It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:27 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Do you even support this idea at all?
Yes 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Maybe. Depends the outcome of this thread 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 0
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:47 am 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:02 pm
Posts: 700
Location: UK
I like the idea i see no problem with the proposed system.

_________________
AKA - Boy Killa

Katherine Darksmith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:23 pm 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2926
Location: Here
@DDR: Precisely. It gives you a one-way mechanism to give an item to your other character. But giving it back means you could just re-crafted the item for 20 gold.

@BK: I'll draft up a version of this system and incorporate the feedback so far. Check back for when I edit this post w/ the description.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:27 pm 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:02 pm
Posts: 700
Location: UK
Also good as it means if you're planning to retire one of your characters that not all your hard work is lost, something to remember them by. would the character giving or receiving the item pay the cost or 5gp each?

_________________
AKA - Boy Killa

Katherine Darksmith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:32 pm 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2926
Location: Here
I'd say character receiving the item pays the full price - 10g.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:22 pm 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:02 pm
Posts: 700
Location: UK
Cool stuff, that makes sense.

Can't wait for this to be implemented I've had an idea for a character for ages I've been putting off as it would have meant all my hard work been thrown away.

Will players be able to bring old characters as long as they still fit in with the current system? (My other half wants to know as it might persuade him to make a comeback)

_________________
AKA - Boy Killa

Katherine Darksmith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:30 am 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2926
Location: Here
I think we'd follow the standard "grandfather rule" here - those coming back would be allowed to resurrect their original character. However, I don't think I'd allow people to continually resurrect all of their past characters. This shouldn't be too much of a problem, I think, since most people here have only had one "primary" character anyway.

So, I think your SO should be able to bring his old char back, whoever that is...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:32 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 1618
Location: just south of insanity
Is this at an approve able stage? If not what does everyone still have issues with? As it stands.

1: A player is permitted 2 characters at any one time.
2: The creation of a third character requires the deletion of one of the previous characters.
3: Debt is inherited, if you delete a character the your existing character inherits all of its debts.
4:Only one active battle at a time, this however doesn't prevent multiple characters being in the same battle.
5: RP's do not have the above restriction.

-A grandfather system will be initiated for people who have in the past gotten rid of characters so they have a chance to bring them back. I would limit this to a single use, you can bring back one past character to be your character B. However this character will have to be re approved. As Leboyx said we don't want an alchemist with a dragon coming back.

On point 4 I feel there's still a discussion to be had. I don't personally see a problem with multiple battles at once, but I also see why mechanically its a bad idea. It's hard to keep up with say two battles and an RP at the same time. It is extremely easy to burn out your creative juices at a rapid pace. So whichever way that point goes be wary of this fact and pace yourself.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:03 pm 
Offline
No secrets for me in MW
No secrets for me in MW
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:32 am
Posts: 485
Location: The eye of every storm in this game apparently.
Khan Novaneau wrote:
On point 4 I feel there's still a discussion to be had. I don't personally see a problem with multiple battles at once, but I also see why mechanically its a bad idea. It's hard to keep up with say two battles and an RP at the same time. It is extremely easy to burn out your creative juices at a rapid pace. So whichever way that point goes be wary of this fact and pace yourself.


Your like a fountain of exactly what I want to say, I love and hate you Khan... Thank you for attending to this I want Myrie Playable... Asap :). I agree about your current concerns whole heartedly.

_________________
Image
A perfect storm of action and reaction no thought no will can stop his dream.
Myrie, of the night


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:40 pm 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:25 am
Posts: 1935
Location: IN THE NAVY!! Yes you sail the seven seas! IN THE NAVY!! Yes you can put your mind at ease!
I'm conservative with holding the "one active battle" rule. However, what still needs to be discussed/agreed upon is the mechanism with which a third character can be created, and the means of switching between characters.

What is our limit to making newer and newer characters? Two battles? Two months? The old proposition was if a "character B" be made, a person MUST act on that character exclusively for two battles before they may switch to their old "main" character or discard "character B" for a "character C".

I propose that if a "character B" be made, a player is able to switch between his two characters freely should they wish. However, two battles must be played out with either character before one may be discarded for a new auxiliary ("character C"). Since a character was made in the first place, it is assumed they will play at least one battle with them (otherwise what is the point), but also allows them the freedom to do a battle with their main if the opportunity arises ("You're free? Me too, I've love to battle you with my main! But...")

As for everything else, I've already agreed upon/put my two cents in. :D

_________________
Tyzrk, the Arch-Wizard

leboyX wrote:
and then pounce on them. To make sure they know we're dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:49 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 1618
Location: just south of insanity
It was discussed previously the idea that you can interchange between the characters as you please for battles and I agree with that. However I do believe there should be a penalty for people who ditch their characters mid battle.

My first idea is to use the debt inherited system. If you ditch a character while it is in a battle your other character inherits a debt of 5g to the person you were battling as an apology and can buy nothing until this debt is paid.

Thoughts?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:12 pm 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2926
Location: Here
I agree that RP's shouldn't have the same restriction as battles. Battles are really the core of DI's primary rule set. We treat RP's a bit more loosely b/c they need the extra liberality for people to have more fun with their characters. However, it should be noted that having too many irons in the fire isn't recommended - people just burn out too quick otherwise.

Khan Novaneau wrote:
My first idea is to use the debt inherited system. If you ditch a character while it is in a battle your other character inherits a debt of 5g to the person you were battling as an apology and can buy nothing until this debt is paid.


The problem I see here is that it doesn't treat "ditched' battles equally. For instance, if someone times out on a battle or plain and simply says "I'm done", we don't penalize them for it. We simply award the win to the other opponent (for whatever the battle length merits) and move on. I think people should certainly stick with a character at least until they finish a battle, but that's not to say we should punish everyone who doesn't finish.

Khan Novaneau wrote:
4:Only one active battle at a time, this however doesn't prevent multiple characters being in the same battle.

On point 4 I feel there's still a discussion to be had. I don't personally see a problem with multiple battles at once, but I also see why mechanically its a bad idea. It's hard to keep up with say two battles and an RP at the same time. It is extremely easy to burn out your creative juices at a rapid pace. So whichever way that point goes be wary of this fact and pace yourself.


There's no rule that says you can't be in multiple battles at once w/ the same character. Just that only one can yield a reward (often referred to as "active"). This was done, as previously stated, b/c the 2nd or 3rd battle someone is in almost always die(s) due to burn out. Even if they do not, the quality of the battle will tend to trend lower b/c someone's being mentally stretched too thin. I see no reason why having two characters presents any new scenario.

That being said, I don't see the harm in having 2v2 battles and the like where one person has 2 characters fighting on the same side. (I don't think fighting one of your char's w/ your other char really makes sense).

Aside from these things, I think we're ready to codify this a more formal rule set. I see the following:

The Retirement System wrote:
More accurately, this is the maintaining of multiple characters by a single member of DI.

How it Works
You may have two "active" characters at a time (we'll call them C1 and C2 for simplicity). While one may be your "primary" character and one is sort of your "I want to try something new" character, there is no formal restriction making this the norm.

When entering into a battle, RP, or other event, be sure it is clear which character you will be playing with. That way everyone knows what/who to expect.

Playing w/ Your Characters
The usual rule of "one active battle at a time" applies to you as a member. If one of your characters is in an active, reward-worthy battle, your other may not be in a battle of the same caliber. ("Friendly" battles are, of course, permitted).

RP's (role playing) events amongst other members of DI do not share the same restriction of one-character-at-a-time rules. However, participating in multiple events (battles, RP, special events) can be taxing on you as a living, breathing human being. Thus, it is not recommended that you over-participate your character(s) in whatever you can get your hands on.

Items and gold may be given between C1 and C2 at any time. However, both require mod approval to do so. The standard fee for trading items is 10 gold. So, for C1 to give C2 his awesome Sword of Winning (which may have cost him 30 gold), either C1 or C2 may shell out the gold to make the trade. Gold may flow between C1 and C2, but a "cost of doing business" tax will be applied at mod discretion for each transaction depending on the size of the money being transferred. (So, no creating characters C3, C4, or C5 just to chuck their starting gold up to C1).

Retirement
If you wish to create a new character (C3), you must "retire" either C1 or C2 before you can bring your new persona to life. If the character you wish to retire is currently carrying debt to either the DI Bank or another member, that debt must either 1) Be paid or 2) Inherited by your other character. In the rare case where both your characters are being retired, mod discretion will determine how best to handle your indebted situation. (But be nice - handle your money wisely).

A character may only be retired after participating in at least two reward-worthy events. These can be special events, RP's, or just plain battles. This rule is in place to ensure members don't end up inadvertently spawning 3 or 4 characters every few months. This is a headache for the mods to manage, and it makes it difficult for other members to track who's who. Furthermore, we want people to give their characters a chance to live and breathe. Perhaps a mechanic or flaw in your initial character design can be adjusted or polished given a bit more time. So let your characters have chance at life; see what they can do :).


Thoughts? Tweaks?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:22 pm 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:25 am
Posts: 1935
Location: IN THE NAVY!! Yes you sail the seven seas! IN THE NAVY!! Yes you can put your mind at ease!
So, is the rule in place where the C2 has to do two official battles before the option of retirement, or can the battles be done with either character?

Also, it will be interesting to see the gold transfer system take place. That's probably the only thing I was/am objecting against, but with a tax system it might be able to be managed on a fair basis.

_________________
Tyzrk, the Arch-Wizard

leboyX wrote:
and then pounce on them. To make sure they know we're dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:24 am 
Offline
I'm on highscores!
I'm on highscores!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:19 am
Posts: 284
Location: The dusty continent downunder
One issue I'm thinking is reward recipient and wealth distribution between long standing characters.

Say, for example, I create a second character in addition to Infineon (and trust me, when the retirement system is all cleared up, I will be), and stick with both of them without overwriting either of them. There are a couple of situations which I would like clarified and perhaps thought on.

First of all, if/when Infineon reaches peak item and gold level, but I still wish to battle with him or RP with him, I don't want my hard earned rewards to actually go to him at all, I want the gold on my other character. In the current system, I would lose x amount of gold by transferring the gold/items across to the other character, making it not fundamentally a good idea to use Infineon any more as I would just be throwing away a part of my reward every time I battled. The effect would be either making me more and more likely to use my alternate character, despite still wanting to use Infineon, or otherwise imposing a tax on the use of my favored character, neither of which are good. As such, a system where you can nominate the character that gets the reward (other, obviously, than in the cases of PQ or Tournament exclusive items), allowing characters to still be used once part of the reward is no longer useful for them. (And in any case, let's face it, battles rarely have a rational reason why any specific character would be rewarded gold at the end of them, so it's not like the story suffers for having another character benefit from the actions of a different player character)

Secondly, I would recommend that if the issue with trading items between characters is about making sure that no newly-created character is made overpowered by an influx of items from the older character, rather than making it a 10-gold-down-the-drain transaction fee each way, allow items to be moved between characters freely, given that either a percentage of the item's cost or a flat rate in gold is transferred in return as a deposit. Then when the item is returned, the gold switches hands back. This system would mean that you would not be getting free gold transfer (as the gold would effectively be in storage, as it would have to be traded back with the item), and it would also mean that the items that any one character could inherit was limited by the amount of money that they would have earned in their life. Perhaps putting a minimum number of fights the items had to be traded across for, say two? And finally a clause that in the event of either character being overwritten, the trade reverts unless the party who has the borrowed item pays the remaining cost of the item out of their own pockets.

Which leads me to my final point, which is sale value of items and moving items between characters just before a character overwrite. While it's unlikely to happen, in the event that two people collaborate together, it is currently possible for items to be transferred basically for free as I understand it, as players set the prices on moved items. Thus, you could sell a unique item for a low cost and then buy it back on your other character for the same small sum before destroying the character the item originally came from. This leads to the conclusion that either a) there should be a restriction or guidelines implemented regarding transactions between players or b) there should be a way to retrieve unique items for a portion of their cost from a character about to be overwritten.

Anyway, those are my sleep-deprived thoughts as they are. I'm sure more will occur to me in time.

_________________
Image

"Little solace comes to those who grieve/When thoughts keep drifting, when walls keep shifting/And this great blue world of ours seems like a house of leaves/Moments before the wind." ~House of Leaves


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:45 am 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:25 am
Posts: 1935
Location: IN THE NAVY!! Yes you sail the seven seas! IN THE NAVY!! Yes you can put your mind at ease!
Dang it, we're concentrating so hard on making people commit that we have oversight on people that are going to be committed.

The first part is hard to address. The ability to choose who a reward goes to should probably only be reserved for someone who is at the aforementioned state of not wanting to develop the character of interest. I know we would not want characters to be too highly benefited by this. Early caster classes being "piggy-backed" into godlihood without doing much for their own development, for example.

I'll make no comment on the second part concerning items and gold transactions between two characters under this system.

As with giving items out before a rewrite, I believe this sort of thing happened before where someone (Biller?) tried donating his godly equipment to his clan before leaving. Transactions like these and those where people are trying to get away with black-marketing C1's items to C2/3 or something similar will just have to be monitered closely by mods. I know there is not any official wording or construct for such a rule/situation just yet, but for now, all we have I believe is a "mods will know if something sketchy is happening."

_________________
Tyzrk, the Arch-Wizard

leboyX wrote:
and then pounce on them. To make sure they know we're dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Retirement?! I'd just get bored!
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:59 am 
Offline
Can't wait for MWO
Can't wait for MWO
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2926
Location: Here
Lord Sawsaw2 wrote:
Say, for example, I create a second character in addition to Infineon (and trust me, when the retirement system is all cleared up, I will be), and stick with both of them without overwriting either of them. There are a couple of situations which I would like clarified and perhaps thought on.

First of all, if/when Infineon reaches peak item and gold level, but I still wish to battle with him or RP with him, I don't want my hard earned rewards to actually go to him at all, I want the gold on my other character. In the current system, I would lose x amount of gold by transferring the gold/items across to the other character, making it not fundamentally a good idea to use Infineon any more as I would just be throwing away a part of my reward every time I battled. The effect would be either making me more and more likely to use my alternate character, despite still wanting to use Infineon, or otherwise imposing a tax on the use of my favored character, neither of which are good. As such, a system where you can nominate the character that gets the reward (other, obviously, than in the cases of PQ or Tournament exclusive items), allowing characters to still be used once part of the reward is no longer useful for them. (And in any case, let's face it, battles rarely have a rational reason why any specific character would be rewarded gold at the end of them, so it's not like the story suffers for having another character benefit from the actions of a different player character)

[I disagree that the reward system has no rational purpose behind it. It is generally accepted that fighting is just "what you do" if you live in DI. As such, it makes sense that gold gets dolled out to those who fight. Furthermore, I think it's clear that getting skills/specials/spells from battles makes all the sense in the world - your character is gaining more experience and growing stronger.]

[Furthermore, the system is not intended to encourage you to use one character or the other. It's to allow you to do so if you want. The characters need to be made as separate as possible, while still allowing you some "edge" by maintaining two character under a single member. If you let someone C1 work for a reward, only to immediately pass it down to C2, you have an imbalance of power. You have one character reaping the reward of a different character. Put another way - you have your fresh, powerless character who gets strong/richer by sitting on his but while your behemoth of a primary character goes around wrecking DI for kicks.]


Secondly, I would recommend that if the issue with trading items between characters is about making sure that no newly-created character is made overpowered by an influx of items from the older character, rather than making it a 10-gold-down-the-drain transaction fee each way, allow items to be moved between characters freely, given that either a percentage of the item's cost or a flat rate in gold is transferred in return as a deposit. Then when the item is returned, the gold switches hands back. This system would mean that you would not be getting free gold transfer (as the gold would effectively be in storage, as it would have to be traded back with the item), and it would also mean that the items that any one character could inherit was limited by the amount of money that they would have earned in their life. Perhaps putting a minimum number of fights the items had to be traded across for, say two? And finally a clause that in the event of either character being overwritten, the trade reverts unless the party who has the borrowed item pays the remaining cost of the item out of their own pockets.

[So, rather than losing money, you're saying they're getting their money back once the item returns? As with my first point, this system isn't supposed to give members frictionless interaction between their characters. That's unfair to people who don't have 2 chars, which is an immediate veto in my book.]

[If you delete a char and they have a traded item, it's 1) Gone, 2) May be traded back for a fee to the other character, or 3) Handled specially by a mod. These rules are meant to be general guidelines for the 80% of the cases we'l have. For everything else, we have sane, rational mods to moderate the small nit-picks we can't all think of right now.]


Which leads me to my final point, which is sale value of items and moving items between characters just before a character overwrite. While it's unlikely to happen, in the event that two people collaborate together, it is currently possible for items to be transferred basically for free as I understand it, as players set the prices on moved items. Thus, you could sell a unique item for a low cost and then buy it back on your other character for the same small sum before destroying the character the item originally came from. This leads to the conclusion that either a) there should be a restriction or guidelines implemented regarding transactions between players or b) there should be a way to retrieve unique items for a portion of their cost from a character about to be overwritten.

[This suggests a 3-part trade, yes?. C1 trades to D1, trades to C2. Right? All trades are approved by mods. Shenanigans can be easily spotted and disallowed as such. This has already been moderated, esp. to prevent the whole "mommy/daddy". So, basically, your suggestion of point (a) is already implemented.]

[As DDR, the mods will know. That's our job.]


Anyway, those are my sleep-deprived thoughts as they are. I'm sure more will occur to me in time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Maganic Wars Online Role Playing GamesPowered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group