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.

[Malachi]

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...

I polished off a level 15 farmie for over 8000 once, when I was level 13 and my titles were still in the 10-20 range. Uadjet and I once calculated that attacking someone a level higher than oneself was theoretically equal in difficulty to attacking someone 4 DKs higher than that person and the same level. Likewise 2 levels = 8 DKs.
I use this bit of information to soothe my broken conscience. :lol:
As for the HP issue, it's going to hurt, especially for people like Stank and Selekta who put large amounts of time and effort into cultivating their figures. I can still remember Stank's expression when I told him in MSN that he had passed me in HP and he was about to pass Khalid :)
I really hope whatever is put in place to make up for the HP loss will compensate for people like him.

[Elessa]

I polished off a level 15 farmie for over 8000 once, when I was level 13 and my titles were still in the 10-20 range. Uadjet and I once calculated that attacking someone a level higher than oneself was theoretically equal in difficulty to attacking someone 4 DKs higher than that person and the same level. Likewise 2 levels = 8 DKs.

interesting... based on what you and others are saying about exp earned in pvp from players with significantly lower ranks who are level 14 or 15, it appears that there are players who are camping at those levels solely to provide exp.

in pvp you earn 10% of the player's exp when you succeed, correct? at my rank of 59 dks, it only takes me approx 60K exp to reach level 15. the amount increments with each dk rank.

malachi, if you earned 8000 from a farmie, they have been at that level quite awhile and not facing the dragon, but are simply continuing to earn exp which can then be easily gained by someone else in pvp.

just an observation. i am sure the staff appreciates this being pointed out and knowing just how evil they appear to be, i am sure that they will implement some other changes just to stir things up.

[Stank]

*tears up* Oh, I'm so glad you care... My Hit Points are like my little children that I throw into battle to save myself from pain.

Anyways, I stand by my point on Page 7. You know, the one missed because it was right after Nik's quitting message. It also happens to be the one Pwyll's talking about, so I'm glad to see I'm not alone on it. I have read over all these 9 pages or arguements and fearful cowering from JCP's cute little avatar, and I too have come to the conclusion that this is not a bad change. I still don't feel it is neccessary, but it won't be the end of LoGD as we know it. They'll even be awesome new options for gems, something I've always wished for!

But Why, WHY, are we forcing the change now?! JCP said that the shiny new gem purchases are not ready yet, which to me sounds like they will be soon. So why not reset the HP then? Why is there a rush to do it now? It's not like the coding's going to go anywhere. I mean, I appreciate the hard work and dedication put into all this, I seriously do. I've seen coding pages and how it is done, and I've seen the catastrophic problems that happen from putting a semi-colon in the wrong place. (see the constant fatal errors on ohgoditsadragon.net) I also understand just how hard decisions like this, affecting hundreds of people, are, and how managing those hundreds of people in what can only be described as a minature independent internet state (and not the US definition) can adversely affect the brain. The fact that this is all done voluntarily astounds me. But there is no time limit. The game won't decay into anarchy if HP isn't reset in the next month. So why not wait to reset it until the rewards for the faithful is more than charm and potential gifts?

[Pwyll]

The game won't decay into anarchy if HP isn't reset in the next month. So why not wait to reset it until the rewards for the faithful is more than charm and potential gifts?

OK, that was a funny post, but Stank's point is well taken - is the HP imbalance really in such a state of crisis that it can't wait until at least some of the new gem options are coded?

[Pwyll]

interesting... based on what you and others are saying about exp earned in pvp from players with significantly lower ranks who are level 14 or 15, it appears that there are players who are camping at those levels solely to provide exp.

I guess you've never met Farmgirl dying. :)


I get the most XP from players who are 2 levels above me and have nearly the same - or more - DKs than I do. It's not really as risky as it sounds - there is a way to check their Attack, Defense and HP before you attack them. Exactly where and how is (all together now) a game secret. :wink:

Somewhere in this thread Saucy spoke of Booger being killed by players with 80 fewer DKs than him. Imagine how much XP that gets you if he's at level 14 and you succeed. 7000+ XP for a PvP is not really as bizarre or unusual as some of you seem to think it is. There have been days where one PvP took me from red to blue on my experience bar.

[Malachi]

I polished off a level 15 farmie for over 8000 once, when I was level 13 and my titles were still in the 10-20 range. Uadjet and I once calculated that attacking someone a level higher than oneself was theoretically equal in difficulty to attacking someone 4 DKs higher than that person and the same level. Likewise 2 levels = 8 DKs.

interesting... based on what you and others are saying about exp earned in pvp from players with significantly lower ranks who are level 14 or 15, it appears that there are players who are camping at those levels solely to provide exp.

in pvp you earn 10% of the player's exp when you succeed, correct? at my rank of 59 dks, it only takes me approx 60K exp to reach level 15. the amount increments with each dk rank.

malachi, if you earned 8000 from a farmie, they have been at that level quite awhile and not facing the dragon, but are simply continuing to earn exp which can then be easily gained by someone else in pvp.

just an observation. i am sure the staff appreciates this being pointed out and knowing just how evil they appear to be, i am sure that they will implement some other changes just to stir things up.

There are many farmies notorious for being experience banks, the most famous being our beloved dying (before she died and became dead) , and the Dread Pirate Roberts- oh wait he DKed :shock:
er. Well you know what I mean. Incidentally, though the difficulty is 4 or 8 DKs higher, the experience bonus is not, though it is considerable.

[JCP]

Actually, there are some big factors into why things like this can't wait.

In an ideal situation, Central is aligned with the source code. If there are bug fixes, the code is changed in the source, and a quick update changes things on Central.

Now, if a module is added to the source that we don't think is appropriate to Central, we do not install or activate it. We being primarily me. I take responsibility for the final decision but it is made after consultation with at least Saucy.

However, if a change is made to the core, there's a different story. All we can do is delay the change going live on Central. But when we are not aligned with the source core, we're in a very delicate and dangerous situation, and it is much, much harder for us to get anything fixed. It's also pretty near impossible for us to get anything added to the game, since we're out of synch with the source.

This is a real and present danger. And it has backfired. We've tried delaying core changes, but then we need to fix some typo or bug and hit the wrong button and (wham!) Central's core gets updated with no warning. That is never fun for anyone, staff or player.

Now, those upcoming changes I keep talking about? Remove the word "soon" from any discussion about this. We're working on them, and that's the current state. We could be weeks or months away from them being activated.

And all that time we would have no bug fixes or additions to Central.

I'm not willing to put the site in that sort of jeopardy.

Yes, it would have been grand to show you our new secret plans, but it's not happening that way. And it is probably for the best, as we will be designing those plans around the new "no one has thousands of hitpoints" gameplay.

And those plans? The coders have been working on them for almost a year. We didn't just wake up and decide "hey, let's inconvenience the players that send us so much money" - we have come to a point in our plans where we need to take the next step, and we hope you will come on this journey with us.

[Malachi]

Alright- I'll take the clown's word for it. But he still scares the heck outta me.

[Waugh]

interesting... based on what you and others are saying about exp earned in pvp from players with significantly lower ranks who are level 14 or 15, it appears that there are players who are camping at those levels solely to provide exp.

You really have to be careful making assumptions without facts to back them up. You risk offending many m'lady.

[Stank]

*doesn't want to quote JCP's whole response, so he simply states he is replying to it*

I'll pretend I understood some of that and say I now know why you have to update the HP months before the cool stuff is active. But it doesn't make it any less depressing. All that work I've put into collecting those gems, all the months I've been a felyne, slowing my DKs for it, for nothing? It really, to put it blunty, stinks. -.-

I for one am going to do nothing but role-play until the items are available. I've learned to be exceedingly patient with DKs over the last few months, so I have no problem waiting a couple months more.

[Belson]

I have been pretty consistant in my PvPs. I always 2 level thrillseek, I look for the biggest player that I think I have at least an 80% chance of winning. (Although I usually estimate conservatively since I'm too lazy to peek at thier stats, I just guage by the bio screen). If you don't have a75% chance of winning you lose XP. I generally get 20 to 30 FF's worth of XP each PvP fight. The only exeption is when there are no good targets when I'm level 1 to 3.

[Sabu]

Saucy,
How do you get 22-25 FF from Heidi? I get 15, if I am lucky.
Thanks,
Sabu.

[Talisman]

Well, after 10 pages of comments, I reckon it's my turn to chime into the discussion.

I feel the HP cap is a good thing. I've suggested and argued in favour of it in the past, and now that it is coming to reality, I think the long term effects will be favourable. I used to play in a server that did have an HP cap based on DKs and race...while it may have seemed restrictive at first, it certainly had it's benefits.

I do, however, have some observations and reservations over some of the issues surrounding the implementation.

- "High HP is a poor strategy" should not be used as a justification for the cap. One aspect that has been stressed in Central for as long as I've been around (over a year and a half) is that players should explore the game, make discoveries for themselves, and learn what works or doesn't. That should still be the case, including determining what strategy works and what doesn't. I don't think changes should be made with the intention of forcing players into a limited or predetermined strategy, otherwise we're removing a large part of that exploration. The better cure for "High HP = Bad" is perhaps to offer a (costly) means of permanently converting that excess HP to Charm or some other attribute purchased by gems.

- This is not about PVP. If you have High HP but low Attack and Defense stats, you are not better at PVP. It may provide some equalization in the matter, but PVP is hardly a motivating factor behind this change.

- Gem renumeration + Lonestrider. Now this kinda burns me just about now. Yes, I'm a high stakes holder here, with a large amount of base HP and although I haven't done the calculations, expect a rather hefty amount of gems to fall into my possession. I have charm. I don't need more charm. I don't want to waste my money on charm, as I have no need for charm (there's a line for the peanut gallery :shock: ). Charm decays way too quickly at my level to even bother marrying Violet, so I haven't done that for some months now. So I either waste them on something I consider useless, or I let Lonestrider steal them from me...which I find to be a slap in the face. Unless I can pick and choose when and what I wish to spend my gems on, and not have to worry about losing them altogether in the interim, why bother even giving them to me?
The solution: Bank them. Not a gemshop...gemshops are horribly unbalancing. Repay us our gems through a single deposit to our account, accessible for withdrawals only, through the bank. Our gems are then secure for the moment and there is no immediate rush to provide us with 'worthwhile' expenditures. There are enough other things to spend the gems on over time, but we need some time. That will also allow Lonestrider to continue his rampaging ways.

- Difficulty of obtaining permanent HP. With caps in place, I don't think we need the added difficulty of making permanent HP a rare item to find. Temporary HP gains are an interesting idea, to be sure, but hardly worthwhile for players achieving DKs in a matter of a few game days. I suspect there will be many 'aftermarket' mods released for providing permanent HP, but I hope consideration will be given in Central to be at least moderately liberal with their availability.

- Game host opt out. For those admins who disagree or for other reasons don't want to implement the points cap, or wish to alter the settings to more liberal or conservative settings, I hope there will be game settings for HP Cap On/Off and HP Cap Multiplier.

Well, that's about it for my thoughts...or at least the ones I can think of. The HP cap is but a harbinger of other, bigger changes which can only lead to more game improvements. As much as I'll miss the 'old' game, I'm sure the changes coming in the future will aid in keeping the game interesting for everyone.

[muad]

Gem renumeration + Lonestrider. Unless I can pick and choose when and what I wish to spend my gems on, and not have to worry about losing them altogether in the interim, why bother even giving them to me?
The solution: Bank them. Not a gemshop...gemshops are horribly unbalancing. Repay us our gems through a single deposit to our account, accessible for withdrawals only, through the bank. Our gems are then secure for the moment and there is no immediate rush to provide us with 'worthwhile' expenditures. There are enough other things to spend the gems on over time, but we need some time. That will also allow Lonestrider to continue his rampaging ways.


withdrawal only ..... i like that idea

[Furion]

The change sounds better and better as we find out more. One time withdrawal sounds good, but JCP did say not to worry about Lonestrider, so I'm sure either one will be fine.

And just to re-clarify, one of the admins said that there would be no hard HP cap, just that perma-HP would be extremely hard to come by, effectively limiting HP to 5*DK, and that's if they spend every DK point on HP.

[Gargoyle]

I have read this thread through several times and I think I am just going to wait and see what happens with these changes. My fears are that I will have a lot of useless gems. And I currently don't have any problems with how long FFs take or the stamina of my mount. I just drink my Ale and carve my way through each day. So, after playing for over two years on central my simple view is that change usually makes things more interesting and fun.

Hopefully you all (the game wizards) will keep up your track record.

Hopefully we all (the players) will keep our cool and capitalize on the changes.

Well, I'm off to my favorite keg in Qexelcrag ... cheers!

[SaucyWench]

*screams into her elbow, composes herself, and returns the the thread *

When I spoke about wanting to see HIM get 7000XP from a single PvP I meant exactly what I said - I meant I wanted to see Waugh do it. It was, if you like, an observation that I thought it was quite unlikely given his number of DKs. And I was right, because he said he got something like 4,500? Anyway. I know other players can do it. But they achieve it either like I did (attacking and winning against high DK players) or by attacking Campers (as in the case of Dying, although she tells me that Farmgirl Dying's XP is probably very low now as she has been stuck at the dragon's entrance for months).

Saucy,
How do you get 22-25 FF from Heidi? I get 15, if I am lucky.
Thanks,
Sabu.Heidi's given fights depend on the number of fights you have from dragon points. So, if you do not spend your dragon points on forest fights, she will not be nearly as generous. I start my day with around 60.

[Moonchilde]

I think there is a very key thing that a lot of you are missing.

There will still be just as many things to buy with your gems after this change as now. The ONLY difference is going to be that HP bought with gems will last for a shorter period of time.

This is a fundamental change in gems, and a shift away from 'gem buys are permanent'. They haven't been for quite a while. In fact the only things that gems purchase which were permanent were mounts (which did have a way of getting removed, but everyone avoids it apparently) and hps. *nothing* else that gems buy have been permanent for a while. We are just extending that so that HP are not permanent either. it is *very* unlikely, given Eric's expressed opinion to me that there will be many chances for permanent HP in the future. I would suggest that you might consider investing some of your returned gems into temporary HP if you really feel naked without them.

There will not be a gem bank. There will probably be other things gems can buy in the future, but there is NOT going to be any rush to 'ohmigod find something to let the players spend their gems on'. That is the wrong behaviour. it is reactionary and it leads to bad solutions which will be worse for the game in the long run.

As for Talisman's comment about game host opt-out. All of these changes were done so that BY DEFAULT the game behaves exactly as it always has. Someone upgrading to 1.0.3 when it's released will have *no* change to hitpoints by default. They will merely have the code in place to allow them to make this change *if* they desire it.

[Tharrin]

However, if a change is made to the core, there's a different story. All we can do is delay the change going live on Central. But when we are not aligned with the source core, we're in a very delicate and dangerous situation, and it is much, much harder for us to get anything fixed. It's also pretty near impossible for us to get anything added to the game, since we're out of synch with the source.

1. So the code change can't be avoided as it is in the core release.

Now, those upcoming changes I keep talking about? Remove the word "soon" from any discussion about this. We're working on them, and that's the current state. We could be weeks or months away from them being activated.

2. Currently, there is a time disparity between the gem refund and the introduction of new ways to spend gems.

As for Talisman's comment about game host opt-out. All of these changes were done so that BY DEFAULT the game behaves exactly as it always has. Someone upgrading to 1.0.3 when it's released will have *no* change to hitpoints by default. They will merely have the code in place to allow them to make this change *if* they desire it.

3. There is a switch, set to the off position, that can be left that way.

Why then, can't the change be introduced, left off, then turned on when new ways to spend gems have been completed? That way, central can still be running the new hotness and nobody is unfairly penalised.

[Garath's Master]

Is the amount of charm lost each "tick" while married a percentage or an absolute amount? Does it depend on your DK-level?

[ChattyTrog]

Sorry, Saucy. Didn't realize you were referring to him only.

[Syrius]

However, if a change is made to the core, there's a different story. All we can do is delay the change going live on Central. But when we are not aligned with the source core, we're in a very delicate and dangerous situation, and it is much, much harder for us to get anything fixed. It's also pretty near impossible for us to get anything added to the game, since we're out of synch with the source.

1. So the code change can't be avoided as it is in the core release.

Now, those upcoming changes I keep talking about? Remove the word "soon" from any discussion about this. We're working on them, and that's the current state. We could be weeks or months away from them being activated.

2. Currently, there is a time disparity between the gem refund and the introduction of new ways to spend gems.

As for Talisman's comment about game host opt-out. All of these changes were done so that BY DEFAULT the game behaves exactly as it always has. Someone upgrading to 1.0.3 when it's released will have *no* change to hitpoints by default. They will merely have the code in place to allow them to make this change *if* they desire it.

3. There is a switch, set to the off position, that can be left that way.

Why then, can't the change be introduced, left off, then turned on when new ways to spend gems have been completed? That way, central can still be running the new hotness and nobody is unfairly penalised.

If you'll read your first JCP quote, you will see he answered your final question there. That help? We have to keep in synch with the source.
:)

[Tharrin]

If you'll read your first JCP quote, you will see he answered your final question there. That help? We have to keep in synch with the source.
:)

But you still will be synchronised. The codebase will remain intact, the option simply wouldn't be turned on. Synchronisation doesn't imply everything has to be running.

[SaucyWench]

Because, we are the flagship. We generally stick to showing the core's features. There are very few options *in* the core that we don't have in use on Central. We believe (for reasons that we can only partly disclose at the moment) that it is for the better. To be quite frank we have already given more than enough reason why we think we should. It is the selfishness of a very small minority of players that has been heard crying in this thread. The vast majority of players who will benefit have no reason to speak up in thanks and so they haven't. Likewise, the unaffected haven't spoken either. Those two groups make, at my estimate, 5,700 of the 6,000 players on Central. Surely anyone with a sense of fairness can see that we have to place the interests of the majority first.

We also believe this is how the game should be. The only reason we have not made it mandatory on all servers is because if it were, all the other servers would never install future updates, or else would install them not knowing and their players would throw tantrums in exactly the same way. Widespread panic and pandemonium.

Since many have seen only the side of the story that calls it *bad*, I will tell you I have coded a new candle for Heidi which you will see when this release is activated. The tattoo monster is also completed (thanks to Sichae). Talisman is working on the new gift shop which will hopefully go in at some time in June. The sheer amount of work behind the scenes that has been put in by Kendaer/Moonchilde and MightyE is staggering and they deserve to have the benefit of the doubt if only for that effort alone.

[Tharrin]

Tantrums? That's inflammatory at best, perhaps you should consider the direction you're dragging this discussion?

As for claiming the silent majority as allies, that's absurd. Apathy does not equal agreement.

But to reiterate the point that I made:

If the true benefits of the change won't be felt for some time to come, why is it so crucial to bring about this change now? I think it's been shown that code skew is a non-argument. You're now saying that it's important to turn on all the features. Why? If the time isn't right, then why bring about the change?

The reality is that this change brings about problems for a set of players. The official message is that this will be resolved with forthcoming additions to the game. The time difference appears to be around six months. From the posts here, it would seem that the original plan was for that six month gap not to exist. Not turning on the feature allows this gap to be removed. Why is that such an undesirable solution?

Perhaps I should clarify, I'm not opposing the change per se, simply the timing of it.

[SaucyWench]

Inflammatory? I don't believe so, no. I am referring to a possibility on another server. Imagine, if you will, the reactions from players who had no warning, no explanation, and suddenly logged in to see all their hitpoints gone. If you choose to think I am insulting you, and choose to think that I am also referring to the reactions of players here, that's not really my problem. I think I've shown in the past that I do respect the players in the game that I co-manage, and I'm not given to egotist attitude in the least. I don't really think that the most prolific module contributor to the core without a copyright mention has the luxury of treating the players in such a way and still have any respect...

Now, to answer your question. As has been said many, many times already in this thread, the code itself is being implemented now because it holds up the other changes. The code is being turned *on* now because:

1) we feel it is the way the game *should* be
and
2) delaying it until the other changes are also ready doesn't serve any purpose. We had that option and decided that players would SCREAM if we did that, as the other changes are on a similar scale to this one. We think the HP change is enough for players to cope with in one go.

And yes, apathy does equal agreement. Players have proven time and time again that if they don't like something they will complain. Players of this game seem to think that the coders should consult all 6,000 players before breathing in the morning.

MightyE and Kendaer don't code something simply to annoy players, no matter how it might look from their perspective. It is obvious you either don't like the changes, or that you feel we should provide something else for you to spend your gems on. Your opinion is valid, however, for the greater good of the game, we're going to install it anyway. We want the spread of power contained somewhat. Call it a political parallel if you like, but we don't want the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, because it's bad for the morale of the working class.

Something else that might interest you. The percentage of Farmies has been *gaining* over time. What that means is that relatively speaking, more and more farmies aren't bothering to stick around until their first DK. That means we're doing something wrong. The game has been changing over the last few years, and the changes have resulted in fewer new players actually liking the game. We're trying to curb that and make it interesting for everyone. I don't actually expect very many players to leave as a result of these changes.

[JCP]

Ok, I had no idea about the switch, so that argument no longer works.

Other points remain, however, such as the "most hitpoint gains are not permanent" model that we want to move to needing a beta site to test it.

A few weeks ago there was a lot of support for "only change a little at a time" - and that's what this is.

[Tharrin]

Ok, I had no idea about the switch, so that argument no longer works.

Other points remain, however, such as the "most hitpoint gains are not permanent" model that we want to move to needing a beta site to test it.

A few weeks ago there was a lot of support for "only change a little at a time" - and that's what this is.

Perhaps it's worth distinguishing between the two threads of this discourse. On the one hand people are arguing the merits of the HP change itself. They're welcome to their argument, I've little interest in it. The Omerta regarding game secrets (and future planning) puts the developers in a far stronger position to arrange such aspects of the game than I. If this is required for game balance and to entice new users then so be it, the change is good and should be implemented.

The second issue, and the one that I find relevant, is the timing of the change. You cite popular opinion for gradual change, which has obvious benefits. But this is a flag day no matter how you introduce it. The need for retroactive adjustment means that it's an earth-shattering change. Despite this, a gem dump without a useful purpose for this new found wealth is only half a change at best. It's scant compensation for something that presents a not-insignifcant number of users with a complete U-Turn. Gems themselves are meaningless, it's what one can do with them that presents value. Without the option of purchasing permanent hit points, the value of the gems being returned is substantially less than the value of the hit points being taken away. Once meaningful avenues for gem spending come online, this problem goes away.

It seems to me that the decision has been made and no deviation from the preset path will be permitted. All I'm asking is that you meaningfully consider that there are more conservative approaches available to you that sidestep some of the (rather obvious) problems in the current thinking. I find it hard to believe that in a time where server costs are finally being met with consistent over-achievement that a six month continuation of the imbalance will drive away so many new users that the game will be meaningfully hindered.

[JCP]

Some people are assuming that the "future uses for gems" will be permanent, and thus we will be taking away a permanent gem buy (hit points), going through a period of no good permanent gem buys except mounts, and will then introduce a new permanent gem buy.

According to this theory, there is a big timing issue as the admins are obviously screwing with your hard earned gems, and we'll be forcing you to save up once more once we introduce the new permanent gem buys.

Thus, we should just wait until those new permanent gem buys are available.

However, the logic is flawed. Just because I hint at new uses for gems does not mean any of those uses will be permanent.

[Tharrin]

However, the logic is flawed. Just because I hint at new uses for gems does not mean any of those uses will be permanent.

I have, indeed, made an assumption; that there will be uses for gems forthcoming that have value comparable to hit point purchases. As for permanency, that is one factor in the value equation.

Would you not agree that the refund of gems is an effort to compensate those who will lose hit points? Would it not also seem reasonable to consider that any gem refund in and of itself does nothing for those players unless they feel as though their new found gems are useful for some purpose? If it is demonstratable that users will be able to spend gems on something of comparable worth to that which they have lost, then my argument comes to nought. I, and I suspect I'm not alone on this matter, do not see any such avenue for spending gems as the plan currently stands. If this is erroneous then by all means, correct me and I'll disavow my concerns, though value is rather subjective.

[Talisman]

After more consideration of the implications and issues, and discussions with members of the staff, I am becoming increasingly convinced that overall, this is the way to go. While I'm not necessarily happy about the idea of receiving so many gems (I'll get a lot) with little to spend them on, there are other aspects which aid in making it palatable for me, at least.

Something which seems to be slipping under the radar here is that the move is one of player equalization in a good way. As most players are aware, when you kill the dragon you receive up to 10 gems...but that wasn't always the case. The formula used to be (Number of DKs) - 5 = Gem reward. What that means is that players like McD who had 100+ DKs when that change was made had the benefit of substantially more gems to buy permanent hitpoints than any player who started after the change. Is that a fair condition? Hardly...

The points I expressed in my prior post have essentially been addressed to my satisfaction...so I reckon I'll just have some fun binge buying with my gems...or I'll take out some anti-LS insurance.

[Stank]

Eleven pages later and everything is finally taking shape. Just to get my current stance out there so nobody thinks I'm siding with something I'm not, I currently am in favor of the change and am looking forward to trying a new speed strategy. I had lot's of questions about timing and fairness, but now that I have heard clues towards the true depths of the changes those questions are gone, but as usually occurs more have arrisen in their place.

From what I can decipher, gems will no longer be allowed to purchase anything permanent (I include mounts in the temporary catagory). In fact, the only thing truly permanent is the DK point. This, I feel, is definately a bigger change then any sort of HP reset. It brings many game behaviour, flavor, strategy, and player variety questions up. I am obviously to un-informed to ask, complain, or agree with any of these questions or changes, as are all the players, so I will simply sit back in my anxious boots and trust in the powers that be. They are, after all, there for a reason. That is, of course, only applicable if any of my assumptions are indeed correct. Nevertheless, I am in favor of the HP change and really looking forward to whatever becomes of the game's most valuable of currencies, gems.

[Talisman]

There was a time when the philosophy was 'Gold buys things you lose at DK, gems buys things you get to keep'. That differentiation has slowly become much less distinct over the past several months...

I think a better summation would be that although some things you buy may last beyond a DK, things bought with gems are no longer guaranteed to do so any more than things bought with gold.

We may find gems take on a greater value if they're used to purchase temporary HP (if we're even able to do so).

Currently mounts and tattoos are examples of gem purchases you keep...Hats are a gold purchase you keep. What will come in future months? Your guess is as good as mine...

[Furion]

Since many have seen only the side of the story that calls it *bad*, I will tell you I have coded a new candle for Heidi which you will see when this release is activated. The tattoo monster is also completed (thanks to Sichae). Talisman is working on the new gift shop which will hopefully go in at some time in June. The sheer amount of work behind the scenes that has been put in by Kendaer/Moonchilde and MightyE is staggering and they deserve to have the benefit of the doubt if only for that effort alone.

This sounds like a lot of fun. Congratulations Staff, on your hard work!

However, the logic is flawed. Just because I hint at new uses for gems does not mean any of those uses will be permanent.

Thanks for clearing that up JCP. That is really helpful. I know I myself was making that assumption.

I currently am in favor of the change and am looking forward to trying a new speed strategy.

Glad to hear it Stank. I was gonna miss you if you did all roleplaying :)


Everything is coming together well. Congratulations again to the management on another job well done.

[JCP]

I have, indeed, made an assumption; that there will be uses for gems forthcoming that have value comparable to hit point purchases. As for permanency, that is one factor in the value equation.


This assumption is wrong. To use a common comparison, you have bought apples. We are recalling the apples and giving you gems in return. You are expecting apples to be introduced later and want to buy an equivalent amount of apples with your refund. Apples are gone for ever, and oranges will be introduced. You cannot compare apples and oranges.

You may argue that you should be allowed to hoard your money in order to buy many oranges later, but that is part of the new rules - the lack of permanence for gems.


Would you not agree that the refund of gems is an effort to compensate those who will lose hit points?

No, I disagree. The refund of gems is NOT an effort to compensate anyone for lost hit points.

The refund of gems is an effort to allow players who made decisions based on one set of rules a chance to make those decisions again now that the rules have changed.

Players previously had a choice: do I spend gems on hitpoints, knowing that they are permanent and the resulting consequences, or on something temporary? Decisions on gem spending were made as a result of these rules.

We are refunding the gems in order to let players make their decisions on gem spending again under the new rules. Likewise we are forcing players to respend their dragon points under the new rules.

The refund is NOT "here, you lost hitpoints this should make up for it". The refund is "gems don't buy permanent hitpoints anymore, try again".


Would it not also seem reasonable to consider that any gem refund in and of itself does nothing for those players unless they feel as though their new found gems are useful for some purpose? If it is demonstratable that users will be able to spend gems on something of comparable worth to that which they have lost, then my argument comes to nought. I, and I suspect I'm not alone on this matter, do not see any such avenue for spending gems as the plan currently stands. If this is erroneous then by all means, correct me and I'll disavow my concerns, though value is rather subjective.

But we're de-valuing gems. Removing the "gems buy permanent stuff" part of gems doesn't allow for us to take away one permanent stuff and replace it with another.

[FullyIPX]

/me wipes the blood from his blood-shot eye-balls....

wow. I'm actually surprised the tone is as moderate as it appears (I've tried to read the whole thread, but it's very late and I'm quite tired). Speaking as one who hasn't engaged in PvP for a few months now (except for the occasional deliberate suicide), this should make things interesting >:-). Quite frankly, I was bored with PvP, because there were only about 15 or 20 players out of the 6000 or so I couldn't kill...

Lonestrider doesn't bother me too much - consider him the "cost of business" for engaging in the gem trade ;-) I should know - I've lost over 100 gems in a single game day a couple of times :-)

The loss of HP? oh well - easy come, easy go. What this really means is the upper level players like me *may* *actually* *die* in FFs! OH NO! what is this world coming too?!?! /me puts hands on cheeks and screams

once again, this makes things interesting. interesting is good.

people - it's a game - it's not like JCP and Saucy and the gang are taking your hard-earned cash.... that's my job ;-)

if you have more gems than you're comfortable with, why not try some of the other mounts? How many players (be honest now) have actually *tried* more than 6 of the 20+ mounts? I know I have yet to try a few of them.... and let me tell you - the most expensive ones are not *necessarily* the most powerful...

The biggest concern I have with all of this is, how the heck am I gonna spend all my DK points again?

Oh well - that's my 2 cents worth :-)

IPX

[Acemaster]

if you have more gems than you're comfortable with, why not try some of the other mounts? How many players (be honest now) have actually *tried* more than 6 of the 20+ mounts?

That's a very good point. I know I have only tried... 7 mounts, and 0 familiars.

[Nightwind]

i think i've managed 8 and 2 familars, maybe... i can't quite remember

[Fionnabhair]

I think it's admirable that the staff has brought this discussion to the forums, because it means they want to hear the criticisms of this new direction for the game. I think it's a mistake, though, for anyone to assume the presentation of the issue in the forums means that this is a democracy - that's probably something that is a taboo thing for a staff member to say, but I'm not staff so I think I can say it. I represent only me. Since this is not a democracy, the staff has the right to change the game in whatever manner they wish, according to some grand design that they are (wisely) unwilling to reveal to everyone. So... stop whining and embrace the changes as something that will contribute to the continually evolving nature of the game. I'm excited to be part of a work in progress, a "clinical trial" of sorts...

[Acemaster]

I wish we could brainwash the rest of you to think that way. :twisted:

[Stank]

Mm Hmm... I don't know where that came from. At least, I know I didn't come in here thinking this was a democracy. Even in societies run by a small ruling class the ruling class usually listened to what the people had to say to try to get a better grasp of the best way of ruling over them, unless it was a sheer dictatorship. And, most of the time in dictatorships the people ain't to happy. So we came here to voice our opinion on what, in our eyes, was a major change to the game. Were we going to change the staff's minds? Most likely not. Were we going to gain more information on the issue and get all the points on the issue squared away and discussed? Yes. Sort of like a public FORUM. And, this game is not a dictatorship, so I'm sure that if enough people were to bring up legitmate points against the issue the change would not have been implimented. This forum, like all of the staff's changes, was made in hopes of better improving the game. If we were only here to overthrow the decision then I'm sure almost nobody would have come, as this is not indeed a democracy. But it is not just some dictatorship either. The people have a voice, because in the end the people are what keep the game going. What is point in having a game if there are no players? Changes will be made, experiments will be tested, but the most benefits and knowledge will be passed on to the administration by directed interaction, via the forums, though it usually does come in complaints. -.-

[lostsoul]

well, that went over my head..

[Sabu]

Me too! I just came from Jupiter and I don't have a clue about democracy or dictatorship. :lol:
Well, I am looking forward to this change. Anyone knows when this will happen?

[Nightwind]

stank, a change will not be removed from the list, no matter the level of protest we might see about it. By the time a change comes up, it's already been determined that it's required for the good of the entire comunity.

Personally, i think this topic is good, because it shows just how much other stuff we need to add with it, to help the change go over well. I think a ...

oooh... shiny

[Acemaster]

You, sir, have ADD.

[Furion]

I think it's admirable that the staff has brought this discussion to the forums, because it means they want to hear the criticisms of this new direction for the game. I think it's a mistake, though, for anyone to assume the presentation of the issue in the forums means that this is a democracy - that's probably something that is a taboo thing for a staff member to say, but I'm not staff so I think I can say it. I represent only me. Since this is not a democracy, the staff has the right to change the game in whatever manner they wish, according to some grand design that they are (wisely) unwilling to reveal to everyone. So... stop whining and embrace the changes as something that will contribute to the continually evolving nature of the game. I'm excited to be part of a work in progress, a "clinical trial" of sorts...

Mm Hmm... I don't know where that came from.

Me neither. I don't think the game is a democracy either, but Fionnabhair's views were way too hardline. I think this is a more accurate interpretation: If students had their way, they wouldn't have any homework. But that wouldn't be good for them, and a small governing body (the school administration) makes them do homework for their own good, kind of like benevolent overseers. LOGD is a great game, and people play because they love to. They also voice concerns and praise about the game because they care about what happens to the game, whether on a personal front or for how it affects ALL the players. To call those concerns "whining" without even voicing new ideas is merely flaming, and unappreciated here in this COMMUNITY, the quality of which we all value.

As for Acemaster's comment, I bet you do, tee hee. :twisted:

Now, so I don't do the very thing I was just criticizing, here's my new question about the change. If we want to purchase temporary HP, which do you (the staff, probably) foresee as probably being the better value, the HP potion from Cedric, or the charm potion --> Gauntlet?

[Fionnabhair]

I apologize if anyone thinks I was "flaming" - this is most certainly not what I intended. I'm not sure, though, how else to define some (not all, not even most) of the posts in this thread if "whining" isn't the right word... harping? The overall theme I see is that people think that if they complain enough about the change that is about to occur, it either won't happen or will happen later or on other terms that they negotiate. Maybe there are some things for which this type of banter is appropriate, but when the staff repeatedly says no and explains why, I think it's <insert appropriate word here, eg, whining, harping> for someone to continue to ask.

Anyway, I didn't mean to pull us off-topic here, just meant to say that I think it's exciting to be part of the inevitable flux. :wink:

[Furion]

I agree with that. :D By the way, mine wasn't an all-out criticism. I just disagreed with that post, and wanted to give some defense to those who disagreed with the change. I don't think anybody who disagrees is claiming that the staff would not and should not implement the change if a majority oppose it.

[Pwyll]

It is the selfishness of a very small minority of players that has been heard crying in this thread.

That is inflammatory and unfair, Saucy. I think the tone of this thread has been mostly measured and reasonable. Using terms like "crying" and "whining" just brings the whole discussion down.

The vast majority of players who will benefit have no reason to speak up in thanks and so they haven't. Likewise, the unaffected haven't spoken either. Those two groups make, at my estimate, 5,700 of the 6,000 players on Central.

The vast majority of players hardly ever post on these forums at all. I agree with Tharrin, apathy is not agreement.

Surely anyone with a sense of fairness can see that we have to place the interests of the majority first.

How do you know what the interests of the majority are if they are silent? Besides, it has already been pointed out that the game is not a democracy, so the majority has nothing to do with it.

I do want to say that I'm happy that this thread was set up before the change occurred - much better than what happened when the "moving dragon" was instituted. I think it has given players a chance to prepare so that there will be less hysteria when the change actually takes effect.

I also wish to repeat that I am not opposed to the change, I merely questioned the timing.

[Acemaster]

How do you know what the interests of the majority are if they are silent?

The majority of the LOGD population is farmies, and this change in no way hurts them. As a matter of fact, it will benefit all of them so they will better be able to stand their ground in PvP.

[SaucyWench]

I apologize if anyone thinks I was "flaming" - this is most certainly not what I intended. I'm not sure, though, how else to define some (not all, not even most) of the posts in this thread if "whining" isn't the right word... harping? The overall theme I see is that people think that if they complain enough about the change that is about to occur, it either won't happen or will happen later or on other terms that they negotiate.
Actually, I think this is an important point.

Is LoGD a democracy? No, it's not. We've repeatedly stated that it isn't. Fionna is correct that players seem to interpret invitations for discussion as being part of the decision making process, and for the most part, players are not. As was hinted, in this case the decision has been made. However, there are still good reasons for the discussion. As a result of suggestions made by some players in this thread (and in constructive ways) there will be some very exciting additions coming in *with* the change that I am coding right now. Things to spend gems on, which seemed to be the overriding suggestion that was constructive.

I stand by my quote earlier in the thread that it is a very small minority of players that has been heard crying in this thread. Most players have not come in here and cried. Some did. The manner in which players complained was selfish when they did not consider other players. The people who put forth well thought out arguments and asked polite questions in an effort to understand, I do not consider criers. I consider those people valued contributors to a discussion that has resulted in amendments to the way it this change will be implemented. Polite gets results. Crying gets ignored. Place yourself into whichever category you think fits you, Pwyll, but at the time I made the statement I would not have considered you part of the crier group at all, so I am unsure why you chose to take offense at my remark.

[Moonchilde]

Now, so I don't do the very thing I was just criticizing, here's my new question about the change. If we want to purchase temporary HP, which do you (the staff, probably) foresee as probably being the better value, the HP potion from Cedric, or the charm potion --> Gauntlet?

Well, that all depends on the settings for the gauntlet.
I will say that the gauntlet is most likely more random. However, it's cost to reward average ratio is up to the game settings.
With the potion you know exactly what you are getting.

[FlameStrike]

OK, I've done my best to catch up on this topic, and while I may have missed something, I feel I am ready to jump in. I have spent some gems on Perm. HP, partly out of curiosity, and partly out of my own version of an HP cap, and I don't object to losing them if a coded cap of any kind is going to be in place. This is no problem, and when I first started playing I felt this was a needed change, and I'm glad to see it.

However, I have to add myself to the numbers of people concerned about the number gems of gems suddenly availiable. If my estimates are right, I may find myself with as many as 100 or more additional gems, and no reason for them. I have enough to interest Lonestrider, but I've beaten him off everytime he's come after me, so I'm not overly concerned about him. What I am concerned about is having gems and no reason to have them anymore. I just hope that something comes along that makes them useful again. Once I find the correct section of the forums in which to post it, I may make a suggestion I have on how that might be done.

In the mean time, thanks to everyone involved for a great game, and I look forward to seeing it get better with this coming change.

[minotaurman]

I will probably be the most affected by this change, for reasons of my own choosing and meddling. I do not play the game for PvP per say, but it is a large part of what i actually do for a few reasons. Ever since the title of god was sent beyond my reach by the new title system, i havent really been killing the dragon. Quite the opposite, i have been avoiding it. And it is a laugh every day when sometimes someone at twice my teen DK lvl finds out that i have spent so long at this lvl that i have a base of over 250 hp. I usually end up with an inbox of 2-8 attempts on my life with one successful one in the 2-8, successful guy often being HUGELY above me. I enjoy being a low lvl landmine. But even I always die to someone, noone makes it through the night except those of top ten status or so, something I have gotten used to. My only PvP is really people of my lvl or those of WTTP as this adds to my NM clan points. So I say again that even though I probably have the most to lose through my own choice and odd quirks, that I am actually still interested in the new changes.

To give a few ideas that I have not heard yet, perhaps if the problem is that there is too great an HP difference on the newer characters, perhaps you could make it so that as you buy more maximum hp, the cost for more increases. Either one where say every few it adds slightly to the cost or every few the cost doubles, it would allow the lower lvls to decrease the gap far easily without restricting the strategies of others. It would also not negate the benefit of the DK hp bonus because the gem count could become very high very fast. Obviously, this might not work depending upon the new changes, but not knowing them I simply offer this.

I would also like to second the idea of perhaps adding gems to the haberdasher, or maybe the gems could get you a tie. Simply a non game affecting perma use of gems.

I think I am forgetting something I wanted to say but I am not afraid to add it later if I remember, so I leave you with these thoughts.

[SaucyWench]

However, I have to add myself to the numbers of people concerned about the number gems of gems suddenly availiable. If my estimates are right, I may find myself with as many as 100 or more additional gems, and no reason for them. I have enough to interest Lonestrider, but I've beaten him off everytime he's come after me, so I'm not overly concerned about him. What I am concerned about is having gems and no reason to have them anymore. I just hope that something comes along that makes them useful again.

there will be some very exciting additions coming in *with* the change that I am coding right now. Things to spend gems on

[Marcus]

Don't forget that gems can be used to bribe his bartenderness...speaking of which, any idea how long it is until 0 hour? I really need those gems...one of my chars is stuck at level 14, and a Roc would help quite nicely... :shock:

[antares]

I think the availability of Cedrik's potions to give permanent HP should be removed, because the access is too easy, but the random encounters that CAN end up giving an extra HP are Ok as they are. I would appreciate if they didn;t change, as they are very useful and don't occur that often. Besides, it'se never for free! :lol:

[Sergei]

I'd like to stick my two cents in.

At first, I was appalled. I, like most newbies, heaped on cheap HP's to better utilize the PvP. So many others had done likewise, that the only way to beat them was join them. The HP's did not help me when it came time for a DK (in fact I noticed a jump in difficulty). So when I heard about the change, I hated it.

Now I've done some thinking and some forum reading. This is a sideways move. EVERYONE will be affected. The status quo of HP steroid use will end, and PvP's will be more equitable. A new system will sort itself out, and I feel nothing will be lost from the gameplay.

So I wait anxiously for Zero Hour. I wish I had more Dk's so I can use my refunded gems to pay for a Gryphon, but oh well. Good luck to you all, and happy hunting.

[MetaDadaranel]

Actually, not everyone will be affected. This change will not affect (from the numbers I've seen bandied about) 5700 out of 6000 players. Which makes the change unobtrusive to the vast majority of players. However, it so happens, the 300 players affected are some of the more active, and care enough about the game to read the forums.

Personally, I am displeased with the change if it's merely a question of being fair to the 5700, since everybody has the same opportunities, but as I think JCP said, the high-hp playes are a disproportionate drain on resources, and that's a rationale I am completely happy to accept and be content with.

[Stank]

-.- Why is it that when I try to say something I think is meaningful and important everybody gets confused? I really need to work on my proper sentence structuring...

Anywho, I want to apologize. AGAIN. I never meant to appear selfish or come here to simply 'whine'. In fact, that feels like a harsh insult to me. Whether I appeared this way or not I am not sure, but I never meant to appear that way. I did come here to whine, yes, as most of the players who value their hit points did. Part of it was a gut-wrench reaction, part of it was, in my eyes at the time, a necessary call for change. But I also came here to learn the facts, to persuade change or tinkering, or to make sure everything would end up fair and just. It seems this has happened, so I am happy. But if I angered anybody or appeared selfish, I truly am sorry. I never intended it, and this was my first visit to the forums, so I don't know how it works exactly. I am all for equality, but I did not feel the change was fair to the HP adept, which just happened to include me.

As for the changes, I like the tie idea, but I thought something like that was already in the works. It just seems a natural LoGD manuevre, however that's spelled.

And the democracy thing... well, my point has already been given. Not a democracy, but a fair ruling party. To be fair, though, hearing the complaints of the people is sometimes needed. ^^ But you're right, it is better if they are phrased in the form of a suggestion. I apologize for not knowing that, and ignorance of the law is no excuse, so I have no excuse for doing it.

[Acemaster]

It is easy to offend people when you first come to a forum because you do not know how people generally think and feel. This is generally a non-confrontational forum, although some comments are said through gritted teeth to avoid provoking the moderators. I recommend just reading around to get the general tone and "feel."

Peace out,
Ace

[Nightwind]

also likely, you wen't deep, in a shallow forum... sometimes, people woln't get what you mean.

If that's even one person, of allthe people who read it, they will, likely, take it wrong....

[Fettuccini]

Learning that I was about to gain ~1500 gems for the sake of HP parity left me with a vague sense of unease. I felt as if I had just dropped the soap in Lonestrider's prison shower.

Perhaps, as an alternative or in addition to the spending solutions mentioned above, we should be allowed to convert gems into donator points? This can be either a one time option at zero hour or a persistent option in the Hunter's Lodge. Zero hour would offer the most favorable exchange rates (say, 1:1) whereas future conversions (if allowed) will be at 10:1, 20:1, etc. Would be a great way to reward the long-time players (and the primary dissenters) for their loyal contribution to the game and community with the customized weapon or colorized name that they've always wanted. Maybe as a futher incentive, people who've donated real money at a certain level for that month will receive higher exchange rates. Contribute $3 to give yourself the opportunity to make more than that.

Just a random idea. I won't be hurt if you shoot it down. Not on the outside, anyways. :'(

P.S. to Saucy - I named my Guild Wars character in your honor. "Lusty Tart"

[muad]

this change has already been implemented on dragoncat. it is not bad at all. mods and admins please censor if necessary - my player has about 2400 gems on him right now. i found lonestrider twice and he asked for 142 or so. i chose to fight each time and won. yes my player is a god. yes my hp are about 110. lonestrider fell in two rounds because his hp are a reflection of mine plus a little bit. no big deal. i personally think that a certain bartender in the forest will be making heaps of gold from folks learning about each other. should be fun!

[SaucyWench]

Learning that I was about to gain ~1500 gems for the sake of HP parity left me with a vague sense of unease. I felt as if I had just dropped the soap in Lonestrider's prison shower.

Perhaps, as an alternative or in addition to the spending solutions mentioned above, we should be allowed to convert gems into donator points? This can be either a one time option at zero hour or a persistent option in the Hunter's Lodge. Zero hour would offer the most favorable exchange rates (say, 1:1) whereas future conversions (if allowed) will be at 10:1, 20:1, etc. Would be a great way to reward the long-time players (and the primary dissenters) for their loyal contribution to the game and community with the customized weapon or colorized name that they've always wanted. Maybe as a futher incentive, people who've donated real money at a certain level for that month will receive higher exchange rates. Contribute $3 to give yourself the opportunity to make more than that.

Just a random idea. I won't be hurt if you shoot it down. Not on the outside, anyways. :'(

P.S. to Saucy - I named my Guild Wars character in your honor. "Lusty Tart"

I'm so honoured! :lol: That's awesome, heh.

We're going to be mean, and not allow a transfer to donator points. A couple of reasons - the players that spent on charm instead of hitpoints for the past however many months have, in time, lost nearly all those gems. As you're all aware, charm decays at new day. Those who spend on hitpoints get a *full refund* and haven't lost a single one. So, it's a little unfair to punish the charm brigade *and* give the hitpoint brigade added donor status. I'm aware there were other tradeoffs (namely, hitpointers having harder forest fights) but what we're doing here is making all gem spends equitable - or at least we're trying.

In practice, yes, your gems would not be of much value, if you were given a big pile and little to spend them on. If you were to lose them all to Lonestrider in a week, you'd be equal to the charm people in terms of being "fair". However, we recognise that it isn't how it would *FEEL* to you guys - it would hurt and you'd feel plenty ripped off in comparison to how you were before we big meanies took your hitpoints away.

SO. And here is the so. We still feel it is fair to implement the change. But we have listened to your concerns, so -

1. We will nerf Lonestrider (I am not saying he is off for X days - I am saying, you will not have to worry about him as a constant frequent threat when the change first goes live).
2. Lonestrider will have some additions. I've coded these already, they will just be a couple of surprises to keep you all on your toes.
3. We will provide incentives to you to get tattooed, if you have not done so already. You will probably want to get collect them as soon as possible. Now that is a friendly hint, so listen up if you're unadorned. :shock:
4. We will provide incentives to you to buy jewellery. Oooh, another hint - there will be a jeweller. You will have good reason to think about spending 10-1100 gems there.
5. Heidi will have an orange candle which also costs gems. She will give players an opportunity to change the way they spent their dragon points *IF* they decide later on that spending on 100 extra forest fights was a mistake, for example.
6. We are adding four new high-cost mounts that favour four different stats: hitpoints, forest fights, attack and defense. Each of them will be potentially roughly equal to the Ettile or Gryphon but will be to your advantage if you spent at least half of your dragon points on that particular stat. If you choose to spend on both attack and hitpoints, for example, the gryphon will still be better, and if you spend on forest fights and choose low hitpoints, the ettile will still be better.
7. We *hope* to have a gift shop ready.

[Furion]

*Sets off a round of fireworks in celebration of the staff's work, new goodies, and a great game*

My excitement continues to mount! Saucy, would you mind hinting at the benefit of tattoos in your vague, roundabout way? :wink: I'm against tattoos generally, so I was kind of interested to know the perks beforehand, but if you can't tell me, I'll think about just getting them anyway. By the way, can you squeak me out just one return YOM or pm? I have sent you several. :(

Stank, that was so good to hear. You had always been such a positive influence on the game, so when I saw you in Degolburg Square and here, I wasn't sure what to think. Stink on, my brother!

Tee hee, no colored name for me yet. I'll get there eventually! Plus, with all the new changes, there's gotta be SOME bugs out there for me to find! :D

[SaucyWench]

Saucy, would you mind hinting at the benefit of tattoos in your vague, roundabout way? :wink: I'm against tattoos generally, so I was kind of interested to know the perks beforehand, but if you can't tell me, I'll think about just getting them anyway.
Normally I'd vaguely just say that I hinted and you'll be sorry if you don't, but since I've promised it for months and never delivered... Sichae coded me a tattoo monster whose strength is related to the number of tattoos you have.

[Furion]

I'm assuming that meant the more tattoos you have the weaker it is, otherwise having tattoos wouldn't be too much of a benefit.

By the way, I've been wondering. A lot has been said of the creatures' strengths being related to hitpoints. If this is true, then would the only benefit of having more HP be a smaller likelihood of dying by accident doing automatic fighting? I'm guessing this is not the case, based on Saucy's? statement that she would still choose to have a base of ~150 HP.

And on the note of forest creature strength, does their strength also reflect a player's attack/defense? (I know the dragon's does.) Does this mean that no DK goodie gives a player an absolute advantage over forest creatures? (Absolute = player gain with no creature gain)

[Nightwind]

There is ONE.

And I keep argueing that it needs to change...

[SaucyWench]

We use a point system for forest creatures. A tally is taken, with your max HP, attack, and defence taken into account (plus your level, and so on). The dice get rolled and those points are then randomly given to the monster. Another dice also determines the strength (a thrillseek will usually give you a level above, but can be +1 or -1 to that as well, for example).

I think what you're asking is why it matters to have high HP, if the monster has the same overall stats. The RNG does give you more of a chance to run if you have higher HP, yes, simply because the fight lasts longer and you can usually hit that R key 3 or 4 times at least (if I only had 100 hitpoints to start, I might be dead in one hit). So a high HP is overall *safer*. But ONLY because of the ability to run.

High defence is an advantage if you Thrillseek because the monster gets the first hit 2/3 of the time. High attack is an advantage if you Slum because it's 1/3. LOW HP is an advantage if you want your mount to last. A high HP player uses say, 5-10 rounds of mount per fight. A low HP player like me uses 1-2 and the mount can then go on to help me achieve a flawless for many more fights than say, McD.

[SaucyWench]

There is ONE.

And I keep argueing that it needs to change...I actually think that's not correct. Choosing all FF gives you a speed advantage in DK days. It however leaves you near powerless in PvP. Players now all have the chance to respend on FF, if they wish.

Consider players with many FF from dragon points. They are not an advantage to booger and I anymore at ALL. Neither of us have time to play for hours a day.

[Pwyll]

LOW HP is an advantage if you want your mount to last. A high HP player uses say, 5-10 rounds of mount per fight. A low HP player like me uses 1-2 and the mount can then go on to help me achieve a flawless for many more fights than say, McD.

I'm sorry to contradict you, Saucy, but I'm just not seeing that. My FFs go 2-4 rounds on average and I get 50%-60% flawless fights. Maybe I'd get more flawless if my HP were lower, I don't know; but at this point I get flawless Thrillseeks and even the occasional flawless Suicidal Search.

[ChattyTrog]

I think she's is just trying to generalize what happens. There will always be outlyers. You could perhaps have a peculiar mix of stats that treat you as a mix of speed/strength. For the most part, though, I'd say Saucy's argument is correct.

[SaucyWench]

Heh. I get something like 80% flawless over a DK (I haven't DKd in about a month, but I think that's right) and the level 1 stat is over 90. I can see that yours might go 3ish, but even if I get 20 of my fights for 1 round (which is easy) it has a compound effect.

[Stank]

Stank, that was so good to hear. You had always been such a positive influence on the game, so when I saw you in Degolburg Square and here, I wasn't sure what to think. Stink on, my brother!

*tear* Thank you my friend. I try my best, but I can only stink so much...

Anyways, in pure contradiction to Pwyll's arguement, here is my pathetic ratio of flawlesses. On my 18th DK, I had 410 base hit points, a gryphon, with my attack and defense as high as the dragon points would allow, and 9.21% of my 532 forest fights were flawless. It's a thing of morbid beauty, t'aint it? So, at least in my case, HP and flawlesses don't mix to well.

In the case of the changes, I can honestly say I love every one of them. I look forward to thumping Lonestrider, and I hope his new surprises will at least make the fight interesting. I've always thought tatoos should give something more then a cosmetic change, what for 10 gems and all. Plus the sickness thing kept me away from them. The gift shop also sounds amusing. But what I can't wait for is the jewelry store. Bling bling all the way baby! :D Ahh, it will be marvelous...

This is the way I hoped the changes would go when I came here. It just didn't sound like they were going in this direction for the first five pages. x.X Not in time at least. I thank all of you for tolerating my paranoia and annoyingly long posts for so long, and I am pleased everything is turning out for the best, despite my character practically being rebooted.

[Pwyll]

Ah, yes - on a positive note I am very much looking forward to meeting the tattoo monster! :)

[SaucyWench]

:(

He might not be ready in time.

In creating him I exposed a bug that also affects LoneStrider and the Jewel Monster. Kendaer needs to write some code to fix it. It all depends when Kendaer can write it as to when those two monsters go live.

[Acemaster]

My character is pretty much as well rounded as it can be, and I have 150 base HP. At the end of a DK I have about 40% flawless fights (many of them thrillseeks) and my fights last about 3 rounds average. By the way, I recommend to high level players to not just "look for something to kill" instead of thrillseeking to get longer mount times and more flawless fights. You will get more experience overall thrillseeking.

[Waugh]

This thread is going a lot better. There's give and take on both sides. Good to see.

[Pwyll]

In creating him I exposed a bug that also affects LoneStrider and the Jewel Monster.

"Jewel Monster"?? :shock:

[Furion]

4. We will provide incentives to you to buy jewellery. Oooh, another hint - there will be a jeweller. You will have good reason to think about spending 10-1100 gems there.

I think this is the information you need, Pwyll. :wink:

[Acemaster]

zOMG SAUCY HAS AN AVATAR!!!1!11!shiftyeleven!!

I just had to say that. My guess is that the Jewel Monster will be the same as the Tattoo Monster in that the more gems you have, the easier it is.

[Furion]

Guess I better get one too. :D (goes about downsizing his favorite image)

Edit: That one didn't work, so I chose this one. It's Torii Hunter of the Minnesota Twins with his gold glove award.

[SaucyWench]

Yes, I got busy with the photoshop tonight and decided to create a wench in my own image ;) It's pretty rough, but hey, she's reduced enough that you can't see.

And whoops, I seem to have revealed the reason you might want to buy the jewellery.

[Stank]

Heh, you don't heed a jewel monster to convince me to invest in the open market of bling! Yeah baby! *smiled and reveals his gold-capped incisors*

And are there monsters for other things? Like a hat monster, or a gold monster, or a ressurections monster? Because he sorta defeats his own point...

Oh, and now onto the important stuff. Saucy's new avatar! I mean, she has nearly the most posts in this forum, yet no picture representing her (we assumed) magnificant figure?! 'Twas a crime to all forums and their offspring! You know, blogs. They're essentailly one person forums. Anyways, enough digression... Now her Sauciness has a picture, and it is everything we could've hoped for! A person, appearing very wench-like, in a very saucy pose... And it's in color! It's glorious! And not that bad to boot.

Photoshop? Are you insinuating that you drew this?! Wow. That makes me want to get off my lazy kiester and put up a drawing... Hmm... This taco grease smudge kind of looks like a skunk. With some black colored pencil I could... No! I broke it! NO! *cries*

Anyways, what was I typing here for?

[Furion]

This is way too late to change anything, but I think that having monsters for the sake of encouraging/coercing people to buy tattoos/jewelry is not good. I think it should be a positive thing, like if you have them, you can get a buff or something, not if you don't have them, you are going to suffer at the hands of The Tattoo Monster which lunges at you with Needling Pain!. That way, people who still don't want tattoos/jewelry can feel free not to get them, and save up for tasty goodies in the gift shop. (Personally, a little bling might be nice, but tattoos? Ughh.) :D

[Pwyll]

You seem to be missing an impotant point, Furion. The powers that be are determined to prevent gem hoarding for some reason. JCP in particular seems to have a problem with people amassing large numbers of gems - he's even used phrases like "loosen your tight-fisted grip on your precious gems". I don't know why it bothers the higher-ups so much, but it apparently does...

[Furion]

I got that sense, too, but it's not anything sinister. Probably just a server thing, or something mundane like that. They talked earlier about the need to lower totals (HP, for one) in order to implement some of the new changes.

[SaucyWench]

I think it's been hinted at that the big (not yet) changes will involve changes to gems, and that is why. No, I didn't draw my avatar - I manipulated her. The original was a short-haired version with short, sticking up, orangey-yellow glowing hair and I thought she deserved something a bit less anime-ish and more like my own hair =D

[SaucyWench]

This is way too late to change anything, but I think that having monsters for the sake of encouraging/coercing people to buy tattoos/jewelry is not good. I think it should be a positive thing, like if you have them, you can get a buff or something, not if you don't have them, you are going to suffer at the hands of The Tattoo Monster which lunges at you with Needling Pain!. That way, people who still don't want tattoos/jewelry can feel free not to get them, and save up for tasty goodies in the gift shop. (Personally, a little bling might be nice, but tattoos? Ughh.) :D

Neither the tattoo monster nor the jewel monster can kill you. Neither is unbeatable if you are tattless or jewelless. Both are kinder to players with fewer dragon kills (in fact, those under 8 dragon kills will never be attacked). Both provide a sizeable reward if you do defeat them.

Have I made them fair enough, do you think? Do you still think I'm out to punish players? ;)

[Furion]

That sounds fair to me. :)

Sizeable Rewards, hmmm?

......
http://www.stount.com/wbboard/images/smilies/44.gif

(steals Sativ's smiley from the hot wings thread)

[Syrius]

Due to popular demand, the posts regarding avatars may now be found in the Social-Out of Character area.

The posts that were regarding both avatars and the hp changes have been left here for your entertainment.

Thank you and continue. :wink:

[Furion]

This is another idea for a simple change that might help the HP change go down a little easier.

In my own experience with the Grotto, I was not able to set the probability of individual specials occurring, but only in four groups, "forest", "graveyard", and two others.

I was thinking though, if the probability of individual events can be altered, it might be nice to turn up those of Foilwench and the Forest Fairy. That way, players would have a slightly higher chance to obtain more use points, and soften a bit the HP change. Either that, or maybe players could be able to use ~5 gems to obtain another skill level (not point) in a new library module, something which has been suggested before in the "Feature Requests" section of these forums.

I do suspect though, that their is a way to set probability of individual specials. I recently ran into a trapped soul in the graveyard for the first time in the graveyard, and recently ran into a ring on the road for the first time (this special has been mentioned elsewhere in the forums also).

What do you think?

[SaucyWench]

The only way to increase the probability of individual specials occurring is to modify their code itself. We will not do that, because that means changing it for all the other servers (as I've mentioned before, our code is for LoGD, not just Central).

The other point is that we don't actually want players to find more hitpoints =) Nasty, aren't we?

[Furion]

Really? No more HP? I never would have guessed. :D No but really, if you look back, I was suggesting more Skill Levels for Extra Use Points, not Hit Points. Maybe a book store/library would be a nice addition. Again, this might seem to be a feature request, but really I'm asking for it to soften the HP change. Thoughts?

[SaucyWench]

Interesting idea. Not going to do it =)

The code is already released on Dragoncat, so we aren't changing it this late in the day...

[Furion]

Oooo, the hour of doom approaches!!! :D

[Stank]

NO! Wait... Give me a chance... to wish them goodbye. *hugs his tremendous, bulbous body fat* I'll miss you... :( *tear*

Anyways, who want gems? I got about 100, and that numbers only going to grow over the next week or whatever...

[Furion]

100? I thought you'd be enjoying HP while you still can, like me. :D I know you can't transfer them and were just joking, but if you are so eager to part with those gems, maybe you should send someone *cough* me *cough* every gift in the new gift shop. :D

[Stank]

Well I was going to, but now that I know just how greedy you are I think I'll just send them all to a random level 14 farmy instead. :P

Oh, and I hate to bring this up, but I feel I have to. I noticed that alot of people have only tried a limited amount of mounts, the expensive ones. The smaller ones are viewed as useless, and so unless you have a particular fondness for a certain creature most players never buy them. I think this is because they are simply to easy to get. As a felyne, at least, I've managed to get about 7 gems a day quite often. Even as a dwarf I've gone from less then 50 gems to over 100 in about 14 levels. With this amount of gem hauling going on players can afford the 'expensive' mounts earlier and earlier, and the only reason they don't have gryphons is the DK limit. This isn't a problem, but it is an issue. It causes many mounts to go unused, especially with the new stable feature that has cool mounts show up every now and then, and makes the game too easy. Which is why I hate to complain about it. So I thought that it might be a good idea to increase the cost of most mounts. But there's probably a better solution out there, maybe not doing anything.

I don't know if this should go somewhere else or not, but it occured to me while I was thinking about the massive amounts of gems everybody will get, so I thought I'd put it here. ^^

[Waugh]

A little off topic, but Saucy had mentioned her strategy of keeping Seth happy, and someone mentioned Violet was of no use to him.

This past DK I had the pleasure of being married to Violet, and having her happy with me. I just pulled off another 3-day DK, and this time it included a PVP loss that I initiated. Immediately I figured that 3 days was out of sight.

However with Violet I still achieved the 3 day, as my flawless victories went up 7 percentage points from my last 3 day DK. In fact, this past round was 4.76 percentage points higher flawless than any other DK round I have ever experienced.

I have to Violet to thank for the lovers protection she gave me. It really did help, and I will do everything I can to keep her happy with me. Who knows, with a few more turns (assuming server costs get met), a happy wife, no PvP loss, that 2 day might just be in sight...

[JCP]

What? No recent activity? Maybe this will help.

We are rapidly approaching zero hour.

The new HP rules will affect many things.

The dragon will be re-evaluated.

Current mounts will be re-evaluated.

New mounts will be (eventually) added. Allow time for some testing.

The dragon and current mounts are geared towards the "HP are common" paradigm, and we will need to see how to adjust them. This will most likely include reducing their stats. (Good when we reduce the dragon, bad when we reduce the mounts.)

The reasoning is simple - mounts that had enough duration to last x fights may last much longer if we reduce hitpoints throughout the game.

Enjoy your increased capabilities while you can, and please report how your mounts are doing under the new rules.

New mounts? Well...

They will be in the testing stage once our testers (i.e. moderators) can operate under the new rules, but Saucy and I have created a CLOCKWORK series of mounts.

The clockwork mounts will require some effort to use. Much like the nightmare, which requires that players die in order to get the maximum benefit, each of the clockwork mounts will require that you spend the majority of your dragonpoints on a specific area of your character.

For example, someone who creates a balanced character spending equal dragonpoints on forest fights, hitpoints, attack, and defense might want to avoid the clockwork mounts.

However, a player that spends most of their dragonpoints on attack will want the clockwork mount that focuses on attack (the focus will be in the description).

The clockwork mounts are designed to be the best mounts available for players with the proper dedication.

[YurianStonebow]

... I could kiss you right now. You realize that will help cut down costs for feeding high level mounts like the gryphon? Incredibly useful especially for people who, like me, rely on the surplus turns gained from donations.

[JCP]

... I could kiss you right now. You realize that will help cut down costs for feeding high level mounts like the gryphon? Incredibly useful especially for people who, like me, rely on the surplus turns gained from donations.

Um... the mounts will initially last longer, and then be evaluated and most likely tuned down. Nerfing mounts rarely earns me kisses.

But the whole hitpoint thing should make fights shorter and your mounts last longer in general.

[Sergei]

I anxiously await the change. This should be good.

[Stank]

Please don't re-evaluate the dragon! I have lots of hitpoints, and haven't beaten her the first time in many a DK. Just let me beat her once, with my lower HP. Just once! I want to remember how it tastes. I liked the taste... So long ago...

And will there be a mount for people who, like me, enjoy evening out their attack and defense, finding a nice medium? Because I hate relying on mounts to get through the game and I wouldn't want to fall drastically behind players who load up on attack just because they're lucky enough to have a mount that helps their strategy. Not a complaint, I am looking forward to everything, just an observation and oddly phrased question.

[JCP]

Please don't re-evaluate the dragon! I have lots of hitpoints, and haven't beaten her the first time in many a DK. Just let me beat her once, with my lower HP. Just once! I want to remember how it tastes. I liked the taste... So long ago...

And will there be a mount for people who, like me, enjoy evening out their attack and defense, finding a nice medium? Because I hate relying on mounts to get through the game and I wouldn't want to fall drastically behind players who load up on attack just because they're lucky enough to have a mount that helps their strategy. Not a complaint, I am looking forward to everything, just an observation and oddly phrased question.

Apparently I'm not being understood. Right now the dragon is tough for players with lots of hitpoints. I plan on looking at if the dragon needs to be made weaker so it won't completely destroy players with less hitpoints.

Will there be a new mount for people with balanced stats? No - those already exist in the game.

[Furion]

The way it has been hinted at before, but not explicitly said by JCP in these last few posts, is that if you spend 1/2 your DK points on 1 perk, then the clockwork mount will help you. So Stank, if you are like me, and use your DK points on mostly two stats, then the clockwork mounts could still work for you. Specifically, I use 1/2 on attack, 1/2 on defense, and get attack first, so I'd want the attack mount. Maybe if you want to add a few of the other perks, the clockwork mounts will still work for you, as long as one perk is at least half the time.

[SaucyWench]

There will be SIX top level mounts.

They are the four CLOCKWORK mounts that each require you to spend 50% of your Dragon Points on one stat to get their benefits

AND

The Ettile (favours low hitpoints and high FF)
The Gryphon (favours balanced hitpoints, attack, defense)

While all six of these mounts will require adjustments, they are all roughly, overall, EQUAL. HOWEVER (here's the catch) you need to choose the correct mount for your stats, or choose the correct stats to match your mount. If you spend 60%ish of your points on one stat you will maximise the Clockwork mounts and that makes them *slightly* more powerful than the Ettile and Gryphon. The caveat is... that will leave you vulnerable in the stats you chose not to spend very much on. Not much point having a big tough clockwork mount if you can't survive a forest fight with your flimsy little 10 hitpoints. Not much point spending all your dragon points on Forest Fights, and getting an awseome mount, only to find your attack score is 2.

In the past there were really only two "optimum" strategies (you either went high hitpoints and PvP with the gryphon, or you avoided hitpoints, collected forest fights and used the ettile). What the clockwork mounts offer you is a chance to choose your own unique strategy.

[Stank]

Okay, if that's how the mounts will be then everything sounds fine. Thanks for clearing it up. I just thought, the way the clockworks were being discussed, that they would be alot more powerful then the gryphon if used correctly. I'm glad to see that won't be the case.

Oh, and JCP, I see what you mean. I didn't want you to re-adjust the dragon because, if it's power is adjusted by HP, then I would have a super-easy time on the reset. But I just remembered the fire breath, and how having 150 hit points against 60 damage a turn is not the best way to live to see your statue. So... maybe some re-tweaking is in order...

[Furion]

By the way, where did "clockwork" come from?

[lostsoul]

i like the idea..

[Nightwind]

Stank, the damage the dragon was doing to you, firebreath and all, was taking your hp into account.

After the retooling, you should find that it wouldn't hit you leathally, in two rounds... we hope. Yes, hope, atleast I do... I can be certain they have it right, and they can be sure of it, but the RNG is a 5 letter word.

[JCP]

Stank, the damage the dragon was doing to you, firebreath and all, was taking your hp into account.

Incorrect. The dragon is a mixture of "based on your stats" and "not based on your stats". I expect there to be some adjustment necessary.

I anticipate a VERY lethal dragon until it is adjusted.

[Furion]

By the way, JCP, if you care to fuel zero hour speculation, will it be right on top of a new day? Like maybe 10 minutes before a new day, the upgrades message goes up? Or is it just whenever (the evil option :twisted:)? Or are you waiting for one last bit of code from someone (Saucy talked about the gift shop being finished up)? When is it? :shock:

(I'm tempted to say the people want to know, but I think you would be less likely to hint if I said that :D) (...runs away quickly)

[Fionnabhair]

By the way, JCP, if you care to fuel zero hour speculation, will it be right on top of a new day? Like maybe 10 minutes before a new day, the upgrades message goes up? Or is it just whenever (the evil option :twisted:)? Or are you waiting for one last bit of code from someone (Saucy talked about the gift shop being finished up)? When is it? :shock:

(I'm tempted to say the people want to know, but I think you would be less likely to hint if I said that :D) (...runs away quickly)

Hmm... I'm thinking they haven't said exactly when it will be for a reason - just imagine the server load if we all knew it was going to happen at such and such a time!

[Nightwind]

Stank, the damage the dragon was doing to you, firebreath and all, was taking your hp into account.

Incorrect. The dragon is a mixture of "based on your stats" and "not based on your stats". I expect there to be some adjustment necessary.

I anticipate a VERY lethal dragon until it is adjusted.

well, looks like i need to recheck that module again, thanks JCP.

Ah, I see what it does. The ones i was thinking of, are counted twice, the others...

Thanks, I would never have noticed the error in my thinking.

[Furion]

By the way, JCP, if you care to fuel zero hour speculation, will it be right on top of a new day? Like maybe 10 minutes before a new day, the upgrades message goes up? Or is it just whenever (the evil option :twisted:)? Or are you waiting for one last bit of code from someone (Saucy talked about the gift shop being finished up)? When is it? :shock:

(I'm tempted to say the people want to know, but I think you would be less likely to hint if I said that :D) (...runs away quickly)

Hmm... I'm thinking they haven't said exactly when it will be for a reason - just imagine the server load if we all knew it was going to happen at such and such a time!

Very good point, indeed. I knew they were being cryptic as usual, just didn't know if this was absent-minded crypticism or willful crypticism. :)

[JCP]

By the way, where did "clockwork" come from?

Well, why not?

I wanted the 4 new "focus" mounts to be easily identifiable/set apart, and they present a different approach to designing mounts than we've used before, or at least to a different extreme than we've done before.

Since the mounts require a lot of "upkeep", the idea of clockwork mounts that are completely dependent on the character's actions and decisions appealed to me.

As for the time of zero hour? We're being cryptic on purpose. We're getting all our ducks in a row, and ducks are not very predictable.

[Fionnabhair]

Hmm... I'm thinking they haven't said exactly when it will be for a reason - just imagine the server load if we all knew it was going to happen at such and such a time!

Very good point, indeed. I knew they were being cryptic as usual, just didn't know if this was absent-minded crypticism or willful crypticism. :)

Well of course I don't know for sure, I'm just what-iffing :wink:
...but I'd be willing to bet that's at least part of the cloak and daggers routine...

[SaucyWench]

The gift shop I think isn't finished yet. Talisman has a Real Life (most of us do). The things that WILL go live are the hp changes, PVP immunity option in the preferences, Orange candle, tattoo monster, the jeweller and the gorgon.

Lonestrider has been adjusted. Just, please do not be so silly as to assume your gems are therefore safe. :twisted:

It is likely that players will get an "extra" new day when it does get pushed. Can't help that, sorry, and can't tell you exactly what time of day it will happen either.

[Furion]

Talisman has a Real Life (most of us do).

:heartily agrees.

The gift shop I think isn't finished yet. Talisman has a Real Life (most of us do). The things that WILL go live are the hp changes, PVP immunity option in the preferences, Orange candle, tattoo monster, the jeweller and the gorgon.

Lonestrider has been adjusted. Just, please do not be so silly as to assume your gems are therefore safe. :twisted:

It is likely that players will get an "extra" new day when it does get pushed. Can't help that, sorry, and can't tell you exactly what time of day it will happen either.

:does a double-take.

Whoa, WHOA! PVP immunity option!? Gorgon? It's okay, we knew all about these. We don't want you to share anything more with us. :D

[lostsoul]

::wonders what a 'real life' is::