Return of the Emblem: Chat

[Zsword]

Yeah, the system could use a revision, cause there's a problem when more powerful enemies get more actions the the PCs, because let's face it, the only reason the opponent lost that was because the enemy didn't quite realise that Shamans and Mages are only a good defence if the enemy uses casters, and should be put on the offencive when the opponent consists entirely of Melee units.

[-Cynthia-]

The thing regarding the above though is I don't actually think "All" Rp'ers are active :/ They aren't now, and I doubt they ever will be. So the last point about having someone sit out isn't really going to be as problematic as you seem to think as long as people don't cluster into groups of solely active people. I honestly doubt that Snike and GoD could be considered bad luck by anyones standards. (No offense but I wouldn't want them on my team either)Actually, I guess that was offensive, nyeh :/

All RPers generally aren't active, but battles are generally started when most people are active (and people tend to show up for stat time even when they can't be bothered to post otherwise). Take last battle for example, everyone that I consider "part of the group" at this point in time ended up participating (Amon/Gytha/Synthia/Veronika/Domovoi/John/Nanahm/Axel/Chelsea/Shadrak).

But going back to the first point now, that option is pretty silly :/ Giving people the option to control the characters of others doesn't work in RPing (since they'd rather make the character fade into the background out of fear of doing something wrong). And in the stat part it's silly for 1 person being able to use up 1/2 (or if increased 1/3) of the PP turns up because he/she has been given control of 2 other characters.

PP turns are based off of player posts, not character posts (that's how it worked in LoAF anyway, and that's how I assume it works here). Once people pick up their second characters, I think they'll be allowed to post with both characters at once, it's still only one PP post.

I'm not sure that being deprived of a roll is that big a deal. You're still getting the exp for any successful kills. (+heals/defs) and characters can still post their RP posts.

Some people like being able to attack things themselves. If people don't mind sitting out sometimes your system works, I'm not sure what people think on this issue to be honest. The Exp gain is still fair sure, but I think people enjoy actually fighting things themselves rather than gaining Exp by watching other people do things.

It seems to me that if we're only going to allow 2/3 of the people of a team to participate, we might as well just limit teams to two people. Making it so the third person can't act seems to eliminate the whole reason for having three people on a team in the first place (one defender, one healer, one attacker), since you can't actually do all those things in the same phase. Yes, having a third team member lets you "switch" out who you're using, although that has its own problems (people arguing over who gets a turn, people of the same team posting at the same time and deciding which to delete etc.)

[Snike]

Guys, can you leave the arguing until I get back home (Sunday)? Otherwise I won't be able to input.

[Phoenix]

@ Snike

I really don't think we can shelf an issue like this.

This is what the battle system testing thread was for

I have suggested that, didn't get much of a reaction though from Phoenix and others present

Luck negating criticals wasn't explained in any real detail that I can recall so if you want to run it by me, now's the time.

PP turns are based off of player posts, not character posts (that's how it worked in LoAF anyway, and that's how I assume it works here). Once people pick up their second characters, I think they'll be allowed to post with both characters at once, it's still only one PP post.

Yeah that's true actually. It may or may not need to be handled differently at some point. I can't tell just yet.

Overview:

I don't mind most of Cuddles' idea but there are some things I should state opinions on so I'll get to that ...

＊To limit actions to 2 per squad. So in Group A (see above)＊

Amon and Gytha could attack, (or)

Gytha could attack and Synthia heal (or)

Amon could attack and Synthia heal

But all three making an action wouldn't be allowed

I would only be okay with this if some OOC issues could actually be addressed.

To save time I'm just going to name names if they stick out in this explanation.

Assuming we're in a battle and a team of three is free to act, I imagine something happening where it isn't prudent for say ... Domovoi to attack someone and instead someone with higher health should attack while the third member heals Domovoi, but let's say Sage wants to attack anyway. Now there's an argument going on in IRC which could end in any number of ways. Like your next idea suggests, I'd recommend team leaders(OOC). By default, GM team members would lead any group's they're in IMO.

Also another suggestion; if actions were going to be limited to two, I'd recommend having defending as a "free action" meaning the third member could at least do that if nothing else. Primary battle actions would be attacking and healing, but things like item usage and defending would be exempt.

It seems to me that if we're only going to allow 2/3 of the people of a team to participate, we might as well just limit teams to two people. Making it so the third person can't act seems to eliminate the whole reason for having three people on a team in the first place (one defender, one healer, one attacker), since you can't actually do all those things in the same phase. Yes, having a third team member lets you "switch" out who you're using, although that has its own problems (people arguing over who gets a turn, people of the same team posting at the same time and deciding which to delete etc.)

These are pretty much my core concerns about that. With leaders, they would get the final say. Also I would hope that people aren't actually dumb enough to try to rush in a quick post just to weasel their way into that phase but I guess that might happen. It's not much better than anything Psych did though :/ (Yeah that's meant to be an insult)

＊A team leader would be voted upon to control the others who aren't around＊

Obviously, this would be optional, and people could refuse to hand control over at all.

But the aim is to prevent "dead team mates" who simply aren't around for the battle. An example being (Group B) Nanahm (SlaveBlade) having the ability to use Chelsea (after receiving GoD's permission) to heal.

While I think team leaders are needed, I don't think they necessarily have to CC. Like Luna said, most everyone tends to show up for stat battles for some mysterious reason :/

I do realize that people tend to only be active during certain halves of the battle as a whole though. One thing Z and I did was followed a general guideline of what Shadrak would do during the battle, which he made for me in advance(didn't quite follow the last Shadrak action since the situation demanded a healer and not a suicide runner but eh). That would work if it was ever needed, but in general people usually put aside the time to roll dice and stat fight.

-0Exp and attacking seeming like a silly idea.

As explained above, a group which only has one active member isn't going to get far. If you log on and find that other teams have got 25exp, and your team is still on 0. Would you attack the last enemy for 5 exp, or would you rather remain silent and get the average?

Implementing averages was never a perfect plan. I thought of giving a certain amount of the average to units that only managed to make a certain amount of actions during the battle, but the more you compensate in that area the more complicated it gets.

If everyone was CC'd throughout the battles even without rpers present that would only compensate a little too. Increasing enemies only gives more points to the most frequent attackers, and so on and so forth.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Phoenix

[roymbrog]

I don't like the 2/3 teammates doing things a phase thing. I honestly would not stick around as much for stat battles. :/

Why do combat teams have to share exp? Wouldn't getting rid of that solve some of the problem? No one would suffer for someone else's absence.

WAIT

What if we had however many attack on player phase, but no more than two could take an action on a turn until all teams had taken at least one action? Or, alternatively, once two per team have taken an action (or one in a team of two) then the remaining people could post until the limit was reached.

Like... 3 teams of 3, teams A, B, and C

A takes two actions

B takes two actions

C takes one action

A or B can take a third action

OR

A takes two actions

B takes two actions

C takes two actions

6 actions have been taken, the limit is 7

A, B, or C can take a third action

[GoD]

So what team do I belong in?

[Phoenix]

Part of the reason for shared points among team members is to offset competitiveness. The system this one was born from had a terrible competitiveness problem both early on and later on. The fact that enemies have never outnumbered the party(and sometimes barely outnumber participants) only made the issues more apparent.

There is a bit of context I should probably add though before we get too much further into this exp thing. It's going to take 1,500 points(in that general neighborhood) to max out levels. Won't cost more than an extra 300-400 for all of the items you'll ever equip permanently. I imagine consumables to only be around maybe six or seven repeat purchases per person at the most(lowering the number due to presence of thief and post-battle trading though this will probably only ever cover vulneraries)

So we're in the neighborhood of about 2,000-2,100 points.

Now let me just state for the record that I have no intention of even trying to aim for that 2,000+ mark. That is to say, I'm not planning on us reaching that number of total points right around the end of the story(can't plan for something that precise without scripting the entire rp). In fact, we might hit that number 4/5 of the way through or sooner. With that in mind, the only real issue with missing out on points early on is how quickly you max out your level or purchase all the items you plan on ever wielding in battle. At some point there's bound to be people with some surplus and nothing to do with it while the lowest characters catch up. What I'm saying is it's not a major issue for characters to fall behind. What we need to focus on is keeping them from falling too far behind so that they aren't noticeably effected in stat combat. Anything we do to help balance this out needs to center around making sure characters don't fall more than a certain amount of points behind everyone else(but not fret over noticeable gaps; those will begin to close themselves once we reach 2000+ points).

@ GoD

Still deciding which team Chelsea's on I think.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Phoenix

[roymbrog]

Idea # 2

We do like we've been doing, then take the average points. Any group that got below the average gets the average. Groups who were above the average keep their points. That way, even if people don't do anything, everyone in the RP, old characters and new, will have at least a certain number of points.

You still have to win the battle to get those points, and if you want more you'll have to earn it.

EDIT: Lost points from dying would be subtracted from the average if you happen to end up with that.

Edited March 3, 2011 by roymbrog

[Acacia Sgt]

@ GoD

Still deciding which team Chelsea's on I think.

This reminds me, how many are still teamless?

[roymbrog]

From what I gather...

Team 1

Gytha

Amon

Synthia

Team 2

Veronika

Domovoi

Shadrak

Everyone else that's unpaired...

Chelsea

Nanahm

John

Axel

...is that it?

[Kanami]

@Cynthia

-There's really not much for me to say since I've already addressed pretty much everything, for the first point, (participation) it's more a balancing factor, and the point regardin 0exp covers that.

-RP'er post count isn't really a smart way to think, a RP'er with two characters would be much better off attacking then a person with only one.

-Your third point I'm not sure if you're tired or intentionally ignoring the point regarding "sitting out" Either way, I've already replied to it and see no reason to do so again in detail.

@Phoenix

-(LUCK negating Crits) I'm really not too fond of the idea as it complicates the calculations, and a crit is rare enough as is. It was just idea vomit at the time, and unless there's more support for it, I personally can't be bothered getting behind it.

-(Domovoi and uncooperative team mates) Nyeh! At least I can't make up for my agreeing first by disagreeing. Uncooperative team mates bring more color to the RP stat battles. In battle it's not like everyone listens to everyone else, not in a ragtag mercenary group at least anyway. If Domovoi or any other character wants to do their own little thing, they just become less appealing as a team mate. (As it would be In-game) Cooperation isn't an issue for most, so I doubt there'll be any real issues over this.

-Defense... I'm sketchy on, mainly cause it encourages people to leave the defender out until the end. Though on the other hand, I suppose it would give defending more of a role. Item use on the other hand though I completely support.

-(CC) Being CC'ed is an option that's available and there's no actual need to agree to people rolling/controlling you. It's not a "have to" but a "if you want to"

-(Arguing, and posting at the same time) A Cynthia point which I think I've answered enough already. But I'll say it again <_< Uncooperative members do not need to be a part of a group <_< Why you keep referring to people being uncooperative as an issue is beyond me. If you don't like someone because they argue that they should always attack, or that they simply don't cooperate, kick them out and add someone else, or just remain a party of two.

People being "left out" of Team selections can easily be dealt with in Ch4 when they have a 2nd character to make up the second member of their group. (If they're uncooperative with one, there'll probably be uncooperative for a second character)

-(Averages)To be honest, the original concept of teams didn't include the "Bonus EXP" you're throwing out in wads at the moment. If it was 5exp (or 10exp in certain cases) for an objective. People wouldn't be so desperate to get it. And I didn't think this "bonus" would be factored into the average. Either way, I do agree exp gain is a tricky topic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Both Roys ideas work, to an extent, I like the first one of having a surplus for the actives.

Regarding the second point though, I'd probably add a limit to the "below average part" since someone who got 20 (average 25) doesn't really need to be bumped up to 25.

In regards to exp though I'm still looking for a decrease in "Bonus exp" It's not a bonus when it's larger then your original payment! And I'm not sure about rewarding people who haven't "been around" with equal/more exp then those that have been around from the beginning.

[Phoenix]

-(LUCK negating Crits) I'm really not too fond of the idea as it complicates the calculations, and a crit is rare enough as is. It was just idea vomit at the time, and unless there's more support for it, I personally can't be bothered getting behind it.

I'm glad that we agree it's complicated enough

Defense... I'm sketchy on, mainly cause it encourages people to leave the defender out until the end. Though on the other hand, I suppose it would give defending more of a role. Item use on the other hand though I completely support.

Well it's still just an option. Sometimes defending won't be the best choice since it aggros an enemy into attacking on EP. If there's nothing left but aggressive archers, then defending is pointless(Ability: Bypasses Defenders; so you're basically drawing a direct attack to the person you're defending if it's used). In some situations it'll be a better idea to go full offense and in those cases, the healer might need to be switched out for the defender(who may have decent mt) for that phase, and then get back to healing on the following phase, etc.

-(Arguing, and posting at the same time) A Cynthia point which I think I've answered enough already. But I'll say it again Uncooperative members do not need to be a part of a group Why you keep referring to people being uncooperative as an issue is beyond me. If you don't like someone because they argue that they should always attack, or that they simply don't cooperate, kick them out and add someone else, or just remain a party of two.

Alright, I'm starting to agree with this. The only real issue might come up in-character where Raquel or someone's teammates are bitching at them at first. After that it'll probably be decided that the person gets in line or fights alone. Choosing to lone wolf it really ought to be on a person's own head so I'm fine if the latter happens.

In regards to exp though I'm still looking for a decrease in "Bonus exp" It's not a bonus when it's larger then your original payment! And I'm not sure about rewarding people who haven't "been around" with equal/more exp then those that have been around from the beginning.

Well it has to drop anyway since any battle we win will have a +5 points standard. Won't possibly be more than 10 points now though I'm reluctant to go any lower than that since lowering incentive/reward invalidates the challenge bonus objectives are supposed to present.

[Kanami]

Just quickly before I start reading, I've noticed a few of you around, but not in IRC, something up or are you guys just not in an IRC mood today? :P

Also... *plan to revive chat thread semi-successful*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-(Complicated) Yeah, sort of been my tone since RotE planning started. "Remove everything! It's too complicated* + *bitchbitchbitch* It's just that some things need to be modified to flow better. This is why I tried to remove simplify everything, because I knew thing would get added later XD

-(Defender) Nyah~ I see now :/ Interesting, think this is one of those rare occassion when I actually like one of your suggestion/additions XD

-(Bitching/Lone wolf) I don't see the problem with bitching at someone who doesn't follow a plan in-game, as I keep saying this isn't "Mommy-Daddy" where we have to all love eachother and get along. So friction at the stage is nice.

"Positive interaction is good, but negative interaction isn't bad. At the very least, it's still better then no interaction."

As for lone wolf syndrome, they do bring it upon themselves, but as I said in my last post, even that's solved once they're given the ability to make a second character.

-(EXP) 5~10 is a good range. And more suitable once teams start sharing EXP with eachother. Regarding exp though, Am I right in assuming successful "Defends" results in 2exp for all team mates (like healers) or do they follow a different tune?

Edited March 3, 2011 by Kanami

[Phoenix]

@ IRC

I checked earlier and not enough people were around for me to stay on. Figured I check back in six hours or so :P

@ Defending exp

I considered making it only 2 points on combat teams but didn't know if it was needed or not. 3 points is still in effect until that's addressed. No one ever commented on it until now so what do you think?

[roymbrog]

3 points is the same for healing. I don't see this as a problem.

[Kanami]

@Roy

Healing Exp was nerfed to 2per heal within teams, (so everyone gets 2exp for you healing) totaling 6 exp, opposed to 9exp.

You still will however gain 3exp if you're not part of a team.

@Defense Exp

I'd make it the same as healing to be honest.

Or we could just leave it at 3exp cause I have a defender and want more points! jk

[roymbrog]

Oh, I must've missed that bit..

[Phoenix]

@ Defending exp

I guess that would be fair, though now I find that I can't remember why healing points were lowered in the first place. What was it again?

[Kanami]

:/ I have a habit of forgetting things that are dealt with, but lets see how this withered brain of mine works.

-Firstly it was since 2heals (6exp) was better then a normal kill (2hits 5exp)

And that was it really :/

We started with "should heal exp go to the individual or the whole group?" and the end results was to give it to the whole group at a lesser rate :/

So there wasn't any important reason I don't think, just seemed more appropriate and balanced, but raising it back to 3exp, would encourage people to create more healers and defenders I guess. :/

[Phoenix]

Well I can see that, but now I'm thinking Defending should stay at three points even if healing doesn't.

Mainly my reasoning behind this is that defending posseses equal risk to being KO'd while healing is relatively safe. It's essentially another form of attacking so two defends coming up to +1 over a normal kill isn't too bad IMO.

[Kanami]

Who are you? Where's Phoenix? :/

You can't be real since you're not on IRC and you're actually raising good points :/

If you put it that way, I suppose I agree, sort of feel like I'm favoring myself (def char) and that I'm picking on healers XD But I do suppose Defenders face more risks for their action then healers.

[Phoenix]

UPDATE

-OP updated

-Myrmidon and Thief promotion bonuses updated

[roymbrog]

What was changed? I may need to go update my one of my NPCs.

[Kanami]

Instead of Thief-Rogue getting 2SKL 2SPD upon promotion, they now get 2SPD 2Lck instead.

So the crazy needs to drop two SKL and gain 2Lck I think.

[roymbrog]

Alright, I rearranged her stats to fit the new thing.