Grandfathering

[Ork]

I see the argument of those against grandfathering, but I don't see the severity. Yes, you have characters that will be superior to yours, but where's the overall impact to the server from these characters persisting? I don't believe these legacy characters/items harm the server in any meaningful or measurable metric.

[-XXX-]

Taking away stuff from players is no fun for anyone IMO.

Items
Every time an option has been discontinued, something equally, if not even more powerful has been introduced not long after. Artefacts have been removed and I am not aware of any other oldschool item that might be considered more powerful than the latest additions to the crafting menu (personally, I don't really consider the old cage fight champion belt to be ~that~ overpowered).

Subraces
From what I can tell this is more a special snowflake management matter than anything. But still... while it might seem unfair that some subraces are not available anymore while some players can still play them... thing to realize here is that these players EARNED it.
I don't know... I suppose that if I had something that I worked for and earned taken away from me just because someone else can't stand the fact that I'm enjoyng that what they can't have... call me weird, but I kind of consider the notion mildly irritating.

Paths
Most of these have been introduced and taken away as a result of seemingly inconsistent arbitrary decisions. Or more precisely, as the DEVs changed at the helm, the new ones usually wanted to focus on their own cool ideas rather than tweaking the work of their predecessors (which is understandable, ofc.).
Then again, why not reintroduce them all again? Most of them were more a case of niche playstyle rather than something mechanically busted anyway. Also, the few truly broken aspects can be probably tweaked now thanks to EE (this was not an option at the time most abandonned paths have been put to ice).

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

It does not sound fair, it sounds like wanting to remove a cookie just because you can never have it. Which is how I feel about all the Major rewards, legacy unique ones or even Minotaurs. But I think its cool uniques for 1) and 2) exist even though I will never achieve 1) (and in case of uniques 5%; I am not alone).

Legacy kensais don't break the game and that is why they were grandfathered.

It's not cookies we're talking about, but straight up mechanical advantages. A FTR/WM/CoT will never be as strong as the same build that is also a kensai. A modern STR based character will never have the extra saves and ease of gearing that one with the old beast belt does. In a lot of cases with grandfathering, the old is not just an alternative or cookie, but a direct (and sometimes significant, legacy greensteel anyone?) upgrade to the new version.

5%'s are at least obtainable. Arelith has a stated goal of not having 5%'s just be a power upgrade but often falls short of that goal when it comes to balancing, sometimes by quite a lot as new 5% races are either outrageously strong or laughably weak. And it's fair in the sense that everyone can obtain them, but they also suffer from grandfathering. Dragon PC's for example, are just an upgrade to pretty much every other race and not obtainable any longer, but we still have a lot of older ones running around that get to enjoy their leg up forever thanks to grandfathering.

The non kensai of FTR/WM/CoT can now use lore for scrolls. Kensais can not.

5% uniques are no longer achievable. Even though I'll never get them, I think it be a shame to wipe them out.

But if kensais (which they are not) are such a crime over major rewards, how about offering major rewards in lieu?

I was never a fan of beast belts. Not a hill I would die on.

*edit*

Minotaurs clearly make better weapon master barbarians than any other race if we wanted to claim the races are balanced. But i was sticking to the kensai as a more recent discontinued path. I think digging up weavemasters is way out there. I think it be cool to come across said rare bird, not a source of envy.

[Quidix]

I see the argument of those against grandfathering, but I don't see the severity. Yes, you have characters that will be superior to yours, but where's the overall impact to the server from these characters persisting? I don't believe these legacy characters/items harm the server in any meaningful or measurable metric.

Would you have been cool with all the monks roaming on the server during the server summer to have been grandfathered? Should old monks with uncapped speed have been grandfathered? Should a paladins with higher dispel and uncapped dispel per round have been grandfathered? Why is some grandfathering okay but not all? People with these builds got upset with the changes, but they were not given any leeway.

And specifically for the topic at hand, what's the benefit in generically deciding that all old character get two extra feats (Luck of Heroes and Epic Reputation) over all new characters? If they're not a big deal, then why are they removed?

Every time an option has been discontinued, something equally, if not even more powerful has been introduced not long after.

Well, the problem is that old character can keep old goodies and get the new ones. Others only get the new ones. Big difference.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I actually think the beast belt on a mechanical level is fine to keep as a legacy item. Its super powerful and too many people have it since it became a thing people built for instead of randomly getting, but ultimately the power level is not -that- far above what you can make if you actually compare it in a number scaling system. I suspect it was removed because of how easy it was to get for any non good character and because things like the assassins ring and the pally ring are the wave of the future. It just takes time to write out all those questamobobs, come up with a faction to build them around, and write all that dialogue, so if you are impatient open the toolset, learn the basics, and volunteer

That being said, I agree with Liarith in that knowing characters that were too good for the server still roam the server is a bit depressing. I didn't even know that there were still three gift characters running around, which makes it even more depressing. I get the arguments for it, since people put time into the characters ect., but that kind of advantage (mostly with the classes, the extra two ability points are significant but not game breaking) is huge and I think that far outweighs any potential hurt feelings. But I also don't get hurt feelings over stuff like that, so take my scaling of which is worse with a grain of salt.

[Ork]

I see the argument of those against grandfathering, but I don't see the severity. Yes, you have characters that will be superior to yours, but where's the overall impact to the server from these characters persisting? I don't believe these legacy characters/items harm the server in any meaningful or measurable metric.

Would you have been cool with all the monks roaming on the server during the server summer to have been grandfathered? Should old monks with uncapped speed have been grandfathered? Should a paladins with higher dispel and uncapped dispel per round have been grandfathered? Why is some grandfathering okay but not all? People with these builds got upset with the changes, but they were not given any leeway.

It's pretty clear that monks were a severe threat to server stability and mechanics. They were powerful enough to avoid the mechanical rock-paper-scissors dynamic. +2 AC, or +1 save just doesn't have that level of severity. What makes some grandfathering okay? I can't answer that. It's not a slippery slope here, but a decision made on a case-by-case basis.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I see the argument of those against grandfathering, but I don't see the severity. Yes, you have characters that will be superior to yours, but where's the overall impact to the server from these characters persisting? I don't believe these legacy characters/items harm the server in any meaningful or measurable metric.

Would you have been cool with all the monks roaming on the server during the server summer to have been grandfathered? Should old monks with uncapped speed have been grandfathered? Should a paladins with higher dispel and uncapped dispel per round have been grandfathered? Why is some grandfathering okay but not all? People with these builds got upset with the changes, but they were not given any leeway.

It's pretty clear that monks were a severe threat to server stability and mechanics. They were powerful enough to avoid the mechanical rock-paper-scissors dynamic. +2 AC, or +1 save just doesn't have that level of severity. What makes some grandfathering okay? I can't answer that. It's not a slippery slope here, but a decision made on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with this, but also wanted to throw in- I absolutely believe the Golden Monk (TM) should have remained the golden blur after the change.

Joking aside, I find Amadeo to be one of those iconic presences that is constantly contributing to the atmosphere of the server whenever they are logged in. I can't really say I know the player well other than by reputation and the few IC interactions we've had. Is my stance that this person should have kept their monk speed fair to all the people who lost it? No.

Do I think it would have been an interesting bit of RP everytime it showed up after? Absolutely, without fail. This is really the crux of my issue with being against grandfathering in the first place, though- I don't want a world where everyone struggles to reach the top of the pile by being the exact same. I want some anonymous evil mage to find a staff that lets him use Mummy Dust 5 x/rest. I want some crusading paladin to find an on-hit slay undead and palemaster weapon. Dirk the Dagger, assassin extraordinaire, to find some special scripted item that gives him +30 to hide/move silently when he's in combat with a paladin.

I want everyone to get their awesome cookies and have the playing field littered with a slew of people who have unique loadouts with variations in performances in their niches, which in my mind can only encourage further collaboration between different characters as every character doesn't eventually reach the same gear/stat/ac/ab plateau and become capable of utilizing the exact same tactics in the exact same way as the thousand other players before them for defeating every single challenge they encounter.

Because one is an interesting story, and the other one is just lather-rinse-repeat- and Final Fantasy 14 is a much prettier version of lather-rinse-repeat, if I'm trying to go that route.

[Scylon]

Been awhile since I posted

I'm of 2 worlds about this. I highly disagree you should be taking things away from players. I myself was building towards getting the belt for example, but as a new player with limited time, I have missed the boat. I do not however begrudge those who got it, or think they should have it removed. I promises you'll start seeing people leave if you have a rep for just taking things way from players, or worse telling them "you can't play that class anymore more because". There is a difference between balancing a class and out right telling someone we are deleting it and you need to roll something else.

That said there are 2 options you can do to even it out,

1) Make them all a 5%. so they are off the regular roaster, however you can earn it still. This however should be subject to DM approval and possible re-balance. Just because you play a class that was once OP, won't make you immune to a re balance.

2) Add serous insensitive to people who got one of these old classes/races, to want to delete/re-roll. Not sure what form that would take, however if they had a chance to trade one of these off for something rare and present in the game people might be less likely to "bank" them. Again, this would need to be policed for instances where someone made like 10 kensais. You want to trade one off, you delete them all. One per customer per class for example.

Cheers,

Scylon/Raziel

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

I see the argument of those against grandfathering, but I don't see the severity. Yes, you have characters that will be superior to yours, but where's the overall impact to the server from these characters persisting? I don't believe these legacy characters/items harm the server in any meaningful or measurable metric.

Would you have been cool with all the monks roaming on the server during the server summer to have been grandfathered? Should old monks with uncapped speed have been grandfathered? Should a paladins with higher dispel and uncapped dispel per round have been grandfathered? Why is some grandfathering okay but not all? People with these builds got upset with the changes, but they were not given any leeway.

And specifically for the topic at hand, what's the benefit in generically deciding that all old character get two extra feats (Luck of Heroes and Epic Reputation) over all new characters? If they're not a big deal, then why are they removed?

Every time an option has been discontinued, something equally, if not even more powerful has been introduced not long after.

Well, the problem is that old character can keep old goodies and get the new ones. Others only get the new ones. Big difference.

I tried explaining multiple times why Kensais were removed without being broken.

Beast belt feats giving free feats was something I never liked to begin with, be I for grandfathering or not. I felt it odd as the beast became a mechanic that was 'gamed' into character in a fashion that there was no real risk. That was the real reason beast belt was removed by the way, because it ceased to be a dynamic thing and was incorporated/assumed into builds. If it was merely for being OP, we only need to look to RH items (which I am also not a huge fan of). That being said, I was happy to hear the discontinuation of the beast belt, and was not concerned about the advantage of legacy characters having it at all even though I had never the opportunity to get said beast belt. If it was a choice between grandfathering it, or letting the beast belt as it continue to be something everyone metagamed into their future characters, I would take grandfathering that thing every time. So I think it is about the lesser evils and taking a moderate approach.

Monk changes last summer is a whole can of other worms on his own that Irongron regrets himself not doing something about earlier and generally speaking, I think arelith lead(s)/devs prefer to avoid relevels if at all possible and the monk set precedent for it because of the complete utter mess it made. Like my kensai went through three changes, but he didn't becomes null and void after all of them, just different.

[RedGiant]

This thread is a match dropped into a gasoline can. For heaven's sake let's have some stability. Let people keep the deal they signed on with, which except for server-wide balance issues has been the policy for a very, very long time, and say goodbye to their efforts when they are ready.

I say this as someone who just rolled their only legacy belt holder.

[ImWithThisGuy]

A little more lengthy than I imagined writing it out- sorry in advance!

I can't say how I feel about grandfathered gear or equipment, because I don't know exactly what's left out there. I do know that there are seldom few pieces that are actually a vast improvement over what is openly available to everyone. An Artifact Large shield I had in the past (+4stat, +4ac, +3will) was reduced well below what is easily available now. I was able to keep it as a sentimental piece; a legendary artifact my character found, even if it's power had diminished. Plus, being able to pass down equipment has an awesome aesthetic to it, where "ancient and lost secrets" are once again discovered, shared, and remembered. I'm sure there are a few legendary pieces out there as well, but nothing absurd has broken everything yet, so I'm inclined to say they don't really matter much.

As far as legacy classes and races.. I don't think ANY should be removed in their entirety. This includes Dragons, Rakshasa, FavordSoul/Weavemaster, Kensai, and so on. While many of them have an incredible amount of power in their own way, I could never, ever see something wrong with that. The closest it can get is having players abuse those advantages where they shouldn't. As far as any of those players are concerned, they should ~Always~ be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they cannot be mature enough to have something grandfathered and not step on other's toes, then they can and should be dealt with personally. Even additional gifts on creation are fine so long as they are not being used poorly.

I'd also point out that over the course of time hundreds of characters have been ruined by new additions, sometimes multiple times, before most are forgotten, tossed aside, or rolled for maximum value. Characters designed during different periods will fluctuate in strength over the course of time, and that's natural. Simply having a powerful legacy character/equipment by some fluke is not something people should be punished for.

Quite rather: Failure to treat that character/equipment with responsibility is definitely~ something to be punished for. I would instead encourage people to speak out against -individuals- who misuse their 'legacy advantage', rather than the possibility of any sort of advantage existing to begin with. Many including myself believe people will abuse these advantages sooner or later; But if you're going on a witch-hunt, it's better to let one witch roam free than force ten innocent women to hang.

[Quidix]

Well, the monk experience shows that balance does matter, because it ultimately impact others playing experience too. And it does not have to be on that scale to still have an impact.

I find the argument that "people don't like change, so we shouldn't take things away from them" rather odd. There are a lot of updates concerning feats, skills, items and classes all the time. The balance is naturally changing all the time because of updates, and some players lose out from these updates, yet that is deemed fine by almost everyone.

Why are updates different to the Beast rewards? Why the special treatment and tip-toeing on the Beast rewards vs pretty much any other balancing done over the last year? I find this inconsistent and opens the door for a new wave of grandfathering (I thought the policy was more along the lines of "well, it's a pain to fix all old decisions, but we'll try to avoid it going forward"). Now there's a question, will the RH ring be adjusted and grandfathered too? That would be odd, as it was pointed out from day 1 that it was stronger that alternatives.

In short, I like equal opportunity.

[Aftond]

If the beast belt and feat had so little impact as some would say, why remove the possibility of getting them in the first place?
It's a mechanic that had existed for atleast 3 years(or from when Cage was introduced, didnt play back then). But that may be an off topic question.

[Twily]

My guess is that it was removed not due to being excessively strong, but because it was no longer being used for what it was designed to be and the devs felt it detracted from how they envision the server.
The latter of those is the same reason the paths got removed as well.

The Beast fight had started off as a risky challenge with a worthwhile reward.

But people know the stats of the Beast so well now that there's not only no risk, people deliberately plan their build around it. People can know if they'll beat it before their character is even made and plan the fight rewards into it(such as skipping Luck of Heros on creation), and if they know they won't beat it they just don't fight it.

It'd turned into a mechanic for optimizing character builds more than anything else, and this isn't what it had been designed to be.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I'd like a new character weekend, yeah!

I think it would be fantastic policy to institute 2 weekends every month as "new character weekend." Provide some sort of nominal carrot.

If players knew there were certain times of the month where a whole new fresh wave of faces were emerging, it would destroy Arelith's biggest hurdle (to me) - getting off the boat, and starting to create relationships. I know I would love this.

[Arigard]

I don't really understand what the problem was with it as a fairly new player to Arelith (less than a year here). If the issue was risk, then why not just introduce 3-4 different beasts as was discussed on another thread, or create a system that changes the beast frequently, so it's not so easy to OOC know the challenge ahead.

If it's an issue with it being a special item, then why are there special items for other areas (like the RH and Assasins now) that require very little except just going through quests to achieve. Some of the items in these areas are much more powerful because you can choose exactly what you want on them too..

The issue with a lot of changes in Arelith recently is that things are just not consistent. If you're going to apply rules for items and quest rewards etc, then apply them across the board, or at least make a fair system that targets the problem, rather than band-aiding it (if that is what this is).

When I first came to Arelith I was really impressed that something like the beast fight existed, because it was an interesting idea to add optional danger to what is ultimately a very safe OOC environment for players. (Obviously the risk of crashing mid fight shouldn't be an actual factor in whether your char is PDed or not).

I'm a big proponent of risk vs reward in games and always have been. If there is actually a fair chance that players might lose characters to something IG in a balanced system, then I don't see why having a fairly powerful item as a reward is an issue, especially when as mentioned above they have recently been brought into the game in other ways in a guise that is not an observed risk to your character.

[Quidix]

I think I've said everything I can on this topic - thanks everyone for keeping the discussion civil. I'm still firmly against grandfathering, but respect the differing views.

If I was to ask one thing it would be that the devs and DMs at least announce any grandfathering plans they have prior to them happening by a month+, such than people have the chance to get in before the changes.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

I think I've said everything I can on this topic - thanks everyone for keeping the discussion civil. I'm still firmly against grandfathering, but respect the differing views.

If I was to ask one thing it would be that the devs and DMs at least announce any grandfathering plans they have prior to them happening by a month+, such than people have the chance to get in before the changes.

If grandfathering is supposed to balance of not disrupting character narrative and thinning out something they want to phase out, I don't think giving heads up would accomplish that as everyone rolls up alts to be shelved.

In regards to the beast belt though, I will actaully side with you as it it may prompt a wave of people taking the trial before they are 110% ready which could prove interesting.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

Look on the bright side. Since it's not retconned and people who have the belt still have it, it means we can still hold people accountable for having obtained one. :D

[Hazard]

I'm for grandfathering. While DMs, and in online cases, devs and mods and stuff have final say on what character is approved, I believe a player should have agency over their character once approved. If I were to leave (to bed, or a long break from Arelith) and come back and find my character sheet is different than it was, I'd be annoyed and feel cheated. You created something and were in the process of telling a story with it, and now it's different and you weren't even consulted.

That would make me consider if I want to invest time and effort into trying again. It undermines trust and creates an environment of temporary forgettable characters that all strive to be mechanically optimal and rolled within a very short window (1 year or less).

Obviously this is all within reason. Balances changes need to happen. One case of grandfathering I am against (hypocritically) is weavemasters. They're no longer available, but I see them all the time because who in their right mind would delete such a godly character? They actually have an impact on other players by trivializing nearly any dungeon/PvE content and having the ability to massively disrupt the in-game economy because of it. If it were up to me I would offer these people a DM assisted re-level into normal sorcerer (or whatever), with wiggle room to accommodate for minor changes in exchange for the inconvenience.

Taking away without giving or compromise is always going to piss people off, even if it's in our best interest. If we get to a point where the devs decide something must go and not be grandfathered I hope we can at least be compassionate about it and offer rebuilds or .. Whatever sort of compensation for the loss, because after-all that player did nothing wrong and shouldn't feel punished especially after investing time and effort to create a story for us.

Anyway, that's my little ramble on why I'm for grandfathering but think it should still have limits. Otherwise we'd still have dragon people with perma true seeing walking all over the place, and elven cat-girls and stuff.

As for this belt? I really don't care if someone still has it. It should be dealt with IC because I still think we have a long way to go when it comes to how these belts should be perceived. The belt is powerful but comes with a penalty, it cannot be hidden and displays your name. This means all the people who aren't terrible people will not only despise you, but they will know your name on-top of that. Play to that advantage.

[_-HiM-_]

Took me a while to read the whole thread - I some very detailed posts, I can clearly see the arguments on either side of this and after procrastinating for long enough it made me think, why not limit players to 1 character vault slot, not sure how that would go down but it would clear up a few debates in this post from both sides of the debate.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Took me a while to read the whole thread - I some very detailed posts, I can clearly see the arguments on either side of this and after procrastinating for long enough it made me think, why not limit players to 1 character vault slot, not sure how that would go down but it would clear up a few debates in this post from both sides of the debate.

You know how many players roll up anmee character before even gettinf to 20 like 6 times in a row? Over many years I have probably 13 random dudes sitting in my vault. Like people need freedom to just play the game and roll up another character on a whim

[_-HiM-_]

Took me a while to read the whole thread - I some very detailed posts, I can clearly see the arguments on either side of this and after procrastinating for long enough it made me think, why not limit players to 1 character vault slot, not sure how that would go down but it would clear up a few debates in this post from both sides of the debate.

You know how many players roll up anmee character before even gettinf to 20 like 6 times in a row? Over many years I have probably 13 random dudes sitting in my vault. Like people need freedom to just play the game and roll up another character on a whim

I'd imagine every player has a vault full of characters (myself included) the and yes I do agree the freedom to just roll up a character as you see fit is always going to win this discussion, but are those extra characters active in various factions that could inadvertently meta game into their other characters, I'm not suggesting this happens but if you only had a single character it would lower that challenge of your character not knowing what you know.. (you know what I mean). The original question was related to grand fathering and other players feeling towards it was unfair. With a 1 character vault I don't think it would feel so much "unfair" as that person has dedicated themselves to that character for a hugely significant amount of time, most likely - they would roll it, hence new player characters and an endless rotation, instead of the same old faces popping up randomly after years, but if they didn't, great we have some elders to inspire us?

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Took me a while to read the whole thread - I some very detailed posts, I can clearly see the arguments on either side of this and after procrastinating for long enough it made me think, why not limit players to 1 character vault slot, not sure how that would go down but it would clear up a few debates in this post from both sides of the debate.

You know how many players roll up anmee character before even gettinf to 20 like 6 times in a row? Over many years I have probably 13 random dudes sitting in my vault. Like people need freedom to just play the game and roll up another character on a whim

I'd imagine every player has a vault full of characters (myself included) the and yes I do agree the freedom to just roll up a character as you see fit is always going to win this discussion, but are those extra characters active in various factions that could inadvertently meta game into their other characters, I'm not suggesting this happens but if you only had a single character it would lower that challenge of your character not knowing what you know.. (you know what I mean). The original question was related to grand fathering and other players feeling towards it was unfair. With a 1 character vault I don't think it would feel so much "unfair" as that person has dedicated themselves to that character for a hugely significant amount of time, most likely - they would roll it, hence new player characters and an endless rotation, instead of the same old faces popping up randomly after years, but if they didn't, great we have some elders to inspire us?

95% percent of my vaults are shelved and, or no faction involved characters. Players who suffer from character focus issues often dont get past level 12 and are often not involved in factions. I this is why rolling was brought down in increments all the way down to 16. With new rolling system and less free time i tend to now play only one character at a time. But i stilll have quite the vault. Don't worry, half my never to be played kensais only have one gift and all of them have int 12 or less lol.

[_-HiM-_]

You know how many players roll up anmee character before even gettinf to 20 like 6 times in a row? Over many years I have probably 13 random dudes sitting in my vault. Like people need freedom to just play the game and roll up another character on a whim

I'd imagine every player has a vault full of characters (myself included) the and yes I do agree the freedom to just roll up a character as you see fit is always going to win this discussion, but are those extra characters active in various factions that could inadvertently meta game into their other characters, I'm not suggesting this happens but if you only had a single character it would lower that challenge of your character not knowing what you know.. (you know what I mean). The original question was related to grand fathering and other players feeling towards it was unfair. With a 1 character vault I don't think it would feel so much "unfair" as that person has dedicated themselves to that character for a hugely significant amount of time, most likely - they would roll it, hence new player characters and an endless rotation, instead of the same old faces popping up randomly after years, but if they didn't, great we have some elders to inspire us?

95% percent of my vaults are shelved and, or no faction involved characters. Players who suffer from character focus issues often dont get past level 12 and are often not involved in factions. I this is why rolling was brought down in increments all the way down to 16. With new rolling system and less free time i tend to now play only one character at a time. But i stilll have quite the vault. Don't worry, half my never to be played kensais only have one gift and all of them have int 12 or less lol.

if it makes you smile, my only kensai is a level 6 rogue but yet i keep him because i know it is now unobtainable?