Questions about proposed changes

[Kaden]

We can just turn CA off again.

[Super Buu]

I'm saying they found ways to address massive imbalance without removing the progression that made the games fun.

Point missed. =(

[Kaden]

I don't see how. You want a relatively even playing field. You don't want people to feel like they have to constantly RP for years to be relevant. You want there to be some kind of progressive "game" mechanic. You want something that doesn't trivialize new people.

How does removing CA not accomplish every single one of those points?

Everyone is at the same level of statistical strength. Differentiations in skill come through in writing quality when judged. Progress takes the form of buying Techniques and Custom techs. People will only be trivialized in that they have not earned XP to buy unique moves for their characters.

EDIT: And c'mon, Greg. You've been on this side before. How helpful is it for someone to say "hey just fix the system because of X"? Do you think we're not aware of the problems? If you were in my position, what is there to take from a post like that that you're not already aware of?

[Waffuru]

I'm still working on an amendment to the system. Hopefully there is a solution that will please most of the people most of the time.

[Sigfried Hunin]

I don't see how. You want a relatively even playing field. You don't want people to feel like they have to constantly RP for years to be relevant. You want there to be some kind of progressive "game" mechanic. You want something that doesn't trivialize new people.

How does removing CA not accomplish every single one of those points?

Everyone is at the same level of statistical strength. Differentiations in skill come through in writing quality when judged. Progress takes the form of buying Techniques and Custom techs. People will only be trivialized in that they have not earned XP to buy unique moves for their characters.

EDIT: And c'mon, Greg. You've been on this side before. How helpful is it for someone to say "hey just fix the system because of X"? Do you think we're not aware of the problems? If you were in my position, what is there to take from a post like that that you're not already aware of?

"I'm saying they found ways to address massive imbalance without removing the progression that made the games fun."

This. This right here. the part where you're like, "OH YEAHHH I'M BEING REWARDED FOR WRITING, AWRITE"

The part where you ACTIVELY COMPETE WITH OTHERS.

Right now it's like walking into a horse race with all of the other horses at the goddamn finish line. There's no incentive to write, if not to pass other meek, tiny little people and ONE DAY, after, I dunno A YEAR AND A HALF of solid writing being able to say, "Oh hey! I'm in the top ten!" Cause that's EXACTLY what I did. I was so distraught by the idea that I couldn't fucking fight people when I first got on this site. I was overwhelmed and disheartened, and don't try to marginalize that because MOST new people (and old people trying to catch up) feel that way.

NO, I didn't say "WELL FUCK IT, JUST GET RID OF CA," because I think that's not a solution to the problem, and addresses none of the fun competitive nature of writing and advancing.




I think if we were to tear this down with no suggestions of exactly HOW it would work, but to meet certain criterion, we would get a lot further in this discussion. that way we can set up a framework of "must have this and this, shouldn't have this, etc etc" and people can brainstorm "THE PERFECT SYSTEM" from there.

If I would have any say in those criteria it would be as thus:

1: Must be competitive between characters.
2: The volume of writing is the source of advancement.
3: Defined "levels" (ie: numerical PL, grading, stars, orbs, power coins, etc.)
4: Advancement should not favor "long timers," and allow very active characters to advance to near or at the level of other writers within 3-6 months (given they have been active enough to warrant advancement.)

Ideas:
Awards, trophies, power ups, medals, and other staff and RP awarded "objects" could permanently increase the advancement of a character or give them access to abilities, techniques or other perks that are not available to those who have not earned them.

Techniques may have permanent ramifications.

Advancement levels should be vague enough to allow for characters to spar and fight without being able to say "well, my character is stronger, so of course they'll win." Basically, leeway. This isn't a problem NOW, but it would be detrimental if a new system made it that way.

Smaller numbers/levels of advancement are favorable because they make it easy to round, easy to manage and easier to implement on a management level (IMO)




I think if everyone made some VERY VERY VAGUE qualifiers to a rule system they would like to use/see, it could be very useful. That means that you don't think of a system you've already dreamed up and perfected, but just try and make a list of things that would help narrow down the scope of what you'd prefer. that way, coders and rule writers have as much room as they need to work so that no matter what system they come up with, it should appeal to MOST.

[Belle Hibiki]

You know, when you think about it, the current system really isn't all that different in ultimate scaling from the old one.

Back when we had the automatic trainer, the differences in BASE powerlevel were relatively small, and the multipliers very large. Players started at 1 million when I joined, and Raditzu had 7 million - seven times stronger. With his power-up, he could go to 140 million easy - 140 times stronger.

Right now, the differences in base power level are very large, and the multipliers are small. A player starts at 500 CA, and Kaden has ~8500 - roughly 17 times stronger. With tier-2 transformation, he gets a CA that puts him over 51 times stronger than a beginner.

Seems a bit better, but this system hasn't been around as long as that one was, so the number will eventually creep up. A large number multiplied by a small one isn't much better than a small one multiplied by a large one.

[Sigfried Hunin]

You know, when you think about it, the current system really isn't all that different in ultimate scaling from the old one.

Back when we had the automatic trainer, the differences in BASE powerlevel were relatively small, and the multipliers very large. Players started at 1 million when I joined, and Raditzu had 7 million - seven times stronger. With his power-up, he could go to 140 million easy - 140 times stronger.

Right now, the differences in base power level are very large, and the multipliers are small. A player starts at 500 CA, and Kaden has ~8500 - roughly 17 times stronger. With tier-2 transformation, he gets a CA that puts him over 51 times stronger than a beginner.

Seems a bit better, but this system hasn't been around as long as that one was, so the number will eventually creep up. A large number multiplied by a small one isn't much better than a small one multiplied by a large one.

You made a pretty cool little system so I'd be interested in seeing a list of vague criterion like I made. I think it would be very helpful to those who have to deal with the complexity factor (ie: Waff)

[Belle Hibiki]

There's very little point in me spitting out another list, I feel. The coders can only do so much, and doing that just further invites people to think "OH MAN YOU GAVE HIM WHAT *HE* WANTED IN THE SYSTEM BUT NOT WHAT *I* WANTED?" when some of it falls through, because you can't please everyone.

I'm not going to hand the coders what amounts to an ultimatum of "HERE'S WHAT IT'LL TAKE FOR ME TO STICK AROUND."

[Sigfried Hunin]

There's very little point in me spitting out another list, I feel. The coders can only do so much, and doing that just further invites people to think "OH MAN YOU GAVE HIM WHAT *HE* WANTED IN THE SYSTEM BUT NOT WHAT *I* WANTED?" when some of it falls through, because you can't please everyone.

I'm not going to hand the coders what amounts to an ultimatum of "HERE'S WHAT IT'LL TAKE FOR ME TO STICK AROUND."

Right, but the idea here is that you give a very super rough idea of what you would like without demanding a specific system. Super rough cut guidelines can give coders an idea what we want without telling them what to do.

And, I mean, once again, it's not an ultimatum, it's what we'd like to see if they were gonna come up with a new/amended system. I think that just very vague, "it would be cool if the mechanics that happened had X CHARACTERISTICS," not "I want you to implement X MECHANICS," statements can narrow down what we want to see without trying to tell them what to make.

[Kaden]

And, I mean, once again, it's not an ultimatum, it's what we'd like to see if they were gonna come up with a new/amended system. I think that just very vague, "it would be cool if the mechanics that happened had X CHARACTERISTICS," not "I want you to implement X MECHANICS," statements can narrow down what we want to see without trying to tell them what to make.

That works until people start saying "well you can do X so you should be able to do Y" and just kind of raging out on us.

[Sigfried Hunin]

That works until people start saying "well you can do X so you should be able to do Y" and just kind of raging out on us.

Yeah but that can be said of ANYTHING. At least this restricts and controls the types of things that are said...

It's just a format of suggestion that should help the people making new rules understand what kinds of things people want. I... I really don't understand how this would hinder anything more than RANDOM RAGING (which is sort of what happens now.)

Why would you want us to continue to write out entire systems, non-systematically complaining about certain features and giving no meaningful input that you can USE?

If we help align guidelines that ARE NOT SPECIFIC MECHANICS, it allows you people as the coders and rule makers to be like, "Ok, we need to figure out something that has these guidelines," not just shoot down every fucking thing we've ever said because of coding, rules and regs, game mechanics or WHATEVER.

[Kaden]

That looks like just a misunderstanding.

My point, obfuscated as it was, is simply that no assumptions whatsoever should be made about the coding. A point which, actually, supports your own.

[Super Buu]

EDIT: And c'mon, Greg. You've been on this side before. How helpful is it for someone to say "hey just fix the system because of X"? Do you think we're not aware of the problems? If you were in my position, what is there to take from a post like that that you're not already aware of?

If I were in your position ... that's a loaded question. But since you asked: If I were in your position, I'd be happy that I still had members who were passionate enough about the site to be spending their time writing up suggestions for what they think should be done.

If you were in MY position, what would you do, and what would you take from a one-line response that suggests a change I already said I disliked in my previous post?

Despite that, I do appreciate the longer response, I do appreciate the time you put into this, and I look forward to seeing what Waff mentioned. I'll let you get back to the actual work instead of forcing you to write up replies to crazy people (hint sigfried do the same)

[Kaden]

My responses earlier were ones of frustration. I feel like there's a perception that we don't know what the current problems are, don't care what the current problems are, can't fix what the current problems are or some combination of the above. I understand that that may be an unfair perception on my part and I understand that people are only still here because they like the site and care, but emotions are stupid like that.

I do spend a lot of time thinking about the site and, honestly, expend a lot more energy on Chubbs than I generally feel is worth it (sob sob, poor me). I don't and won't communicate every thought I have about potential changes (that would drive everyone insane) and, honestly, I don't even like presenting the ideas that I think are good and worth pursuing. Most of the time presenting an idea publicly just ends up with it getting picked apart until it feels like "well what's the point?"

A lack of constant communication, though, shouldn't be seen as a lack of interest or effort and I feel like that's another thing that's happening. Stuff's being worked on. What we want to do is a lot harder than just making a new system. We want to take the current one, with the current players, and make it more viable within the technical constraints of our coding.

I guess the short version is I think people on both sides of the aisle are perceiving things incorrectly. This struck me in a particularly bad way today and I responded poorly.

[Super Buu]

No worries, such is the limits of non-telepathic communication. I always assume there's more going on than I can see, but I stop short at assuming what those things are.

[Sigfried Hunin]

That looks like just a misunderstanding.

My point, obfuscated as it was, is simply that no assumptions whatsoever should be made about the coding. A point which, actually, supports your own.

Yes! we don't know about coding, so I think, maybe perhaps, a new thread could be started that asks the community for vague ideas about what they'd like to be able to do. Use super clear wording about what you're asking for and instead of opening a DISCUSSION about those things, just having an open ended question.

I think the format I used can be improved on, but I think that might be a helpful tool for you guys to help get the ball rolling, get a map of what people want to see.

Discussion, as a rule on this site, doesn't go anywhere. It leads to arguments. So maybe just test the waters, get an idea of what people want without long ass explanations, anyone trying to WRITE A SYSTEM (as much as I liked Belle's system, it didn't work out. That SUCKS that he did all that and it didn't work out) or anything else that makes this conversation complicated, just get a census of a short list of criterion of things they'd like to see and maybe an even shorter list of of ideas that might be helpful to implement the criteria they want.

[Super Buu]

I think the staff probably have MORE than enough material and feedback, it's purely a matter of time because coding takes a lot of that. Personally, I hope for something based on what Belle suggested because I became really enamored with that, but like I said: there are many possible solutions.

[Carter]

The gap problem between new and old members seems easy to me. Why not just change the increaments to make gains in the start of your career easy and make gains harder to get as you go.

For instance, from 500 to 3000 you gain xp at x rate, however from 3000 to 5500 you gain xp at a rate that yields half the xp it use to.
5500 to 8000 you gain at half the rate as the 3000-5500 do this serveral times until you reach a max pl you want and cut people off. And like WOW once everyone starts capping out... create an expansion! More lvls!

Edit: Btw, I read everything before I post, scrubbs =P

[Jonathan Meer]

At least a dozen different renditions of that exact approach (diminishing returns) have been discussed and debated and mulled over.

[Carter]

At least a dozen different renditions of that exact approach (diminishing returns) have been discussed and debated and mulled over.

To what purpouse does this post offer? This is a nothing post to which adds nothing to the conversation... Sometimes it feels like you never have nothing positive to say. Kaden asked what we'd like to see. I'd like to see high gains when start and low gains when you're a vet.