| Secondaries | Tue Aug 14 10:36:57 2012 MST |
| I look around and I see 90% of all players at endgame content.
There aren't many new players coming in, and only a small portion of
mud content is being utilized. IOM has reached an 'endgame' state.
I want to bring up CONTROLLED equipment sharing with secondaries for
discussion. With split bodies being available to players, I think
it would be a great alternative for players to have to be able to
start a secondary and share equipment once the secondary has been
built up to a certain level.
Here are the benefits I invision:
1. Replay value. Its fun to play a game all over if you really enjoy it.
2. Utilizing more mud content. We're all piling in the same areas,
90% of the mud is not in use.
3. Experienced low level players will encourage mud growth. It is
daunting to join a game as a newbie and see that nearly everone is
lvl 90+ and there is nobody to play with.
4. Secondaries take time to build. If a player wants to go the
long route (compared to splitting of an instant gigbie), shouldn't
they be able to share equipment once they get past a certain point?
My perception is shared EQ isn't allowed because we don't want to
see newbies running around with highbie sets. If we put level
limits on equipment, or put a minimum level before a secondary can
share equipment with a primary, it seems like there would be a lot
of benefit to the mud, and give players another venue to continue to
enjoy playing IOM.
Please discuss :)
Art |
| >Secondaries | Tue Aug 14 10:45:24 2012 MST |
| On Tue Aug 14 10:36:57 2012 Artea wrote post #866:
> I look around and I see 90% of all players at endgame content.
> There aren't many new players coming in, and only a small portion of
> mud content is being utilized. IOM has reached an 'endgame' state.
> I want to bring up CONTROLLED equipment sharing with secondaries for
> discussion. With split bodies being available to players, I think
> it would be a great alternative for players to have to be able to
> start a secondary and share equipment once the secondary has been
> built up to a certain level.
> Here are the benefits I invision:
> 1. Replay value. Its fun to play a game all over if you really enjoy it.
> 2. Utilizing more mud content. We're all piling in the same areas,
> 90% of the mud is not in use.
> 3. Experienced low level players will encourage mud growth. It is
> daunting to join a game as a newbie and see that nearly everone is
> lvl 90+ and there is nobody to play with.
> 4. Secondaries take time to build. If a player wants to go the
> long route (compared to splitting of an instant gigbie), shouldn't
> they be able to share equipment once they get past a certain point?
>
> My perception is shared EQ isn't allowed because we don't want to
> see newbies running around with highbie sets. If we put level
> limits on equipment, or put a minimum level before a secondary can
> share equipment with a primary, it seems like there would be a lot
> of benefit to the mud, and give players another venue to continue to
> enjoy playing IOM.
> Please discuss :)
> Art
would be cool to see 4k back on. that was neat. starting from
scratch would be cool but id is my main was deleted to accomplish
it. abit off topic but i like what art said. |
| >Secondaries | Tue Aug 14 11:50:08 2012 MST |
| I'm of mixed minds.
On the one hand, I'm not really sure why the rule against sharing with secondaries exists. I don't believe it's for the reason you state - there's nothing against the rules, for instance, in my wife making a brand new character and my handing _her_ a top-notch highbie set, which would argue against it being for equipment-level reasons. I have mild suspicions that most of the secondary rules are in place with the ideal of fostering parties; I'm not totally convinced they all (including this one) actually do that.
On the other hand, since the 10% minimum was removed, and one can now split off a body of any size, I don't think there's a need to create a secondary just to work up from the beginning. So I'm not sure I see a need for a rule change, either.
We've had a lot of these rules unchanged for a long time, and many of the reasons behind them may now well be lost. In addition, when many of these rules were made, we were a mud full of gangly teenagers, feeling for and pushing at their boundaries at every opportunity. I don't think we are really in that space anymore. I find myself wondering if we want to put together a more concise list of rules, with the reasoning behind each, and a mechanism for change.
I think I'd probably start with guiding principles. My personal take is that those guiding principles should be, in approximate order (to the extent there is an order):
(1) The mud should be fun
(2) We are aiming at a primarily (but not exclusively) social, party-oriented mud. Rules should have the effect of encouraging parties over other forms of activity, though without eliminating other forms.
(3) Newbies are rare and precious, and every effort should be made to encourage and support them.
(4) Game content is a work of art. As such, the artist's vision should be respected as much as is reasonably feasible.
(5) Reward should be proportional to effort
To extend the example a little further to its use regarding rules, I would justify rules based on the stated goals:
* The rule against multiplaying is in place to support goal 2
The assumption is that it is much easier to play with a second character than to find a second person; evolutionary ideas imply therefore that people will be wandering around playing with themselves much more often then.
* The rule against sharing quest information supports goals 1, 4, and 5
Sharing quest information violates rule 1 because telling someone the answer to a fun puzzle forever denies them the joy of solving it themselves.
Sharing quest information violates rule 4 for historical reasons - all current quests were written with this rule in mind, and were designed by the quest writer keeping it in mind; they were designed not to need or want shared info, and so they should remain that way.
Sharing quest information violates rule 5 because it lets people who are told the information get the quest reward without the same effort invested as those who figured it out themselves. And as quest rewards are usually (and probably always should be) better than comparable rewards for non-quests on comparable monsters, this is a marked increase in reward for little effort.
I'm not sure what goal or goals the rule against sharing with secondaries supports; I may be missing an aspect, or I may be missing a goal, I'm not sure.
Of course, all this is just my own take, and is, I'm sure, far from complete even for that. But I, for one, would very much welcome a discussion on the subject.
-Daneel
|
| >Secondaries | Tue Aug 14 12:01:33 2012 MST |
| A "newbie" secondary decked out with a top end equipment set from their primary probably wont be a "newbie" for very long even if they're stuck having to solo most of the time. This would probably also detract from what little mud economy exists in buying/trading from those secondary characters with other players.
The level requirement note for using equipment would probably have similar end results due to not being able to use any of those items until much later points in time and at the same time making it effectively harder to reach the point of being able to use those items unless you worth-inflated through other non-equipment reliant guilds like mist mage and shifter, or were getting dragged in parties.
The minimum level for sharing note probably would lean again towards choosing whatever the fastest xp gaining race/guild/wish combo there was combined with getting dragged to reach that point.
Just my 2 cents for what it's worth eheh... |
| >>Secondaries | Fri Aug 17 17:24:39 2012 MST |
| Seconded. I say we kill the no sharing with secondaries rule. Let it be so.
Also we have bodies and what is the difference? |
| >>>Secondaries | Fri Aug 17 17:33:51 2012 MST |
| On Fri Aug 17 17:24:39 2012 Khosan wrote post #870:
> Seconded. I say we kill the no sharing with secondaries rule. Let it be so.
>
> Also we have bodies and what is the difference?
Oooo we could put the locker rooms back into the game as a spot to
rent out for shared eq, or as a short term spot for it while
switching characters |
| >>>>Secondaries | Sat Aug 18 14:04:55 2012 MST |
| Why not just invite secondaries to your castle?
|
| >>>>>Secondaries | Sat Aug 18 21:45:45 2012 MST |
| On Sat Aug 18 14:04:55 2012 Lucifer wrote post #872:
> Why not just invite secondaries to your castle?
>
>
Because help secondaries hasn't been updated so we don't know the
particulars. I thought this was a neat idea |
| >Secondaries | Sun Nov 18 00:46:43 2012 MST |
| the main reason i ever throught for aking a new was the one time stuff quests exploring ect... newbodies wouln't really work for either |
|
