Arelith

If the issue with writs being good/awarding high XP is people using them to get to 26 faster while also grinding, to then roll and make 5%'s be less rare than they should be, why not just limit the amount of characters you can roll to 1 per 1 or 2 IRL months? I don't really think anyone other than a serial grinder is going to be rolling a character a month, or under it.

My opinion is still conflicted but the more I think about it, the more it actually makes sense to me. Even though I personally would be stuck with 10-15ish level 30 characters in my vault that I would only finish rolling next year. Eh... I want to hope there's a better way to address the serial major award grinder issue but this idea should be considered by our staff seriously imo.

Oh, this thread again. Has it even been a week?

I've been rolling characters at 30 for a couple of years, now.

This question is being looked at backwards. The issue is that some people want to play something restricted by an award they don't have. The SYMPTOM is the levelling/rolling cycle. I can tell you for a fact that the moment I actually get a major award, my levelling days are done.

If there was some way to guarantee a major award by some method, I'd do that instead. But there is no way, I've got to open the lootboxes, and to open the lootboxes, I've got to do the levelling cycle. The players aren't the problem here, the shitty lootbox award system is.

MRFTW wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:56 pm The players aren't the problem here, the shitty lootbox award system is.

Quoted for insane truth.

The current award system, while very hands off and easy to manage, is almost laser targeted to encourage unhealthy behaviours.

I knew from day one of my playing here that Epic Sacrifice system was trouble, I mean, you even had a gift that gave -2 ECL. I see the system as a rotting limb at this point, amputate and have a comfortable prosthetic lined up, this award system was made to be abused.

I absolutly 100% agree that the current system is more than a little problematic.

In the short term we've an idea or two to help.

In the long term it needs an overhall. It's just taking a while for the contributors to get around to it.

But We've something in mind and I really hope it gets put in.

But yes, you folk are entirely right and it's been something that's really been bothering me for a long, long, long time now. And the faster leveling speed has really not helped.

MRFTW wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:56 pm Oh, this thread again. Has it even been a week?

I've been rolling characters at 30 for a couple of years, now.

This question is being looked at backwards. The issue is that some people want to play something restricted by an award they don't have. The SYMPTOM is the levelling/rolling cycle. I can tell you for a fact that the moment I actually get a major award, my levelling days are done.

If there was some way to guarantee a major award by some method, I'd do that instead. But there is no way, I've got to open the lootboxes, and to open the lootboxes, I've got to do the levelling cycle. The players aren't the problem here, the shitty lootbox award system is.

I know that temptation. 1 roll for 1-2 month seems alright for non serious grinders really.

I regret for the first character I rolled, that is the same character who got me 20 rpr...and he had the best story set up. The rest went away after I find they failed to be interesting.

It is important that if you believe that no 5% is totally alright. What will change if you get 5%? We can play any race we like in modules...literally.

Thou personally i’d still love to have a few greater XD.

There is a way to increase chance, via having gold on your deleted character. 1 million to increase chance by 5%? I think this promotes gold hoarding and in some cases, mulling.

I will mention that many (probably the majority) of people that got their major (or 5% back in the day) actually stopped playing they special characters, or even delete them pretty fast. It happens all the time, you have this idea stuck in your head and you need a 5% to make it happen, but when you actually get there, it isn't actually all that interesting.

Ask anyone who has been around for a while and they will all tell you this happens a lot. Your 5% character will not be your last character. Eventually you will grow bored of that one too and move to something else. Try to enjoy all your characters, don't roll them as soon as possible, roll them when you truly are done with them so you don't regret later.

xf1313 wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:43 pm I know that temptation. 1 roll for 1-2 month seems alright for non serious grinders really.

1-2 a month would be less than I'd usually roll, anyway. Limiting rolls doesn't stop the behaviour, it simply gates awards based on available gaming time, which is a terrible metric by which to judge players. Someone that does the same "problematic" behaviour, but only for 3 hours a week, wouldn't even notice this change.

My problem is in principle; this restriction is punitive to players, who aren't the cause of the problem, and don't have the ability to fix it. Gaming bad systems isn't immoral.

Shadowy Reality wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:53 pm I will mention that many (probably the majority) of people that got their major (or 5% back in the day) actually stopped playing they special characters, or even delete them pretty fast. It happens all the time, you have this idea stuck in your head and you need a 5% to make it happen, but when you actually get there, it isn't actually all that interesting.

Good for them? Players aren't a monolith. More reliable access to major awards would allow the unlucky majority of us to test your hypothesis for ourselves. I can't see why anyone would delete a major award character, instead of shelving them, since there's a 90-95% chance of being worse off than you started.

I feel like this whole thing is a symptom of a problem that may not have an elegant solution, because players want a chance to play things that the admin team wants to keep rare. Finding a fair way to distribute who gets to be the special snowflake is always going to be an issue in a persistent world adaptation of tabletop--this goes for races, classes, ideologies, etc. In tabletop, our group can all be special snowflakes because the DM ensures the backdrop is full of normal people enforcing setting; in a persistent world, the majority of the people in the world are controlled by players who are obligated to maintain the setting.

I'm at least very glad that no one seems to be seriously arguing for time-limited characters like on Ravenloft, because that would be the kiss of death for a lot of players who have real life obligations to juggle.

Amateur Hour wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:33 pm I feel like this whole thing is a symptom of a problem that may not have an elegant solution, because players want a chance to play things that the admin team wants to keep rare. Finding a fair way to distribute who gets to be the special snowflake is always going to be an issue in a persistent world adaptation of tabletop--this goes for races, classes, ideologies, etc. In tabletop, our group can all be special snowflakes because the DM ensures the backdrop is full of normal people enforcing setting; in a persistent world, the majority of the people in the world are controlled by players who are obligated to maintain the setting.

I'm at least very glad that no one seems to be seriously arguing for time-limited characters like on Ravenloft, because that would be the kiss of death for a lot of players who have real life obligations to juggle.

You pretty much have the right of it.

I don't think there's much of an argument (yet) for doing time-limited characters... with the exception of maybe very number limited ones, such as Vamp and Rackshasa. Currenly our Vamp numbers are well above limit, and it'll take a long time for them to go down. That means effectivly that no one can play one until at least two or three have deleted - which isn't hapening any time soon. So for really upper tiered ones Its something I might consider in the long term, but just for those.

The reward system is supposed to do two things
1) Enable players to play cool rare races, whilst keeping them cool and rare. So we don't have 1000 tieflings around Cordor.
2) Encourage people to delete characters and move on to fresh concepts.

As Amatur said, the problem with 'keeping things rare' is you tend to get two basic schoolf of thought:

"If we're keeping these rare, then such concepts should really go to the best roleplayers. People who can manage and handle such concepts, not people who blindly do some sort of mechanic over and over again. As such deciding who gets to play these shouldn't be done by RNG but by DM intervention in some form or another."

Vs

"Ultimatly the system needs to be fair. DMs are prone to bias, to corruption and just to being blindised by odd play times/areas. What's 'good' roleplay can be hard to dicern, and gating concepts behind DM caveat will lead to bitterness amongst the community. Pretty much anyone should be able to play these characters, and so some form of mechanics (such as exits at present, or maybe something else - like paying 'gold' to get a pc, or doing a task a set amount of times ect) should be purely what enables people to play these rare creatures. "

Both points have their merits, and both points have their drawbacks.

My personal preference is a compromise of the two. A system where everyone in principle gets a shot at playing Award Races, but where DM intervention makes it easier or quicker for some people to achieve it. A way for us to further award good roleplay, without entirely cutting off (most) people from playing (most) award races.

From my own experience interacting with a player who poorly RPs a "rare" race hasn't been more jarring to me than if the same player was playing a "common" race. Generally RP alone, especially poorly done, is not going to shape my experience past an eye-roll and continuing on my way.

I'd be curious to see if the same players are playing back-to-back Major award characters (or several concurrently) or if they're all unique players gaining access to Majors that have some time in-between where they're playing non-Major award races (and not just working towards the next Major). I'd hope it was the latter; if it was the former maybe some conditions could be made on earning additional Majors.

xanrael wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:28 am From my own experience interacting with a player who poorly RPs a "rare" race hasn't been more jarring to me than if the same player was playing a "common" race. Generally RP alone, especially poorly done, is not going to shape my experience past an eye-roll and continuing on my way.

I'd be curious to see if the same players are playing back-to-back Major award characters (or several concurrently) or if they're all unique players gaining access to Majors that have some time in-between where they're playing non-Major award races (and not just working towards the next Major). I'd hope it was the latter; if it was the former maybe some conditions could be made on earning additional Majors.

That's actually a good point, off the top of my head I can't think of an award race character who was hugely harmful to setting integrity. In contrast, normal surface characters who do things like advocate that drow, kobolds, or gnolls are actually friends are much more harmful. And much more common.

I'm curious about the second thing too, but I doubt we'd ever get to see statistics on it.

It's a shame to hear that nobody will be able to play vampires or rakshasas until more of them roll. I've got no intention of ever playing one, but it still is disappointing to hear that people won't get a chance to try it because other people have shelved characters they won't roll.

The GrumpyCat wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 10:08 pm

As Amatur said, the problem with 'keeping things rare' is you tend to get two basic schoolf of thought:

"If we're keeping these rare, then such concepts should really go to the best roleplayers. People who can manage and handle such concepts, not people who blindly do some sort of mechanic over and over again. As such deciding who gets to play these shouldn't be done by RNG but by DM intervention in some form or another."

Vs

"Ultimatly the system needs to be fair. DMs are prone to bias, to corruption and just to being blindised by odd play times/areas. What's 'good' roleplay can be hard to dicern, and gating concepts behind DM caveat will lead to bitterness amongst the community. Pretty much anyone should be able to play these characters, and so some form of mechanics (such as exits at present, or maybe something else - like paying 'gold' to get a pc, or doing a task a set amount of times ect) should be purely what enables people to play these rare creatures. "

Both points have their merits, and both points have their drawbacks.

If this is the two sides of the debate behind the scenes then both sides are wrong. It shouldn't be random, and it shouldn't be based on the "best roleplayers" at all. It should be based on an app that lays out not only a backstory that shows they understand what they are apping for but that they have a gameplan (not a blueprint, since shit happens) on what to do with their concept once they get in game. From there the dm team can determine whether or not they think it works for Arelith. Then they should be given a mark of destiny or whatever at the start to make sure they aren't around forever. Sure, that still opens you up to some complaints about bias but that already exists anyways. Just be consistent, an aspect on Arelith that admittedly needs a bit of work, and no reasonable person can complain.

You then shift the award system to light bonuses, like the more common but still need a reward races, level start boosts, skill boosts if you want to go that route. A nice bonus after rolling, but not worth grinding for. If lingering characters become a problem, just poke the players and ask them how you can help them wind up their story. Most will jump at the chance, since if they are a problem they likely know it too. And if they don't, well, you have now planted the seeds for when you ask again in a few months.

Simple, elegant, and neatly packaged into two paragraphs. You can't buy advice like this. Actually, scratch that, you totally can. You just gotta hunt me down on Discord and I will gladly take some of that donation money.


Sayanora Arelith!

It is not that we lack firm ideas for how we plan to overhaul this system, but rather that doing so takes a little more work than jotting down an idea on the forums.

Indeed, in almost every area of development there are ideas, and plans, but we have a limited staff, working voluntary with limited time, and even so, the rate of output is astonishing, and I'm grateful for their work - if perhaps a little frustrated when I see posts that only ever seem to demand more from them, sometimes with no small amount of snark.

Grumpy has said there is a plan, has been for around two years, but with no firm ETA because the coder has studies, and a real life to concentrate on. Some weeks ago I asked for an interim change, also fully detailed, though far more basic. It too takes time.

The big takeaway here is that developers lose interest quickly when they feel the playerbase is lacking any real appreciation of those efforts, or even a basic understanding of the difficulties involved; we have all said that currently the award system remains a problem, which, again as Grumpy pointed out, became far more pressing when we vastly increased the rate of experience gain.

Irongron wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:53 am The big takeaway here is that developers lose interest quickly when they feel the playerbase is lacking any real appreciation of those efforts, or even a basic understanding of the difficulties involved; we have all said that currently the award system remains a problem, which, again as Grumpy pointed out, became far more pressing when we vastly increased the rate of experience gain.

If I may say, Irongron, from what I have seen, from the threshold looking in, it doesn't seem that kudos for the devs and staff goes unvoiced in this community. The feedback forum is, by its nature, going to be a forum for critique: every thread you open up is going to lead on concerns, observations, and suggestions for the game. It's where all such thoughts gather, and people are clearly invested enough in this world tour team have built, otherwise they wouldn't be writing out these multi-paragraph arguments over what they feel ought to change.

If you are serious though that you seldom see people acknowledging the good work of Arelith's contributors, I'd just link you to a few threads over on the Kudos forum. All from the last two months, and from my POV it's a hefty number.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=38039
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37743
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37945
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37890
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37886
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37818
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37765
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37702
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37507
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37312

Obviously these threads I link have smaller post counts than you often see in the feedback threads, but that's because there's nothing to argue over. Debate is the thing that electrifies and prolongs discussion; the really bad community would be one that posts a lot more in the Kudos threads because that would imply people were arguing in them.

Reguardless of how Devs feel... these things take time, they (as we all) have other things on their plate, ect. It will hapen when it happens, but it is very much on our radar.

Babylon - Your idea might work for some of the rarer options, but I use the word 'might'; loosly, I think we'd be inundanted by requests and face a lot of sourness when a 'no' was presented.
And that's not touching the idea of having to go to players in general and say 'Hay, you're character has been around for a bit, would you consider deleting?' I can scarce imagine the amount of bitterness and anger that'd get from some folk. There are subsections of players who like keeping their characters around for a long time, and would not take kindly to any suggestion that they should delete.
Frankly I don't want to put that on the DM teams plate and, further more, I tend to find that it's better to encourage good roleplay, than punish bad roleplay. Which is to say - I'd much rather enjoy a server where if I do something the team approve of, I get a nice little bonus, than a server where I am looking over my shoulder in fear for the DMs deciding I've 'played my character too long.'
Further more- the idea of a enforced MoD is problematic because it would increase fears that folk would be pvped just to 'free up a spot.' Or just attacked because it is known that such works.
To be frank, if I felt inclined to take up any of the suggestions here (and for the most part I do not) - what I'd simply do is give EVERYONE an MoD.

In short, I appreciate the feedback but I feel your solution would be far too much work, and pressure on the staff and would be recieved very, very poorly by the player base at large.

It's a shame to hear that nobody will be able to play vampires or rakshasas until more of them roll. I've got no intention of ever playing one, but it still is disappointing to hear that people won't get a chance to try it because other people have shelved characters they won't roll.

To be clear, it's only Vampires that have reached the limit. Last I checked we're still fine on Rakshasa numbers.

I am just really glad to see that there is some solution in the works, even if it takes some time to implement.

I have always been personally weirded out by the award system since day one on this server. The idea that speed-leveling for the purpose of deleting the character was actively rewarded on an RP-focused server never made any sense to me. Over the past 4 years or so, I have rolled several long-term and beloved characters, mostly to avoid the temptation to "bring them back" after their end came. Characters who, I think, had a nice impact on the server and helped shape a lot of RP for a lot of people.

I have never gotten anything "good" for these rolls, which has solidified my dislike for the system. However, it has always been a personal dislike with the system. And while I suspected the system has some impact on the quality of the server, that's a hard thing to put one's finger on.

Recently I have seen some Discord discussions that have moved me very firmly into the camp that the correct system is actively harmful to the server. People publicly and proudly discussing the very best methods to get to 26+1mil as fast as possible. Saying that they avoid RP entirely as they play these characters to completion, avoid even speaking to other characters outside of when its absolutely necessary.

I think the above explains the many times I have encountered characters in game with "NPC syndrome," who treat the PCs around them as NPCs and basically play the game as a single player game. Where the other PCs in the game world are just useful tools sometimes, and things to be avoided most of the time.

What we have no clearly isn't working, and many people see this. I'd be most appreciative of any dev who puts their head to this and is able to implement a workable solution, and I know many many others players will be as well.

Arienette wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:27 am I am just really glad to see that there is some solution in the works, even if it takes some time to implement.

I have always been personally weirded out by the award system since day one on this server. The idea that speed-leveling for the purpose of deleting the character was actively rewarded on an RP-focused server never made any sense to me. Over the past 4 years or so, I have rolled several long-term and beloved characters, mostly to avoid the temptation to "bring them back" after their end came. Characters who, I think, had a nice impact on the server and helped shape a lot of RP for a lot of people.

I have never gotten anything "good" for these rolls, which has solidified my dislike for the system. However, it has always been a personal dislike with the system. And while I suspected the system has some impact on the quality of the server, that's a hard thing to put one's finger on.

Recently I have seen some Discord discussions that have moved me very firmly into the camp that the correct system is actively harmful to the server. People publicly and proudly discussing the very best methods to get to 26+1mil as fast as possible. Saying that they avoid RP entirely as they play these characters to completion, avoid even speaking to other characters outside of when its absolutely necessary.

I think the above explains the many times I have encountered characters in game with "NPC syndrome," who treat the PCs around them as NPCs and basically play the game as a single player game. Where the other PCs in the game world are just useful tools sometimes, and things to be avoided most of the time.

What we have no clearly isn't working, and many people see this. I'd be most appreciative of any dev who puts their head to this and is able to implement a workable solution, and I know many many others players will be as well.

A really interesting point is being made here.

In another thread I made a jocular remark about the PVE experience of Arelith being perhaps *too* good, and with that I was only half-joking. But the game really does function well as an MMO, having a few of the same beats that made World of Warcraft so popular. And particularly with the whole "just one more turn" progression system, inherited of course from NWN... it ignites that part of the player's psyche that *wants* to level, *wants* access to new and bonuses and choices for their character. And to that part of the psyche, which I don't doubt many players have, roleplay appears a decelerant to this.

It's not a mindset any of us should encourage in ourselves, and I'm certainly not saying PVE shouldn't be compelling, or PVE fun to engage with. But certainly having those end of levelling in-game lootboxes (for that is what they in effect are) feels like, unintentionally or otherwise, catnip for that psyche. We know this because we have seen how compelling actual lootboxes can be, in games like Overwatch, and in those games, more often than not, you're acquiring skins you can't actually roleplay with. In Arelith, that's what you're presumably going to do; unless of course you're a dog chasing a van, who, when the van stops, isn't sure what to do next.

In short, that drive to level and progress is sometimes in competition with RP. You can't really change that in an RPG, where every action is made as a gamble with a narrative consequence (you throw a dice, success or failure might lead to your character living or dying) but I'm not sure Arelith has to lay another system of "what're you going to get?!" gambling on top of that, espec. if that final role is the end goal for some players on their existing characters.

I can't go into too much detail on the system being worked on, but it is essentially a 'Point Buy' structure, where players will build up points as they play on Arelith, irrespective of how far, and fast they level. Rolling characters will still add to this total, but to a limited amount, and as has been suggested above, also limited to every X period.

I would like even casual players to be given the chance to play rare characters, and everyone will get their turn as their 'points' build up over time, and it will not be based on a random dice roll, but guaranteed.

With the new UI feature for NWN this could effectively be a 'shop', where you can adjust your character with a special race, items and other cosmetic features after their creation, choosing whether to save those points or to save them. There should be zero incentive to gain levels as far and fast as possible, and then retire them.

The 'temporary' solution, will be a far simpler affair, but I won't detail that until it is entirely fixed.

That sounds really cool.

Even just making it deterministic instead of random is a great step forward. Basing it on some factor of participation and involvement is some pretty tasty icing on that cake.

Godspeed.

I think that sounds wonderful, much less frustrating.

Irongron wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:36 pm I can't go into too much detail on the system being worked on, but it is essentially a 'Point Buy' structure, where players will build up points as they play on Arelith, irrespective of how far, and fast they level. Rolling characters will still add to this total, but to a limited amount, and as has been suggested above, also limited to every X period.

I would like even casual players to be given the chance to play rare characters, and everyone will get their turn as their 'points' build up over time, and it will not be based on a random dice roll, but guaranteed.

With the new UI feature for NWN this could effectively be a 'shop', where you can adjust your character with a special race, items and other cosmetic features after their creation, choosing whether to save those points or to save them. There should be zero incentive to gain levels as far and fast as possible, and then retire them.

The 'temporary' solution, will be a far simpler affair, but I won't detail that until it is entirely fixed.

Your name must be Dylan, because that's the hottest fire I've ever seen anyone spit.

I think the point buy system makes a lot of sense.

I'm curious how many people want to play special characters -simply because- they're hard to get. Getting to -finally- play that Avariel, Tiefling or fey that you've been dying to play it for so long. But would we see an influx of them if people could just make whatever they felt like?

I know personally I might play an Avariel if I had a chance again, and I have an interesting idea for an Aasimar (which is a greater so much easier to get atm), but outside of mechanical benefits, I don't see myself playing any of the other reward races perhaps ever.

Which leads me to my other curious point - if the reward races weren't generally and often mechanically better than the common races, would they be as popular? Just about all of them are mechanically stronger than their common cousins, and some of them are even required to make certain builds work. So I'm curious if they were brought back down in line with common races, or even made -worse- than common races, if they'd have people a little less keen to play one.

Like imagine if Deep Imaskari wasn't just a significantly better human wizard at effectively no cost, or aasimar/tiefling/genasi weren't able to double-stat their gifts, or fey/minotaur/ogre/imps didn't have a built in double stat along with a lot of other very useful features. Maybe they wouldn't be as popular.

What if after weakening the races, as a quick version of the point buy system - just roll out majors awards to all players over a year? 10% of the playerbase gets a major each month, with no one doubling up until the following year. I don't think we'd see a sudden influx of the various races if people felt like they could have one at any point.