AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Dev Disco wrote:

Why don't we do this:

You die, and a timer is set on you. Say 10 minutes.

A raise within this timer means no penalty.

A raise without this timer means a penalty.

You make sure that this timer is server specific. When you swap servers there's no timer, when you wait till next reset there's no timer. When you log out and wait 10 minutes you'll be placed in the entry (that's already happening) and your timer will have ran out as well.

You could even say you get half the penalty on a raise after the 10 minutes if you want to diversify the options. Then you can choose to continue straight away and take the full hit, or sit it out and hope for a raise in the entry at 50% damage.

Can you make it so that if the timer still has time left, and the server resets, that whenever one logs back in it counts as being within the timer? I know it would suck to be in a party, and die just before reset, and then being forced to take the penalties because the world exploded.

That would be very tricky because that's the time some data (and items) get lost because the server shuts down.

Amia's death penalties are negligible. Disco's idea sounds fun and reasonable.

As long as there are no extra written rules that aren't mechanically enforced, anything goes. When you have a system, it should be open to any "abuse" that it facilitates. These details of "you can log onto another character but not the same character, and you can log onto the other server only once your server has reset" are pretty comical.

Put a system in place, and let people do whatever they can with it, so that there's no need for "rules" about it.

Dev Disco wrote:

Why don't we do this:

You die, and a timer is set on you. Say 10 minutes.

A raise within this timer means no penalty.

A raise without this timer means a penalty.

You make sure that this timer is server specific. When you swap servers there's no timer, when you wait till next reset there's no timer. When you log out and wait 10 minutes you'll be placed in the entry (that's already happening) and your timer will have ran out as well.

You could even say you get half the penalty on a raise after the 10 minutes if you want to diversify the options. Then you can choose to continue straight away and take the full hit, or sit it out and hope for a raise in the entry at 50% damage.

Extend the timer out to 20 minutes for the half xp damage and I'll say its a swell idea. Otherwise folks like me can just go have a smoke, like we normally do after we die and respawn anyway.

Since your messing about with it anyway O'lord chicken Cluck. . .remove the cap on gold on death.

MoshingChris wrote:

Since your messing about with it anyway O'lord chicken Cluck. . .remove the cap on gold on death.

That would be nice.

So that we can lose 2 mil gp from a respawn?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Get A Party if you don't want to respawn.

WonWon wrote:

Get A Party if you don't want to respawn.

Indeed.

People have so much gold because they are gaining it much faster than they lose it, even with death. f the cap is removed, an equilibrium would be established eventually.

Quote:

Since your messing about with it anyway O'lord chicken Cluck. . .remove the cap on gold on death.

I'm with Mago on this one. It just screams "bad idea" as far as I'm concerned.

Yurell wrote:

People have so much gold because they are gaining it much faster than they lose it, even with death. f the cap is removed, an equilibrium would be established eventually.

And how much gold do you have?

Those without anything to lose, have nothing to lose.

Let's assume you make 200 000 gold on average before respawning (it should be far more than that if you hag around in a party, since you shoudn't respawn unless there's a party wipe).
At present you would just keep gaining gold ad infinitum at a rate of 160k per death. With the limit you'd reach equilibrium at about 2 millions.

I'm not assuming.

I'm asking you.

Airais Alanein would lose over 19mil with an uncapped respawn, and even if I still hunted with her - I'd encourage it. Eary, whom I still hunt with, would cop quite a hit, too.

You Solo - You Risk. Get a Goddamn Party.

Yurell wrote:

WonWon wrote:

Get A Party if you don't want to respawn.

Indeed.

People have so much gold because they are gaining it much faster than they lose it, even with death. f the cap is removed, an equilibrium would be established eventually.

Uh. No.

The strongest gold inflation comes from those who makes alt characters, and gets loot during their level up process.

They won't be much affected by a removed cap, if at all.

If you want to fix the inflation, you fix the influx of gold into the module. Not by trying to drain the gold that already gets put in in excessive quantities.

Regardless.

If I spent the time and effort to accumulate wealth, then why should I be more severely punished than those who sat on their ass, doing nothing to accumulate gold?

Are we communists or something?

Dwagin wrote:

I'm not assuming.

I'm asking you.

Bad wording on my part ... I meant 'presume one'. One of my chars has eight millions, another one, in case that question is aimed at me.

WonWon wrote:

Airais Alanein would lose over 19mil with an uncapped respawn, and even if I still hunted with her - I'd encourage it. Eary, whom I still hunt with, would cop quite a hit, too.

You Solo - You Risk. Get a Goddamn Party.

Uh. Since when did it become a solo'ing thing?

You can die in parties as well.

Mr Mago wrote:

WonWon wrote:

Airais Alanein would lose over 19mil with an uncapped respawn, and even if I still hunted with her - I'd encourage it. Eary, whom I still hunt with, would cop quite a hit, too.

You Solo - You Risk. Get a Goddamn Party.

Uh. Since when did it become a solo'ing thing?

You can die in parties as well.

As a general rule, one does not have to respawn whilst in parties, unless the enitre party is killed.

Happens quite a lot when level 20-29 parties go up against Epic Bosses.

Happens quite a lot at lower levels as well, with new players, who don't know the ins and outs of the server.

Happens quite a lot with level 30's as well, when hunting in places like the Abyss and Actand.

Or even the Beholders.

Yurell covered it. The only time you're going to get a Total Party Kill is when you do something stupid, or are extremely unlucky. And that's a little thing known as Risk.

Mr Mago wrote:

Happens quite a lot at lower levels as well, with new players, who don't know the ins and outs of the server.

No point mentioning lower levels, since they will not be affected at all by the removal of the cap.

I was responding to the "You don't have to respawn when in a party".

Which is ridiculous bullshit. Dunno how people suddenly managed to come to that conclusion.

20-29's vs Epic Bosses;

Know your target. This isn't a new server. There is a multitude of experienced players, and characters, who can easily inform you of what you're up against.

Lowbies; Show me a low-level character that has 400k+ (since any less, and the cap removal doesn't exist), that isn't either a Self Rebuild, or a very experienced Amian who knows how to grind (and thus where is safe to go).

Abyss, Actand, Beholder;

This areas were added because people asked for dangerous, risky areas. Enjoy your dangerous, risky, area.

I just think the cap on funds is .. well. It'll start some interesting wealth storing techniques.

Mr Mago wrote:

I was responding to the "You don't have to respawn when in a party".

Which is ridiculous (censored). Dunno how people suddenly managed to come to that conclusion.

..Well, The Dominagus in his new location is actually .. pretty nasty boss wise.

Dwagin wrote:

..Well, The Dominagus in his new location is actually .. pretty nasty boss wise.

Unless you charge him outright, then he doesn't mindblast you

He's more difficult to kill in a party than if you solo him.

Shall we hand you level 30 and Boss Kill Bragging Rights on a silver platter with no challenge?

Touch of sarcasm, btw.

Y'wanna hunt Epic Bosses; You've got Maximus and the Fire Giants, and to a lesser extent; the ASB.

Some areas and bosses are more challenging, likely on purpose. Some might need a good build, some might need good preparation, and some might need good tactics, some might need a diverse party; some might need a focused party.

None of them are made with Solo'ing in mind.

Uh... I know that.

I'm one of those who have continuously endorsed making the epic bosses non-solo'able.

But the notion of "If you're in a party, you should never have to respawn", is just stupid, arrogant and ignorant.

And for those who like to see the cap removed, care to answer this:

Quote:

If I spent the time and effort to accumulate wealth, then why should I be more severely punished than those who sat on their ass, doing nothing to accumulate gold?

Things seem fine the way they are, I die just because my antivirus freezes my screen for a round or more for every new spawn anyway

(at least until I get to a reasonable level where the character can take being brainless for a while during the first part of the enctounter).

How did you accumulate that wealth and gold, I ask?

My guess is hunting, farming, grinding, or otherwise spamming Amia's spawns.

Something very much not typically encouraged.

If it's not encouraged, then why are 95%+ of Amia's areas cluttered with monsters, intended to be killed?

Have we reached a new era of insensible contradictions?

Probably because A - Players ask for them, B - Levelling through Hunting -is- the current, viable, solution to 30, and C - Because (surprisingly), the newer areas and spawns can be used as avenues and sparks for RP; in fact, are designed with this in mind, much of the time.

Quote:

If I spent the time and effort to accumulate wealth, then why should I be more severely punished than those who sat on their ass, doing nothing to accumulate gold?

Well, you're not being more severely punished. You lose the exact same percentage of your gold as everyone else.

Dakotaen wrote:

Quote:

If I spent the time and effort to accumulate wealth, then why should I be more severely punished than those who sat on their ass, doing nothing to accumulate gold?

Well, you're not being more severely punished. You lose the exact same percentage of your gold as everyone else.

Yup.

And if you've got that much gold to lose just lying around, you've likely already got everything you'd need the gold for in the process.

WonWon wrote:

Probably because A - Players ask for them, B - Levelling through Hunting -is- the current, viable, solution to 30, and C - Because (surprisingly), the newer areas and spawns can be used as avenues and sparks for RP; in fact, are designed with this in mind, much of the time.

So... you frown upon us for hunting monsters, yet at the same time... it's perfectly alright, for all the reasons you just stated?

Make up your mind.

Last edited by Nekhy on Fri, Mar 05 2010, 12:24 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Adventuring is encouraged, and classic D&D adventuring involves killing monsters. It's a dangerous world out there, even without a DM present 24/7.

Farming the same areas over and over for excessive amounts of gold isn't part adventuring, though.

Btw, equal percentage lost for everyone is a very capitalist solution, not a communist one. I mean, when did you hear a communist scream for equal taxation?

It's perfectly alright. Amia allows you to do -alot- of things.

Doesn't mean we don't encourage certain activities, or discourage others.

IE; You can hunt. I don't mind if you hunt. If you RP while hunting, that's fine with me. You can grind if you want, too. I won't complain.

But I won't be too sympathetic if you get bitten for it later down the track.

Dakotaen wrote:

Quote:

If I spent the time and effort to accumulate wealth, then why should I be more severely punished than those who sat on their ass, doing nothing to accumulate gold?

Well, you're not being more severely punished. You lose the exact same percentage of your gold as everyone else.

Yup. IRL tax works the same way (although IRL tax as a percentage increases as you get more wealthy).

Still.

Why should those who invest the time of effort to earn something, which is perfectly within the limits of what the module offers, be more severely punished than those who makes little to no effort?

The same could be applied to DCs.

Those who spend more time to earn more DCs, should they then have to pay higher prices for their DC items, because they have managed to earn more DCs?

Mr Mago wrote:

Still.

Why should those who invest the time of effort to earn something, which is perfectly within the limits of what the module offers, be more severely punished than those who makes little to no effort?

The same could be applied to DCs.

Those who spend more time to earn more DCs, should they then have to pay higher prices for their DC items, because they have managed to earn more DCs?

Yes, if we had progressive DC prices in place. But we have the same price for everyone.

What's being suggested now is to use the same percentage equally to everyone in gold loss, too. No nannying either the rich or the poor.

But... You don't get punished anymore than anyone else. At all.

My level 13 Wiz will lose 10% upon dying. Your level 30 something will lose 10% upon dying.

Mr Mago wrote:

Still.

Why should those who invest the time of effort to earn something, which is perfectly within the limits of what the module offers, be more severely punished than those who makes little to no effort?

The same could be applied to DCs.

Those who spend more time to earn more DCs, should they then have to pay higher prices for their DC items, because they have managed to earn more DCs?

Do those who have more gold have to spend higher prices at shops? You're comparing two different things.

Dakotaen wrote:

But... You don't get punished anymore than anyone else. At all.

My level 13 Wiz will lose 10% upon dying. Your level 30 something will lose 10% upon dying.

Your level 13 Wiz will lose, maybe, 10'000 gold pieces.

My level 30 could lose 2 million gold.

And I probably spent years trying to get that amount of gold in the first place, and for some reason, I'm suppose to pay a higher price for it.

Nekhy wrote:

Yes, if we had progressive DC prices in place. But we have the same price for everyone.

What's being suggested now is to use the same percentage equally to everyone in gold loss, too. No nannying either the rich or the poor.

50% of your DCs for getting wings.

One with 100 DC would have to pay 50 DCs. One with 10 DCs would have to pay 5 DCs.

It's far-fetched, I know.

But I don't see why those who managed to earn a lot of gp should have their effort and reward crippled more so than others.

Is it because people who spend a lot of time hunting / trading / boss farming are frowned upon? Are they considered to have lower status than those who sit in Amia Forest / Random Tavern / Bendir Dale all day, RP'ing about cooking dinner or writing poems?

Mr Mago wrote:

Is it because people who spend a lot of time hunting / trading / boss farming are frowned upon? Are they considered to have lower status than those who sit in Amia Forest / Random Tavern / Bendir Dale all day, RP'ing about cooking dinner or writing poems?

This is a roleplay server. What do you think we would want to reward?

Mind that RP isn't restricted to telling poems and chatting about cooking.

They're not lower status - they have a higher gold income than those who 'sit around and RP' do. Higher reward = higher risk.

Nekhy wrote:

Adventuring is encouraged, and classic D&D adventuring involves killing monsters.

That gives you gold.

If you adventure, consistently, you'll have a lot of gold. Eventually.

Hunting isn't restricted to 24/7 grinding of one area without IC conversations or interactions.

Mr Mago wrote:

Nekhy wrote:

Adventuring is encouraged, and classic D&D adventuring involves killing monsters.

That gives you gold.

If you adventure, consistently, you'll have a lot of gold. Eventually.

Hunting isn't restricted to 24/7 grinding of one area without IC conversations or interactions.

Hence having a higher income. You'd still have the advantage of having more gold / more disposable income than those who do not hunt much.

Yurell wrote:

They're not lower status - they have a higher gold income than those who 'sit around and RP' do. Higher reward = higher risk.

Higher reward = Higher risk, is fine.

But that's not how it is.

The rewards remains the same. You still get the same loot and gold from the monsters you kill, regardless if you have 10'000 gp or 10'000'000 gp.

It's more like:

Higher Accumilated Standard Rewards over an extended amount of time = Higher risk.

And that, I can't support, what so ever.

Server swapping, a reminder

Who is online