1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Brilliant Idea 2: Diminishing Return

Discussion in 'UHall' started by RavenWinterHawk, Feb 11, 2011.

  1. Argh.
    Purity is good. Define pure template attributes and give them 120% damage ability. Spells etc, weapon. Whatever.

    If your pure 100 not 120... 120 still gives current boost. You get benefit.
    Example Flame Strike is 120% of max damage.

    Flip side.
    For each combo of non pure template you get a 20% decrease in all capabilities.

    Digest it - think about it.

    A mage, mystic, necro gets a knock down X2

    A necro mage gets a knock down X1


    NOW NOW the above is just an example. It isn't the device.

    The gist is a purity bonus of 20% for pure templates. (YEP to determined by devs)

    And yes a knock in potentancy of skills if your a damn mixed mut of soup dejour.

    Purity titles should be nice too. Like..

    The Glorious Raven Winterhawk Grandmaster Mage Purist.
     
  2. copycon

    copycon Guest

    I think your idea would have worked before character skill templates were imbalanced with artifacts, item attributes, power scrolls etc...

    Now, what you are proposing would simply serve to make an already overpowered template even more powerful.
     
  3. Good Point.
    How about the purist needs to be artifact pure also. Adjust the boost for purity in template and then again for not using artificats.
     
  4. and

    "Diminishing Return" should never be mentioned as a "philosophy" round abouts ...:party:

    A "re-alignment" of ALL loot table - spawner functions - template "effects"
    is doable ...
    Hide the math from those that don't care ...
    Leave the little fiddly bits >available< for the spreadsheet jockeys (for fine tuning and bug quashing, :thumbsup: natch)

    realign/balance ALL groupings classes (solo, pick up parties, guilds, factions)

    *shrugs*
    certainly needs some "defining" as to what you are on about ...:confused:
     
  5. Landicine

    Landicine Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    36
    What you are proposing goes against the very heart of a skill system and sandbox game. It limits player freedom in favor of arbitrary fantasy archetypes. Why not propose getting rid of skills entirely in favor of levels? That would be a similar solution.

    Yes, the freedom of the skill and item systems in UO sometimes leads to broken or unbalanced interactions. However, it also leads to interesting characters. Such a system would punish those with utility or roleplay characters with strange builds.

    I have suboptimal characters built for particular purposes, usually roleplay. I don't really see the point of a system that would mechanically hurt them so we can say "Wow, now UO characters have all the variety and complexity of first edition Dungeons and Dragons."
     
  6. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    No, this would just give decisions more meaning.

    You can have all the abilities of a Necro/Mage/Mystic. Lots of utility.

    OR, play to the strengths of one, and excel at it.

    Same could be said for melee and crafting skills.

    This does nothing to do to take away from freedom, and everything to do with making firm decisions about your play style.


    Honestly, I think if they split up magery into separate schools, so that each had the same number of spells as, say, Chivalry, a lot of problems would go away.. But meh.
     
  7. Landicine

    Landicine Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    36
    I will argue that there is already a punishment for having characters with a lack of focus. Examples:

    -I have a mage without Eval. or Meditation (a treasure hunter character that finds and unlocks the chest and requires a group to do more). My combat spells are already pretty poor.

    -I have a necro-archer that lacks anatomy. Again, suboptimal damage.

    This suggestion punishes every non-standard template because of broken sampire templates in PvM and other broken hybrids in PvP. However, having spent years playing, I will tell you there is always a character template de-jour that is just better. Making some arbitrary fix that punishes all hybrid templates because of a few broken interactions just means we'll have different "best" templates that are closer to the base Dungeons and Dragon classes.

    I also think such an idea adds complexity without making things more fun. It reminds me of the Bushido penalty to shield parry. It makes little sense to me that learning some skill would make my other skill less effective in some area. While there may be some balance issue, it is another counter-intuitive rule to keep in mind when picking skills.
     
  8. Viquire

    Viquire Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,456
    Likes Received:
    507
    Meh is right. Having the freedom to make weird combinations of skills is part of what makes this game really entertaining even after 12 years.

    The main reason I read and replied is because I never ever expected to see the words diminish and return appear next to each other in a thread title ever again.

    Disciplines, I would like to see that explored more, but not this.
     
  9. Gorbs

    Gorbs Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    130
    How would this make UO more enjoyable to play? My initial impression is it would likely just tick off the majority of the player base.
     
  10. what is broken? and why are we trying to fix it?

    i see now issue with how the spells or templates are currently, why mess with them? seems there are more important issues to worry about.
     
  11. red sky

    red sky Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sounds like someone tried to PvP a mystic necro mage with a pure template. hehe.
     
  12. Ender

    Ender Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,550
    Likes Received:
    549
    How about we just have a class system put in?


    Nope.
     
  13. Nope dont PvP
    Sandbox would include pure templates... right

    Looks like some of you want your cake, brownie, and sudaes too.

    A play style would be rewarded for purity


    Axe the minus for hybrids then.

    Im just tired of soup dejour soulstone freaks.

    Come on Devs. Restore the purity of the game.
     
  14. Like v-day gifts and rare box colors.

    Come on the biggest issue in uo is lack of purpose to explore and adventure.

    Some great upgrades recently... but the game lacks sand in their sandbox.

    I would take greater reason to explore over my idea.

    But that being said... I dont see what is more important.
     
  15. Martyna Zmuir

    Martyna Zmuir Crazed Zealot

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,052
    Likes Received:
    632
    Pure templates... Uhm... Yeah, define that...

    I'm a 120 mage... I also have 120 Spellweaving... So, I'm not a pure mage? How? Both are magic skills, but they are both independent of the other.

    While I can understand sampires being nerfed some, as having both necromancy AND chivalry on the same char is just illogical silliness, I wouldn't be in favor of it.

    As others have said, part of UO's charm and fun is though the psychotic templates we can create. Artificial limits, imposed way too long after the skill's introduction, aren't going to make people happy. Change's like this will be about as popular as Logrus' terrible battle/spell focus mods.
     
  16. Landicine

    Landicine Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    36
    I play a lot of tabletop games. I have played games level systems (Dungeons and Dragons), Career Systems (Warhammer 2nd Edition), and all sorts of point-buy systems (GURPS, Shadowrun). I will say that even systems with the most purity of archetype still result in power-gaming and min-maxing.

    Character dejour have existed since before soulstones. People actually used to violate game rules with macroing before soulstones, so soulstones made the process more accessible to those who weren't running macro programs. I remember fighting years of broken PvP templates from the original halberd tank mages to potion-chugging archers. "Purity" has nothing to do with it.

    Let's assume for a minute your Purity Bonus system was implemented. Here are three possible outcomes:

    1. The bonus was too small and didn't allow competition with some other template in PvP or PvM. The previous problem templates remain dominant.

    2. The bonus is high enough to make make "pure" templates dominant resulting in fewer optimal choices. The "pure" templates become the characters dejour.

    3. The bonus is perfect, a zen of game design and number crunching, resulting in a Renaissance of great template variety where there is a rock-paper-scissor metagame in PvP and PvM is varied and interesting.

    I will say that in 13 years playing, the first option has happened and the second. The third, not so much. I also don't see why certain templates deserve more credit than others in the sandbox. While fiction does love its fantasy wizards and pure fighters and rogues, it also loves its strange and interesting characters as well.

    As a fellow explorer, I will argue that a lot of your ideas seem counterproductive. I enjoy exploring the huge skill-list. Early in the game's history, it made sense for my warrior to have tailoring to make her own armor after being PKed. Later on, Chivalry replaced this. Other characters have had 600 skill points basically picked by the already present synergy bonuses (Magery-Eval-Inscription or Swords-Tactics-Anatomy), but it can be fun to play with the last 100-120 points and see what comes of it.

    But apparently, that's wrong and against "purity."
     
  17. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    I smiled when I saw the term "diminishing returns." Years and years ago, there was a proposal by a dev team member to make it so that each additional amount of an item property counted a little less than the one before it.

    So, say, MR 20 would be noticeably more than MR 10, but not twice MR 10.

    In that sense, diminishing returns is surely an idea whose time has come.

    Then I read your actual proposal. In the sense you propose, "diminishing return" it's quite explicitly an attempt to ram people into pre-set character classes, more or less.

    And that just isn't how UO works; it never has been.

    -Galen's player
     
  18. Bud everything ticks off the player base.

    Thats why basic input is good. But we shouldnt direct it.

    PURITY. It is nice.
     
  19. No ramming. Just bonus for purity. How do you know it would be that much more of an advantage.

    Yikes.
     
  20. Sevin0oo0

    Sevin0oo0 Guest

    I think they already Have Diminishing Returns. Train to 120 and it's worth 100, next skill, ditto.And you want to nurf them further? No thanks
     
  21. HD2300

    HD2300 Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sounds like an idea to WOWify UO.

    Everyone will use one of 5 templates, and if you dont your capabilities are nerfed.