proficiency overhaul and experience decay

[pistolshrimp]

Dallane, i dont think ad hominen arguments are relevant. If there are faults in my argument please point them out, I am willing to listen.

If your goal is to promote player interaction there are alternative ways to do it rather than obligating trade or village life.

First of all think of the current player base, lets say 22 people log on to play on Plymouth each night. If we need say 5 specialized players for each player to have a viable fulfilling game experience then with 22 player you only have say 5 villages. 5 villages to populate the entire server.

Second what of you are in a village of 5 and your miner quits. Well GG, you're done until find another player (remember you have 22 players and nearly all of them are in other villages) or you have to raise him yourself. Self-defeating as you've shown the maintainece of your 2 players isn't worth it.

Third what about combat, raiding, defense? With alts being impracticable who is going to be willing to sacrifice their farmer to fight? So now you need a fighter. See problem number 2. Not to mention who wants to be the farmer when one person gets to train up to be the fighter and do the grind the miner, farmer, crafter does?

Your proposal is solid but ultimately impractical for the game.

[cairde]

Yes, my goal is to promote player interaction. I would love to hear how you would do this. Also, decay would not really obligate villages or trade. You could forage to get to any position, just not every postition.

I dont think the devs want to run this game on a 22 player basis, some change is bound to happen. I am not going to speculate as to what but low participation is not really an argument not to change things. and I for one would prefer 5 villages over 22 hermits.

Yes, it creates incentives to organize, that is too recruit and retain players, and having players leave causes an organizational shock as people have to adjust to the change. I think that would serve the game well. With decay it would not have to take so much work to get up and running again, compare renting a car with buying a car. But losing a well developed niched player by having him quit the game, join another village, die or any other means should be a bad thing. You would have to adjust and for the next three days you have to do without nails and lovers lockets. If other players are addicted to lovers lockets to maintain high profs, they too will lose out. Perhaps temporarily losing valuable skills. This is the kind of game i would like to play, where a high level of organization is efficient but more susceptible to disruption.

The above challenges makes raiding better when it comes to eliminating competition. It still wont be profitable i think. Preferably people would raid and defend with their mains rather then using alts to assault mains creating a more level playing field. Looking at the skill tree though, i think what little common ground there is with purely civilian skills would not discourage alting enough. Somewhat but not enough though drawing a few extra lines in that diagram could change that. Anyway, fighting skills are mainly dependent on humors and equipment, not proficiencies, and rather few skills are involved. Most of those skills have civilian uses so even civilians would do good to pick them up.

Of the six people in my village only one have the inclination to PVP. The rest of us play the game for other recreational values.



If you want raiding to be viable you need improve the gains from predating on your neighbours. But that's an entirely different topic.

[pistolshrimp]

Yes, my goal is to promote player interaction. I would love to hear how you would do this. Also, decay would not really obligate villages or trade. You could forage to get to any position, just not every postition.

I dont think the devs want to run this game on a 22 player basis, some change is bound to happen. I am not going to speculate as to what but low participation is not really an argument not to change things. and I for one would prefer 5 villages over 22 hermits.

Yes, it creates incentives to organize, that is too recruit and retain players, and having players leave causes an organizational shock as people have to adjust to the change. I think that would serve the game well. With decay it would not have to take so much work to get up and running again, compare renting a car with buying a car. But losing a well developed niched player by having him quit the game, join another village, die or any other means should be a bad thing. You would have to adjust and for the next three days you have to do without nails and lovers lockets. If other players are addicted to lovers lockets to maintain high profs, they too will lose out. Perhaps temporarily losing valuable skills. This is the kind of game i would like to play, where a high level of organization is efficient but more susceptible to disruption.

The above challenges makes raiding better when it comes to eliminating competition. It still wont be profitable i think. Preferably people would raid and defend with their mains rather then using alts to assault mains creating a more level playing field. Looking at the skill tree though, i think what little common ground there is with purely civilian skills would not discourage alting enough. Somewhat but not enough though drawing a few extra lines in that diagram could change that. Anyway, fighting skills are mainly dependent on humors and equipment, not proficiencies, and rather few skills are involved. Most of those skills have civilian uses so even civilians would do good to pick them up.

Of the six people in my village only one have the inclination to PVP. The rest of us play the game for other recreational values.




If you want raiding to be viable you need improve the gains from predating on your neighbours. But that's an entirely different topic.

Your proposed update would kill the game as it is now. Plain and simple. People don't want to try so hard to trade and have villages. They don't want to have to have a village to get the full experience from a game. They want it to be a choice. How do you feel like this would bring players into the game as opposed to driving them away? I still see it as a problem that if you have 1 person. In your village leave you have 5 other people contemplate quitting or are forced to bring in a person quickly who most likely is going to kill you all and steal your stuff. Yes, perhaps this change will make it more fun when things are going well, but it will make things so much worse when they aren't.

[cairde]

I think all that needs to be said have been said.

I admit that your concern is very valid and that trying this is a risk. I think it is less a risk as you can do it on a new server but a risk none the less.

[DarkNacht]

I think all that needs to be said have been said.

I admit that your concern is very valid and that trying this is a risk. I think it is less a risk as you can do it on a new server but a risk none the less.

The devs have enough to do without making an experimental server that only one person wants to play on. I'm fairly sure the devs want to keep all of the servers running on the same rules anyway.