly due to the situation with PVPs?

I don't think hitpoints are that special. If you are low in the ranks of course you will not be able to beat someone with 1000+ hitpoints. But I've been killed many times by people 5-15 DKs lower than me with the right Atk/Def build and not that many hitpoints.

It was said we can dump them back into Hitpoints after a DK, correct?
Each DK after that would the cycle repeat? (Refund, then respend?)

[ChattyTrog]

I may or may not be confused. I'm going to work out a hypothetical, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I have 607 extra HP accumulated through gems, specials, and a certain module. These 607 HP are going to be replaced by 1,214 gems. I can do with these gems as I please, but Lonestrider will be licking his chops. So using these gems as a max HP booster won't be permanent anymore; they'll most likely work like Tynan's workouts and gradually be reduced back to base. Using dragon points will be the only way to really permanently increase HP. Is this correct?

And does this mean that my level 4 player will have the same toughness as a level 4 farmie, and a level 4 McD? This post is purely for me to fully understand the changes. Any criticism I may or may not have will only come after I fully understand.

[SaucyWench]

Woh. Please let me do some explaining so that people don't panic.

First - the hitpoint cap will change according to DK number. The formula will be

Level x 10

plus

Any hitpoints bought with Dragon Points (5 x Dragonkills is the maximum)

plus

Selected special events and hitpoint purchases MIGHT be permanent.

plus

We will probably allow you to re spend *some* of your Dragon Points.

Not all players will have that many. It all depends how you have spent your dragon points and the specials you have encountered.

So, if you have 50 dragon kills, your maximum hitpoints at level 1 will be around 260 plus some. At 100 DKs, it will be 510. Higher DK players will still be tougher than farmies. Just not eons tougher anymore.

Many players will still choose to stay UNDER that. Like, me. =) That's fine. Let's say, for example, that a player had 100 DKs and 610 hitpoints. They would get those 200 gems back in hand and be set at 510. ALL IN ONE GO... Not gradual like Tynan. Any they buy from there will be lost after DK.

The thing is... we have some big, exciting, fun, good changes we want to put into the game. And they are all being held up by the unfairness that we have with hitpoints so far. So instead of launching a hugely changed game at you... we have decided to go half way, and bring this part in first, to give you plenty of time to adjust and adapt your strategies.

This will mean that McD is no longer invincible. It will mean Booger might be able to *win* against someone 100 DKs lower than him. Those high players who kill you every single day will now find it very hard to be total bullies.

We *MAY* make the gems buy MORE hitpoints as a BONUS, seeing that you lose them each DK. Saucy is campaigning with Kendaer and MightyE to try to make it fair for you. We'll let you know. There will also be some specials that give permanent hitpoints. These are still being worked out.

Tynan will be changed. We're still determining how.

I am also going to DEMAND that nobody makes any totally negative remarks about this system until it has been in place for a week. Constructive ideas are fine. Screaming, threatening to leave, threatening not to donate... all those things do is frighten lower players and worry people for NO reason.

As has been shown in the past, we make changes that sometimes have negative facets in the beginning but we ALWAYS introduce changes for the long term good. And many of them have become loved and improved the game. So please, give it a chance.

[Greenhorn]

Hm, my extra hp came form special events and I have only 30 of them. Since I have almost nothing to loose I don't feel bad (looks nice that I be able to kill JCP), but I think that's unfair. It is possible to determine how much extra HP came from DK, since there are limited number of ways how to spend DK point: (DKcount - points_spend_on_the_other_way)*DKHPvalue should give max number of HP available to player. If the player has less then max (he lost some of them is some places) then he will carry over current number of HP, other way maxDKHP.

By the way, I find lately that Forest Fights, DKs, and PVPs are less challenging for me because I am very rarely killed. Maybe, it will bring new thrill into game, but I am sure that most of more experienced player will be against.

I wrote this post BEFORE SaucyWench's post was available. Since that post is what I proposed, you have my vote YES.

[ChattyTrog]

Thanks, Saucy. That helps so much.

[JCP]

Ok, I'll try to answer some questions.

1. Just because we currently have a Hall of Fame list does not mean we cannot make changes. Maybe we will get rid of that list, but probably not, since it will still be useful - you'll just see a lot more activity on the list as temp hitpoints come and go, and a smaller spread as the permanent hitpoints will be capped.

2. The reasoning is not solely because of PvP. There are actually a few reasons.

One of which is that the "high hitpoint" strategy is one that only seems effective, and while many players try it, most eventually regret that decision and try to shed those extra hitpoints eventually. This is a way to prevent those "mistakes" from occurring.

Another is that the "high hitpoint" strategy only makes the game last longer. Reducing the hitpoints for players and creatures will shorten the combat rounds, which should reduce server load. It should also make your buffs last through more battles.

There are probably many more, including the most important one: positioning ourselves for future changes to the game. We do have specific plans for improving the game, and although I am not at liberty to discuss them, those plans require us to get the max hipoint situation under control.

3. The refunding will not be a continuous process. It will be a one time event to reset everyone because we are changing the rules, and not a cycle.

4. Yes, this is dumping a whole lot of gems into the game at once, and Lonestrider will be a real danger for many people.

5. The mechanics will work just as described in previous responses, so that the max hp will increase with each DK, keeping the edge DKs give players but making it more manageable.

6. As long as JCP stays level 18, he is out of pvp range and unbeatable. When I play a cycle, I am certainly able to be killed and often am.

[ElxBorracho]

Thanks so much you two.
I'll read and digest on my lunch break. :)



This will mean that McD is no longer invincible. It will mean Booger might be able to *win* against someone 100 DKs lower than him. Those high players who kill you every single day! Will now find it very hard to be total bullies.



Well, I do like the sound of that.
After breaking 1000hp it seems like very few people want to attack you.
And I want a shot at McD... well maybe in a few more months.


Another is that the "high hitpoint" strategy only makes the game last longer. Reducing the hitpoints for players and creatures will shorten the combat rounds, which should reduce server load. It should also make your buffs last through more battles.



I like this as well. Id love to DK in 5 days or less. Ok, now you have me interested.

[ChattyTrog]

One more comment, just as a clarifying measure.

If DKs are the limiter for hitpoints, I don't see how McD will be any easier to beat. Hypothetically, if two players still choose the high hitpoint route, and have their respective maximums for their DKs, attack and defense become the sole deciding factors (and the pesky RNG). So if a player with 50 DKs and a player with 70 DKs both have maxed their att/def with dragon points, I don't see how the lower player stands a chance at winning. Would this not create an even bigger imbalance in PvPing for overachieving players such as myself?

I do want to reiterate my thanks for Saucy and JCP for helping us understand.

[SaucyWench]

Sure. Tynan still exists. Petra still exists. Ella still exists.

To put it into perspective... McD might not be the best example, but let's imagine a player who has about 100 DKs. Say... Qwyxzl. Let's pretend he likes having high HP and stays at 510. I personally hate them, and I could also have 510, but I decide to stay around 150. (Incidentally, we *are* both at about the same level in the Hall of Fame.)

Now... who would win in a PvP match?

The answer is... we don't know. I don't know how he spent his attack and defence. I don't know whether he spends all his gems on staying married, like I do. I might suffer for wanting to be married. It might be that he ends up with 500 more HP in a fight, if he decides to spend on hitpoints each DK.

Is it making sense now? There will still be people of different strengths and there will still be different strategies. This just removes some of the standover tactics and means we can bring in other things later on.

[ChattyTrog]

Well, I understand the points you and JCP have made. And I certainly understand that this change is necessary for future changes. One step backward for two steps forward.

I'm not sure I still see the logic in the balancing of PvP attacks, but I will rest my incessant questioning until more people have had the time to post and their questions answered. But thank you, again, for trying to explain it to me, even if right now I might be still confused.

[JCP]

Ok, "how high dk players will be easier to beat".

1. Their potential advantage in hps is reduced, so you won't have to cause so much damage. It is easier for any player to cause 100 points of damage than it is for the same player to cause 1000 points of damage.

2. The RNG should even out over time, so a shorter battle has less opportunities for a player to use their statistical advantages. Statistics need a large population to work out. A smaller population does not necessarily match the statistics.

Essentially, with enough hitpoints, someone can make the battle last long enough so that the effects of the RNG are minimized. When the RNG is not minimized, then there is a much greater chance of the lesser player getting lucky and pulling out a win. (Of course, they can be unlucky as well, but we're just stating that now luck plays a larger factor than before.)

[elWizz]

Would it be a bad idea to launch a Gem Bank? I saw one at some other server. You also received gems when you killed someone in PvP. This would be easy to abuse though, so maybe it isn't the best idea, but I vote for some kind of safe for my 2000+ gems.

[ChattyTrog]

Logic finally recieved. Thank you.

And I wouldn't hold my breath on the gem bank. I believe that is one of those things that Central has vowed never to do.

[JCP]

No gem bank.

This should rebalance everyone - people who got gems and then spent them on a temporary benefit, like charm, will be on equal footing with people who spent gems on previously-permanent-but-now-temporary hitpoints.

It will just take a bit of mental adjustment to start thinking of all the hitpoints you gained as gems. Or rather, more like gem IOUs which we'll be redeeming all at once.

But no gem bank as a result, since controlling the gem population is also something needed for future enhancements.

[feahyarmen]

Over months I buyed HP from Cedrik just to reach an acceptable growth to attack McD. After many tries I finally killed him 2 weeks ago, even being more than 60 levels below him. Lucky was at my side, but I had demonstrated that there are no invincible players if ones focus in some goal.

With this change, I'm not sure if one could defeat a very high player again, since apart of grow in hit points, there's attack and defense points difference, and very big in some cases, that will not be subsanated anymore by buying HP.

As you may have guessed, I'm not raw happy with the change because very old players will have no big difference with newer ones, but, as it was said, one step backwards, two steps forwards. Better yet, besides gems refunds, you could add a game benefit like new mounts, implementing the PvP Tournaments, a T-Shirt with JCP's clown character, whatever to make us less sad :)

[SaucyWench]

Unfortunately, gem banks reduce their *specialness* (if that's a word). We want gems to be very special. And dangerous to carry. So, we purposely make LoneStrider hunt you down, to force you to make a decision on how to spend them.

It sounds mean, but what we're actually doing is shaking up your comfort zone. Making anything safe, makes the game less interesting and changeable. We want players to have to make decisions, not just plod along with the same old tactics.

We've always had a choice. We could leave the game the same and never change anything. Nobody would ever complain about changes, but players would all quit out of boredom. So what we do instead is bring new things in and change the rules a bit every now and then. We think it's far more likely to keep players here than the same old thing.

[JCP]

The one step backwards, two steps forward is actually a very appropriate description.

The new hitpoint rules are intended to better position us for enhancing the game, and the plans include addressing many of the concerns raised about diversity and new stuff.

Unfortunately I have no idea how long it will be before those enhancements are activated, only that we will be taking the very important first step with this change to hitpoints.

[SaucyWench]

Those who have read this thread already please read my first post again. I have clarified the formula (and a few other things).

[MetaDadaranel]

After reading this thread in its entirety, I am still ambivalent towards the coming change. Yes, the promise of changes to increase my enjoyment of the game is of interest, and yet I still feel that I am getting a raw deal. My gem expenditures to date have focused mainly on hitpoint increases. Sure, I give to Foilwench and the fairy at every opportunity, and I purchase mounts, but the lion's share of my gems have gone to hitpoints. I do this because I want to be good at PvP, and I think my DK-point assignments plus my hitpoint increases facilitate this. I've surprised a good amount of higher DK players, either because a longer fight gives me the opportunity to get lucky, or simply because I'm better statistically. I think it gives me a better chance in the forest, too, to have spent my gems as I did. Lonestrider is much more survivable, and I have better odds when travelling of making it to my destination intact. High hitpoints give me the ability to conserve my special use points for when it's critical, and not have to waste them early and then do without. In short, high hitpoints keep me alive. There's offsetting costs, as it takes a lot more gold for me to heal than it would were I not in possession of the extra hitpoints, and sometimes the RNG is not kind and doesn't give me enough gold to heal myself. Actually, often the RNG is not kind and I find myself hemorrhaging gold to keep myself from actually hemorrhaging. I have been a Felyne since the introduction of the race, and I think this change will make the race superfluous. After the change, I will be in possession of a plethora of gems, which, after I get a gryphon and the last three or four tattoos, will be worthless to me. Will the haberdashery be changed, perhaps, to accept gems so that I can get rid of them? It's either that or spend it on charm, I guess, and I have no real interest in that, unless, are the gauntlet hitpoint increases permanent? Luckily, I have spent no DK points on hitpoints, but what of those people who have? They're going to get gems and basically have wasted their DK points, it sounds like. I don't know, there's been hints of a light at the end of the tunnel, but I'm not convinced it's not an oncoming train.

[jrminga]

perhaps i'm merely being cryptic, but who said that having high HP was an undiluted Good Thing, with no negative effects?

[SaucyWench]

No, as in the summary, those who spent DK points on hitpoints will keep them.

I know how you see your fights. I know you believe that having a lot of hitpoints keeps you alive when a Tiny Mouse keeps hitting you and hitting you and hitting you. What you don't realise (as JCP hinted) is that the mouse is FAR more powerful and dangerous for you than it is for me, and I'm much further ahead in DKs.

LoGD's worst kept secret. High hitpoints don't make it easier in the forest. They make it much, much harder. I have 105 dragon kills, and I used to have 1000 hitpoints at level 1. Forest fights lasted 5, 10, sometimes 15 rounds. My mount was exhausted so fast that it was almost useless. I got hardly any flawless fights after it was exhausted. I watched in frustration as players sped past me in the hall of fame. Their secret was the low hitpoints.

I'm a convert now. I have about 140 at level 1 (less, sometimes) and my fights last 1 or 2 hits against monsters with about 150 hitpoints. My mount lasts for 50-70 fights. Does yours? Can you imagine how many flawless fights I can get in a row - while you struggle against monsters with 700 hitpoints?

Something to think about: Those whose hitpoints go down by a lot will notice that the forest fights get easier! Yes. You will see, and I think players will be more positive when they see the flow on effects.

[Uadjet]

My apologies...I typed too slow and was answered before I asked.

[ChattyTrog]

Saucy, I for one realize the negative effects of a high hp base. But I also realize that there are currently two strategies for DK progression. Strength versus speed. It seems to me that this change will start merging the two together. As has been said numerous times, this game is about exploration. Why should that ideal be limited to module secrets as opposed to strategy, also? I hate to play the devil's advocate, and I know that this will not affect the outcome, but these are merely concerns of mine. And granted, I might be a bit biased. I seemed to have found a great medium for strength and speed. A look at my past DK speeds and PvP records will prove this. I'm moving quicker than those around my level, but I'm still able to hold my own in a fight. I'm a bit scared of losing this versatility. And I understand the 'against complacency' attitude. I really do; I even agree with it. It just seems that your forcing players to choose the other road. You converted. And others have as well. I know that one route will lead to faster DKs, but I still choose to take the other path. Shouldn't that be our choice?

And as to the luck aspect mentioned earlier by JCP. Is that a good thing? I'm not sure how realistic this game is meant to be, but luck didn't play a very big role during the actual setting of this game. There really should be no reason for me to be worried about dying to someone with 50 less dragon kills. In a real life setting, slaying a dragon should make you faster, stronger, smarter, all because of the extra experience you have that younger warriors do not.

These are merely concerns of mine that this change will lead to a more homogenous player base. I think variety is key to having a successful game. Thanks for listening.

[Marcus]

And as to the luck aspect mentioned earlier by JCP. Is that a good thing? I'm not sure how realistic this game is meant to be, but luck didn't play a very big role during the actual setting of this game. There really should be no reason for me to be worried about dying to someone with 50 less dragon kills. In a real life setting, slaying a dragon should make you faster, stronger, smarter, all because of the extra experience you have that younger warriors do not.


We must believe in luck. For how else can we explain the success of those we don't like?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

[ChattyTrog]

Touche.

[Stank]

Hey look, I'm in the Forums! Ahem, right...

This is pasted from my rant in the Square:

(11m11s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "The idea of resetting HP is, in my opinion, flawed, for many reasons: 1) It is balanced. Those that become varitable gods in the PvP rings suffer in many other aspects of the game..."
(9m58s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "Those with large amounts of HP confront monsters much stronger than those without. I have 400+ base HP, and have asked around. I know this to be true. If the only problem, then..."
(8m46s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "Is that the fights take to long, then simply add a 'fight to the finish' feature to PvP fights. You can't run from them, so you have to fight to the finish anyways. 2) It is a strategy, as much as.."
(7m16s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "Beefing up the amount of turns you have per day is. Does that also increase the length of playing time and have it's flaws? Yes. I believe it is unfair to punish those with a strategy that works..."
(6m16s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "very well in only one aspect of the game. Does it cost alot to heal? Yes, but that is a downside of the strategy, a drawback of having one that works so well in combat."
(4m30s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "3) I think it's almost over... I don't PvP, the HP is only for PvP protection from gods. Without my HP I would be killed, without winning a fight, every night, in fights I otherwise cannot win..."
(2m53s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "Which, to me, seems really unfair. 4) Finally, I spend my gems on HP, mainly because it seems the only worthwhile invest of these precious stones. Once your choice mount has been purchased,"
(1m7s) <BoI> Steward StanktheMagicSkunk says, "There really is no other valuable thing to buy with your gems other then HP. Making this only temporary will make getting over, say, 10 gems utterly useless to higher levels. That is my two cents."

Thank you, and may the right decision be made, whatever it may be.

[SaucyWench]

Trog - Sure, everyone will actually still *have* choice - for you and I, to the tune of around 500 hitpoints even. A lot of high-hp players are justifyably scared and angry. The point that many of them are missing is that currently, hp have no cap. Players can buy and buy and buy and buy their way to the moon and the sheer range of the HP possibilities is very unfair.

While you and I worked to get where we are, and put the effort into becoming the top players, there are another 6,000 players below you and I. Do you remember what it was like to be a Farmboy? It's now a hundred times harder, and that is not an exaggeration.

We lose 99% of our players before they reach DK 5! A good part of that is the fact that they get killed night after night after night.You and I used to get killed too, but back when I started there was still a chance of surviving the night.

Perspective. There are about 100 players who will hate this change because they get handed 500-1000 gems and lose 250-500 hitpoints.

Of the 6,000 players on this server more than 5,000 of them are farmies.

Players like you and I who have the *chance* to have insane numbers of hitpoints are being bullies. It's not fair to the *majority* for players to have 50 DKs and 1500 hitpoints. It feels unfair to those strong players losing their perfect grip on the top spots, but it's an advantage I personally don't feel is fair or contributes to the player community on the whole. While you're pummeling a player 20 Dks below you this week, think about how they feel when it happens.

[SaucyWench]

Hey look, I'm in the Forums! Ahem, right...

This is pasted from my rant in the Square:

The idea of resetting HP is, in my opinion, flawed, for many reasons: 1) It is balanced. Those that become varitable gods in the PvP rings suffer in many other aspects of the game... Those with large amounts of HP confront monsters much stronger than those without. I have 400+ base HP, and have asked around. I know this to be true. If the only problem, then.. Is that the fights take to long, then simply add a 'fight to the finish' feature to PvP fights. You can't run from them, so you have to fight to the finish anyways. 2) It is a strategy, as much as.. Beefing up the amount of turns you have per day is. Does that also increase the length of playing time and have it's flaws? Yes. I believe it is unfair to punish those with a strategy that works... very well in only one aspect of the game. Does it cost alot to heal? Yes, but that is a downside of the strategy, a drawback of having one that works so well in combat. 3) I think it's almost over... I don't PvP, the HP is only for PvP protection from gods. Without my HP I would be killed, without winning a fight, every night, in fights I otherwise cannot win... Which, to me, seems really unfair. 4) Finally, I spend my gems on HP, mainly because it seems the only worthwhile invest of these precious stones. Once your choice mount has been purchased, There really is no other valuable thing to buy with your gems other then HP. Making this only temporary will make getting over, say, 10 gems utterly useless to higher levels. That is my two cents."

Thank you, and may the right decision be made, whatever it may be.
Stank, you should know better than to rant like that in Degolburg. Please don't.

Your comments are allowed to be heard though, and I'll answer them.

1) No, incorrect. The way it is is NOT balanced and that is why we are changing it. You are only looking at it from your own perspective. All the players you smash with that high HP do not care that your forest fights are hard because it doesn't affect them. They are affected by the fact they can never beat you. Even if some of them buy HP... the others could spend it all and still get smashed.

Game Balance is not about one strategy vs another. It is about ensuring all players have the chance to have a fair go, according to where they are.

2 and 3) You believe it unfair to punish you for being strong. Your strength is currently punishing all the players who don't like PvP and also the 5,000+ players below you. Is that fair? Bear in mind, the gods above you that kill you now will *also* lose their HP just like you.

4) We have hinted already that changes are coming and gems will be involved. The fact that you see nothing else worth spending on may well change when it is the only way you can gain HP, or when new items crop up that you might find you can't live without.

[Stank]

Also, as my third cents, I realize that yes, if I lose my HP the forest fights will be easier. I have known this for quite some time, yet keep chosing to add to my base HP. Why? Because I'm insane. No. Well, yes. But it's that and the fact that I want to be tougher in PvP. Do I want to DK quickly, or even under the timespan of over a week? Sure. But I also don't want to be massacred by people whose attack and defense is so well over my own it's not even funny. I'll stop adding, if things don't change, at a base of 500. I like round numbers. Afterwards I plan to DK enough to make it at least even out a little, switching over to a dwarf so that my weapon and armor will be upgraded quicker and the fights won't be so lopsided.

I believe science has proven that for every action there is an equal, yet opposite, reaction. This is the fundamental ideal in chemistry equations and properly functioning systems: balance. I personally believe that the system is currently balanced. Am I opposed to a change? No. Just one as drastic as the imposed one is. I like the idea that the amount of permanent HP you can have will progressively increase, and I feel the administration is on the right track, but I do not feel that it is there yet. I am sorry, and I appreciate all the work that has been put into this game and the coding put into these changes, but I simply do not feel they are right. Not yet. Increasing your amount of HP adds some uniqueness to the game and your character, a constant effect in an ever resetting sea of powers and abilities. And this, I feel, is a good thing.

[Stank]

These are all very good points, and it is indeed a very complicated issue. The bottom line is famies will be killed in every fight, Hit Points or not, bue to the difference in attack and defense. And I do feel it is unfair to punish other player because I am stronger then them, which is why I DO NOT PvP, but it will happen anyways do to the aforementioned differences in attack and defense. I've been turning it about in my mind, and I suppose the changes may work if instituted correctly, which the administration has a good track record of doing, but I worry that the game will lose a valuable element of strategy and individuality if all the players are rounded off into another mass of set ranges.

On the other hand, the news of gems being used for other productive means is very pleasing to my ears indeed.

[SaucyWench]

It's about scale. The Farmies themselves will get killed either way, sure. But at the moment, some players with just *two* dks can have 100 more hitpoints than a 1DKer. If that was capped to say, 20-30, then sometimes the RNG would let the 1DKer win against them.

If you multiply that out, what you find that on the whole, players would find the PvP much fairer.

[ChattyTrog]

Well, considering I've been very reasonable and logical with any comments I've made, I think that 'attack' might have been unjustified. I know that you did not mean it as an attack, but it sounds quite like it.

First, I very much understand that being a farmie now is quite different from being a farmie when I was one. The changes made since that time has definately made for an increased difficulty level. And while I'd like to think that it would give a greater sense of accomplishment, I know that it is more likely frustrating then it is rewarding. But on the converse, I had to live most of my character life with only 8 - 15 FF a day. But then we added the donation rewards system that helps the younger ones out. And we added Wen. Another certain plus that was not around during our time. The wide array of mounts and familiars available also helps the younglings, also. I know that there are also changes that have hindered a farmie's ability. These have already been discussed, so I won't talk about them here.

And as for attacking players 20 DKs below me, well I'll still be able to handle them next week. I for one, however, try to attack the higher players. Sometimes I lose, I admit, but that doesn't mean I relecate to only slaughtering farmboys and villagers. Looking at the PvP list in my history, I've only attacked one character below centurion level in the past week. Ask some of the barons and wizards and councillors. They feel my 'wrath' much more than the beginning players. I know not all do this.

And of those 5,000 farmers, how many reach level 10? I seriously doubt that the ones who stop before then are quitting because they find it too hard. They might find they don't have the time to be competitive. They might just not like the style of the game played. Who knows? And will this really allow a farmer to defeat a sorceror in PvP. Certainly not, except under extreme circumstances. And I don't remember anyone telling me that McD was a bully when he attacked me as a level 15 farmboy. I felt honored, actually.

Plus, you must look at it from our point of view. You are not as active with Goddess Saucy as you once were. You have put most of your time and effort into this game on a higher level, and you are eternally in my thanks. As well as JCP and MightyE and Kendaer who never seem to play. But you and Booger and many others will not be affected by this change at all, will you? At least not adversly. If anything, this is a great thing for those 'built for speed' players. However, the *majority* of us are not like this.

I do not mean this to be retribution for your previous post. I did, however, find it somewhat belittling to suggest that I went out of my way to ruin the experience for other players. I've have never harassed a player, and never intend to. I'm very sorry to have rambled on and on like this. I will not leave this game or stop my donations because of this or any changes.

[ChattyTrog]

We have hinted already that changes are coming and gems will be involved.

And I appreciate that, because I have realized that HP is about the only worthwhile thing to use them on.

But, will these changes go in soon enough after the HP balancing for our gems to be of use with them? Based on what I've heard, probably not. Meaning we'll not have them around when these changes occur. Now I understand that this is probably the balanced way to do this, seeing as how we do not want to create the unfair advantage of all the higher level players getting a huge head start, but it's not very fair, either. You mention keeping it fair for the younger players, but you do not seemed to worried about the fairness for those top 100.

[JCP]

Quoting chemistry fundamentals to me? Heh.

We know this announcement is not being well received by the majority of our vocal players, but as was stated, we believe this change will help that silent majority of farmies, as well as players who have not converted to a lower-hitpoint strategy.

Not that we are restricting players to one hitpoint level. We're not. We are just putting in a cap so that you can no longer overwhelm an opponent with hitpoints.

Unfortunately we can not do this without shaking up the more advanced players.

And yes, we know that we "are not there yet", but that's the point - we need to get there and this is an important step.

For the time being, all you are seeing is the introduction of a hitpoint cap, most likely a gem loss associated with the transition to that cap, and some adjustments to strategy as a result.

There is more coming. I personally promise that the diversity of strategies you are giving up now will be returned several times over when the new features are in place.

Do I know about the timing of those new features? Unfortunately, no. Not enough, anyway.

As far as the new features using gems and established players having a "head start", there's no way to be completely fair. Our hope is that established players will have enough of an advantage in being able to quickly accumulate more gems.

[SaucyWench]

Well, I owe you an apology if you saw it as a personal attack. And many of my comments were intended as a general idea - while your PvP is honourable, BIG characters still kill my 2 DK player on a regular basis. Yes, I do still play =) The reason I do not play SaucyWench is that she can take 12 hours a day to play and that is no exaggeration. I'll paste you a snippet, these are all the kill messages still in my 2 DK player's inbox (names removed):

While you were in Degolburg, Wizard X initiated an attack on you with his Weapon, and defeated you!
While you were in Degolburg, Reeve X initiated an attack on you with his Weapon, and defeated you!
While you were in Glorfindal, Gladiator X initiated an attack on you with his Weapon, and defeated you!
While you were in Glorfindal, Reeve X initiated an attack on you with his Old Weapon, and defeated you!
While you were in Glorfindal, Sorceror X initiated an attack on you with his Weapon, and defeated you!
While you were in Glorfindal, Mayor X initiated an attack on you with his Omnipotence, and defeated you!
While you were in Glorfindal, <35 DK player> initiated an attack on you with his Weapon, and defeated you!
While you were in Glorfindal, Cavalier X initiated an attack on you with his Weapon, and defeated you!

Please note... not one single one of those was within 10 DKs of me. If some of them had not had a guaranteed win ahead, maybe they would have thought twice. If I were a new player, would I feel happy, or totally crushed and disheartened?

[Stank]

Well, no offense meant to any of those players, but you'd have to be stupid with the game the way it is to attack farmies, or people 10 Dks below you, nowadays. The exp. return from that, compared to Hiedi, is simply pathetic! There really is no point in wasting PvPs on farmies at all. In fact, why not post a limit on PvPs? Say, you can't attack anybody 10 Dks or lower, maybe with the numbers decreasing or increasing as you DK. That should stop the farmy feasting.

[ChattyTrog]

I know that that is not an exageration. I remember when I was in AVAST, the sheer number of FF you were able to donate to the clan christmas tree was mind-blowing.

And I understand the inability for across-the-board fairness. It just seems that this will only limit those built for PvP strength. Will those built for speed see adverse changes? I don't see how. This seems to me that logic would tell people to go in the speed direction. If PvP supremacy can no longer be guaranteed, why risk it? Almost everybody dies at night. Those who don't are either McD or lucky. So speed and strength will both die at night. But only strength risks it when they're online? For those of us who base our prowess on strength, it's a much bigger gamble. And I may choose to convert, who knows. I'd have to seriously consider it, though. My satisfaction comes from PvP. KageMusha, for instance, achieves satisfaction in DKing in 3, 4, and 5 days, repeatedly. His satisfaction isn't at risk, much. Mine is. And I'm not trying to sound greedy. I just think that if fairness is the key, we're having to pick the lock.

[lostsoul]

i will give it a shot and wait untill its done to pass judgement..
i dont have a whole lot of use for gems currently

[Waugh]

Good morning everybody.

I really enjoyed reading these posts, thank you Saucy, JCP and ChattyTrog. I think this has been the most constructive forum on a change ever.

Saucy, it was a very good idea to place that disclaimer early in the piece, I feel it was effective and I encourage you to continue to do so.

JCP, you're responses are well thought-out and it shows when replying.

Trog, you're showing us how to ask questions the right way. I really enjoyed your posts especially.

I cannot think of any reason NOT to implement this change. Perhaps my 25 kills and my "Saucy" attidude of lower HP is why. I don't have the luxury or understanding of how it affects many players with the high HP strategy, and I apologize for that lack of understanding. However, it seems that this is not all bad. The cap isn't a low cap, it's quite a reasonably high cap. And it's happening to others around you too.

I do have a couple of questions.

1. There's got to be something we can think of regarding the GEM issue. I am against a bank. You can by 1 tattoo off the bat. Maybe you could buy a great mount you've wanted. Maybe you can start a clan. But it seems hundreds of GEMS are going to be flowing into players hands, and there is going to be a tough time getting rid of them. I like your reasoning Saucy of providing players with a choice in the game of spending GEMS, it is very good indeed. But this surplus may actually inhibit the choice, as there may not be enough choices to get them down to a manageable level.

2. The statement regarding attacking lower players. I doubt you were attacking Trog, Saucy, however it is a way of life in the game. It is actually a driving reason why there's a 2-level cap in PVP. I think I read the statement somewhere, perhaps the FAQ or perhaps the Forum FAQ: Gods need someone to kill too. And I agree with this. I attack lower players. I am not at a part of my game yet where I have set a goal of attacking higher players. I feel many, many, many players attack players well below them, and I think that is ok.

3. Buying Hitpoints permanently. If you ever consider some kind of permanent purchase, it SHOULD be costly. Right now 2 gems for 1 HP is too easy. I'd suggest 10/20 or more GEMS. We associate 10 GEMS as an expensive choice to seek the Eye, perhaps we should associate purchase of permanent hitpoints the same way. An expensive choice.

Hey, I'm all for this change. The future enhancements to the game sound exciting! :D You've clearly stated this pre-requisite of capping hitpoints needs to happen first. Perhaps you guys can give us a few hints now, and over time, of what is to come. It will add to the excitement and anticipation, and perhaps soften the blow?

Thank you for listening.

[ChattyTrog]

fact, why not post a limit on PvPs? Say, you can't attack anybody 10 Dks or lower, maybe with the numbers decreasing or increasing as you DK. That should stop the farmy feasting.

This has been suggested before. And if my memory serves, the coding would've been very difficult. But I can't make there be more 40 - 60 DK players out there. I do what I can, but sometimes I have no one else. I don't like to slum, but sometimes it's a necessity.

And Stank. You have a hp base greater than 400, yet you do not PvP. I'm telling you that you're only hurting yourself. The only thing that could keep you there would be your pride in surviving the night. But tell me, how often do you? I'm not trying to tell you how to play the game, but as someone who knows how things work, I'd suggest you convert one way or the other.

[Waugh]

I have one more honest question.

Is there anything stopping all the players out there with lots of hit points from visiting Tynan and transferring that into something else, right now?

Will they be penalized?

[Waugh]

Well, no offense meant to any of those players, but you'd have to be stupid with the game the way it is to attack farmies, or people 10 Dks below you, nowadays. The exp. return from that, compared to Hiedi, is simply pathetic! There really is no point in wasting PvPs on farmies at all. In fact, why not post a limit on PvPs? Say, you can't attack anybody 10 Dks or lower, maybe with the numbers decreasing or increasing as you DK. That should stop the farmy feasting.

I recently made a 3 day DK, using various strategies that I gave a lot of thought to, and PVP recipients were all less than 5DK, or 20 below me or greater. I am a relatively new player, and was inspired by Man of Leisure for his 4 day DK while still a DK teen. Yet I am very very proud to sit alongst players whom I have no right to be associated with. But I did it.

I look forward to getting stronger and attacking stronger players, and chasing that 2 day DK.

I just want to point out that PVP on player less than 10DK lower than you isn't neccessarily stupid.

[Stank]

Heh heh, don't worry, I accept criticism, and sometimes embrace it. The truth is, by the time I realized my HP was hurting me I had already reached about 200-300 base. So I decided to continue on a principle thing. Besides, I'm having fun matching up against wizard and apprentices and beating people 20 DKs above me. I would PvP, if my morals did not tell me stealing experience from other people who earned it was wrong.

Ahh, so it's a coding issue for the DK limit. I thought there had to be a good reason for something like that being around. Well, Other then giving lesser levels, or defending PvPers, buffs based on DKs I can't see a way around this. But, once again this discussion has degraded into a talk about PvPs and not HP. The simple fact is adding an HP limit will do nothing to stop the PvP issue, other then lessen the blow on farmies when they see how close they were to killing a god. Even then, though, 500 HP seems insermountable to somebody still stuck in the double digits.

10/20 gems per HP seems like a decent idea, though changing the cost that drastically for something that really doesn't help that much (1 hit point) is off. Maybe five gmes?

[ChattyTrog]

And for the record, I'm neither passing judgment nor against this change. I actually agree with it. I'm purely voicing concerns.

And Saucy, in regards to the sure-thing PvPing. Say I'm a knight or an invoker. Will I risk attacking a centurion or reeve if I stand the possibility of losing based purely off of luck? I probably would chance it, but many will not. So could this not have an effect of increasing PvP discrepancies?

[Elessa]

I have one more honest question.

Is there anything stopping all the players out there with lots of hit points from visiting Tynan and transferring that into something else, right now?

Will they be penalized?

the penalty in such a transfer is already there. the changes from tynan are not permanent ones and are merely a redistribution of stats that fade as time progresses.

[Stank]

Okay, so perhaps wise may have been better wording? Definately wiser... Anyways, if you PvP people DKs below you, you will get experience, which is good, you won't die, which is also good, and this will help your speed. But from what I heard about you speed record, Waugh, it was mostly due to flawless fights, of which, I assume based on some lower level math I did awhile ago, will turn into more experience after using four turns of flawlesses rather then one lower DK PvP. I do not have 25 DKs, though, so perhaps you are getting some much higher amount of experience per PvP then I know of currently. I apologize if you think I called you stupid, I know you and know this is far from the case, I simply meant that your idea appeared unwise. I also apologize for ranting in the Square earlier. Halfway through it I remembered there are forums. ^^

[Landon]

Yay look who's decided to join the discussion

I see high hit points as a bonus for those who have played the game and been successful. If they want to use certain means to reduce it, like I do, then that's fine. People should also remember that the RNG can help defeat a high-HP person if the low-HP person gets the RNG on his side. I've done it.

It may be a good idea to find more things to spend gems on, such as even better mounts or extra forest fights.

Here's something to think about... what if you increased the number of gems required to purchase permanent HPs? Instead of Cedrick giving you the potion for 2 gems, why not make the permanent HP potion cost 5 gems?

[ChattyTrog]

Well, Stank. My four FF would have to go a long way before they equaled the 7700 experience I got from one PvP today. By my rough math estimate, I'd say that would take me 35 - 40 forest fights at the level I was on. That's an entire day for me, not a mere four fights.

[Stank]

That's the idea Landon!

Eh hem, well now we are entering the PvP territory for higher levels, of which I have no idea of. So I'll just step over here...

Oh wait, was that 7700 experience from somebody 10 Dks below you?

[Waugh]

Okay, so perhaps wise may have been better wording? Definately wiser... Anyways, if you PvP people DKs below you, you will get experience, which is good, you won't die, which is also good, and this will help your speed. But from what I heard about you speed record, Waugh, it was mostly due to flawless fights, of which, I assume based on some lower level math I did awhile ago, will turn into more experience after using four turns of flawlesses rather then one lower DK PvP. I do not have 25 DKs, though, so perhaps you are getting some much higher amount of experience per PvP then I know of currently. I apologize if you think I called you stupid, I know you and know this is far from the case, I simply meant that your idea appeared unwise. I also apologize for ranting in the Square earlier. Halfway through it I remembered there are forums. ^^

Thanks Stank. I didn't really take it as an attack, but I wanted to point out it's ok to do what the game is designed to do. There's a reason I'm allowed to kill a farmie for example. The game creators decided that would be available, as players with many DK's needed targets too.

Yes, I had many flawless fights. 68.08% of 260 fights. But I had a strategy to do this. I did initiate and win 8 PVP, and I was killed once by Dark Winged Jules in the Inn. But the stragetgy I was trying to achieve, completely worked for me.

Thanks Elessa. Guess what, I thought they were permanent :oops:

5 GEMS is still too cheap I think...

[ChattyTrog]

Here's something to think about... what if you increased the number of gems required to purchase permanent HPs? Instead of Cedrick giving you the potion for 2 gems, why not make the permanent HP potion cost 5 gems?

This would still lead to a discrepency. It would just take longer to materialize. Because reasoning has it that it might take longer for people to gain hp, but that effects everyone. So farmies would still have less hp since they just can't get gems fast enough.

And actually, I do not think 2 gems is unreasonable. Think about it. 1 hitpoint does very little. It's only when these accrue. Maybe cap how many can be bought per DK. Still use gems, but you can only purchase 5 per DK. This allows both attack, defense, and hitpoints to be earned.

And I believe this is what Waugh meant. I stand to lose approximately 290 hitpoints. Coupled with 29 FF, that's an overall increase in att/def of 29. If the gems aren't going to be used for constructive things (mounts, tattoos), then why should I want them? The temporary hitpoints will go away, too. But an extra 14 each on attack and defense would last for quite a while.

[Stank]

But if players are allowed to purchase permanent attack and defense with gems, aren't we essentially just moving the problem to a different area?

[ChattyTrog]

Oh wait, was that 7700 experience from somebody 10 Dks below you?

Actually, that was from someone 19 DKs below me. But aside from Qwyzxl, he was the strongest around.

[ChattyTrog]

But if players are allowed to purchase permanent attack and defense with gems, aren't we essentially just moving the problem to a different area?

I didn't mean using gems for att/def. I mean instead of recieving gems for my hitpoints, could I dwindle my hp down at Tynan's. I guess effectively you've traded gems for att/def, but they're not permanent and it's only a one time thing.

[Nick the Lemming]

Well, no offense meant to any of those players, but you'd have to be stupid with the game the way it is to attack farmies, or people 10 Dks below you, nowadays. The exp. return from that, compared to Hiedi, is simply pathetic! There really is no point in wasting PvPs on farmies at all. In fact, why not post a limit on PvPs? Say, you can't attack anybody 10 Dks or lower, maybe with the numbers decreasing or increasing as you DK. That should stop the farmy feasting.

This one gets my vote, rather than losing 500 or so HP overnight.

My strategy in LOTGD is to increase HP as much as possible through gems, and increase att/def through DKs. To have wasted all these DKs when I could have spent some on HP (which I would have done, having seen the new way things are going to be) bothers me quite a bit, to say the least. It will not level the playing field, because those players who use a different strategy do not have to do anything to compensate for their strategy being destroyed; those of us who have built up large amounts of HP using a different strategy will. It won't stop attacks on farmies by those with 100+ DKs, but a limit on attacking people outside of your DK range (I think the suggestion of 10 is a good one) will stop people picking on farmies.

[Stank]

Actually, that was from someone 19 DKs below me. But aside from Qwyzxl, he was the strongest around.

*proceeds to back up and let the higher levels speak of PvPs* I am sorry oh great killer of people like me. *don't hurt me*

Anyways... So the gist is HPs reset, player a reinbersed with gems, and there's an HP cap. There are questions as to whether the extra cool new gem items will be available to be sold to the players who just had the strategy they so deligently contributed to reset, what exactly will be available to buy and upgrade your character with, who did actually shoot JFK, whether the game will be any fairer to farmies or not;and the only permanent HP will come from DK points, at least for a time being. Is there anything else that I'm missing?

[Waugh]

Yeah, I never ate breakfast and am very hungry!

[Nick the Lemming]

And on the subject of dying every night - I have a Baron and a Councillor of War as my ranks, and I still die with both characters every night - it isn't just farmies who die every night, and that's with 600+ and 500+ HP each.

[Acemaster]

Say I'm a knight or an invoker. Will I risk attacking a centurion or reeve if I stand the possibility of losing based purely off of luck? I probably would chance it, but many will not. So could this not have an effect of increasing PvP discrepancies?

It is most DEFINITELY not a sure fight. Just recently I lost in a match with a Squire 2 levels above me. He had just about as much HP as I did. I have lost to Centurions quite a few times as well. Do note that I always attack players 2 levels above... but 90% of my targets are between 5 and 12 DKs.

[Stank]

It is most DEFINITELY not a sure fight. Just recently I lost in a match with a Squire 2 levels above me. He had just about as much HP as I did. I have lost to Centurions quite a few times as well. Do note that I always attack players 2 levels above... but 90% of my targets are between 5 and 12 DKs.


I have a very simple answer to that. I don't PvP period. :P Either that or wear two pairs of pants. That sometimes helps.

[ChattyTrog]

Do note that I always attack players 2 levels above

As do I, Ace. But you must realize that there are many, many more players between 5 and 12 DKs than there are between 40 and 60. Should I not PvP because I can't find someone with a fighting chance? I'll even risk attacking players with more DKs, though I do educate myself properly. My point is that sometimes a farmie is the only target. What should I do then? Consider my current situation. Level 15, no 'honorable' PvP targets. And I've been waiting online since the NewDay™ began.

[Adrica]

You guys said that you'd be giving 2 gems per hp bumped up- will this happen each time you kill the dragon, or is it just this once?

To clarify- if after this reset I spend 20 gems this time to bump up my HP, when I kill the dragon again do I get those gems back or are they lost forever?

[Waugh]

Nothing is firm yet. These have been ideas floating around.

[ChattyTrog]

They'd be gone for good, Adrica. At least from what I understand from JCP. But Waugh's right; nothing is for certain, yet.

[BLOODDRAGON]

In fact, why not post a limit on PvPs? Say, you can't attack anybody 10 Dks or lower, maybe with the numbers decreasing or increasing as you DK. That should stop the farmy feasting.


The statement regarding attacking lower players. I doubt you were attacking Trog, Saucy, however it is a way of life in the game. It is actually a driving reason why there's a 2-level cap in PVP. I think I read the statement somewhere, perhaps the FAQ or perhaps the Forum FAQ: Gods need someone to kill too. And I agree with this. I attack lower players. I am not at a part of my game yet where I have set a goal of attacking higher players. I feel many, many, many players attack players well below them, and I think that is ok.


Ahh, so it's a coding issue for the DK limit. I thought there had to be a good reason for something like that being around. Well, Other then giving lesser levels, or defending PvPers, buffs based on DKs I can't see a way around this.

The reason there is no DK cap in PvP is because then there would not be enough PvP targets, thats one of the main reason's Heidi was introduced

[Waugh]

Exactly. Do you have thoughts on some of the other ideas Blooddragon?

[BLOODDRAGON]

Exactly. Do you have thoughts on some of the other ideas Blooddragon?

phew... ya know Waugh i would love to but im actualy here just helping the staff out and enjoying the pleasant conversation that i havewith the players in the villages i dont play all that much but i do help when i can.

[Waugh]

phew... ya know Waugh i would love to but im actualy here just helping the staff out and enjoying the pleasant conversation that i havewith the players in the villages i dont play all that much but i do help when i can.

Fair enough!

[JCP]

The "get gems for hit points" would only happen ONCE. We're not going to set up a cycle, just trying to achieve the new steady state.

A fixed DK-limit PvP restriction actually penalizes players for success, and is something I will avoid employing on Central. (A player who does very well and has many more DKs already has targets that do not provide the same % of experience needed per level, and an additional penalty seems unusually cruel.) While introducing a restriction system is not difficult to code, one that is fair to all players is difficult.

But again, we seem to be losing focus on the change.

Yes, this should make the game less frustrating to victims of PvP (and in return, make the game more frustrating for those that attack those victims), but a main reason is to better position ourselves for future changes.

We've done this before, and it makes me a very unpopular person. However, sometimes things in the game get out of control and it is necessary to re-establish control so we can advance.

It is easy to see this as a bad thing, and it certainly is a bad thing since we do not have anything to replace it with immediately.

But it will be worth the wait.

[Waugh]

Thanks JCP. I think you'll find most are intrigued by this and are slightly in favour more than not. There have been voiced concerns and questions though, but I sincerely hope no-one is making grudges against you here.

[feahyarmen]

We've done this before, and it makes me a very unpopular person. However, sometimes things in the game get out of control and it is necessary to re-establish control so we can advance.

It is easy to see this as a bad thing, and it certainly is a bad thing since we do not have anything to replace it with immediately.

But it will be worth the wait.

JCP, you know perfectly that's not true, no need to say that @mods are volunteers and that's highly appreciated.

I think the main point here is that you seems to have really good ideas for the near future, and that requires to limit max HP, as you did before with the hated Lonestrider stealing my preciousss gemsss.

So, as my experience in this game dictates (many years, though I forgot how much), I realize that I'll be among the five most damaged players with the change but I accept it gladly waiting for those new features.

[Furion]

And here I thought you were unpopular because of the clown avatar... :D

Just kidding, we all appreciate the stuff you do for the game JCP, even with your brusque manner. :wink:

JCP (or others in the know), could you please try to have at least one new gem purchase at the reset? I would really appreciate a way not to make Lonestrider very, very happy. :twisted:

One concern that I felt hasn't been addressed enough, is where does the Felyne race go from here? Maybe a lowering of the gold penalty is in order...

[JCP]

You are all just jealous of my avatar.

A new gem purchase? I'm a little hesitant about that. It wouldn't be easy to add something completely different. I could add an expensive mount, maybe a golden gryphon, that was a lot more expensive but not that much (if at all) more powerful.

And as far as Felynes go...

..you know all those hints about what we're planning to do with gems? Felynes were designed to take advantage of that new, future gem thing. I eventually got tired of waiting and decided to go ahead and activate them.

So Felynes don't need to change, since their full purpose has not yet been revealed.

:twisted:

[Waugh]

Ah, JCP, on the contrary. You have an awesome avatar. No doubt. But mine, you see, is very cool :D Hey, it's me.



http://www.mike250.com/gallery/mikeavatar.jpghttp://www.mike250.com/gallery/mikereal.jpg

[Ohtaren]

Just a thought but what if, at least temporarily, you let players spend gems in order to permanently redistribute their Dragon points. Given the type and magnitude of the change it seems reasonable to allow players to readjust their stats, and the players affected will surely have plenty of gems handy. You may be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Overall, I can't say I'm happy about the change, but I've seen a lot of good reasons for it listed and I'm sure the decision was made in the best interest of the players.

[Tyrall]

I personally will be affected harshly by this change; I have around +200hp at 22 DKs, all from forest/gauntlet/gems (none from DK points). I will definitely have to change direction with my character as a result of these changes. I still, however, think it is a good idea to have some sort of cap in the interests of long-term balance.
I do agree with ChattyTrog and Stank on one thing though; too severe a limit might stifle variety. If possible, rather than one 'flag day' where everyone gets dropped to a fairly tight limit as currently suggested, could there be two such days, where an interim (and slightly looser) limit be set? If it turns out the currently proposed solution ends up being a little too aggressive, then people who have all these HP refunded (especially those who lose gems to Lonestrider) will be much more annoyed if the limit is moved upwards!

I definitely do not agree with the DK limit on PVP, as it's already somewhat self-limiting as the returns for small fry are lower.

I have a couple of questions which might not be answerable right now, as I know the plan is not concrete.

Will there be any easy way to determine if any hp gain from forest denizens, town specials, potions, etc. is permanent (as in the current definition), semi-permanent (liable to disappear after DK)? Currently the limited boosts (like the gym) or temporary boosts (such as the way drink buffs work) are pretty simple to differentiate from permanent boosts. Will we just have to wait and see if they hang around after we slay ol' greeney?

When the cap is introduced, I'll probably still be able to go buy a potion and gain a limited number of HP per level (up to 10 at the current suggested limits?). If I attempt to buy over that amount, will I be warned that my gems will be wasted, prevented from buying the HP, or something else? Or will the only potions available be of the semi-permanent kind?

Will there be anything else in the short term to spend this bumper crop of gems on? Currently nothing really appears to be good value for my gems, so rather than hand em over to Lonestrider, I've been sinking them into HP. If there were something else to purchase (even something as simple as extra FFs or temporary attack/defence buffs), it'd be good. A prestige mount might be nice too (I do like the idea of a golden gryphon).

Instead of throwing a couple hundred gems in one go at me (which pretty much guarantees if I step out of the town I'm in I'll get jumped by Lonestrider), would it be possible to trickle those gems to the players (say 10-20 per newday/login)?

Just some thoughts.

[ShellMagnet]

I'm a fairly unrepentant PvPer of anyone I can get my hands on, and I've got some silly amount (>650) of base HP, and all I can say is that this is a good idea.

I have no idea how this is going to change the way I play the game, or what's going to happen, but I'm in favor of whatever shakes it up. Additionally, the coders and maintainers have done the right thing too many times for me to second-guess them now.

I just wish I had something worthwhile to put the gems into. It seems like I'm going to be getting quite a few of them sometime soon, and there aren't all that many tattoos left, nor any mounts/familiars to be interested in.

Everything else is temporary, and while blowing 1300+ gems on a health (not vitality) potion from Cedrik MIGHT allow me to take on one of the Gods of the realm, it's fairly useless. All of the worthwhile things to do with gems are worthwhile things to do with 2 or 10 gems. What can I dump this many gems into? I propose something permanent, but not gameplay affecting. And after the glut is over, leave it open, let people who want to save up gems for status symbols do the same.

Would it be possible to set up a shop for people to dispose of their gems in? Sometime like the gift shop from Christmas, as a way for people to pour the absolutely ridiculous amount of gems into? Lonestrider (the event) is a good enough guy and all, but I don't want him making off with quite that many gems. Then people could have a note in their profile about the nice custom boots or fancy bodypaint or something (the shop should probably have better merchandise than my pathetic imagination is currently coming up with). Nothing that influences gameplay, but still getting people a permanent status symbol for a massive gem investment. Kind of like hats, but with more variety.

Or if gems could be translated to points for a custom title, or custom weapon/armor name, or mount name or something. Yet again, a way for people to get something out of their gems that doesn't affect gameplay at all. (Though this steps on The Lodge's toes, and probably won't happen.)

/me shrugs
I'm just throwing out some ideas for stuff to do with the gems. The trade-in is going to happen, and I'm looking forward to the chaos.

(edit: spelling)

[onedarkdemon1]

maybe since the only way to get permanet hitpoints now will be dragon kill hitpoints maybe they should increase the hitpoints gained from the dragon kill hitpoints

[Furion]

These statements echo exactly what I was thinking. Someone (I thought it was an admin) hinted there would be new things to do with the gems, and so I was hoping we could have at least one of them running when the reset hit. I still get the feeling so far that Lonestrider is going to be very happy.

[Nightwind]

i'm in, looking orward to my 4 gems...

Look, there's more information comming tonight, try to relax...

[Moonchilde]

There have been some small bits of misinformation and misunderstanding occuring as well as some valid points brought up.

Initially, the plan was that at 'zero hour' everyone would be reset to their base HP (10 * level) + any points they have purchased with DK points. All other HP *ALL* would be converted to gems.

In some respects, this is happening still, but there have been some refinements due to some things which have been brought up.

First, tynan buffs. All tynan buffs will be reset when 'zero hour' occurs. This is specifically to prevent anyone who has converted their HP into attack/defense from suddenly winding up with negative HP for however long it takes their tynan buffs to decay back to normal levels. BECAUSE of this, the entire server will be forced to have a newday at 'zero hour'. Yes, this means that if you are lucky enough to predict when zero hour is, (or just happen to be on) you might get a full free days worth of turns, OR if you're in the middle of playing your turns you might get short changed some. This needs to happen so that the tynan buffs get correctly removed. Needless to say we will be suspending the server briefly while 'zero hour occurs' to make sure it goes smoothly.

Second, DK points. Given that this represents a complete shift of balance, a number of people have asked if they would be able to respend/reallocate their dragonpoints. In the interest of fairness, EVERYONE will be forced to reallocate any DK points they have when they next log in. If you ever regretted a DK point spending decision you made, well, here's your chance to fix it.

Next to last, responses to various comments and criticisms. No, you cannot have a gem bank. You should have known better than to ask by now. No, you cannot have more expensive permanent HP potions from Cedrik. All that would accomplish is the same problem at a slower scale. No, you won't be screwed in the forest because you suddenly have less hitpoints. No, there probably won't be a new place to spend gems immediately, but you know what, you can still spend gems on HP potions. They just last until DK rather than forever. That's the *point*.

Lastly, Eric is of course the final arbiter, and this can change if there is good reason for it to do so. At this moment, I am satisfied with what is in the code which is what I am explaining above. Anything else you might have heard or thought you had been told or promised or whatever is not authoritative. What I wrote above *is* the state of the code now and if that changes, people will be notified.

To summarize, the current plan is, at zero hour, you will be reset to level*10 HP AND get to respend your DK points however you like. All extra HP (from potions or faeries, or whatever) will be converted into gems as before. Edge cases like tynan are being handled correctly.

Hopefully this clears up any lingering confusion?

[Waugh]

What else can we ask? You clearly stated you made some adjustments based off messages posted in this forum. We got some say. That's awesome.

I sit back, happy indeed, eager for zero hour.

[Furion]

Saucy, I think you forgot one thing. Has it been decided that there will be an HP limit based upon number of DK's, or is this not the case?

So, Saucy, heard anything about when the eagle, err... gryphon will be landing? :D

I support the change now that I'm fully informed, glad I didn't freak out earlier. ChattyTrog set a great example.

In light of what I just asked, I suggest that the forest fairy and Stonehenge encounters give permanent HP. If, indeed, there is to be an HP limit, then of course if the fairy or Stonehenge tries to give you HP and you already have the max, then the event would fail. (You would not gain any HP, and maybe get your gem back from the fairy.) Or, if it's not too much work, you could code it so that those outcomes are not possible when the player is at max HP.

[Acemaster]

My question to myself is, do I really want to change my DK points? How will this affect me?? WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR MY FUTURE???

I just can't wait 'till I have to pick a college...

[Furion]

I agree with Waugh! Thanks for considering our opinions! I know you always do, but still! :D (thumbs up)

[Moonchilde]

Saucy, I think you forgot one thing. Has it been decided that there will be an HP limit based upon number of DK's, or is this not the case?


This is not the case.

If there are things which give you permanent hp (which is up to MightyE, JCP, and Saucy and the staff of central) then if you get lucky and get a lot of them, then you get a lot. I do know that Eric is sitting on the side of 'no permanent HP except for dragonpoints'.

On dragoncat, some of the things (such as stonehenge and the gauntlet) will continue to give permanent HP. The gauntlet is limited to 1 use per dk there. However, stonehenge, think about it. one of the most deadly specials, but it's one of the few ways of getting permanent HP.. now.. do you enter?? :) (and people say JCP is evil) NOTE: the preceding comments apply ONLY to logd.dragoncat.net!!!

[Furion]

Thanks <Moonchilde>, I think you just convinced me to try dragoncat.

Ebru just suggested in a different thread that you be able to trade the excess hitpoints for favor with Ramius. I know the admins will probably turn this down, but I personally could use the favor a lot more than gems.

Moonchilde, not Sauce. Just thought you might want to know. -Ace

[Elessa]

I have a very simple answer to that. I don't PvP period. :P Either that or wear two pairs of pants. That sometimes helps.

hear, hear!

oh, wait, i have never in 59 dks initiated a pvp. i have had a number of 4 day dks. i can accumulate more exp in the forest than in a pvp.

i look at the yom info telling me what i lost in pvp to someone, so i know what they gained. i can earn that same amount of exp that the attacker did in 4-6 ffs. hmmmm... visit heidi, use the same pvp turn you just slaughtered me with in the forest for the same amount of exp.

i have been reading through this thread and have to agree that while there is usually dismay and upset when changes occur. most of the time the changes do reveal themselves to be good for the game and the players in general. the only thing constant in life is change, so deal with it and adapt.

i look forward to "zero hour" and a reallocation of dragonpoints. nothing like having an opportunity to tweak my stats a little.

[BLOODDRAGON]

Thanks Saucy, I think you just convinced me to try dragoncat.

Ebru just suggested in a different thread that you be able to trade the excess hitpoints for favor with Ramius. I know the admins will probably turn this down, but I personally could use the favor a lot more than gems.


OK Furion, just a little note, Saucy and Moonchilde are not the same people, the previous two post that you commented on you have been calling Moonchilde/Kendaer Saucy.

[BLOODDRAGON]

Well I may as well get things underway on the latest MoTD. I feal that there is a need for a way to address exess hitpoints. I was actually about to suggest that there be an option when you vist the graveyard to sell your soul to ramius. Working along the lines of one point of favor for each permanant hitpoint you are prepared to loose.

Anyone who has flogged me in the fields will realise that I'm not carrying that many HP with me but I'm looking for a way to burn some.

So I'm putting this Idea forward as an alternative to the arbartary strike from on high against the HP hoarders. And lets face it how long must it take to finish a FF with over +500 HP.

[Fionnabhair]

Well, no offense meant to any of those players, but you'd have to be stupid with the game the way it is to attack farmies, or people 10 Dks below you, nowadays. The exp. return from that, compared to Hiedi, is simply pathetic! There really is no point in wasting PvPs on farmies at all. In fact, why not post a limit on PvPs? Say, you can't attack anybody 10 Dks or lower, maybe with the numbers decreasing or increasing as you DK. That should stop the farmy feasting.

This is a reality on the dragoncat server. There are DK "bands" that restrict players from PvPing players significantly higher or lower in DKs. The population on the dragoncat server is *much* lower than on central. The effect for my player is that I don't PvP because there aren't many players who parallel mine in DK number and HP. I have 30 DKs, so anyone in my "band" has 26 or more DKs - most of these are *way* more powerful than me in terms of HP and attack/defense. This is not so much of a problem for other players - this is just how it affects my character. This would be different on central because of the difference in population profile between the 2 servers (eg, percentage of players at certain DK levels, player retention rate). Someone who knows more about the population profiles would be able to intelligently predict the effect such a change would have on central - and I think I read somewhere in this thread that the staff have evaluated the feasibility of this change and rejected it because they decided there would not be enough PvP targets for a given player.

[Pwyll]

Ultimately, I don't think this will affect me much. I'll just figure out who I can kill in PvP after the change, and kill them.

There is currently a player who is about 25 DKs ahead of me and who has over 300 HP more than I do. I can almost always kill that player because my Attack and Defense are much higher than theirs. Once their HP get knocked down, I expect to be able to kill that player even more easily.

As for the following: Players like you and I who have the *chance* to have insane numbers of hitpoints are being bullies. It's not fair to the *majority* for players to have 50 DKs and 1500 hitpoints. It feels unfair to those strong players losing their perfect grip on the top spots, but it's an advantage I personally don't feel is fair or contributes to the player community on the whole. While you're pummeling a player 20 Dks below you this week, think about how they feel when it happens.

Gee, you mean all those times that low-DK players complained about being PKed by high-DK players and were told to buck up and stop whining, you didn't really mean it? Hmmm...

[Elessa]

Ultimately, I don't think this will affect me much. I'll just figure out who I can kill in PvP after the change, and kill them.

There is currently a player who is about 25 DKs ahead of me and who has over 300 HP more than I do. I can almost always kill that player because my Attack and Defense are much higher than theirs. Once their HP get knocked down, I expect to be able to kill that player even more easily.



actually pwyll, i think ye missed this quote from moonchilde/kendaer

Second, DK points. Given that this represents a complete shift of balance, a number of people have asked if they would be able to respend/reallocate their dragonpoints. In the interest of fairness, EVERYONE will be forced to reallocate any DK points they have when they next log in. If you ever regretted a DK point spending decision you made, well, here's your chance to fix it.

everyone will have an opportunity to reallocate their points. i wouldn't count on someone now being an easy target any longer.

[Pwyll]

Easy enough to check, for a mere 100 gold... :twisted:

[Uzxhra]

Here are some of my ponderings on the issue:

The random encounters which may result in increased HP could be permanent: It is a single point and the encounters and results are random, so I wouldn't think they'd become a major unbalancing factor.


As for Cedrik's potions... Make them temporary, reset at DK? Of course, during the initial change longtimers would have an edge due the abundance of gems, but this would even out after each DK. Perhaps a scaling price, dependant on player rank and previous HPs "bought" from Cedrik would be in order?


The Gauntlet probably shouldn't increase HPs permanently... I'd suggest Gauntlet HPs to reset after a DK. Considering the relative difficulty of gaining entry (despite the rather obvious hints ;) ), the amount of TempHPs awarded should probably be increased compared to the current potential yield of PermaHPs. Perhaps the min-max range of current yield times five when temporary?


Good to hear that the staff has already planned things to do with gems, I was also personally wondering about that. *thumbs up*

[Nick the Lemming]

As anyone who read my previous posts about this will know, I'm against this change. I did consider only attacking farmies in future as a protest, but have decided instead to leave the game. I've handed one of my characters over to another player, and if anyone wants a Mayor-ranked character, they can PM me and I'll send them the password and name if they want to take over.

I've met some pretty cool people through this game, and I hope some stay in touch (YOM Selekta at central to see where I've gone to if you want to stay in touch).

Take care all,

Nick

[Stank]

*cries* No!

I like the way everything is going, just fine, but my one greatest fear going into this has just been reaffirmed! The 800 or so (probably less if the maximum HP on my DK level is above a farmy's) gems I will get back will be completely and utterly wasted, either on temporary potions or by continious and constant Lonestrider attacks. The cool things I would get for my gems, the new shiny things, won't be available until after all of this has happened. Just in time for me to wonder what could have been...

I understand this. The administration doesn't want the super HP players to get an unfair advantage with the new toys. But we (the HP people) deserve SOMETHING! Some sort of potentially permanent compensation for having our week, month, sometimes year(s) of work taken away! It's just wrong to remove all that hard work and give practically nothing (in the grand scheme of things) in return. At least, I think it is... You don't break the world's longest fingernails off of the record holder so he can wear some new gloves you bought him off and on for a couple months.

There are two things that could happen with this. One only involves me, as I am important to myself. One is the zero hour is delayed until the new features are set, at least some of them, so the HPers get a chance to spiffify their new gem hoard. The second thing is that all the gems are given back in the game's current settings and the players are left with practically nothing, in which case I will never enter the forest until the time has come for me to cash in on my hoard. ^^ I hope Lonestrider can't enter Degolburg. >.> <.<

[Moonchilde]

Here are some of my ponderings on the issue:

The random encounters which may result in increased HP could be permanent: It is a single point and the encounters and results are random, so I wouldn't think they'd become a major unbalancing factor.


This is up to Eric and JCP and Saucy, as I have already stated.


As for Cedrik's potions... Make them temporary, reset at DK? Of course, during the initial change longtimers would have an edge due the abundance of gems, but this would even out after each DK. Perhaps a scaling price, dependant on player rank and previous HPs "bought" from Cedrik would be in order?


Have you read anything I've written? That is exactly what is happening!


The Gauntlet probably shouldn't increase HPs permanently... I'd suggest Gauntlet HPs to reset after a DK. Considering the relative difficulty of gaining entry (despite the rather obvious hints ;) ), the amount of TempHPs awarded should probably be increased compared to the current potential yield of PermaHPs. Perhaps the min-max range of current yield times five when temporary?


This is up to Eric, and JCP and Saucy.

[Nightwind]

hrm... guys, what about turning lonestrider off until we make the other big change?

Or even the other one first.. erm, eitherway.. yha, cut them a break with lone for a little?

[Sabu]

I fully support the new feature of max HP limit. However, I was wondering if someone from the moderators/staff could clarify the following things for me.

1) Since a lot of players will get an insane amount of gems, some of them would definitely use the gems on charm. I am not sure if the threshold for being married/divorced is based on absolute charm or percentage charm. If it is percentage, I think most players would be divorced on the first day. Again, I am not sure how the threshold is set.
2) Will there be a cap on Dragon's HP as well?

Here is one suggestion as well:
Once this feature is implemented and every player has distributed his/her DK points, is it possible to give us a chance to see how it works for a week or two and then again reset it? If players needs to redistribute the DK points in a better way, at least they get a chance.

Thanks,
Sabu.

[SaucyWench]

Saucy, I think you forgot one thing. Has it been decided that there will be an HP limit based upon number of DK's, or is this not the case?Think it through. There will not be a rigid cap put into place. The fact that the only permanent HP you can get are from spending Dragon Points... means that a cap just happens anyway, and the limit is "however many dragon points you decide to spend" which for a 100DK player, would be 100*5 anyway.

In light of what I just asked, I suggest that the forest fairy and Stonehenge encounters give permanent HP. If, indeed, there is to be an HP limit, then of course if the fairy or Stonehenge tries to give you HP and you already have the max, then the event would fail. (You would not gain any HP, and maybe get your gem back from the fairy.) Or, if it's not too much work, you could code it so that those outcomes are not possible when the player is at max HP.There is no rigid cap so we don't need to address the part about failing. However, Kendaer/Moonchilde has given JCP and I the decision on whether to make the hitpoints from specials permanent or not, so the two of us *might* decide to make some specials permanent.

[shadowdemon]

As anyone who read my previous posts about this will know, I'm against this change. I did consider only attacking farmies in future as a protest, but have decided instead to leave the game. I've handed one of my characters over to another player, and if anyone wants a Mayor-ranked character, they can PM me and I'll send them the password and name if they want to take over.

I've met some pretty cool people through this game, and I hope some stay in touch (YOM Selekta at central to see where I've gone to if you want to stay in touch).

Take care all,

Nick

leaving before you even tried out the changes is just plain dumb.

the least you could do is give it a chance and try it out, leaving is always possible and the change might be for the best and if so then you give up a game you enjoyed so long.

[Uzxhra]

Moonchilde, yes, I did read the entire previous thread... I don't post in a long thread and skip everything in-between.

What I did was simply state out my "constructive" opinions on how things could be done, something the MotD asked us players to do if I recall correctly? That they had already been stated or are still up to the bigwigs is of no consequence: I'm simply trying to throw in some ideas and show support to the ideas of others.

Perhaps I should've been clearer in my original post... I'd already written it up as a petition before deciding to take a look at the forums, where I saw (and read) this thread. =)

[Belson]

I'm for the change. I was playing a HP monster and the increase in difficulty was getting frustrating. However there are a couple of things to note. First, slumming in PvP will get worse. PvP is about risk versus rewards. The higher the risk the less chance people will take. Second, Lonestrider will be almost unbeatable. He is one level above you AND has your level in thieves attacking you. I don't see anyway of winning without huge mount help and regeneration.

I like the idea of a prestige mount.

I'll add one request, err beg. Please put at least one of the new gem options in play before lonestrider steals all of mine.

[Pwyll]

OK, having thought about this overnight here's what I'm thinking right now...

If I understand this corretly, everyone's HP is getting reset and the excess will be refunded as gems. Then Lonestrider will be having a field day on everyone with those extra gems, so the gem refund will essentially be taken away from us by Lonestrider. Sorry, but this sounds like we're getting wood-fastener-with-spiral-threads-ed. What do I care about getting a few hundred gems back if Lonestrider is just going to immediately take many of them away?

This seems like just another - and retroactive this time - attempt to yank gems away from players. Why do the powers that be have such a problem with us saving up gems anyway? We earned them, they're ours. It's bad enough having them taken by Lonestrider, now one of the most valuable things we were able to purchase with them will be reversed and used to take away gems that we had already earned and spent. Nice.

I'm joining those who have requested that Lonestrider be toned down for a while until we adjust to this change.

[SaucyWench]

Come on! A page ago you were in favour of it, and suddenly you think we just want you to lose gems? ;)

I've been coding my little backside off looking at spends for gems, incidentally. And I will speak to JCP about possibly deactivating LoneStrider for the first few days. Or - GASP! - you could spend it on charm. Someone asked earlier if charm is percentage or absolute. It's absolute. You have to fall to 0 charm for your darling to leave you. For a farmie, that would be about 22 days after marriage when they spend nothing on charm and never gain any in special events.

[SaucyWench]

I'm for the change. I was playing a HP monster and the increase in difficulty was getting frustrating. However there are a couple of things to note. First, slumming in PvP will get worse.

There is no slumming in PvP.

PvP is about risk versus rewards. The higher the risk the less chance people will take. Second, Lonestrider will be almost unbeatable. He is one level above you AND has your level in thieves attacking you. He will be no different. His stats aren't just about the level. His stats actually reflect yours, plus some, and everyone faces a LoneStrider that is equally as difficult for *them*.

[Pwyll]

Charm is of no interest to me, I do fine without being married to Violet and stopping by the Inn every day to visit her just wastes a travel that I have other uses for. Also, despite being about 300 HP over what my DK "cap" would be, I find that most of my Forest Fights last no more than three rounds, and I get enough flawless fights that I can only conclude that the extra HP are NOT causing me any problems.

As I said, I have now had some time to consider this and these are the things that occurred to me. At this point I am not voicing opposition to the change, I am merely requesting that the refunded gems not be stolen by massive Lonestrider attacks before we have a chance to adjust to the changes. Ideally, in fact, the HP adjustment/gem refunding should be delayed until at least some of the new ways to spend gems are implemented. As it is currently being implemented, it does amount to a gem grab and I stand by my statement to that effect.

By the way, PvP actually has two ways to "slum" - you can attack someone one level below you - the same as slumming in the forest - and you can attack someone with many DKs less than you - "super slumming" if you will. So I must disagree with Saucy's statement that there is no slumming in PvP; in fact, slumming in PvP is probably the norm.

[ChattyTrog]

There is no slumming in PvP.

Well, technically, there is. At least by the forst definition of it. You do have a PvP window of one level below, even in PvP. But I think what Belson was referring to is that there will be even more higher level players attacking much lower players because of the decreased likelihood of winning PvPs now.

Though, as an aside, I have decided to run my own little test on possible changes to my strategy. After visiting Tynan, and liquidating 2/3 of my hitpoints, I'm having a go at this DK playing as a speed player. At level two I have already seen the massive difference that I had only heard about. It has definately made me re-think my current strategy for after these changes occur. I'm not sure what I will choose, but at least now I'll be more informed.

And after having the night to think some things over, I've decided that this is really a fair change. Life is a huge test, where adaptability is a main aspect. Darwin had it right. Players will need to adapt their strategies to continue to be the best. This doesn't mean they'll have to reverse it, by any means. But facing challenges and overcoming them is a vital part of anything.

And I had earlier posted that this change would have no effect on current speed players, but this is also probably not true. Saucy has stated that she'll keep a base hp of +150. That's 30 DK points she'll have to spend to get those hitpoints, taking away those points for attack, defense, and forest fights. I fully believe that many speed players still acquired their hitpoints from Cedrik, even if they did so in much less quantity.

[Furion]

Thanks for lobbying for us Saucy! And sorry about my mixing you up with Moonchilde/Kendaer. (I knew Moonchilde was the same as someone else.)

I want to add my voice to those who think that Lonestrider should be toned down for a few days, and those that think that Nick the Lemming's move was pretty classless.

All you peoples out there who don't like the change: some of you may be thinking about leaving. I just want to remind you (as others have) that the staff has an incredibly good track record. They said that this is one step backward for two steps forward, and they mean it. I also want you to think about it this way (forgive the awful pictures)

LOGD today (where dots represent players at different DK #'s:
.
.. _.
...... ___ .. ____.. _ .
................. _ .. ........ _____ . ____ ..

(First off, this is hypothetical, i tried to show lots of Farmies/Vilagers and stuff, then some people stop playing at Page, and lots of people shoot to make God, and then you got McD and Booger on the right :D . Now here is what I see that chart looking like after the change, in terms of how people are going to be competitive over a larger DK range. In other words, people with higher number of DK's who you will be competitive with now look closer:)

....
......
.........
...............
................... __ ..

I hope at least one person understands this. What I'm really trying to say is this: give the change a chance; (surprise) you might even like it. There are so many other good parts to the game besides just buying HP with gems, really! I'm an HP person, and it sounds like the admins are saving me from potential disaster while I'm only at 120 or so base HP.

The game is good, and we want you here. But, if after all this, you still decide to leave, well.... we probably are better off without you.

(Edit: I had to change the charts because the forum will only read one space. Changed extra spaces to _'s. They kind of ruin the effect, but still.)

[Pwyll]

I agree that Nick the Lemming's departure was premature at best. It would take something much more drastic than this to make me leave (if one day they decided that in the interest of "fairness" everyone was being reset to level 1 Farmie with no mount I would definitely be gone, for example :wink: ).

I even support the change in principle. I just question the method of execution (pun intended!). I will receive about 600 gems as a result of this, and as was stated early in the thread, ol' Lonestrider will be just waiting to pounce all over them if they aren't immediately spent on whatever is available to spend them on at the time. That amounts to a gem grab, no matter how you spin it.

My objection is to a forced refund of gems that will then be subject to Lonestrider's whims. It's as if the government gave back all your Social Security taxes that you had ever paid to put into a private account, then announced that those private accounts would be subject to taxation.

One other question though - as I understand it, ALL DK point buffs will be reset and we will have to re-allocate our DK points after "zero hour"? Or have I misunderstood that?

[Furion]

That's what I believe they said, yeah. In case you missed it, Saucy said she was lobbying for him to be toned down for us. It's in her hands now, right? :D GO SAUCY!!!

[JCP]

All DK points will be reset and you will go through an interface to reassign them.

While this will be a "one time reassignment" for THIS change, I suspect that some future changes may also require reassignments as we make changes to the fundamental fabric of the game. So this probably won't be the last and final time your characters are reset.

Regarding giving you guys something neat to spend those gems on, I can't make any promises at all. What I'd like to be in place isn't going to be ready, so obviously the transition is not as smooth as I would have liked, but we play the cards we're dealt.

As far as Lonestrider... well, let's just say he won't be as big a problem as you think and leave it at that.

(There also seems to be a disturbing lack of cheering for jcp, especially since game settings are my focus.) :)

[ChattyTrog]

You can blame the avatar for that. That clown scares me.

[Moonchilde]

I agree that Nick the Lemming's departure was premature at best. It would take something much more drastic than this to make me leave (if one day they decided that in the interest of "fairness" everyone was being reset to level 1 Farmie with no mount I would definitely be gone, for example :wink: ).


Drat. I guess Eric and I will have to cancel our plans for what to inflict on you all in September.

[SaucyWench]

/me leaves the country on August 31.

[Waugh]

(There also seems to be a disturbing lack of cheering for jcp, especially since game settings are my focus.) :)

Thank you JCP :)

And after having the night to think some things over, I've decided that this is really a fair change.

I think you've followed the path of objective questioning, reasoning and acceptance perfectly. Trog, you're a role model on how to behave when providing constructive criticism.

So I must disagree with Saucy's statement that there is no slumming in PvP; in fact, slumming in PvP is probably the norm.

I agree with you mate. Again, it's an allowed and accepted part of the game that we all go through.

I've been coding my little backside off looking at spends for gems, incidentally. And I will speak to JCP about possibly deactivating LoneStrider for the first few days.

Thank you, too, Saucy! I, we, appreciate you!

i can earn that same amount of exp that the attacker did in 4-6 ffs.

While generally this could be true in some levels, I have to disagree. But I know you mean well, I disagree agreeably. :D Show me picking up 7000exp from 4 ff's.

[Vode Andreas]

I'm for the change I think, it makes thing much more predictable and PvP will become much more reliable... I'll know that I stand on an even ground with people of my own DK level (even though recently I've rarely found anyone with above 20DKs, and most below 5 to kill)
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with the gems this gets me... But I'm sure I'll think of something

[Pwyll]

Thanks to Saucy for any lobbying efforts to ease the transition and to JCP for always doing a tough job well. I know I'm a pain where you sit at times, but I do sincerely believe that a lively debate usually serves any community well.

And Moonchilde - was that a JOKE??? ~faints~ :wink:

[SaucyWench]

i can earn that same amount of exp that the attacker did in 4-6 ffs.

While generally this could be true in some levels, I have to disagree. But I know you mean well, I disagree agreeably. :D Show me picking up 7000exp from 4 ff's.I want to see who you can attack and get 7000XP in a single PvP!! My RECORD is attacking Booger at level 15 and winning (yes, the number one) and getting just over 9,000, and I don't believe you can kill McD, unless the world just turned upside down.

Unless you meant for three PvPs. In which case it's not 4 FFs... it is more. I get about 22-25 from Heidi. More if the donator bar is full.

At 80-90% flawless fights at level 1, and with the compounding in effect, I can turn my 60 FF at new day into... *counts on fingers* It's probably around 300 fights or more. Since 7000 xp is really not the same value for me as it is for you, let's look at it in levels. At level 1, if I were to get lucky and find three decent PvP targets, I might get to level 4 that day after playing all my turns. If I go to Heidi, I can sometimes make level 6. That's saying enough for me...

[ChattyTrog]

Actually, I was the one with 7700 experience off of one PvP. 2 level thrill seek from level 13 to 15. He was even 19 DKs lower than me. Though my record was close to 10,000 experience off a PvP. Also at level 15, but thanks to the dragon moving, this player had been accumulating experience for eight days.

And you gain 22 - 25 FF from Heidi? I've never been able to get that many. 15 has been my highest, though I do agree that for you, a single PvP might never get you what a few forest fights will.

[Waugh]

Right, I had spoken to ChattyTrog recently, and it was he that achieved this, as in his post. Today I had a 4,500.

I got to level 7 recently after day 1, following what you spoke about Saucy, without any PVP. I agree with you completely. I just find that there's a few certain points in the rankings that PVP outweighs FF's, and vice versa.

The world hasn't turned upside down yet. But it might shake a bit at zero hour. I am still eager for it girl! :D

[Pwyll]

I want to see who you can attack and get 7000XP in a single PvP!!

Attacking a player 2 levels above me I once got over 9,000 XP from a single PvP. It does happen.

[Elessa]

i can earn that same amount of exp that the attacker did in 4-6 ffs.

While generally this could be true in some levels, I have to disagree. But I know you mean well, I disagree agreeably. :D Show me picking up 7000exp from 4 ff's.

i refer only to the value of the experience gained by someone who has attacked me. often i have toyed with the idea of a truly cruel concept of bringing my character up to level 14 and letting her be pvp'd down to zero. just leaving her in the fields as a tasty looking morsel that will be less filling than expected.

i built my strategy around speed and will in all likelihood keep it when the opportunity arrives to reallocate dk points. so, yes, i shall still be easy pickings for the bloodthirsty scoundrels who prowl the game taking what i have earned and giving me nothing in return.

ye know, a 'thank ye' note once in a while wouldst be appreciated.

talisman and i had talked of having a gift shoppe based on the one he did for the christmas season a few months ago. perhaps i can get him to dust off the code and proceed with finalizing the ideas we had so that there may be a place to spend a few of the shiny gems that will soon be flooding the coffers of players.

[Waugh]

/me makes a mental note: If I ever am even remotely strong enough to attack Elessa, and manage to win, leave her a thank you note, a glass of milk, and some cookies.

Perhaps she'll freak out and tell David Letterman... :D

[Zach]

I want to see who you can attack and get 7000XP in a single PvP!!

I just won a PvP off of someone 29 DKs below me and recieved this message:
You receive 9251 experience!

It's not very uncommon. I see 7000 experience PvPs all the time.