Why not just make the forest critters harder?

[Waugh]

I also wonder about the time it takes to complete level 1, and the amount of extra exp. it takes to level with each DK. Just wondering, why does Central do it this way? Why don't we just make forest critters harder?

There's one thing I like about Level 1, and it seems an unfair advantage to me. As a Felyne I can find 40 gems at level 1 alone...

[JCP]

Split from another thread, because it does deserve some discussion.

"Simply" making the forest critters tougher with each dk would require that all characters would need to get tougher with each dk as well.

That's not really a flexible position to put players in.

By requiring more experience, the game allows players to play at their own pace. Players can choose to fight more critters or to get tougher, or to find a balance that is to their liking.

Of course, the critters do compensate for the player's stats in order to remain competitive.

[SaucyWench]

You'll probably have noticed the gold shortage too, Waugh. It can be very difficult for me to buy weapons.

[Furion]

:suggests talking to Cedrik after getting 40 gems, but that is a different story. And even with the shortage, it isn't impossible....

Plus there are always the Fist and T-Shirts people.

[Darcia]

You'll probably have noticed the gold shortage too, Waugh. It can be very difficult for me to buy weapons.It's because of all them little greedy dwarves, they might as well be leprechauns!!

[Waugh]

You'll probably have noticed the gold shortage too, Waugh. It can be very difficult for me to buy weapons.

I have noticed that, but I've developed my strategy around it. I love the game, and the ability to alter your strategy as you see fit. Fantastic stuff. The *one* thing I can think of, that I would do differently if I had the power, would be to come up with a better way to deal with level 1 and the experience needed to pass it.

Oh, and altering Lonestriders frequency... :D I do want those few hundred gem items...

[Sabu]

Just to give you some facts, I had a record breaking 830 FFs in my last DK, along with 7 PVPs!

[Milkboy31]

So are you saying that gold becomes less frequently awarded as you progress in DK count? I haven't noticed that and I've got over 30 DK's under my belt...

[jrminga]

So are you saying that gold becomes less frequently awarded as you progress in DK count? I haven't noticed that and I've got over 30 DK's under my belt...
he meant "as a felyne":
As a Felyne I can find 40 gems at level 1 alone...

[Sabu]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was complaining about level 1. I haven't tried being a felyne yet.

[Darcia]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was complaining about level 1. I haven't tried being a felyne yet.Wow and all those DKs! You need to get off Jupiter more :P

[DaFish]

i know the new change is suppose to speed things up abit, the the irony is that, overall its actually slowing me down...maybe there are other ways of speeding things up than by limiting the amounts of Flawlwss FF

[SaucyWench]

Yes, there was an oops in there and it looks like you did your turns before the second half of the code went live on Central.

In addition to the flawless cap, there is now an increase in experience gained per creature and a commensurate increase in gold and also in the difficulty of the monster (progressive - will be barely noticeable to players of low DKs).

These are things we mistakenly thought had been in place for some time. You should find it better tomorrow.

Those who spent primarily on forest fights will not get more difficult monsters but will also not be rewarded with higher experience and gold gains. If you find that you are being sorely disadvantaged with the cap, it is likely that you have too many Forest Fights. If that's the case, you either spend on other stats, or understand that forest fights will not be a perfect progression ingredient anymore.

[Zod]

Well, we can certainly tell you gave this your very best effort.

[Stormkitten]

I was level 1 when I started today, with 43 dragon kills. I have no dragon points spent on FF at all (this game takes enough of my time as it is) and I still managed to hit the Flawless cap.
I think this will be a good change, for limiting the time it takes.

[Sabu]

Hi Saucy,
Many thanks to you for listening and taking care of the problem. I will post some comments once I do my next DK. Currently, at level 11, I am flying superspeed .... (a lot of xp from FFs).
Thanks again, you guys are amazing!
Sabu.

[SaucyWench]

Much as I would like to take credit for the changes, it was Moonchilde (Kendaer) who made the changes to the code. I am only responsible for the very tiny change that stops level 15 players gaining experience from PvP.

We don't expect players *not* to hit the flawless cap. In all honesty it is probably going to be irritating at first. I would ask those players to look at the change on the whole though - you probably end up with the same (or more) experience, and you probably won't have to sit there mindlessly clicking Look for three hours to get to level 2.

Thank you to those who have taken the changes with positivity.

[Sabu]

Alright, thanks to Moonchilde and Saucy!
One more fact to support Saucy's point: I went from level 9 (almost empty xp bar) to a DK with 64 FFs today (flawless ~ 75%, so around 48 flawless FFs) along with 3 PVPs. This IS a good change.
Saucy, even though you can't gain xp or gold (?, I am not sure about gold) at level 15, I noticed that my xp and gold increased if I travel at level 15.
Cheers,
Sabu.

[SaucyWench]

Yes, because I only made the changes to PvP.

If you travel or hunt in the forest you can still gain XP and gold - however, you run the risk of a certain special or two. These specials stop people camping at level 15.

[Milkboy31]

Yeah I guess the verdict is still out in my case... I hit the 100 cap at level three today after a DK. At first I was annoyed that my remaining 6 ff's were drained so quickly having no more free fights as rewards... and especially since I just fed my ettile. But in the end I found that I had slighly more experience than I usually do after my first day...

So... I think it's good, I just have to try and keep better track of how many flawless rewards I have left before I feed my ettile!

[Zod]

Thank you to those who have taken the changes with positivity.
I was being sarcastic in my earlier reply.

I frankly don't see how this change could have been handled worse. You just totally neutered my character. The xp gained in my first forest day has dropped to 1/2 to 1/4 of what it used to be, the gold is more like 1/3 to 1/6.

You say it's now possible to have too many DK points invested in forest fights. Can a person have too many DK points in attack or defense or hps? No. Why single out FF's?

This cap doesn't solve the problem I had originally talked about here (http://lotgd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17077#17077), at least, no more than simply turning the server off would. I always had the option of levelling early.

And it might have been nice to solicit some input from the players before doing this. Or at least, an explanation as to why the suggestion I made (http://lotgd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17093#17093) wouldn't satisfactorily solve the problem. The only response I received to this suggestion was that you were all too busy. Then two days later we get this "fix". Not busy enough it would seem.

I am really sorry I ever said anything. I was just being honest and forthcoming, and look at what it did to the game. And like an idiot, I posted this here using my character name on Central. EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HATE ME!

[Zod]

That having been said, let me offer a suggestion on how to make this better, at least from my point of view.

You're going to cap free FF's? Fine. But if you're going to do that, why not base the cap on the number of FF's a player gets at new day?

So player one with 20 FF's at new day gets a cap of 200 free FF's, player two with 40 FF's at new day gets a cap of 400 free FF's.

Either that, or eliminate the xp/gold bonus penalty.

I'm getting it from both ends over here, ya know?

[Deimos]

You say it's now possible to have too many DK points invested in forest fights. Can a person have too many DK points in attack or defense or hps?

Yes, they can. If you have a lot of hp, then the baddies in the forest will be strong to the point that they one shot your poor defense. The same goes for attack, if you don't manage to one shot the baddie. And if you primarily have defense, then each fight would take a while, and your mount would be gone much sooner than usual. There are other ramifications for each focus, of course, but those are the first ones I could think of. Generally, forest fights have been looked at, until now, as a safe yet time consuming alternative. Now they've been brought closer to being in line with the other options.

Of course, these imbalances usually don't occur until you've spent over half of your dragonkill points on one stat.

[Zod]

But there's no cap. I know all about how the monsters adapt to your attributes, but there is no equivalent penalty placed on the player for specializing in any of these attributes.

The equivalent penalty for someone who specializes in attack, for instance, would be to simultaneously cap the damage he or she it able to deal with each blow as well as the xp/gold earned on the basis that you're too powerful so you don't deserve it.

For instance, there is no message stating to the effect, "Yes, you walloped the Green Dragon for 430hps, but that isn't fair, so you only deal 50 damage."

Now if it were more of a formula, that is, if the number of FF's were factored in to the cap, that would bring it more into line. Or if we were relieved of the xp/gold bonus penalty.

I understand that balance is a primary objective, but these changes have really hobbled my character. Overnight.

(and that's to say nothing of the bugs that have occurred as the result of instituting these changes. Two DK's now have been compromised as a result of these bugs. I'm feeling really picked on here.)

[Deimos]

[scarcasm]Yes. These changes were made specifically to spite you.[/sarcasm]

The flawless fight cap has nothing to do with dragonkill points spent on turns. It doesn't say that "Well, you have 200 turns, but that's too many, so we're taking away 100." It says to everyone, "Well, you've gotten 100 free turns, " which, by the way, is a lot for one day, " so I'm not going to give you any more." This happens even if one hasn't spent any dragonkill points on turns.

[Zod]

[scarcasm]Yes. These changes were made specifically to spite you.[/sarcasm]
I didn't say that they were. And what are you trying to do with a comment like this? I'm not going be baited by you. Please confine your remarks to the subject at hand or stay out of the conversation.

I just note that the changes were largely in response to a posting I made, appear to have the greatest negative impact on characters like mine, as well as the fact that it seems as though my character is frequently used as a kind of crash-test dummy by the coders.

And obviously the cap impacts those with DK points spent on turns. Do some math. Somebody else could expect, say, 200 free FF's, a character like mine could expect 1000. By putting a hard cap in place of 100, you deny me 900 free FF's while denying the other player only 100.

We see nothing like that for attack, defense or hps. Nothing. Not even close.

[Talisman]

If you expect to get countless flawless fights and associated extra turns ad nauseum, perhaps we could just simplify the entire process and not count forest fights at all. Just let everyone kill in the forest until they're tired of it, and move on.

Of course, the game setting to make flawless fights less common could also be tweaked somewhat.

[Deimos]

[scarcasm]Yes. These changes were made specifically to spite you.[/sarcasm]
I didn't say that they were. And what are you trying to do with a comment like this? I'm not going be baited by you. Please confine your remarks to the subject at hand or stay out of the conversation.

I'm feeling really picked on here.

It wasn't an attempt to bait you. It was a use of humor to answer your unfounded concern. There was no thought of you specifically when these changes were instituted. There was a thought of the fact that people got as many forest fights as you want and took hours to play day one, and complained about the time. And the possibility of taking 4 hours to play one game day is one that needed addressed.

[Talisman]

I just note that the changes were largely in response to a posting I made, appear to have the greatest negative impact on characters like mine, as well as the fact that it seems as though my character is frequently used as a kind of crash-test dummy by the coders.


With well over 10,000 players playing this game on the net, and half of them on Central, JT and MightyE are not likely to change the official game code just to spite one player. All changes to the core code are only made after long term observation of game play trends, determination that an aspect of the game appears to be 'out of whack', then extremely careful consideration given to how the change would impact other aspects of the game.

We see nothing like that for attack, defense or hps. Nothing. Not even close.

The move away from permanent hitpoints wasn't a big change? Changes in how monsters react to high attack ratios wasn't a big change?

Not everything is going to change at once, but when something does change you need to bear in mind that Central is a BETA, ie a TESTING server. If you stopped to look at the big picture - that is, how many changes, and to what stats, strategies, etc, have been made in the 2 years I've been playing this game, the change you are having a heartache with is relatively minor.

[Zod]

It wasn't an attempt to bait you.
Obviously it was. You are mocking my grievance with this change with a comment like this. Please stop.

And the possibility of taking 4 hours to play one game day is one that needed addressed.
I was one of the players affected by this, but as I myself noted, I could also change my style of gameplay without intervention on the part of the coders. I would stay at level one as long as possible, hence it would take a lot of time. Obviously, I could have changed that strategy so that I level earlier, and thus avoid the problem (and noted this in a later post.)

This change really does seem to be more about the higher DK players than anything else. A lot of you claim it takes all these free FF's just to make it to level two. If this is the problem, the obvious solution is to lower the increment in experience required for level two for each successive DK. The rest of us don't have to be shafted to accommodate problems that only exist at higher DK levels.

I also note that by making such a change, you help insulate players at the higher DK levels. You got 100-200 DK's by using the existing (or similar) free FF's reward system. Then you change it so that it is so much harder; I am now estimating the required number of days for me to DK has doubled.

So in effect, the strong are making a change that really benefits only themselves, and to the detriment of the weak.

What I find remarkable is that one of the things I enjoyed the most about the game was the balance. Little things done here and there that when added up provide a rich, immersive experience. And it's played using a browser!

I would have imagined that such an environment came about through many small changes.

This change is more akin to dropping a rock on a bug. That's how I feel. Please don't mock me for feeling that way, it's just the way it is.

[Furion]

Now if it were more of a formula, that is, if the number of FF's were factored in to the cap, that would bring it more into line. Or if we were relieved of the xp/gold bonus penalty.

I just wish to add that it is a gold/exp bonus, not penalty. Those that have a character with points spent on HP, Atk, and Def face tougher forest creatures, and thus deserve a gold-exp bonus, because they do not have the extra turns that others with more points in FF have, that are exempt from the limit. It is a balancing issue, and a gameplay issue for people who have huge amounts of DKs like Sabu, who can't even finish 20 turns in less than several hours.

[Zod]

With well over 10,000 players playing this game on the net, and half of them on Central, JT and MightyE are not likely to change the official game code just to spite one player.
Now you're doing it too. I never said these changes were done to spite me. Please read what I said again.

All changes to the core code are only made after long term observation of game play trends, determination that an aspect of the game appears to be 'out of whack', then extremely careful consideration given to how the change would impact other aspects of the game.
In this case this is clearly not true. We have a post history which ably demonstrates this. The problem wasn't even recognized until just a few days ago. Correct suggestions as to how to fix the problem were dismissed with the excuse that there is a lack of time (which proves to be inaccurate.) The ramifications of the change themselves illustrate well how very little thought went into it. Just the fact that the change is impacting players who never took issue with the amount of time the game consumed is evidence of that.

The move away from permanent hitpoints wasn't a big change? Changes in how monsters react to high attack ratios wasn't a big change?
Changes where the pain was spread around equally, or at least, a lot more equally than we see here.

...the change you are having a heartache with is relatively minor.
Double the number of days to DK is minor? No, I don't think it is.

I have the right to complain about this, don't I? That's all I'm doing.

[ggeezz]

Hopefully I can put a little perspective on this for Zod. Talisman noted this is a beta server, but it might be better if you think of it as a dynamic server. It is not static. Both the game and the player base is constantly changing and the whole thing is like an ecosystem. Everything interconnects and the whole balance is fragile. If you kill the foxes, the rabbits over-populate.

The he staff has to take myriad considerations into mind, some of them you might not think of, some of them you might not be privy to (ie., future features of the game). Players tend to develope a strategy they like, then hold on to it for dear life. It's theirs, they created it, and they want to defend it. They get angry when something encroaches their strategy. But your strategy may have just went the way of the dodo bird.

Don't worry though, your character hasn't just been destroyed. With a visit to Heidi you can completely rework yourself. Maybe it's time to reinvest some of your DK points.

Don't consider this an inconvience though. It's part of the fun of the game. I suspect I've been around a little bit longer than you, and guess what, if the game wasn't dynamic I wouldn't still be playing. I would have become bored with it much too long ago. But I'm not bored. Sometimes I have to reinvent (evolve if you will) myself a little to stay competitive. That's what you do when you are in a system as complex as LOTGD on Central is.

I'll end by saying this. I've been playing for a while and seen several changes to the game. Some of them I didn't like at first, but after time I've seen that the staff is taking the game in a better direction. Adapt and have fun.

[Zod]

I just wish to add that it is a gold/exp bonus, not penalty. Those that have a character with points spent on HP, Atk, and Def face tougher forest creatures, and thus deserve a gold-exp bonus, because they do not have the extra turns that others with more points in FF have, that are exempt from the limit.
And those with HP, Atk, and Def get.... HP, Atk and Def. You're not sitting out there in the forest with your derriere hanging out with a measly 10hps wielding a bent straw.

You have the benefits you contracted for. Why should you get a bonus for that, at the same time I'm denied the benefits I've contracted for?

I mean, read what you're saying again. You want to have the benefits you've spent DK points on, and get a bonus for that, while denying me both the benefits I've spent DK points on, as well as the bonus.

You'd be upset too.

[Zod]

I've been playing for a while and seen several changes to the game. Some of them I didn't like at first, but after time I've seen that the staff is taking the game in a better direction. Adapt and have fun.

How many of those changes practically have your name stamped on them?

I am going to be reviled. But that's OK, I'll reinvest in defense I guess.

The rest of your post is, of course, correct, and I'm willing to end my comments here.

[Acemaster]

Well said, ggeezz. Zod, I recommend that you wait until after you have gotten a couple more dragon kills before you so harshly judge this change. It may turn out that you weren't as affected as you might think. I think it actually benefitted me, but then again my strategy is the complete opposite of yours.

[Furion]

Now you're doing it too. I never said these changes were done to spite me. Please read what I said again.

Zod, maybe you need to reread what you said before. Deimos even quoted you saying that we had done it to spite you. Obviously, that wasn't your exact intention, but that's what you said.

All changes to the core code are only made after long term observation of game play trends, determination that an aspect of the game appears to be 'out of whack', then extremely careful consideration given to how the change would impact other aspects of the game.
In this case this is clearly not true. We have a post history which ably demonstrates this. The problem wasn't even recognized until just a few days ago. Correct suggestions as to how to fix the problem were dismissed with the excuse that there is a lack of time (which proves to be inaccurate.) The ramifications of the change themselves illustrate well how very little thought went into it. Just the fact that the change is impacting players who never took issue with the amount of time the game consumed is evidence of that.

No Zod, this is not true at all. This issue was not "recognized until just a few days ago." It is a long-familiar problem that had been discussed before and to which solutions had been proposed. Talisman is right. And I think that it is extremely unfair of you to say that we gave the solution insufficient consideration when you yourself have waited a single game day to form all your opinions on the matter. You even claimed that there was a gold/exp penalty. There is not, if you got less gold/exp, it was luck from the RNG, and that will be evident if you play more game days with the change and then voice your concerns in a strong manner.

The move away from permanent hitpoints wasn't a big change? Changes in how monsters react to high attack ratios wasn't a big change?
Changes where the pain was spread around equally, or at least, a lot more equally than we see here.

This is not true at all. How could the permanent HP change be considered equally spread around? Those who had more permanent HP were affected more, and those who spent their gems on charm or something else were affected less. The same concept applies to the attack ratio change.

Double the number of days to DK is minor? No, I don't think it is.

I have the right to complain about this, don't I? That's all I'm doing.

This is impossible. Even if you killed the dragon in the two game days that have passed from the change until this moment, as I type, it was not a full 1-15 cycle. And even if your day number were to be doubled, this would not be true for everyone, and that is putting it simply.

And yes, you do have a right to complain. But I would urge you to give the change a chance before you voice your concerns in such a passionate manner, just as the staff has urged people to do this with every major change, the most recent being the HP change. And please make sure that you aren't acting in an inflammatory manner. You haven't yet, but you do seem to be bordering on it, in my opinion. I think it would be better if you eased your tone a little bit, to one of discussion, rather than argumentation. After all, I would hope you would agree with me when I say that no matter what happens, the community itself is what makes the game better than others, not killing a dragon.

It's cool, man. These are suggestions. And my tone was a little tense too. We should both bring it down, right? :wink:

Furion

[ggeezz]

How many of those changes practically have your name stamped on them?

The moving dragon. It didn't actually have my name stamped on it, but oh how I (and some others) hated that change when it was first implemented. When first implemented you only got 2 searches per day. I think my fastest DK was a 4 or 5 day at the time and I thought I could do a day better. And then suddenly the dragon might not be there when you got ready for her. It certainly hurt fast DKers more than the slower guys and it seemed pointless at the time (or only to slow us down).

The module got some changes (I like to think because of some of the players constructive comments) and now I look at it as another interesting feature of the game, not a pointless hinderance.

Also, as a note to some of your comments about how much time is put into which features. Sometimes things are easy to code into the game, and sometimes things that seem simple at first are not. Like turning your name in your vital info into a link to your bio ( a feature someone suggested and I thought was a good idea). Seems simple, but it's actually extremely complex.

[Deimos]

And those with HP, Atk, and Def get.... HP, Atk and Def. You're not sitting out there in the forest with your derriere hanging out with a measly 10hps wielding a bent straw.

You have the benefits you contracted for. Why should you get a bonus for that, at the same time I'm denied the benefits I've contracted for?

I mean, read what you're saying again. You want to have the benefits you've spent DK points on, and get a bonus for that, while denying me both the benefits I've spent DK points on, as well as the bonus.

You'd be upset too.

You get ask many turns as you "contracted" for. There was nothing that said for each forest fight you are guaranteed 20 more forest fights.

Those with HP, AT, and DE get more difficult monsters, also, as you said you understood before.

And here you say this change has your name stamped on it, yet you claim you aren't claiming that this was done to spite you and you specifically.

I also note that by making such a change, you help insulate players at the higher DK levels. You got 100-200 DK's by using the existing (or similar) free FF's reward system. Then you change it so that it is so much harder; I am now estimating the required number of days for me to DK has doubled.

This is bound to happen, in both directions. As imbalances are discovered, they will be corrected. It wouldn't be fair to retroactively punish those who benefited from the imbalance, especially since it is often impossible to tell exactly what gains were had. The change in the HP system worked against the favor of those at higher DKs. They tended to stay ahead based on their higher hitpoints, but now they can't stomp upon the lower players by attrition.

[Talisman]

Here's one for you to consider, Zod. There was a time, long before you ever searched for your first forest fight, when players got gems for killing the dragon. Oh yes, perhaps we still get a few gems for doing that, but I'm talking some serious gems. Like 1 gem for every time you've killed the dragon, past your 5th DK.

That meant players like McD, Dirk (long gone) and a select few others who were the first to reach 100 DKs got some massive amounts of gems on the way.

Then there was a change...a BIG change. The most gems you could get was cut WAYYYYYYYYY back. I was at around 25 DKs back then, which put me and everyone else like me at a major disadvantage. Why?

Well...those players who were getting insane amounts of gems were able to buy insane amounts of HP. They were invincible in PVP, and there was no way the rest of us could hope to catch up to them. They were able to buy other things as well, all of which put them way far ahead of us. Was there an equalization? Nope. Was the change fair? Maybe not, as it put us at a disadvantage to them. Did anybody complain? Well, not really, but maybe they should have. Either way, WE GOT OVER IT.

Another BIG change came along. This one was so big, it required letting everyone respend their DK points to avoid having players that were totally pooched because of their selected strategy. People usually selected a more balanced stat approach, instead of the once highly touted and now doomed for disaster high attack low defence.

After that particular change (and there were a few other minor changes along the way that factor in at least a bit), people were suddenly getting amazing amounts of flawless fights. 20 forest fights could last you hours, and get you several times further than previously. This was noticed back then, and has been commented on at various points. Nothing new about this, only about the solution.

Now we're at the solution. Deimos correctly pointed out that you contract for X number of forest fights, not for X number of forest fights plus countless free fights. You get each and every one of those fights you contracted for, barring any incidents which might cost you one or two prematurely.

Do you have an advantage over a player who is mostly attack or defence, when your flawless fights get capped? YES! You still have more forest fights than them. You get more gold (bonus), more experience (bonus) and additional opportunities to encounter beneficial special events.

The item which you're complaining about is a new solution to a long term problem, one which has been developing through compounding code changes. Perhaps your comments drew some additional attention to it, but it's hardly all about you.

The change affects us all. Some good, some bad. If it affects you poorly, time to do what the rest of us do. Suck it up and change your strategy.

[Elessa]

And those with HP, Atk, and Def get.... HP, Atk and Def. You're not sitting out there in the forest with your derriere hanging out with a measly 10hps wielding a bent straw.

You have the benefits you contracted for. Why should you get a bonus for that, at the same time I'm denied the benefits I've contracted for?

I mean, read what you're saying again. You want to have the benefits you've spent DK points on, and get a bonus for that, while denying me both the benefits I've spent DK points on, as well as the bonus.


as someone who leans towards a forest strategy, i realized long ago i still needed to protect myself and hath spent points in hp/att/def so i am not wielding a bent straw.

if ye think about it, using the ff strategy gives a balance no different than what the players who use a high hp/att/def spread will now see. having more ffs means in addition to the flawless fights, you hath had the ability to gain more exp/gold/gems simply by having more turns to begin with.

ye still shall. those players, by facing tougher opponents will now receive higher exp/gold for their fights. as a result as someone gains in dk ranks they shall not be needing to hath more fights merely to reach level 2. i have talked to a number of the higher dk players. for some of them it has taken from 250-350 fights just to reach level 2. this way they will be cutting back on the number needed due to the higher exp received.

if ye continue to add to the ffs in thy stats, ye shall not be facing tougher opponents since the monsters recognize and adjust to the hp/att/def stats. thy derriere will not be hanging out there exposed. ye shall have more fights and be gaining the exp. what ye are going to discover, is that it is going to take ye the more ffs to reach level 2. i highly suggest ye evaluate what path ye are on, visit heidi, and adjust.

tis not the end of the world. change is what makes this game interesting.

[Zod]

These are all very good comments (not that I agree with them all), but I've gotten it out of my system, and as I said, I'm willing to let it be.

Unless somebody specifically wants me to address something, I'll be busy crafting my new strategy for world domination.

You will kneel before Zod.

[Acemaster]

:watches as all of the staff goes back to Shining Happy People mode.

[Icemule1]

I personally am very disappointed with the changes. Players who complained that it took a long time on level 1 had no right to, because it was their choice to keep fighting level 1 creatures. This change only takes away choice, and that is never a good thing.

So I agree with you, Zod.

From Saucy's MotD: "In compensation, you will get a better experience boost from your fights if you are affected by these changes. This should hopefully make level one a bit shorter for you."

After completing my first DK since the changes and having been effected by them, I didn't notice any experience gain once I hit the cap. I still received my normal 12-15 exp per kill for level 1 creatures. So it has been nothing but a negative effect on me. Why am I not receiving an experience boost after the cap has been reached?

[Elessa]

interestingly, the change has been fantastic for me. since then i have gone from only reaching level 2.5 in a new day from level 1 if i was lucky, to level 3.5.

twice now i have logged off after playing the new day span within a whiskers hair of level 6.

i am looking a 3 day dk squarely in the eyes and loving it!

[Waugh]

I agree with Elessa here. It is really helping my experience, and I can only speak for mine. I am sensitive though that it may not be ideal for everyone, so hopefully you either grow to like the change as we often have with changes in the past, or some of your ideas are taken into consideration and implemented... as has also happened in the past. :D

[Deimos]

I personally am very disappointed with the changes. Players who complained that it took a long time on level 1 had no right to, because it was their choice to keep fighting level 1 creatures. This change only takes away choice, and that is never a good thing.

So I agree with you, Zod.

From Saucy's MotD: "In compensation, you will get a better experience boost from your fights if you are affected by these changes. This should hopefully make level one a bit shorter for you."

After completing my first DK since the changes and having been effected by them, I didn't notice any experience gain once I hit the cap. I still received my normal 12-15 exp per kill for level 1 creatures. So it has been nothing but a negative effect on me. Why am I not receiving an experience boost after the cap has been reached?

How many DKs do you have? And what is your DK points distribution?

The increase in difficulty and reward is gradual, and related only to points spent in attack, defense, or max hitpoints. If you have less than 30 DKs, I doubt you'd notice much of anything.

The increase in difficulty and reward is completely unrelated to the flawless bonus fights cap. The amount of bonus fights some people were seen to be unbalancing in some ways. Spending majorly on extra turns meant you faced relatively easy forest creatures. Couple this with enough DKs to have a strong mount, and you face endless flawless fights. Say you have a mount which lasts 90 rounds, and you feed it, for 180 rounds. Your fights will likely last 2 rounds max, for 90 fights flawless guaranted, leaving you 90 + your base which is already high (say 50) + half of those will probably be flawless without a mount (say 20 to bias it as a low estimate). 160 turns.

Compare this to someone else with 30 turns, who will probably get half of their mount affected turns at flawless (say 45), and a third (to bias at a high estimate) of their base turns are flawless on their own, for 10. 85 turns.

The forest fight heavy person gets nearly double the fights, which under the old system meant nearly double the experience. Now those turns are, with a cap of 100 flawless, still 150 (the turn heavy person losing 10 in my example), to 85. This is a bit closer.

The non-turn heavy person faces harder monsters (getting progressively more harder as they accumulate points spent on attack, defense, and hitpoints, and gets experience and gold bonuses to help offset this.

Of course, these numbers are only educated guesses at possible examples, but they do represent the idea of how things were meant to be rebalanced.

[Qwyxzl]

As one of the high DK players I can honestly say I love it. I cut my time(real life) in half. 1st level still takes a while but at least now you can see the bar move. I cannot say that it had any overall effect on the number of days that it to to DK.

[Sabu]

I think this is a good change.
The only improvement I can suggest is to increase the weapon/armor price after a certain number of DKs! It could be more challenging.
Sabu.

[jrminga]

i actually managed a coveted 3-day DK after the changes took effect, but a lot of that was luck. but it's so much nicer, as Q said, to actually see the bar go up; at my rank, i need over 4000 XP to hit level 2, and doing so 15 XP at a time was a bit of a chore.

[Tyrall]

Not sure how the bonus is supposed to work, but I just hit the cap (with 36 ff left), and received the same 15-19 xp per kill both before and after I capped. I'm not 100% certain what I was getting last time I was level one, so that may be higher than normal, but I was almost at level 3 until an accident with the RNG with about 25 turns to go, and I've managed as high as level 6 before (4th-5th was normal). Of course, that was with about 640 flawless turns in one day.

However, I managed to hit level 3 in an hour or so, instead of the 2-4 hrs I've done before, so I'm happy enough. I'll just have to focus less on FF (I have about 40-50% of DK points in it) and more on other stats to make the most of my DK points. I play this game precisely because there's no 'perfect strategy', and because the game changes and keeps it interesting, and this change is just more of the same.

[jarek]

First off, I love the idea of players gaining more experience from forest fights the more they spend on Att/Def/HP in order to even things out and make the days go faster. I also agree that there should be a cap on the number of flawless forest fights, but I think 100 is a bit too low. I'm the forest fight type myself and currently at 89 dragon kills I've spent 50 of my points on forest fights. I consider 50 to be a pretty optimal number in order to get the most out of a Clockwork Cassowary. My problem is that I seem to be hitting the cap on day 1 even though I thrillseek or search suicidally on every forest fight I have.

On a 'good day' before the changes I would hit level 7 on the first day, and I even made 8 once when I was very lucky. Today I had a VERY good day 1 (maybe even as good as the time I made 8.), but the cap hindered me so that I couldn't get above level 6. I also made level 6/day 1 on the two DKs prior to that (after the change), but without nearly the same luck. Effectively it seems that I'm pretty much capped to level 6 on day 1, unless I'm even more lucky. Don't get me wrong, I find level 6 to be very good in terms of speed, but it's pretty frustrating when a bad and a very good day gives such little difference in terms of outcome. It takes away some of the fun of day 1 when I know I probably can't get beyond level 6 no matter what happens. It also makes my goal of getting that two day DK even more of a longshot than before. ;-)

You might say that I should reduce my forest fight spendings to ..say 40, but my problem then would be that I would be unlikely to get the full potential of my mount through it's entire normal active span for the day (2x90 turns). And remember - I seldom 'look' for fights, which I assume is how that tactic/mount was originally meant to be used. If I looked I would've hit the limit even sooner.

So my main argument for raising the limit a bit would be that it should be possible to have what I consider to be an 'optimal' number of forest fights for the forest fight Clockwork mount, without hitting the limit too soon, even when you thrillseek in the forest. I'm not talking much, even 120 flawless fights would go a long way in making the change feel more right to some of us forest fighting people. ;-)

[Acemaster]

That would be interesting, if the Cassowary raised the limit for fights. Although it might be much better for FF players than the Ettile...

[Sabu]

Hello!
I, personally, am happy with the number 100. But I think maybe it could be varied depending on the number of DKs. For example, it could be increased for lower DK players (in some intervals). The lower DK players don't have many DK points to put on FFs anyways.
This idea is counterintuitive, since it will give more flawless fight allowance to lower DK players, but at least they will be happy and eventually learn to spend their points on Atk+Def as they advance in their DKs.
Alternatively, you could spend your DK points on the flawless FFs allowance (say 1 additional flawless FF per DK point).
Shoot your opinions please.
Sabu (from Jupiter).

[SaucyWench]

The xp gained in my first forest day has dropped to 1/2 to 1/4 of what it used to be, the gold is more like 1/3 to 1/6.Interesting indeed. We ADDED to the gold and xp gained.

I just note that the changes were largely in response to a posting I made, appear to have the greatest negative impact on characters like mine, as well as the fact that it seems as though my character is frequently used as a kind of crash-test dummy by the coders.I don't know why you have this fixation with thinking we code specifically for you. You said somewhere else that you saw broken php with your character name in it and drew some conclusion that we specifically put your character name in the code somewhere. I am sorry, but you are dreaming.

The problem wasn't even recognized until just a few days ago.Incorrect.

Correct suggestions as to how to fix the problem were dismissed with the excuse that there is a lack of time (which proves to be inaccurate.)Are you calling me a liar? It took me 3 hours to reach level 2.

The ramifications of the change themselves illustrate well how very little thought went into it.Wrong.

I realise that you are looking at these changes and see only negative impact for yourself, but you would do well not to assume that we are stupid and do things without thought. I can assure you that we spend hours and hours of our free time, sometimes a fulltime working week (yes) to produce this game for you and for others. We do not set out with the intentions of screwing people over and we do not make any significant change without careful considerations and testing (yes, we test these things).

After completing my first DK since the changes and having been effected by them, I didn't notice any experience gain once I hit the cap. I still received my normal 12-15 exp per kill for level 1 creatures. So it has been nothing but a negative effect on me. Why am I not receiving an experience boost after the cap has been reached?These changes. Plural. The changes are progressive. As it is quite rare for a 3 DK player (for example) to hit the cap, there is a very low xp gain. The xp gain is progressive and is more noticeable the more DKs you have. It is also right from your first fight - not simply once the cap is hit. Additionally, if you have only spent on forest fights, you get no experience bonus. After all, we aren't going to reward you for choosing to fight easier monsters (if you spend only on FF, your monsters are MUCH easier).

In essence, if anyone finds that the changes now give them less overall xp than they did before, their character is unbalanced. You were getting a free ride until now, and we are closing a loophole that you exploited in order to make the game a fairer playing field for all. There are other changes that have been made in the past where they affected particular players more than others, due to their chosen strategy. We still went ahead with those changes, even though we knew they would not be happy. Why? It is absolutely insane for a player to expect to reach level 7 on the first day. When players are making 2-day dragon kills something is unbalanced. Be on notice, everyone. If we see you make a 2-day dragon kill we will start to research your strategy to see how you got that advantage. This is not victimisation, it is a recognition that something is unbalanced.

[Zod]

I don't know why you have this fixation with thinking we code specifically for you. You said somewhere else that you saw broken php with your character name in it and drew some conclusion that we specifically put your character name in the code somewhere. I am sorry, but you are dreaming.

Well, that's simply not true. if character.name = 'Zod'. The code that followed was truncated, so I didn't get to see exactly what was being done, but oh yeah, the deed was done.

Now, I don't really care about that. Like I said -- in a totally voluntary fashion by the way -- I spent half-a-day trying to write a proxy in Python that would help me out with the level one nightmare. I wasn't trying to be covert about it or anything like that, referer:lotgd.biz:8000 should be stamped in your logs in more than a few places. I didn't know it was illegal or that I'd lose 300 ff's per DK as a result.

So the way I figure it, some admin is checking me out cause I'm trying to write a bot. (Not a bot really, think cyborg.) I'm fine with that. It's your server.

But don't sit there and tell me you guys don't do this. I mean, I've now witnessed such PHP/html "manglements" at least a dozen times. Only once did I see the above construct (it is always a very small snippet of PHP that I see), however, I think it statistically improbable to see so many page changes during the course of gameplay. I mean, think about what has to happen to let a user see such manglements in the first place! Unless somebody is sitting there spamming C-x C-s I should have seen this only once, maybe twice, tops, since first playing the game.

I have more to say, obviously, but, you know, I say it here and I get deleted, or banned, or whatever.

Or tell me that I won't.

for each game on internet:
play game
if game is fun:
donate to game
find optimal strategy for playing game
wait for admins to drop rock on your character because you're using optimal strategy
complain about rock being dropped on your character in game's forum
wait for admins to drop an all new rock on your character in the forum
continue


(here's a hint guys, use safe saves. stop using emacs. use vi instead. write a shell script that lets you specify the file you want to edit. have the script first make a copy. then edit the copy. then when you save and exit vi, have the script replace original with new file using a move. moves are atomic. there's no chance of php/html "manglements". problem solved.)

(you can use emacs too, it's just harder to do (depending on your workflow, how many files you're editing simultaneously, etc.))

[SaucyWench]

I don't know why you have this fixation with thinking we code specifically for you. You said somewhere else that you saw broken php with your character name in it and drew some conclusion that we specifically put your character name in the code somewhere. I am sorry, but you are dreaming.

Well, that's simply not true. if character.name = 'Zod'. The code that followed was truncated, so I didn't get to see exactly what was being done, but oh yeah, the deed was done.Go ahead and keep claiming this... it is not true. Anyone believing this pack of lies is welcome to register on DragonPrime.net and download the source and see for themself. The character name "Zod" does not appear anywhere in the entire code. You may have seen dynamically-generated code that checks ONLY whether a character is viewing their OWN bio, where certain things are displayed that others cannot see. But STOP CLAIMING WE CODED SOMETHING TO TARGET YOU, it is simply not true and is one of the most bizarre self-centred rants I have seen on these forums in a long time!

You go on to tell us about how we should code the place... when you should have had enough brains to know what dynamic code is...

Let's look at the facts.
You coded a bot to play the game. You claim it is not cheating.

We adopt two code changes to address the problem with level one taking too long and to prevent bots.

You complain that you were quite happy to play the game for hours on end to advance and you want it back the way it was.

Seems to me you only hate the changes because you can no longer cheat. Seems to me you have no interest in anyone else who plays the game and their feelings.

I am still at a loss to figure out how anyone can enjoy "playing" a game that they aren't "playing".

[SaucyWench]

Incidentally, the other time a player can see their own character name is the output of a SQL call where the HTML is broken... this occurs not because we have done something wrong, as you suggest, but by interruptions in the transmission of data on unreliable media... otherwise known as interference in the internet on primarily aged copper cabling... but I am sure you knew that already... oh wait, you claimed it was PHP and HTML...

Why you think we target and write code at one person is beyond me when we have approximately 40,000 other players to code for.

[Zod]

Look, I find you unpleasant. I'd use another word, but I'd get banned. So I'll say, you're a very unpleasant person, and it is extremely unfortunate that I should find myself as having donated to a game that features such an individual in as senior a position as you seem to be in.

Almost everything you say is wrong. I could spend the time to prove this, but I think I will simply point the readers to the notices you have written on the site over the past week or two as well as the posts in this thread and the thread about bots. Especially your replies to me. You have like 200 DK's, I have only 25, and yet it really does seem that I know more about this game than you do!

Anyways, I'm really only interested in the business where you're calling me a liar:

Go ahead and keep claiming this... it is not true. Anyone believing this pack of lies is welcome to register on DragonPrime.net and download the source and see for themself.

I guess there are players here who don't understand how this works, so I have to explain. The source that is on DragonPrime.net isn't necessarily the same source that resides on lotgd.net. An administator can log on to lotgd.net and edit the php files that reside there without the changes being propagated to DragonPrime. You make the changes, and then, maybe an hour later, you can go back in and change it back.

I don't see why you're making a big deal about this. You got busted. But I don't care. I understand why you or someone else thought it was necessary.

But don't you dare call me a liar! I don't know who did it, and I don't care. I don't even care that it was done! But I do care about my reputation.

And there is one more thing that needs to be addressed:

Let's look at the facts.
You coded a bot to play the game. You claim it is not cheating.

It wasn't a bot. It was a "smart" proxy, and I never got it to work, ergo, there was no foul. Level one was stupid and boring (and still is stupid and boring, despite your changes) and so I wanted to remove the tedium. That isn't a bot. That's a script. The difference? A bot would be required to play this game from start to finish. A script is all that is required for level one.

You see, the point of using a proxy is that the player would always be in control, but the computer would have the opportunity to make braindead decisions for him. For instance, do I attack a level one monster? Wow, that's a tough one. Do I run away from a level two monsters, when I'm only level one? Yeah, let me think about that. Oh look, the dude in the boat wants to take me away so I can die again. Do I want to die again? No.

I'm not going to go on about this, I will just say this. Code can be created that can act as a proxy and can modify the content delivered by the server to the client. These changes can include anything, including simple logic that determines whether user interaction isn't required -- in which case it simply invokes the appropriate URI -- or adding additional links that point to JavaScript code that perhaps allows the user a greater range of options. If the proxy encounters a situation it isn't capable of handling, it does something simple, like changing the background color of the page and sending the browser to the foreground.

You make a game that could be played using an HTTP client. What I'm describing is an HTTP client.

With all due respect, you are the last person who should be in front in this discussion. Really, if you choose to reply to me, it should be an apology.

Anything less won't receive a response. That you will like.

I think.

[Edited to remove comments disparaging the intellegence and disrespecting the name of the person in question.]

[Zod]

tintin is to telnet what I was trying to do to Firefox.

Do muds ban tintin?

[SaucyWench]

Look, I find you unpleasant. I'd use another word, but I'd get banned. So I'll say, you're a very unpleasant person, and it is extremely unfortunate that I should find myself as having donated to a game that features such an individual in as senior a position as you seem to be in.

Almost everything you say is wrong. I could spend the time to prove this, but I think I will simply point the readers to the notices you have written on the site over the past week or two as well as the posts in this thread and the thread about bots. Especially your replies to me. You have like 200 DK's, I have only 25, and yet it really does seem that I know more about this game than you do! *laughs* And modest too, aren't you?

Anyways, I'm really only interested in the business where you're calling me a liar:

Go ahead and keep claiming this... it is not true. Anyone believing this pack of lies is welcome to register on DragonPrime.net and download the source and see for themself.

I guess there are players here who don't understand how this works, so I have to explain. The source that is on DragonPrime.net isn't necessarily the same source that resides on lotgd.net. Correct. There are minor changes as it is beta code.

An administator can log on to lotgd.net and edit the php files that reside there without the changes being propagated to DragonPrime. You make the changes, and then, maybe an hour later, you can go back in and change it back. Incorrect. I do not have this access. You are wrong again.

I don't see why you're making a big deal about this. You got busted. But I don't care. I understand why you or someone else thought it was necessary.Wrong again. I got busted according to you, for refuting your incorrect allegations. I've not done anything here that you claim so far.

But don't you dare call me a liar! I don't know who did it, and I don't care. I don't even care that it was done! But I do care about my reputation.

And there is one more thing that needs to be addressed:

Let's look at the facts.
You coded a bot to play the game. You claim it is not cheating.

It wasn't a bot. It was a "smart" proxy, and I never got it to work, ergo, there was no foul. Level one was stupid and boring (and still is stupid and boring, despite your changes) and so I wanted to remove the tedium. That isn't a bot. That's a script. The difference? A bot would be required to play this game from start to finish. A script is all that is required for level one.

You see, the point of using a proxy is that the player would always be in control, but the computer would have the opportunity to make braindead decisions for him. For instance, do I attack a level one monster? Wow, that's a tough one. Do I run away from a level two monsters, when I'm only level one? Yeah, let me think about that. Oh look, the dude in the boat wants to take me away so I can die again. Do I want to die again? No.Wow! You seem to hate the game. How about you stop playing it. Do you need some help? I have better things to do than read the tripe you spout in my direction.

I'm not going to go on about this, I will just say this. Code can be created that can act as a proxy and can modify the content delivered by the server to the client. These changes can include anything, including simple logic that determines whether user interaction isn't required -- in which case it simply invokes the appropriate URI -- or adding additional links that point to JavaScript code that perhaps allows the user a greater range of options. If the proxy encounters a situation it isn't capable of handling, it does something simple, like changing the background color of the page and sending the browser to the foreground.

You make a game that could be played using an HTTP client. What I'm describing is an HTTP client.

With all due respect, you are the last person who should be in front in this discussion. Really, if you choose to reply to me, it should be an apology.Interesting... requiring an apology after all the rubbish you have poured forth? I don't think so.

Anything less won't receive a response. That you will like.

I think.

[Edited to remove comments disparaging the intellegence and disrespecting the name of the person in question.]Correct. I don't want your response if it is more of this.

I'm sorry to those who believed any of this.
Zod will be granted his wish and have a ban if he posts again calling me a liar or arguing these code changes, since he seems to hate the game, and all the staff, with such passion.

[Moonchilde]

Just for the record, since there seems to have been some mis-information flowing here and the thread was locked by the time I got a chance to read it again (yes, in fact, I don't always have a chance to read everything here every day).

Firstly, while Saucy and the other game staff do write occasional code for the game (or more than occasional code in the cases of some of them) that code does not get added directly to central. Only Eric (MightyE) and myself (Kendaer aka Moonchilde) have access to place new code on Central. Saucy and the others have access to *my* development site where they can place code where it gets reviewed by myself (and the other contributors) before it is placed into CVS, the core, or onto Central (or onto my live game!) So any and all 'blame' for code which appears on Central lies solely on myself and Eric. Whether specific modules get activated or not is a decision made by the staff (generally the senior staff) once the code is on Central.. they cannot, obviously, activate something which isn't out there however, so if it's out there to begin with then Eric and I see the value in it as an option!

Secondly, the 'limit the number of flawless fights' module IS one which came from dragonprime and it's existed for a while. It had been on a list of modules that I was reviewing for inclusion into the core, and I felt it was a worthwhile thing that more than one site might want to do. This module is independant of any other changes and in fact WASN'T added to address the 'monotony' of level 1.

Thirdly, increased gold/exp rewards. When I read through the various threads about this, I went looking into the code and discovered something. CODE THAT I HAD WRITTEN 1.5 *YEARS* AGO HAD BEEN INADVERTANTLY REMOVED! That's right, the code that went back in was code which I'd written way back when and *thought* was still in there. It was always intended that the monsters which had been buffed to keep pace with DK point expenditures which affected combat (ie, hitpoints, attack, and defense) should reward slightly more experience. (and yes, the reward is slight -- at lower dks, it's probably no more than 6-10%). Without this mod, players who spent on attack/defense/HP were *strongly* disadvantaged in terms of advancement. The advantage of buying FF was NOT that you would gain EXP faster, but that you had more chances for specials, and more chances for gems due to more forest fights. This change was not introduced due to the monotony of level 1 either, but the reports of monotony at level 1 pointed out the fact that this code had vanished.

These last couple are directed *solely* at Zod for the moment, and he is free to respond to them or not via PM, though I feel his words speak for themselves and will pretty likely ignore any response that attempts to rationalize or validate either of these last two points.

Fourthly, auto-players of any sort are considered cheating. We told you this at the beginning, and we're telling you this again. We have taken and will continue to take steps to prevent people from playing via any automated mechanism regardless of how simple. You don't get to whine about it when we do so either since it's never been allowed. 'Computer Assisted' playing of any form, regardless of how simple, are not tolerated. This is not open to discussion or negotiation. Calling your computer assisted player an 'http client' or 'http proxy' does not negate the fact that it was a computer assisted player and you deserve all the grief that you can get from that.

Lastly, donating to the game does not get you any special consideration other than the fact that you have helped further the game. That money (for donations on central) goes solely to Eric to cover the costs of hosting the server. It doesn't go to myself, to Saucy, to JCP or to anyone else. Using the fact that you donated to try and leverage something else is tantamount to blackmail. It also will not be tolerated.

Zod, none of the changes added were due to you. You were also not the only person who brought up the fact that there was something 'wrong' with level 1 fights. You were right, there *was* something wrong. What was wrong was that code which was supposed to be there wasn't there. As always, when a bug shows up (in this case code missing that was not supposed to be) it is corrected. Yes, things like this can (and have in the past) had fairly wide effects. That does not mean that the code hasn't been thought out, thought about and tested. On the contrary, I'd given the 'experience curve' quite a bit of though in relation to monster buffing and higher dks quite a bit of thought and had implemented a fix for it long ago, a fix which got lost from the code and has now been reinstated. However, you're response to the monotony was to create something which is not within the spirit of the game. THAT is why you are taking flak for it, especially because you seem convinced that you did nothing wrong. Well, unfortunately for you, the game is an autocracy, and the autocrats (in this case Eric and myself) have decreed that what you did was in fact wrong. You may disagree, you may dislike it, but that will not change the fact that we have declared it to be wrong. End of story.