Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Page 7 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 20/10/2012, 05:08

Failure wrote:
Skotlex wrote:Failure has a point there (meaning last page). Vitriol you don't get to be offensive/insult people you don't even know. Do that again and you get a nice week ban.

Anyway, raising an acolyte to become a monk, I thought the suggested method was to use Holy Light? Even with 1 int, that should have gotten anybody through the training grounds with ease enough.

Perhaps the suggestion to use Holy Light (given by the super novice NPC before going into the training grounds) was not noticed?

I thought that most of the information given in the training grounds still applies today. The main mechanics have not changed, and as far as I remember, I do update the NPCs whenever there is a relevant change. Of course, it'd help if the contents were available online for reading them while out of the game...


Fruit and I have named this sort of post after you, the typical creator of them. When somebody fails to notice the bigger issues and instead pokes at the trees in the forest, we call it "Skotlexing [one's way out of it]".

You addressed Vitriol's behavior, holy light, and training ground information. That's super, mind sharing your thoughts on...
- The overall consensus that the mechanics are obscenely complex and obtuse without actually giving gameplay extra depth.
- Web-site documentation that's both outdated and untrue on basics such as stats (again, there is only ONE page on the site that teaches DMR: the transcript of training ground dialogue. And it doesn't even teach it that well at all).

Which is, you know, what the last five pages were debating about, but you skotlexed your way past it all, as usual.
oops, he did it again

Vitriol

Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Skotlex on 23/10/2012, 09:08

Dammit, it looks like I somehow missed Failure's last post. I blame you Vitriol and your distracting images all over the place T_T'

I wonder which part of the game mechanics are obscenely complex and obtuse? The only points I can think of are the ones where raising a stat may decrease a parameter (which only applies to Attack Speed and Cast Speed).

I wouldn't mind that much a stat system where more stats is always better. But the reason these two settings were introduced was because I didn't want new characters attacking/casting at extremely low attack/cast speeds.

Of course, if the stats always make you better, then whatever base speed I decided on would end up being the slowest...

Do you guys think it would be preferable to have a system where the base speed is "decently nice" and you need a heck of a lot of stat points (think 250~300) to reach the max? (which would be the sort of max you can see in the @option setting)

Or is the complain also oriented to the DMR side of things? If everything didn't have an extra slot there wouldn't be a need for that. And as far as I thought, the concept is quite simple and the DMR effect is pretty low (not something to really get riled up about). Or is perhaps that just an example of bad documentation?

I am sorry if it seemed like I was just weaselling my way out of changing anything. I'd say it was more a case of failing to understand what the gripe was, thus not seeing enough incentive to change it :S

PS: if I focus on the details rather than the whole, that might be because it's actually easier to do something about things in particular, rather than telling me the solution is to change everything D:'

Skotlex
Admin

Posts : 396
Join date : 2012-08-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 23/10/2012, 17:21

Skotlex wrote:Dammit, it looks like I somehow missed Failure's last post. I blame you Vitriol and your distracting images all over the place T_T'

I wonder which part of the game mechanics are obscenely complex and obtuse? The only points I can think of are the ones where raising a stat may decrease a parameter (which only applies to Attack Speed and Cast Speed).

I wouldn't mind that much a stat system where more stats is always better. But the reason these two settings were introduced was because I didn't want new characters attacking/casting at extremely low attack/cast speeds.

Of course, if the stats always make you better, then whatever base speed I decided on would end up being the slowest...

Do you guys think it would be preferable to have a system where the base speed is "decently nice" and you need a heck of a lot of stat points (think 250~300) to reach the max? (which would be the sort of max you can see in the @option setting)

Or is the complain also oriented to the DMR side of things? If everything didn't have an extra slot there wouldn't be a need for that. And as far as I thought, the concept is quite simple and the DMR effect is pretty low (not something to really get riled up about). Or is perhaps that just an example of bad documentation?

I am sorry if it seemed like I was just weaselling my way out of changing anything. I'd say it was more a case of failing to understand what the gripe was, thus not seeing enough incentive to change it :S

PS: if I focus on the details rather than the whole, that might be because it's actually easier to do something about things in particular, rather than telling me the solution is to change everything D:'
distracting images?
don't you mean beautiful and artistic self-portraits?


Vitriol

Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 23/10/2012, 17:23

admit it skot



you skipped over failure's post just so that you could read mine


avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Loki on 23/10/2012, 17:30

Skotlex wrote:Dammit, it looks like I somehow missed Failure's last post. I blame you Vitriol and your distracting images all over the place T_T'

I wonder which part of the game mechanics are obscenely complex and obtuse? The only points I can think of are the ones where raising a stat may decrease a parameter (which only applies to Attack Speed and Cast Speed).

I wouldn't mind that much a stat system where more stats is always better. But the reason these two settings were introduced was because I didn't want new characters attacking/casting at extremely low attack/cast speeds.

Of course, if the stats always make you better, then whatever base speed I decided on would end up being the slowest...

Do you guys think it would be preferable to have a system where the base speed is "decently nice" and you need a heck of a lot of stat points (think 250~300) to reach the max? (which would be the sort of max you can see in the @option setting)

Or is the complain also oriented to the DMR side of things? If everything didn't have an extra slot there wouldn't be a need for that. And as far as I thought, the concept is quite simple and the DMR effect is pretty low (not something to really get riled up about). Or is perhaps that just an example of bad documentation?

I am sorry if it seemed like I was just weaselling my way out of changing anything. I'd say it was more a case of failing to understand what the gripe was, thus not seeing enough incentive to change it :S

PS: if I focus on the details rather than the whole, that might be because it's actually easier to do something about things in particular, rather than telling me the solution is to change everything D:'

You really need to find time and play again in a Newbie's perspective.
avatar
Loki

Posts : 260
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Failure on 23/10/2012, 17:35

Ah, a good Skotlex post. Let's get started.



Let's begin by agreeing with Loki: You really need to find time and play again in a newbie's perspective.

Skotlex wrote:I wonder which part of the game mechanics are obscenely complex and obtuse? The only points I can think of are the ones where raising a stat may decrease a parameter (which only applies to Attack Speed and Cast Speed).

Of course you don't find any parts of the game mechanics complex or obtuse: you've been working with them for years, they're inside and out to you. Well, let's start with these four: DMR (everything about it), how stats work, how skills work, how @diff works.

DMR makes no sense because it leads to backwards builds and situations where playing the intuitive setup is not only wrong, but usually the worst setup possible. This blends into the stat issue, leading to cases such as Tophu's gunslinger or Fruit's rapid-fire holy light.

Dexterity is the stat that increases ranged attack damage. Tell me if you see a problem when a powerful gunslinger build only has 35 of it, and 100 in everything else but int (which I imagine he'd put stats into if he still had anything left):
(Thumbnail)

Skills are changed, and I will say you at least did a good job of making some builds and skill spreads more interesting than others. I think it's weakened a bit by giving us extra job points, though. Some skills I'm not entirely sure why were changed to begin with, and I think others have been made worse than in vanilla.


@diff is amusing because it's probably the best-documented feature on the site. You know exactly what it's doing to you and can even choose to happily ignore it if you wanted. My question is: how much does @diff actually add to playing the game? Answer that honestly, now.

While not a direct @diff complaint or relevant at all, I usually end up talking about it when I talk about @diff so I might as well put it here to get it out: Mou can feel too homogenous at times. You can scale mobs to your own level whenever you like, wherever you like, they all drop the similar random healing items and bonus goodies, and there's really no need to hunt a specific mob at all. At least in Vanilla RO you had compelling reasons to go across the map, in Mou it felt much more like "I want a change of scenery for now".


Skotlex wrote:I wouldn't mind that much a stat system where more stats is always better. But the reason these two settings were introduced was because I didn't want new characters attacking/casting at extremely low attack/cast speeds.

Of course, if the stats always make you better, then whatever base speed I decided on would end up being the slowest...

Your fixation on attack speed is a pretty telling part of your personality, Skot. It's no surprise that your deviantart character is a high dex/agi - That's the build that tends to work best in a general sense for any class in Mou. Putting points into strength is a pretty obvious trap if you want to increase damage: it slows your attack speed and overall messes with your DPS and when you hit the cap of 9999 (easy to do without a single point in your primary damage stat), your damage doesn't matter so much as how fast you can dish it out. I've very rarely seen casters with any INT at all, my Soul Linker was Dex/Luk of all things. Can you see how, at given points, stats typically thought of as good to have would be worthless or even hurt your character?


As for a solution to the problem... well, firstly, it's a problem you created yourself when you decided you didn't want people to start by attacking slowly. You could embrace the idea that characters attack slow then get faster as they gain stats, or stick with people starting moderately fast and either... reducing the effects of attack/cast speed gains, or a system where you gradually get slower as you level up, requiring stat points to keep the pace (this strikes me as replacing one ridiculous system for another, though).

Skotlex wrote:Or is the complain also oriented to the DMR side of things? If everything didn't have an extra slot there wouldn't be a need for that. And as far as I thought, the concept is quite simple and the DMR effect is pretty low (not something to really get riled up about). Or is perhaps that just an example of bad documentation?










Let's walk over what DRM is. Honestly, I can't tell you what it is because, as you said so yourself, there's a documentation problem. Nowhere on the site is DRM really explained, except for perhaps one or two pages: the transcript of the newbie zone (which doesn't go into much detail either), and perhaps the original update where it was added, which I can't find either. There is nothing that says anything about it.


What we do know is that it makes a given stat point or character trait less effective than expected the more you dump into it. This works and there isn't much of a problem to it... except for three things. Firstly, the documentation, previously mentioned. Second, knowing how much is going to be reduced is fairly useful for min/maxing and otherwise making suitable builds. We have neither knowledge of how it works nor any real way to simulate/calculate our builds, leading to what vitriol said was the way to make a build: adding a stat point and checking what it did over and over. Guesswork in builds is not what I would call compelling gameplay.


This is made more amusing when you're tweaking with things and noticing abrupt changes because one thing is "worth more" when added to versus another. I suppose all this is made moot if you don't want us min/maxing, which is more of a fool's errand than anything: give someone a pile of numbers and they'll want to play with them.

Oh, and finally, the funniest part is that you set up the problem yourself: you gave everything an extra slot, requiring DRM to exist in the first place.

(There was a third issue I had... but for some reason I've forgotten it. Hm...)

Skotlex wrote:PS: if I focus on the details rather than the whole, that might be because it's actually easier to do something about things in particular, rather than telling me the solution is to change everything D:'
But you honestly, truly want to know what I think the best solution would be?



Do exactly that. Change everything. Go back to vanilla RO. Implement the stat changes you want, the @diff system you want, the DMR you want, so on so forth. It'd be an opportunity to, instead of making changes quickly for player complaints, slowly add the features so they complement and play off each other. Ask the questions about how the pieces work as a whole: "What sort of stat system would most strongly benefit from points being weaker the more you add to them? What degree of scaling with and without DMR would lead players to intuitively pick the stronger options? How do the resulting builds handle at various extremes of the @diff system?"

Yes, it'd be a massive pain and take a long time and a lot of work, but so is adjusting things piecemeal. At least with a restart (what good timing, with the switch to rA and all) we could ensure a robust, synergistic system instead of individual mechanics that happen to bump into each other.

If you'd rather stick with the trees instead of the forest, though, why not choose a single subject for all of us to give our collective input on: how it works and how it doesn't, what it gives to the game, and so on? It might help you focus better on what needs to be done, instead of all of us endlessly shouting to change everything. We could do this for every custom change there is, frankly.

Failure

Posts : 39
Join date : 2012-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Lothar Axe on 23/10/2012, 18:23

@Failure
I like your suggestion for returning the server to Vanilla and then applying each feature, testing and discussing them one by one. But knowing this forum, your suggestion lacks something, and I will tell what:

Whoever derails/flame/troll/showoffcauseneedattention in these new threads for game mechanic discussions and such will be immediately banned without bitching.

AND

Skotlex will participate and apply whatever is decided.


I will only participate under these conditions, as otherwise it's meaningless.
avatar
Lothar Axe

Male Posts : 275
Join date : 2012-08-25
Age : 25
Location : Brazil

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 23/10/2012, 22:06

Failure wrote:
Spoiler:
Ah, a good Skotlex post. Let's get started.



Let's begin by agreeing with Loki: You really need to find time and play again in a newbie's perspective.

Skotlex wrote:I wonder which part of the game mechanics are obscenely complex and obtuse? The only points I can think of are the ones where raising a stat may decrease a parameter (which only applies to Attack Speed and Cast Speed).

Of course you don't find any parts of the game mechanics complex or obtuse: you've been working with them for years, they're inside and out to you. Well, let's start with these four: DMR (everything about it), how stats work, how skills work, how @diff works.

DMR makes no sense because it leads to backwards builds and situations where playing the intuitive setup is not only wrong, but usually the worst setup possible. This blends into the stat issue, leading to cases such as Tophu's gunslinger or Fruit's rapid-fire holy light.

Dexterity is the stat that increases ranged attack damage. Tell me if you see a problem when a powerful gunslinger build only has 35 of it, and 100 in everything else but int (which I imagine he'd put stats into if he still had anything left):
(Thumbnail)

Skills are changed, and I will say you at least did a good job of making some builds and skill spreads more interesting than others. I think it's weakened a bit by giving us extra job points, though. Some skills I'm not entirely sure why were changed to begin with, and I think others have been made worse than in vanilla.


@diff is amusing because it's probably the best-documented feature on the site. You know exactly what it's doing to you and can even choose to happily ignore it if you wanted. My question is: how much does @diff actually add to playing the game? Answer that honestly, now.

While not a direct @diff complaint or relevant at all, I usually end up talking about it when I talk about @diff so I might as well put it here to get it out: Mou can feel too homogenous at times. You can scale mobs to your own level whenever you like, wherever you like, they all drop the similar random healing items and bonus goodies, and there's really no need to hunt a specific mob at all. At least in Vanilla RO you had compelling reasons to go across the map, in Mou it felt much more like "I want a change of scenery for now".


Skotlex wrote:I wouldn't mind that much a stat system where more stats is always better. But the reason these two settings were introduced was because I didn't want new characters attacking/casting at extremely low attack/cast speeds.

Of course, if the stats always make you better, then whatever base speed I decided on would end up being the slowest...

Your fixation on attack speed is a pretty telling part of your personality, Skot. It's no surprise that your deviantart character is a high dex/agi - That's the build that tends to work best in a general sense for any class in Mou. Putting points into strength is a pretty obvious trap if you want to increase damage: it slows your attack speed and overall messes with your DPS and when you hit the cap of 9999 (easy to do without a single point in your primary damage stat), your damage doesn't matter so much as how fast you can dish it out. I've very rarely seen casters with any INT at all, my Soul Linker was Dex/Luk of all things. Can you see how, at given points, stats typically thought of as good to have would be worthless or even hurt your character?


As for a solution to the problem... well, firstly, it's a problem you created yourself when you decided you didn't want people to start by attacking slowly. You could embrace the idea that characters attack slow then get faster as they gain stats, or stick with people starting moderately fast and either... reducing the effects of attack/cast speed gains, or a system where you gradually get slower as you level up, requiring stat points to keep the pace (this strikes me as replacing one ridiculous system for another, though).

Skotlex wrote:Or is the complain also oriented to the DMR side of things? If everything didn't have an extra slot there wouldn't be a need for that. And as far as I thought, the concept is quite simple and the DMR effect is pretty low (not something to really get riled up about). Or is perhaps that just an example of bad documentation?










Let's walk over what DRM is. Honestly, I can't tell you what it is because, as you said so yourself, there's a documentation problem. Nowhere on the site is DRM really explained, except for perhaps one or two pages: the transcript of the newbie zone (which doesn't go into much detail either), and perhaps the original update where it was added, which I can't find either. There is nothing that says anything about it.


What we do know is that it makes a given stat point or character trait less effective than expected the more you dump into it. This works and there isn't much of a problem to it... except for three things. Firstly, the documentation, previously mentioned. Second, knowing how much is going to be reduced is fairly useful for min/maxing and otherwise making suitable builds. We have neither knowledge of how it works nor any real way to simulate/calculate our builds, leading to what vitriol said was the way to make a build: adding a stat point and checking what it did over and over. Guesswork in builds is not what I would call compelling gameplay.


This is made more amusing when you're tweaking with things and noticing abrupt changes because one thing is "worth more" when added to versus another. I suppose all this is made moot if you don't want us min/maxing, which is more of a fool's errand than anything: give someone a pile of numbers and they'll want to play with them.

Oh, and finally, the funniest part is that you set up the problem yourself: you gave everything an extra slot, requiring DRM to exist in the first place.

(There was a third issue I had... but for some reason I've forgotten it. Hm...)

Skotlex wrote:PS: if I focus on the details rather than the whole, that might be because it's actually easier to do something about things in particular, rather than telling me the solution is to change everything D:'
But you honestly, truly want to know what I think the best solution would be?



Do exactly that. Change everything. Go back to vanilla RO. Implement the stat changes you want, the @diff system you want, the DMR you want, so on so forth. It'd be an opportunity to, instead of making changes quickly for player complaints, slowly add the features so they complement and play off each other. Ask the questions about how the pieces work as a whole: "What sort of stat system would most strongly benefit from points being weaker the more you add to them? What degree of scaling with and without DMR would lead players to intuitively pick the stronger options? How do the resulting builds handle at various extremes of the @diff system?"

Yes, it'd be a massive pain and take a long time and a lot of work, but so is adjusting things piecemeal. At least with a restart (what good timing, with the switch to rA and all) we could ensure a robust, synergistic system instead of individual mechanics that happen to bump into each other.

If you'd rather stick with the trees instead of the forest, though, why not choose a single subject for all of us to give our collective input on: how it works and how it doesn't, what it gives to the game, and so on? It might help you focus better on what needs to be done, instead of all of us endlessly shouting to change everything. We could do this for every custom change there is, frankly.

thats a heck of a lot of work to do.(i mean just reading the damn thing)
mind providing an executive report? or should we hire a different attorney?









avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Failure on 24/10/2012, 00:42

Vitriol wrote:

I decided to display Vitriol's post (as I have him on ignore) here hoping there would actually be something of content, like when he actually tried to argue earlier in the thread. I was wrong. Someone (I think Loki's a mod as well as Skot) mind editing the quote out of their post so we don't have to scroll past my post twice?

Or just outright ban them, for never doing a single positive thing on these or the previous forums, but I understand something as difficult as "stop a proven and repeated bad poster" is a tall order for the Skotlex Administration.

There's also some odd image code at the end of that post. Is it broken?

Failure

Posts : 39
Join date : 2012-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 24/10/2012, 03:27

Spoiler:
Failure wrote:
Vitriol wrote:

I decided to display Vitriol's post (as I have him on ignore) here hoping there would actually be something of content, like when he actually tried to argue earlier in the thread. I was wrong. Someone (I think Loki's a mod as well as Skot) mind editing the quote out of their post so we don't have to scroll past my post twice?

Or just outright ban them, for never doing a single positive thing on these or the previous forums, but I understand something as difficult as "stop a proven and repeated bad poster" is a tall order for the Skotlex Administration.

There's also some odd image code at the end of that post. Is it broken?


you know that you cannot resist reading my posts

they are like drops of sweet nectar upon your forked tongue

avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Skotlex on 24/10/2012, 10:44

Vitriol, you need to tone down your image posts, they take too much space of what should be useful discussion (at this rate I am going to start approving Failure's stance that it'd just be easier to ban you).

I know you are in love with your image posts, but they aren't quite relevant to the topic at hand.

As for Failure's suggestion to start all over that seems a bit like overkill. Because... isn't RO way late and ready to die anyway? Starting all over again would sort of ensure that death.

On the other hand, there are things that could be rolled back and simplified. Specially because of the renewal mechanics, some things could be set back and rethought: perhaps renewal now does it better than Mou. One example is defence: the way renewal does it seems pretty good and perhaps there wouldn't be a need for any DMR if Mou would go that way instead.

In general, I agree that stats could perhaps be redone. STR reducing ASPD has ended up being a problem because of how easy it is to reach the cap damage. Does this mean the basic damage equations need to be redone, so as to give STR more significance in damage? I would guess so (but no-STR damage also needs to go down to avoid the cap issue).

In a sense, it might be quite difficult to fix things as they are. But I get the impression that it would be preferable to having a vanilla server and starting all over again :S

Some of the other points are... curious, because things are behaving exactly the way I wanted them to, yet that is somehow a problem. What I mean is:

@diff: Yes, it was meant to adjust the difficulty so you can choose to level anywhere you want. So the main argument to change locations is a change of scenery. There is one exception to this, though: the final level of monsters is also dependent on the level of the normal mobs in the map. So harder maps let you have harder monsters. This isn't an issue if you aren't trying to fight extremely high/low levels for monsters though.

Should this be perceived as a problem? Should it mean that the natural level of monsters have a higher influence on how much a monster can be affected by @diff? Personally, I didn't see it as an issue.

DMR: I personally am not a min-max kind of person, and I didn't know this was that important for others. There are no specifics to how DMR works because it's just an equation. Basically, I fill an array with what the DMR output should be for any given input, so "Def = DMR1(non-dmr def)".

Code:

static unsigned short dmr1[2048]; //For Def/Mdef(where 1000 = 100%)
static unsigned short dmr2[1024]; //For Def2/Mdef2/Flee/Hit (where it keeps going up without limit)
static unsigned short dmr3[2048]; //For Flee2/Crit (where 1000 = 100%)
...
  dmr1[0]=0; dmr1[1]=1;
  k=1.0;
  for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr1); i++)
  {
      k+=pow(0.94, i/50);
      dmr1[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
  }
  dmr2[0]=0; dmr2[1]=1;
  k=1.0;
  for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr2); i++)
  {
      k+=pow(0.98, i/10);
      dmr2[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
  }
  dmr3[0]=0; dmr3[1]=1;
  k=1.0;
  for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr3); i++)
  {
      k+=pow(0.95, i/50);
      dmr3[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
  }
...
  status->def = (status_get_dmr1(status->def*10)+5)/10;
  status->mdef = (status_get_dmr1(status->mdef*10)+5)/10;
...
  status->rhw.atk = status_get_dmr2(status->rhw.atk);
...
  status->hit = status_calc_hit(bl, sc, status_get_dmr2(b_status->hit));
...etc etc etc
Do I really want to put that in the documentation somewhere? Without it sounding like some madman's scientific experiment? It was my personal opinion that any documentation going into more detail would just be very complicated and not "user-friendly." Which is why I personally never felt the need to explain it further.

I suppose min-maxers want every single bit of information available, thought that goes against making things "casual." Is there a possible compromise somehow? Like having some kind of advanced documentation that normal people shouldn't be reading?
avatar
Skotlex
Admin

Male Posts : 396
Join date : 2012-08-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Fruit Pie~ on 24/10/2012, 14:21

Allow me the honor, sir Failure!

Skotlex wrote:Vitriol, you need to tone down your image posts, they take too much space of what should be useful discussion (at this rate I am going to start approving Failure's stance that it'd just be easier to ban you).
He hasn't been posting anything but large image posts since the dawn of time, do you expect him to change? Be honest here.

Skotlex wrote:As for Failure's suggestion to start all over that seems a bit like overkill. Because... isn't RO way late and ready to die anyway? Starting all over again would sort of ensure that death.
MouRO can't get any more dead, man. Give it a fresh start, change the name, rework the mechanics and you get this server going again as a blank slate.

Skotlex wrote:On the other hand, there are things that could be rolled back and simplified. Specially because of the renewal mechanics, some things could be set back and rethought: perhaps renewal now does it better than Mou. One example is defence: the way renewal does it seems pretty good and perhaps there wouldn't be a need for any DMR if Mou would go that way instead.
Alright, I have to chime in as someone who tried to wrap her head around the new mechanics in Renewal : they don't quite do it better than Mou. They're less confusing, but Gravity seems to have lost sight of how RO actually plays. Amusingly, the best example I have is defense! The way vanilla did it, it was useless for anything but PVE, since everything in PVP ignores defense. It stacked pretty well for PVE and most MVPs, though, and a high enough enchant on good armor and the standard 100 VIT would make you nigh invulnerable to regular mobs. That was defense's only use.

Renewal now has defense that gives less the more you have, as well as generally nerfing the DEF amount in items and the DEF you get by refining most pieces of gear. This doesn't change the fact it's useless for PVP, but now makes it extra annoying/totally impossible to get enough defense for PVE! Now, more than ever, you don't give half a shit about how upgraded or high-DEF your armor is.

There's also the other little things that snap Renewal in half. Among others : the new cast time mechanics that still don't quite prevent super fast cast (which was basically the whole issue with the old cast system), the ass-backwards item drop and EXP penalties for lower and higher level mobs, the exponential stat costs which encourage Tofu-style 100 in everything stat spreads...

Oh, and they didn't ever think 100 VIT preventing status effects was a bad thing. At least it was a tradeoff in vanilla. In renewal you ALWAYS get 100 VIT because you don't have anything else to spend points on.

Skotlex wrote:In general, I agree that stats could perhaps be redone. STR reducing ASPD has ended up being a problem because of how easy it is to reach the cap damage. Does this mean the basic damage equations need to be redone, so as to give STR more significance in damage? I would guess so (but no-STR damage also needs to go down to avoid the cap issue).
Remove the cap, run some calculations with average gear, tweak STR until the damage bonus actually gives you DPS instead of taking DPS away. I'm actually all for making STR better for DPS than AGI, if only because AGI provides benefits other than offense - defense, evasion, move speed. Probably missing some, but those are the ones I remember.

If you're gonna say that STR boosts weight cap, well, it doesn't. You can pretty much max it out with no STR, IIRC.

Skotlex wrote:In a sense, it might be quite difficult to fix things as they are. But I get the impression that it would be preferable to having a vanilla server and starting all over again :S
It just sounds easier to take the base game and rework things from there rather than trying to balance what's already modded in. Would give you some chance to rethink things or drop what's unneeded or analyze the interactions between mechanics.

Skotlex wrote:@diff: Yes, it was meant to adjust the difficulty so you can choose to level anywhere you want. So the main argument to change locations is a change of scenery. There is one exception to this, though: the final level of monsters is also dependent on the level of the normal mobs in the map. So harder maps let you have harder monsters. This isn't an issue if you aren't trying to fight extremely high/low levels for monsters though.
What you're basically saying here is that... @diff doesn't actually change anything in how RO is played up to Lv150. You still jump from map to map (even in high diffs Zombies aren't quite as good as Salamanders and Kasas), it just makes the item grind less boring, which is a noble goal - @diff is legitimately a thing I approve of. It's fantastic.

I'd personally just make @diff a straight pick-the-min-level thing (so if you set @diff 50 you'd get Lv50+ mobs) with 0 being standard mobs, and exclusively boost drop rates (maybe the fixed drops more than the random). Kinda like Diablo does with /players or monster power.

Skotlex wrote:DMR: I personally am not a min-max kind of person, and I didn't know this was that important for others.
Agreeing with Failure here in that if you give a group of people a bunch of numbers and equations, they'll want to play around with them and see how far they can go.

Skotlex wrote:There are no specifics to how DMR works because it's just an equation. Basically, I fill an array with what the DMR output should be for any given input, so "Def = DMR1(non-dmr def)".

Code:

C++
Do I really want to put that in the documentation somewhere? Without it sounding like some madman's scientific experiment? It was my personal opinion that any documentation going into more detail would just be very complicated and not "user-friendly." Which is why I personally never felt the need to explain it further.
You can either put it on a "internal mechanics" section or give it to the people. Lord knows I'm willing to make a build calculator like the ones Vanilla has, but for Mou.

I just think DMR is unnecessary if you just scale down stuff. RO is even a pretty easy game to do it - it's built without DMR in mind. The stats plateau very early. For instance, there's nothing above +3 DEX that isn't legendary/cash stuff, and even then it's +4 - the Mjolnir doesn't quite count as it is only ever useful for an obscure Crusader build. 8 DEF on a single piece of armor is also pretty much the highest you'll go without a serious drawback, and that's only body armor. The other slots offer substantially lower defense.

All you'd need to do to avoid silly stuff like four Imp cards is reduce the Imp's bonus, for example. In fact, you've already done it! You'd just need to apply that to the more broken cards in multiples : high proc rates, damage and cast time modifiers, damage reduction cards in general.

Fruit Pie~

Female Posts : 167
Join date : 2012-09-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 24/10/2012, 16:06

Spoiler:
Skotlex wrote:Vitriol, you need to tone down your image posts, they take too much space of what should be useful discussion (at this rate I am going to start approving Failure's stance that it'd just be easier to ban you).

I know you are in love with your image posts, but they aren't quite relevant to the topic at hand.

As for Failure's suggestion to start all over that seems a bit like overkill. Because... isn't RO way late and ready to die anyway? Starting all over again would sort of ensure that death.

On the other hand, there are things that could be rolled back and simplified. Specially because of the renewal mechanics, some things could be set back and rethought: perhaps renewal now does it better than Mou. One example is defence: the way renewal does it seems pretty good and perhaps there wouldn't be a need for any DMR if Mou would go that way instead.

In general, I agree that stats could perhaps be redone. STR reducing ASPD has ended up being a problem because of how easy it is to reach the cap damage. Does this mean the basic damage equations need to be redone, so as to give STR more significance in damage? I would guess so (but no-STR damage also needs to go down to avoid the cap issue).

In a sense, it might be quite difficult to fix things as they are. But I get the impression that it would be preferable to having a vanilla server and starting all over again :S

Some of the other points are... curious, because things are behaving exactly the way I wanted them to, yet that is somehow a problem. What I mean is:

@diff: Yes, it was meant to adjust the difficulty so you can choose to level anywhere you want. So the main argument to change locations is a change of scenery. There is one exception to this, though: the final level of monsters is also dependent on the level of the normal mobs in the map. So harder maps let you have harder monsters. This isn't an issue if you aren't trying to fight extremely high/low levels for monsters though.

Should this be perceived as a problem? Should it mean that the natural level of monsters have a higher influence on how much a monster can be affected by @diff? Personally, I didn't see it as an issue.

DMR: I personally am not a min-max kind of person, and I didn't know this was that important for others. There are no specifics to how DMR works because it's just an equation. Basically, I fill an array with what the DMR output should be for any given input, so "Def = DMR1(non-dmr def)".

Code:

static unsigned short dmr1[2048]; //For Def/Mdef(where 1000 = 100%)
static unsigned short dmr2[1024]; //For Def2/Mdef2/Flee/Hit (where it keeps going up without limit)
static unsigned short dmr3[2048]; //For Flee2/Crit (where 1000 = 100%)
...
  dmr1[0]=0; dmr1[1]=1;
  k=1.0;
  for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr1); i++)
  {
      k+=pow(0.94, i/50);
      dmr1[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
  }
  dmr2[0]=0; dmr2[1]=1;
  k=1.0;
  for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr2); i++)
  {
      k+=pow(0.98, i/10);
      dmr2[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
  }
  dmr3[0]=0; dmr3[1]=1;
  k=1.0;
  for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr3); i++)
  {
      k+=pow(0.95, i/50);
      dmr3[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
  }
...
  status->def = (status_get_dmr1(status->def*10)+5)/10;
  status->mdef = (status_get_dmr1(status->mdef*10)+5)/10;
...
  status->rhw.atk = status_get_dmr2(status->rhw.atk);
...
  status->hit = status_calc_hit(bl, sc, status_get_dmr2(b_status->hit));
...etc etc etc
Do I really want to put that in the documentation somewhere? Without it sounding like some madman's scientific experiment? It was my personal opinion that any documentation going into more detail would just be very complicated and not "user-friendly." Which is why I personally never felt the need to explain it further.

I suppose min-maxers want every single bit of information available, thought that goes against making things "casual." Is there a possible compromise somehow? Like having some kind of advanced documentation that normal people shouldn't be reading?
what do you mean "they take too much space"? you shrunk them! they are so tiny!

how do you expect me to live like this!?!?!?!


EDIT: but i suppose its only fair, after all, tiny is what tophu sees when he looks down in the shower


Last edited by Vitriol on 25/10/2012, 02:32; edited 2 times in total
avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Failure on 24/10/2012, 16:26

Fruit Pie~ wrote:Allow me the honor, sir Failure!


T-Trucy!? I know it's you behind that Mr. Hat prop of yours!

And yet... it seems exactly like something he would have her do...


You have my appreciation, Fruit, but I have some responses to things you said yourself.

Fruit Pie~ wrote:Renewal now has defense that gives less the more you have, as well as generally nerfing the DEF amount in items and the DEF you get by refining most pieces of gear. This doesn't change the fact it's useless for PVP, but now makes it extra annoying/totally impossible to get enough defense for PVE! Now, more than ever, you don't give half a shit about how upgraded or high-DEF your armor is.
I'd like to emphasize this point for two reasons: one is that it's actually a BAD example of DMR (ignoring the obvious jabs for a second). It also becomes less intuitive: in vanilla pre-renewal, your defense is a % reduction. That simple, if you had 50 def, that was 50% off. Renewal changes that to make it, for whatever reason, harder to understand exactly how much defense you have.



Fruit Pie~ wrote:@diff is legitimately a thing I approve of. It's fantastic.
I like the idea of scaling difficulty because I'm a fan of The World Ends With You. This doesn't mean Mou does it perfect, but it's absolutely a mechanic we should take a long, hard look at to find out how to make even better. What if @diff didn't actually change monster level as dramatically as it does now, and instead measured difficulty by giving more or less generous "extra drops" depending on the difficulty? On easy settings, you get health items. On harder settings, you get equipment.

Fruit Pie~ wrote:You can either put it on a "internal mechanics" section or give it to the people. Lord knows I'm willing to make a build calculator like the ones Vanilla has, but for Mou.
This may be part of the min/maxer's dilemma. With vanilla, it's ridiculously easy to simulate just about any situation imaginable with all the calculators around. Mou has us largely going in, for better or worse, blind. Poor documentation does not help anybody.

Fruit Pie~ wrote:I just think DMR is unnecessary if you just scale down stuff. RO is even a pretty easy game to do it - it's built without DMR in mind. The stats plateau very early.
There may be an easy rule to apply to every card that would keep absurdity from happening. Something along the lines of "no more than 15% of an effect for weapons/shields, 20% for accessories, 30% for armors"? That sounds like it'd keep things from reaching up to 100% power, but I'll admit I'm only thinking about this briefly.

Then again, the problem was caused by giving everything an extra slot to start with...

Failure

Posts : 39
Join date : 2012-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Lothar Axe on 24/10/2012, 19:19

Hey, I like extra slots!
Extra slots and @diff like you are discussing are part of MouRO's identity. I don't mind if they are changed to become better, why would I? But don't remove them, seriously.

As for Stats... If you wanna nerf people for getting too much of one stat in detriment of others, but without turning some stats useless, then try a Sinergic system were some effects are only increased when you have points of two different stats in similar levels, like by needing Strength and Dexterity to get some critical, or Agility and Vitality to increase Defense, that way secondary effects would only appear when you invest into a certain stat too.
avatar
Lothar Axe

Male Posts : 275
Join date : 2012-08-25
Age : 25
Location : Brazil

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 25/10/2012, 02:29

Lothar Axe wrote:Hey, I like extra slots!
Extra slots and @diff like you are discussing are part of MouRO's identity. I don't mind if they are changed to become better, why would I? But don't remove them, seriously.

As for Stats... If you wanna nerf people for getting too much of one stat in detriment of others, but without turning some stats useless, then try a Sinergic system were some effects are only increased when you have points of two different stats in similar levels, like by needing Strength and Dexterity to get some critical, or Agility and Vitality to increase Defense, that way secondary effects would only appear when you invest into a certain stat too.
that would be "synergistic" ... you didn't even bother looking in the dictionary this type, did you?
oh, let me guess...it was a typo, just like last time


btw, having str and dex give critical hits is stupid and will be way overpowered. high atk, high accuracy, and moderate critical hits by investing in only 2 stats?


avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Fruit Pie~ on 25/10/2012, 02:56



There we go, the forums are suddenly more readable!

Click here to make your dreams come true.

Fruit Pie~

Female Posts : 167
Join date : 2012-09-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 25/10/2012, 04:12

teehee, i dont need you to read my posts. i'm the star of my own show!







Last edited by Vitriol on 26/10/2012, 02:07; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 25/10/2012, 04:18

Skotlex wrote:Vitriol, you need to tone down your image posts, they take too much space of what should be useful discussion (at this rate I am going to start approving Failure's stance that it'd just be easier to ban you).

I know you are in love with your image posts, but they aren't quite relevant to the topic at hand.

As for Failure's suggestion to start all over that seems a bit like overkill. Because... isn't RO way late and ready to die anyway? Starting all over again would sort of ensure that death.

On the other hand, there are things that could be rolled back and simplified. Specially because of the renewal mechanics, some things could be set back and rethought: perhaps renewal now does it better than Mou. One example is defence: the way renewal does it seems pretty good and perhaps there wouldn't be a need for any DMR if Mou would go that way instead.

In general, I agree that stats could perhaps be redone. STR reducing ASPD has ended up being a problem because of how easy it is to reach the cap damage. Does this mean the basic damage equations need to be redone, so as to give STR more significance in damage? I would guess so (but no-STR damage also needs to go down to avoid the cap issue).

In a sense, it might be quite difficult to fix things as they are. But I get the impression that it would be preferable to having a vanilla server and starting all over again :S

Some of the other points are... curious, because things are behaving exactly the way I wanted them to, yet that is somehow a problem. What I mean is:

@diff: Yes, it was meant to adjust the difficulty so you can choose to level anywhere you want. So the main argument to change locations is a change of scenery. There is one exception to this, though: the final level of monsters is also dependent on the level of the normal mobs in the map. So harder maps let you have harder monsters. This isn't an issue if you aren't trying to fight extremely high/low levels for monsters though.

Should this be perceived as a problem? Should it mean that the natural level of monsters have a higher influence on how much a monster can be affected by @diff? Personally, I didn't see it as an issue.

DMR: I personally am not a min-max kind of person, and I didn't know this was that important for others. There are no specifics to how DMR works because it's just an equation. Basically, I fill an array with what the DMR output should be for any given input, so "Def = DMR1(non-dmr def)".


static unsigned short dmr1[2048]; //For Def/Mdef(where 1000 = 100%)
static unsigned short dmr2[1024]; //For Def2/Mdef2/Flee/Hit (where it keeps going up without limit)
static unsigned short dmr3[2048]; //For Flee2/Crit (where 1000 = 100%)
...
dmr1[0]=0; dmr1[1]=1;
k=1.0;
for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr1); i++)
{
k+=pow(0.94, i/50);
dmr1[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
}
dmr2[0]=0; dmr2[1]=1;
k=1.0;
for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr2); i++)
{
k+=pow(0.98, i/10);
dmr2[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
}
dmr3[0]=0; dmr3[1]=1;
k=1.0;
for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr3); i++)
{
k+=pow(0.95, i/50);
dmr3[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
}
...
status->def = (status_get_dmr1(status->def*10)+5)/10;
status->mdef = (status_get_dmr1(status->mdef*10)+5)/10;
...
status->rhw.atk = status_get_dmr2(status->rhw.atk);
...
status->hit = status_calc_hit(bl, sc, status_get_dmr2(b_status->hit));
...etc etc etc


Do I really want to put that in the documentation somewhere? Without it sounding like some madman's scientific experiment? It was my personal opinion that any documentation going into more detail would just be very complicated and not "user-friendly." Which is why I personally never felt the need to explain it further.

I suppose min-maxers want every single bit of information available, thought that goes against making things "casual." Is there a possible compromise somehow? Like having some kind of advanced documentation that normal people shouldn't be reading?
i vote for that option
and make sure you implement third classes before doing any changes, otherwise you will have to rebalance everything all over again for third classes




avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 25/10/2012, 04:23

Fruit Pie~ wrote:
Spoiler:
Allow me the honor, sir Failure!

Skotlex wrote:Vitriol, you need to tone down your image posts, they take too much space of what should be useful discussion (at this rate I am going to start approving Failure's stance that it'd just be easier to ban you).
He hasn't been posting anything but large image posts since the dawn of time, do you expect him to change? Be honest here.

Skotlex wrote:As for Failure's suggestion to start all over that seems a bit like overkill. Because... isn't RO way late and ready to die anyway? Starting all over again would sort of ensure that death.
MouRO can't get any more dead, man. Give it a fresh start, change the name, rework the mechanics and you get this server going again as a blank slate.

Skotlex wrote:On the other hand, there are things that could be rolled back and simplified. Specially because of the renewal mechanics, some things could be set back and rethought: perhaps renewal now does it better than Mou. One example is defence: the way renewal does it seems pretty good and perhaps there wouldn't be a need for any DMR if Mou would go that way instead.
Alright, I have to chime in as someone who tried to wrap her head around the new mechanics in Renewal : they don't quite do it better than Mou. They're less confusing, but Gravity seems to have lost sight of how RO actually plays. Amusingly, the best example I have is defense! The way vanilla did it, it was useless for anything but PVE, since everything in PVP ignores defense. It stacked pretty well for PVE and most MVPs, though, and a high enough enchant on good armor and the standard 100 VIT would make you nigh invulnerable to regular mobs. That was defense's only use.

Renewal now has defense that gives less the more you have, as well as generally nerfing the DEF amount in items and the DEF you get by refining most pieces of gear. This doesn't change the fact it's useless for PVP, but now makes it extra annoying/totally impossible to get enough defense for PVE! Now, more than ever, you don't give half a shit about how upgraded or high-DEF your armor is.

There's also the other little things that snap Renewal in half. Among others : the new cast time mechanics that still don't quite prevent super fast cast (which was basically the whole issue with the old cast system), the ass-backwards item drop and EXP penalties for lower and higher level mobs, the exponential stat costs which encourage Tofu-style 100 in everything stat spreads...

Oh, and they didn't ever think 100 VIT preventing status effects was a bad thing. At least it was a tradeoff in vanilla. In renewal you ALWAYS get 100 VIT because you don't have anything else to spend points on.

Skotlex wrote:In general, I agree that stats could perhaps be redone. STR reducing ASPD has ended up being a problem because of how easy it is to reach the cap damage. Does this mean the basic damage equations need to be redone, so as to give STR more significance in damage? I would guess so (but no-STR damage also needs to go down to avoid the cap issue).
Remove the cap, run some calculations with average gear, tweak STR until the damage bonus actually gives you DPS instead of taking DPS away. I'm actually all for making STR better for DPS than AGI, if only because AGI provides benefits other than offense - defense, evasion, move speed. Probably missing some, but those are the ones I remember.

If you're gonna say that STR boosts weight cap, well, it doesn't. You can pretty much max it out with no STR, IIRC.

Skotlex wrote:In a sense, it might be quite difficult to fix things as they are. But I get the impression that it would be preferable to having a vanilla server and starting all over again :S
It just sounds easier to take the base game and rework things from there rather than trying to balance what's already modded in. Would give you some chance to rethink things or drop what's unneeded or analyze the interactions between mechanics.

Skotlex wrote:@diff: Yes, it was meant to adjust the difficulty so you can choose to level anywhere you want. So the main argument to change locations is a change of scenery. There is one exception to this, though: the final level of monsters is also dependent on the level of the normal mobs in the map. So harder maps let you have harder monsters. This isn't an issue if you aren't trying to fight extremely high/low levels for monsters though.
What you're basically saying here is that... @diff doesn't actually change anything in how RO is played up to Lv150. You still jump from map to map (even in high diffs Zombies aren't quite as good as Salamanders and Kasas), it just makes the item grind less boring, which is a noble goal - @diff is legitimately a thing I approve of. It's fantastic.

I'd personally just make @diff a straight pick-the-min-level thing (so if you set @diff 50 you'd get Lv50+ mobs) with 0 being standard mobs, and exclusively boost drop rates (maybe the fixed drops more than the random). Kinda like Diablo does with /players or monster power.

Skotlex wrote:DMR: I personally am not a min-max kind of person, and I didn't know this was that important for others.
Agreeing with Failure here in that if you give a group of people a bunch of numbers and equations, they'll want to play around with them and see how far they can go.

Skotlex wrote:There are no specifics to how DMR works because it's just an equation. Basically, I fill an array with what the DMR output should be for any given input, so "Def = DMR1(non-dmr def)".

static unsigned short dmr2[1024]; //For Def2/Mdef2/Flee/Hit (where it keeps going up without limit)
static unsigned short dmr3[2048]; //For Flee2/Crit (where 1000 = 100%)
...
dmr1[0]=0; dmr1[1]=1;
k=1.0;
for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr1); i++)
{
k+=pow(0.94, i/50);
dmr1[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
}
dmr2[0]=0; dmr2[1]=1;
k=1.0;
for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr2); i++)
{
k+=pow(0.98, i/10);
dmr2[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
}
dmr3[0]=0; dmr3[1]=1;
k=1.0;
for (i = 2; i < ARRAYLENGTH(dmr3); i++)
{
k+=pow(0.95, i/50);
dmr3[i] = (unsigned short)(k+0.5);
}
...
status->def = (status_get_dmr1(status->def*10)+5)/10;
status->mdef = (status_get_dmr1(status->mdef*10)+5)/10;
...
status->rhw.atk = status_get_dmr2(status->rhw.atk);
...
status->hit = status_calc_hit(bl, sc, status_get_dmr2(b_status->hit));
...etc etc etc
Do I really want to put that in the documentation somewhere? Without it sounding like some madman's scientific experiment? It was my personal opinion that any documentation going into more detail would just be very complicated and not "user-friendly." Which is why I personally never felt the need to explain it further.
You can either put it on a "internal mechanics" section or give it to the people. Lord knows I'm willing to make a build calculator like the ones Vanilla has, but for Mou.

I just think DMR is unnecessary if you just scale down stuff. RO is even a pretty easy game to do it - it's built without DMR in mind. The stats plateau very early. For instance, there's nothing above +3 DEX that isn't legendary/cash stuff, and even then it's +4 - the Mjolnir doesn't quite count as it is only ever useful for an obscure Crusader build. 8 DEF on a single piece of armor is also pretty much the highest you'll go without a serious drawback, and that's only body armor. The other slots offer substantially lower defense.

All you'd need to do to avoid silly stuff like four Imp cards is reduce the Imp's bonus, for example. In fact, you've already done it! You'd just need to apply that to the more broken cards in multiples : high proc rates, damage and cast time modifiers, damage reduction cards in general.
it won't be a casual server anymore if the casual players have to compete in woe with non-casual minmaxed players. is this a casual server or not? that decision has to be made before any changes are implemented, or skot will just end up with a different bunch of inconsistencies in his mechanics
avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Loki on 25/10/2012, 07:54

Okay Vit, I'm gonna be nice enough to read through your posts. Anything that's just taking up space goes spoiler mode.

I think the general consensus here should be a clean slate for Mou and reworking the game mechanics to fit in with each other Skot.

Worrying about the state of RO in general won't bring Mou anywhere since it's sharing almost the same fate.
avatar
Loki

Posts : 260
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Skotlex on 25/10/2012, 09:03

Hmm.... well, but what sort of things should be reworked?

I mean, there are things I definitely want to keep in. Like the whole of disguises, random monsters spawns and skills, the @diff system, weather systems, and so on and so forth.

Would it be easier to specify what you want NOT ported and reworked, instead? I know that the effects of stats are there (in particular ATK/MATK/Cast/Delay/ASPD aggregates).

DMR should be reduced (that is, used in less areas), perhaps replaced by caps where suitable (like making the max resist to elements 90% or something like that).

Or would it be better to remove DMR altogether and just use caps? I thought DMR was a better approach than using a hard-cap, in any case. And this IS pretty much needed, as otherwise you'd be able to do things like getting 100% def or 100% lucky dodge which just break the game's basics.

I'd sort of like resetting item modifications as well, but I am concerned that there are a few of those that would be too strong if I do that.

The suggested solution to just "tone down everything so that the limit cannot be reached" is probably unrealistic, as I am unlikely to be able to predict the best combination that yields the highest parameters.

Vitrio, whether there are equations or not, the min-maxers will always have a slight advantage over people who just use their gut-instinct to distribute their stats and design their build. The only solution I see to that is that the advantage should be small enough that it hardly matters (but how can we even measure this?).

This sounds like a lot of work for a dead server :B
avatar
Skotlex
Admin

Male Posts : 396
Join date : 2012-08-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Lothar Axe on 25/10/2012, 11:32

Skotlex wrote:This sounds like a lot of work for a dead server :B

Then bye.
avatar
Lothar Axe

Male Posts : 275
Join date : 2012-08-25
Age : 25
Location : Brazil

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Failure on 25/10/2012, 13:13



I'd like to prelude this post by saying, once again, that you can click here to make all your dreams come true.

Skotlex wrote:Hmm.... well, but what sort of things should be reworked?
I like Lothar's idea of a couple threads looking at each mechanic individually, as long as they're strongly moderated.

Skotlex wrote:Vitrio, whether there are equations or not, the min-maxers will always have a slight advantage over people who just use their gut-instinct to distribute their stats and design their build. The only solution I see to that is that the advantage should be small enough that it hardly matters (but how can we even measure this?).
This is the right thinking to have. Also, we can measure it by playtesting and getting data. If the gut-reaction setup is extremely worse than the "best" one, then something's wrong and people's intuition are being misled somehow.

Skotlex wrote:This sounds like a lot of work for a dead server :B
Then do one of two things: hand the code over to somebody else, or straight-up make an announcement MouRO's dead and not going to get worked on forevermore. Go work on your thesis and either somebody else can take over, or ditch the entire thing.

Failure

Posts : 39
Join date : 2012-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Fruit Pie~ on 25/10/2012, 13:58

Skotlex wrote:The suggested solution to just "tone down everything so that the limit cannot be reached" is probably unrealistic, as I am unlikely to be able to predict the best combination that yields the highest parameters.
Probably going to edit this into a full fledged post later (or post another one, maybe), but just wanted to point this one out.

You can probably pick all things that have a certain stat on them if you use SQL databases. TXT might be a bit of a problem, but I'm sure it can be parsed. Again, I'll do it, no problem - all I need is the TXT database, which shouldn't be a risk to the server. Hell, I can even write down the maximum numbers attainable without DMR per class for you, I legitimately enjoy this kind of min-maxing science.

Fruit Pie~

Female Posts : 167
Join date : 2012-09-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 25/10/2012, 16:28

Loki wrote:Okay Vit, I'm gonna be nice enough to read through your posts. Anything that's just taking up space goes spoiler mode.

I think the general consensus here should be a clean slate for Mou and reworking the game mechanics to fit in with each other Skot.

Worrying about the state of RO in general won't bring Mou anywhere since it's sharing almost the same fate.





Last edited by Vitriol on 26/10/2012, 02:03; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Loki on 26/10/2012, 01:24

Vitriol wrote:
Spoiler:
Loki wrote:Okay Vit, I'm gonna be nice enough to read through your posts. Anything that's just taking up space goes spoiler mode.

I think the general consensus here should be a clean slate for Mou and reworking the game mechanics to fit in with each other Skot.

Worrying about the state of RO in general won't bring Mou anywhere since it's sharing almost the same fate.

We all know you don't.

Failure and Fruit seems genuinely interested in helping Skot, why not give them a chance? They could work on the server and those that are still playing could test it out. Of course we'll keep you updated and you can do you part as well.
avatar
Loki

Posts : 260
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Vitriol on 26/10/2012, 02:05

so he does have a sense of humor!
avatar
Vitriol

Male Posts : 651
Join date : 2012-08-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Regarding @diff, casualness, documentation, etc...

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum