Posted by Darkheart on 07/08
Just out of curiosity, how far did the 'alternative'
unclanning ideas go in the imm discussions? According
to my memory, there was the point system, and a 'timer'
system proposed a while back (yah yah, both by me)
but i haven't heard any comment on either. Have they
been conveniently forgotten?
Thursday, July 01, 11:45AM
Yes, along with many many other nifty ideas. :P
Thursday, July 01, 12:58PM
No, they weren't "conveniently forgotten" -- they were considered
and discussed at length, and ultimately rejected for a whole list
of problems and objections. We're open to another solution, but
we have not found one yet.
Friday, July 02, 12:31AM
You mean all the suggestions that recieved a positive response
from players but no response from IMM's were rejected too?
Friday, July 02, 01:10AM
Ok, I don't know what the procedure is for accepting/rejecting
suggestions on the board but we're still getting the impression
that we're being ignored.
I can imagine that for any suggestion to be considered it must
get the attention of someone who can do something about it.
Ie. coders. So I'd like to propose another method.
If ANY immortal likes an idea on the board, append with:
To be discussed. That IMM can then post to the mailing list
any objections on adding to the ToDo list?
If none, append again or mudmail with added to ToDo list.
Bleah, gotta go.. but I hope you get my point that any kind
of feedback, even a macro is better than none!
Friday, July 02, 10:19AM
Considering i've put in quite a bit of time having
those proposals written/sent via email, it would have
been nice if i at least received some note saying
they were rejected. I don't think i'll go as far
as to expect which 'reasonings' and 'flaws' were
mentioned to be a part of that reply.
Friday, July 02, 03:00PM
In terms of the objections and problems that the staff found, my
last largish post (gone now) on this subject contained them. They
included concerns about multi, concerns about it being still too
easy, concerns about botting to use up time, etc. As for a more
personal response, it was my understanding that you were gone for
a year or so, otherwise I would have dealt more directly with you.
Friday, July 02, 04:07PM
So what about the simpler ideas that recieved no objections?
Why is it they're seemingly ignored? Is it that you dislike
the idea but don't want to get into a discussion? Perhaps
they're things that don't affect or interest you?
I'd really like to get to the bottom of this as it's been an
ongoing issue and I think we're entitled to know whether we
should bother or not.
Saturday, July 03, 12:14AM
I have missed a great deal of this discussion but want to offer
my 2 cents worth if I may. I have an alt who is very frustrated about bei
ing a PK character and wants to "unclan" as it were. He is having a
tough time reaching the 50million exp to get out, since he stinks at
PKill and dies a lot. There are so many evil characters on this MUD that
learning from PKill battles has not been as simple as it once was. I just
wish that the Immortals would 1)consider individual requests for rule-bend
ing a little more seriously, and 2) send personal mud-mails to characters
that make pleas to them or express ideas on this board that are being
considered for implementaion. I feel that a good leader lets their
"underlings" know one-to-one that they are being heard, and also
tells them what the result of their idea is, yay or nay. At times there a
are extenuating circumstances that drag characters into PKill and I
don't feel that a character you have built over many hours needs to be
deleted in order to leave PKill. Some of us do not have a lot of time for
character growth or development, and when we finally get a good
one we don't want to lose it.
my 2 cents, hope it helps
Sunday, July 04, 02:56AM
I think 50 mill to unclan is a reasonable amount of xp.
I really like the idea of the point system but I doubt that's going to go
in any time soon.
If you value your pkiller as much as you say, then take the time to run
for unclanning, or restart the character, with the same name.
Don't walk around with 50 hps in Hell and complain that you cannot get xp
because people always jump you. ;)
As for rule bending for specific characters, I mean - "Extenuating
circumstances that drag a character into PK"? Meaning - "I was drunk when
I asked you to enable me"?
That would just set off a deluge of requests by other people for the
exacsame thing, all of whom I'm sure have equally extenuating
Sunday, July 04, 12:19PM
It was my understanding that such points were all discussed,
multi issue being dealt with either trust in self-enforcement
or a pk-timer connected point system (won't receive pts
for kills within 10 ticks of death), being too easy by
simply adjusting the amount of points, and botting to use
up time being adjusted by sacking time for each "void"
message, and disabling the timer in a ooc/sanctuary
Sunday, July 04, 03:02PM
The 'workarounds' for the problems I listed were considered too much
work for too little gain, or not sufficient workaround for the problem
they set out to solve.
We discussed it a long time, in many different places and situations,
and the answer is, not enough imms were convinced of the value of the
system for us to make a go of it.
Monday, July 05, 11:45AM
Funny, my post regarding being ignored is being ignored. :P
Monday, July 05, 12:31PM
I'm not really sure how to answer your post on being ignored --
I can tell you that we talk about player suggestions all the time,
on many different levels, but since we don't report back to you on
all of them, or to you on your particular one, I probably won't be
able to convince you of that. If you are wondering about a particular
idea, you're best off asking, rather than waiting, assuming, etc.
But it really comes down to this: we have a longer list of ideas
than we have time and people to put them into play. We're working
on trees, and we're reluctant to tweak balance until as a part of
trees, it has to be completely redone. We're fixing bugs and typos
as they come to our attention. If you have specific ideas on how
to make current or planned-for-trees skills more useful, or ideas
related to things builders can do, those are likely to have the
best chance of being done in the next year. But as for new large
projects, the answer is likely to be "we'll have to see where
we are after trees."
Yeah, it's a pain and sucks that trees have taken so long, been
promised so many times, etc etc. But they are still what we're
aiming for, despite the many detours we've taken, and we are
making progress toward them.
I know I am probably straining my credibility, but I'll reiterate
what was said at the last Q & A, and in some other forums.
Current Stage for Coding Dept: Builder-affecting changes for trees
Huginn: Vehicles Redesign
Kaige: general cleanups, object acts
Chocorua: bugfixes, assorted projects
A few signs that despite the time it took us, we are indeed moving
on toward trees:
- XP Scale
- Warcraft axiom
All of these are part of the overall plan behind skilltrees.
Tuesday, July 06, 01:20PM
"but since we don't report back to you on all of them.."
Actually it's because you only seem to respond to those with
obvious flaws.. The rest are left in limbo making me wonder
whether I should dig up the hundreds of past suggestions
I've made that recieved only positive feedback from players
and repost them. Now I know there's no chance of anything
new being coded no matter how small and balance issues won't
be addressed til skill trees, I won't bother.
But what of those things like the change to charmies, having to
group them to order them. Just about everyone protested, it's
been found to be nothing but an inconvenience as everyone's just
grouping/ordering/grouping. It just seems someone's made a
mistake and won't admit it. So what happens, we have to suffer
the consequences as well as feeling like we're being ignored.
Thursday, July 08, 07:31AM
Thursday, July 08, 07:32AM
I'd also like to support Sibwarra's point that some of us use doppels almo
I'd also like to support Sibwarra's point that some
of us use doppels almost exclusively for carrying loot. Having a charmie
take a level 5s worth of xp for basically portering is, imho, just
unreasonable. I bring this up because there was talk of having ungrouped
charmies vanish. Though I still do not agree that charmies should have to
be grouped, it is at least more reasonable that those that actually take/
deal damage need to be grouped.
A doppel being used soley as a porter isn't that. And I see NO reason why
it should get a cut of the xp.
(I'm speaking as someone who's filled 9 lines of auction with eq
carried by a doppel, so this is a big thing for me.)
Thursday, July 08, 07:35AM
I can't type today, this was supposed to be in
reponse to the charmies change, and it's a level 50's worth of xp, not 5.
Thursday, July 08, 08:41AM
I definitely don't think ungrouped charmies should vanish.
Personally obedience seems to be more logically related to
being charmed than to being grouped, IMO. If you fight with
ungrouped charmies you risk losing all the xp if they get the
killing blow (this means its best to have them grouped anyway
if they are equipped with a weapon).
But if it is really though unbalancing that people can get full
xp from an ungrouped charmie, why not make it impossible to use
the group command while fighting? That way you can't order the
charmie to fight and then ungroup it as you can now. As it is now,
it doesn't prevent people getting all the xp, just causes extra
typing to order then ungroup then regroup. This doesn't seem to
accomplish what it was meant to.
Hmm on 2nd thoughts it would have to be that you can't ungroup a
charmie which is fighting, otherwise you could order, ungroup,