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

Diminishing Returns: Flashback of thoughts re: MrTact's proposals

Discussion in 'UHall' started by AesSedai, Jan 14, 2009.

  1. AesSedai

    AesSedai Guest

    Well, I tried to find anything that had to do with MrTact's old thoughts on a system he was thinking about. Many of you probably remember it. I think the title of the thread in the old Developer's Corner mentioned Diminishing Returns.

    Problem is, I couldn't find any archives of it on the internet. So I do not have his initial proposals nor all of the other thoughts; yet it did turn into a pretty massive thread & it was full of plenty of creative thinking, imho.

    All I could find were these 3 posts of mine, on an old hard drive.

    The first post was made on 12/17/05

    (Hey, if you have some old posts from it, or want to add anything... do it :))
     
  2. AesSedai

    AesSedai Guest

    Caps do suck.
    Caps will exist, whether the ‘natural limit’ is met or an artificial cap is put in.
    Unless you intend to completely remove any design limitations (as in, allow all items to have any item property and allow item properties to be infinite).
    Because you should limit the power of an item (& item properties) & we should remain limited in the number of items we can equip.

    I think the goal of caps should be to keep the ceiling high enough to cause sacrifices in other areas.
    Ex: If the value of FCR blows FC out of the water, then people will strive to hit the FCR cap and sacrifice FC if necessary.
    So, the values of item properties, that effectively stack together, needs to be considered.

    We have natural caps (unfortunately they have been breached; assumedly to increase the impact of cool new items. So in reality the natural caps have increased since they were installed with AoS, which is ~ unnatural).
    We have natural item limitations: Body armor cannot have skill bonuses (also breached with introduction of new items).

    I don’t think caps and the gaps between the haves and have nots are as important as the balancing of item properties & the balancing of item availability are:

    There needs to be a design plan in place before throwing the cool new items into the mix.

    I suggest an internal table is constructed like this (item properties uo.com) and adhered to.
    I also suggest that all the existing item property caps / scales (item propuocom) are reset in a more simplified range, say 0-100.
    This could offset the need for a new tool that deciphers all of the item properties, which has been needed since AoS. I could send you my Excel version of what uo.com or UO in-game should probably offer by now.
    Diminishing returns can lessen the extreme combinations possible.
    But, what about just using modifiers to adjust the balance of individual properties & player abilities, as necessary? So, if damage mod. is too heavy handed, well figure out how much it needs to be nerfed, jump into the documented master table of properties and change 1 to .9, and there you go. Rather than dive into the code to change the modifier, maybe have the new master table tool automagically do it for ya’.

    Diminishing returns would flourish in an environment where the ceiling is wholly uncontrolled, imho. As in Luck. Original cap of 1200. Who the hell knows where the natural cap is at these days with all of the new items? What 2000 or so? I know more and more is an easy way to bring the ‘fun’, but what about accommodating for it in advance instead of fidgeting whether balance is more important than cool new item?

    So, caps must exist and ideally artificial caps wouldn’t have to.
    A system of diminishing returns could alleviate the desire to implement way bigger and way better items over time, but ideally these bigbetdeals should be able to be accommodated for in advance of their creation.

    Master table of easy-to-adjust modifiers for all item properties and player abilities.
    (Like what I had once falsely assumed was a part of the new AoS items – because that’s the only way I could imagine keeping all of that stuff in balance)
    A master table must be considered, imho, in order to attempt to maintain any type of balance. Way too many variables to wing this stuff bi-annually or so.

    A player version of the same table that can calculate what the player has on could be a great ‘helper tool’-type side effect of creating a master table.
     
  3. AesSedai

    AesSedai Guest

    Well I just saw you are leaving for the holidays, so I rushed this rather than polish it. My bad, but I felt time became relevant.

    Caps can suck
    But
    the ‘natural’ caps create structure which helps players quantify the inherent value of items, imho (yes, an in-game or uo.com tool is needed, to ease the computational requirements from the user’s perspective – I’ve made my own spreadsheet for that purpose, to more easily sort items and determine their combinative effects).

    Natural property caps – are currently pre-determined and defined by:
    # of items the property is possible on * Max. Quality Range of property

    Both of which have inconsistently changed over time which increases difficulty in maintaining balance. Example:
    Dexterity(& Cunning GFather blessing):
    Max. # Items(& Extreme) * Max. Quality Range(& Extreme) = Max. Possible
    =
    2(12) * 8(10) = 16(120) Max. Dexterity

    (I now know you’re specifically talking about damage, but I’d like to propose trying to keep all item property functions as universal as possible for ease of future design balances as well as ease in user comprehension)

    The natural caps also allow design limitations, which seem to me to be a lot more viable than allowing for infinite item property maximums. Because, at least from the user’s perspective, I believe that knowing a limit allows for an easier understanding of the relative value of an item, which makes the game much easier to enjoy in a multitude of ways, not the least of which, I theorize, would be to create less ‘have-nots’, by reducing the difficulty in obtaining and maximizing suits. But it also sets the stage for my theory on maintaining balance, because it allows for the all-important modifier (which is what I like to call the ‘internal sliding scale’ that allows for the maintenance of balance).

    (Also, about haves & have-nots. They’ll always exist, but that’s due to the availability of higher-end items as well as many other variables. Yet, making it easier for the ‘have-nots’ to comprehend what they actually have just might bridge the gap a lot more than any other efforts, imho)

    Yes, I saw the possibility of bringing back the name terminology for item properties (vanq / invulns). I like that but I also still think that post:AoS we need to continue to have more precise definitions for item properties (best of both worlds theory, eh). If I had to choose it’d be kind of close, but I’d prefer the precision numbers.

    My theory is to make it easier on all sides, by adopting a 0-100 scale universally for all item properties per item and a 0-1000 scale (like skills are, but probably without the decimal) for suits.
    1000 would be the new natural cap for all properties; accept it would be 1000 cumulative to your suit (to your character).
    So, these numbers can appear to be independent from each other, but the maximum total of each item property would ideally be 1000 per suit (per character).
    This could also allow room for many cool new items and additions in the future. Robust and flexible make for good foundations.

    This way all the various crazy scales, err quality ranges, that are in place would become much easier to understand.
    Also with some new kind of item property tool / gump / whatever, we could look up our suit numbers quickly to see how we truly fare per property.
    Otherwise less than half of my plan would be utilized, because it would only allow for the UO-Team to more easily balance out all the various properties’ effects.

    The problem with that (universal 1000 for char. / suits, per property) is all of the Extremes that were allowed and continue to be created.
    Take stats for example (back to Dexterity, for example). Supposed to be only on 2 jewelry items, but I think it actually exists on all slots accept robe & talisman while incl. sash, via Cunning = +10 dex. / GFathered blessing, so 12 items with the grandfathered blessings. I suppose each of these special cases should reflectively break the 1000 suit cap for that property. So:
    Ex.:
    1000 = Max Dexterity Suit = 200 (since 2 items, by my method) = 16 (currently)
    But, we also have the extreme which would be
    7500 = Max. Extreme Dex. Suit (120 currently) = 1000(120/16)

    All Dexterity bonus jewelry of 8 would change to equal 100, 7 would equal 88, 6 equal 75..

    So Dexterity Bonus property would have (7500) listed as its Extreme maximum, even though 1000 is the standard maximum for it as well as every other property, as would become common knowledge.

    The main problem with all of this (and the current version) is that new and better items could always upset the balance. Not a big deal though, as long as,

    As long as universal numbers were used (100 or 1000), I think you could begin to get away with adjusting the values of items over time.

    For instance, FCR 3 is the max right now, so 3 would become 100 per item and 6 would become 1000 for the suit. Now let’s say you want a cool new item, like a spellbook of rejuvy with FCR 5. Well, while that is effectively nerfing the other items, these things have and probably will happen, so why not expose the truth to the player?
    So now 5 would equal 100, and all of the other items would have to be readjusted, the old 100 (or 3) would now equal 60 ((3/5)*100).
    As well, 1000 for Suit FCR would remain 1000, but instead of 2 Item Slots, it would become 3 with the addition of the hand slot (for spellbook). So, an old max. suit would become 666 out of the new possible 1000.
    Unfortunately the new item just nerfed a lot of items, but hey, at least the adjustment was easy for everyone to comprehend (a problem, I figure that tends to separate haves & have-nots). If somebody notices their maximum 100 ring just became a 60, they would likely investigate what was added to lower the value of their ring.. creating a wiser & more well-prepared player, imho.
    (People that wanted to know the exact scales used could figure them out easily enough, if you prefer to continue using scales other than 100 for different item intensities (but would it be any more difficult to use 1000 degrees of intensity rather than 6 as is currently used for FCR?))
    So in this way people that were concerned with the relative value of an item property & suit properties could easily know by using the 100/1000 external scales.

    Diminishing returns via logarithms, aka the Luck method, could work fine with properties. Sure, why not.

    A solid design plan seems more important than anything. I mean instead of allowing for infinite property values, why not prepare a plan to avoid creating a luck 2000 anklet, and adhere to it?

    --
    So as for damage:

    Make a character / suit property of 1000 Damage equal 100% possible damage and not more.
    Make a character property of 1000 Stats Damage equal 100% possible stats damage and not more.
    Make a suit property of 1000 Slayer Damage (special PvM mod.).
    Make Base Skills Damage bonus 1000 (all combined damage influencing skills equal a possible 1000).

    Special Moves Damages become 1000 maximum, per property (so highest current damaging move begins at 1000 until it is decided to add a stronger move).

    Change Slayer and Killer Damage currently to become one property (Slayer Dam.) with a 0 to 100(%) scale per item..

    If you want the weight of 1000 stats to be double that (like the ~200% now), then just double the modifier on this property.
    If you want slayer damage to be half that of regular damage, in effectiveness, then halve the modifier….
    The modifier is where the magic comes into play, because people won’t exactly be able to know they can inflict 51 pts. of damage per maximum hit – but they will know that they have the strongest slayer damage killer possible at 1000, and with testing can see how many pts. of damage that would yield, based on the current modifier values; so people can deduce which damage is weighed more heavily, whether it is items or skills (now true real player skills v. items / in-game skills, is a completely different thing / a whole other scene), or flat out made aware if the modifiers were to be made available.

    So, damage is a major property. Extreme maximums should not exist. I don’t think any grandfathered items are around, so currently I think damages are as straightforward as stats / skills & item properties effects added together, make it.

    So, we have a possible of 5000 for Total Weapon Damage, with 1000 per specific Damage type / property (hopefully I didn’t miss anything).
    By looking at the updated item property table, we would easily see all of this.
    By looking at the in-game tool, we could easily see where we stand, per property, as well.

    If you wanted skills to effect the damage mod. more, then you would adjust the Skills Damage modifier to reflect that.
    If you wanted the items to weigh more, do so by changing the Damage & Slayer Damage modifiers.
    If you wanted to add a Slayer Damage property to the Item Slot – Robe, then you would change the master table and instead of 2 item slots with slayer damage, there would be 3, which would mean that 300 now equals what we all see as 1000 for Slayer Damage..
    --

    Things could change in time with this method, but the comprehension would remain easy, which is what was greatly lost post:AoS, imho.

    Also, probably stick with the monsters receive double damage compared to humans, and then adjust all monster HPs & such to reflect their difficulty after determining maximum player HPs / stats. Throw this on the master table too so if you end up changing maximum possible stats of players, which has already happened before, then it can immediately adjust the monster stats to retain the balance.

    The modifier is a key to me.
    Each property will have a modifier (I like calling it ‘the internal scale’ – it is what designers could eventually willingly manipulate to find a better ‘balance’).
    The properties will all appear in one place, in a master table, so the cause and effect of normal maximums and extreme maximums can easily be seen & adjusted as well.

    Creating a master table tool for designers and cool new item adders (including EMs apparently) is definitely another key requirement to providing a balanced PvP/PvM/Item v. Skill scenario.

    In the future, if you want to add a umm, taliswoman, to make the total items with damage properties +1 then do so, but the suit total would still max. at 1000 and the other stuff would need to be adjusted accordingly (meaning the weight of the items are now x+1=1000 instead of x=1000, but individual items still range from 0-100. Which also means that instead of 2 items effecting damage there would now be 3, so the other 2 would be less effective. If a player noticed that there 1000 suit dropped down to 666, they could begin the research and ideally goto uo.com item properties to see what was added.

    I hope this makes sense to somebody besides me. [tongue]

    And that is my free design advice for now; long live UO.
     
  4. AesSedai

    AesSedai Guest

    I like the rushl proposal as well.
    I think we’re proposing about the same.

    ~ That Caps are good in some form.

    I’m opting for the natural caps that currently exist (the limits set by a. # of items the property is possible on & b. the range of the properties).

    But, rather than using arbitrary numbers like 450% or 500%, I’m proposing they are all always 1000 maximum (no need for percent really – if it is a percent effect, it could be inferred through usage). Another complication of the rushl proposal, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that we currently have multiple properties and resistances on single items, which would severely limit the usage of existing items, as one item alone could equate to 500% (I think ~ 5 max properties per item?), yet most items are much less. I guess I'm suggesting that it wouldn't be flexible enough, that it would require maintenance and adjustments that could easily confuse players.

    With 100/1000, people can more readily know the maximum amounts possible.
    Just because the number is 1000, does -not- mean that it could not be infinitely adjusted; it could.

    Logarithmic Functions could even still be used… but then people would never reach 1000, they’d just get closer (which I think is anti-climactic and takes some thrill of accomplishment away. Ex.: Trying to reach 1200 Luck was a goal & now what is the goal, aside from using math –uhoh tedium- to figure out what number will bring you 1% more Luck?).

    I agree with Log.Methods in that they will allow more room per property (instead of Luck 1200 cap, there is no limit) & they return less value on the high-end.
    I do not agree with Log.Methods because they increase the need for math and can perceptually remove personal goals. The math obstacle can be overcome with help from tools & gumps and whatnot. The loss of a potential personal goal is, imho, the potential loss of the desire to acquire.
    Ex.: I used to, insert X here ~ kill monsters, just to get closer to 1200 Luck. Then it changed and I said what the heck, I’m close to the logarithmic limit anyway.. I no longer strove for that goal ~ I played less, for that purpose.

    Even with Logarithmic Damage, the high-end will still need to be brought into balance, right?

    The crucial key is balance and creating a more efficient / simplified means to provide and / or adjust the desired balance, imho.

    As well, to provide an easy interface for players (which has choked the AoS item transition from the onset, imho).


    --
    Btw, of course MrTact will be reading this. Maybe not while on vacation, but even then, somebody that has some EA/UO influence is sure to be reading it now. MrTact is just one of the few allowed to or willing to talk to us here.
     
  5. Uriah Heep

    Uriah Heep Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran Alumni

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    OMG more math :p

    Fix it by using the past...
    The higher your magic resist, the more you resist magic (what a concept!!)
    Bring back AR, the higher the number the more you're protected...Plate gives ya best AR,. but has a dex penalty, etc etc...Make taht 150 dex work for ya ;)

    the only math we need, under that system, would be to keep the durability (200/200)

    simple, tried and true, and it worked for so damned long just fine!
     
  6. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    528
    ...

    DR WAS a good idea, the problem was that AT THE TIME, we didn't have the easy way of seeing what our current value of a certain mod in total was (other than resists and Luck). KR gives us that information and could have been made to show "real" and "modified" values as well. That was the first and biggest problem.

    Also, DR was a MUCH more forward looking system. It would have self-tweaked higher end items released each expansion (which Mr Tact at first understood that if you already have a given item at a certain power level, noone is going to go for a new item WITHOUT that item being more powerful than the old one, and the desire for new stuff is one of the biggest selling points of an expansion regardless of the game) and not allowed them to be outright broken at release.

    The problem with the current system, the "secondary proposal" of "Proficiencies" is that Caps tend to lead to the presence of "dead mods", mods on an item that do nothing because you are already over the cap. In many ways, this is unavoidable, but it should ALWAYS be limited as much as possible. It should NOT be possible to max out a mod with less than 50% of the possible items a mod appears and it should require closer to 80% (4 out of 5, 5 out of 6, 6 out of 8 items, etc) to even reach the max possible.

    By the same token, any mod that IS That far broken so that the cap is so easily and quickly reached needs to be nerfed downwards IMO. Under the pre-AOS system this was easy because the numbers were hidden. A Vanq weapon originally did +25 damage, then it was dropped to 5 and later bumped to 9, but it still remained a Vanq. However you can't do the same thing with the current system because the numbers are bare, you have to show what's been nerfed where and by how much.

    DR would have been a good compromise in this (aside from the first problem at top) and KR could have helped the system shine.

    I actually tested out DR when it was released on TC and found it to be enjoyable for PvM, the fights were better paced (no more insta-killing or two hitting daemons, there was an actual fight there even artied out, but not so much that you didn't have a chance), and bandages worked quite a bit different (they cranked HP regen WAY UP when they were active instead of being a Healing potion with a 6 - 10 second lag time before kicking in). It was interesting to play with.

    The biggest thing I think that killed it was that the lack of seeing the totals confused people which in turn hurt the proposal and led to it being replaced with another one that was COMPLETE garbage which was later ditched (thankfully).
     
  7. AesSedai

    AesSedai Guest

    :)
    Actually, less math as well as increased simplification & understanding for all (as well as ease of manipulation for Devs.), was a big part of my proposal...

    Rather than having so many different skill/item property/stat values, my suggestion was to make everything 'cap out' at 1000.

    This way we wouldn't have to remember so many different numbers, as we would all know that 1000 was the best you could have (no matter whether a powerscroll has been used, or if that item property or battle modifier worked on a logarithmic/sliding/diminishing returns -type of scale... 1000 = best possible).


    Please note that this was when MrTact was suggesting a significant change in the way things worked, in an attempt to try to improve the game's balance and clean things up a bit.
     
  8. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    528
    ...

    Personally I think we need to keep the mods we have but return to the 5 Tier system UO used to use.

    Then adjust the AMOUNT Of item drops accordingly so the market doesn't flood. The problem with item drops right now is that there are too many items dropping with too wide of a range of possible mods... you end up with so much junk you're never sure what's worth the effort (although the color mod we have in KR helps a LOT ;) )
     
  9. AesSedai

    AesSedai Guest

    - I totally hear ya' there, Dermott.

    Anything that makes it easier for the end user (and even the Devs.) to comprehend something's worth &/or particular personal value, for whatever we are seeking to achieve, would be a solid bonus for UO's well-being, imho.
     
  10. Maplestone

    Maplestone Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    9
    Aside from complexity, the main problem with diminishing returns is that it doesn't get past the desire to have new future items be desirable. Diminishing returns attempts to mute the effect of high numbers. New items will attempt to use whatever numbers needed to make the bonus noticeable ... so there's a temptation to use ever-more-extreme bonuses to overwhelm diminishing returns.

    The main problem that both caps and diminishing returns fails to solve is the number of different properties it's possible to max out keeps climbing. All-70s (or better) suits are now the norm rather than the exception for many players. The tradeoffs that multiple damage types was intended to force have been replaced with complexity of designing the suit and assembling the pieces rather than forcing real tradeoffs.
     
  11. Harlequin

    Harlequin Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    32
    I agree that this would eliminate issues where stacking up a certain property breaks the game - eg godmode with 100% DCI, or 100% Reflect etc. No more worries about releasing powerful new arties and have it break the game.

    If devs do not need to go through all the exisiting items to ensure new items don't cause balance issues, they can more efficiently use their time for fixes/new content.

    I also agree that the desire for new items is one of the biggest selling points of any expansion.

    So doing the same on the enhance potion property is fine. Doing the same to healing potions is not. If DR will be applied to everything without consideration, I am totally against it.

    I see something taken away, but not giving me anything in return.

    Yes, the proficiency idea probably killed the whole thing. I do not want anything limiting my characters' potential. If it was like a proficiency in armor will allow me to increase my resist caps from 70 to 80, then it might have gone down a bit better.

    It's again taking something away without giving anything back.
     
  12. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Diminishing Returns was ahead of its time.

    Its biggest problem, in retrospect, was the prospect of more math. That was certainly the problem I had with it.

    And there's a simple solution to that, which I, for one, didn't even think of at the time....Don't tell us the math. Just tell us the concept, implement it, test it, let us mess around on TC with it. Don't tell us the math. Saying "diminishing returns" should be enough.

    It, in other words, was a problem with packaging that I, at least, mistook for a problem in substance...Mr. Tract, if you're reading, I apologize.

    -Galen's player
     
  13. nateee

    nateee Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    seems that DR is being met with a little less hostility and more open mindedness. It is a very good idea for game balancing aspects. You would still have your balanced characters where you can do about everything pretty well in regards to offence and defence. Or, you chould choose to balance your character more one way or the other. It's not overly difficult now to have very high numbers in all the important slots. Many peeps run around with full 70's, 45DCI, 45HCI, 40LMC, ect... It just seems like it would be nice if you could still have all your mods but if you wanted to have mex HCI you would really have to pile it on you suit which would force you to make some compromises in another mod.

    With DR it would probably be fairly easy to get all your resists to 50 and have decent mods but if you wanted 70 fire resist on your suit you could still reach that without too much trouble but you would have to sacrafice other resists or mods. I think this would bring another element to the game that would breath some new life into it.
     
  14. Dirty Mindz

    Dirty Mindz Guest

    and still the veterans of the game would be better off, the people with more money... i think the system is just fine how it is. make some changes with the tamers and there greater dragons and dread night mares, fix a few other small problems. but really DM is such a stupid idea.

    DM will make the game harder to understand
    Also make it more WoW based...
    And new players will have such a hard time learning
    Not so many new people want to play this game as the 3d side sucks, and not many people want to play 2d games...

    so lets do something about getting new players.
     
  15. nateee

    nateee Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not really sure how vets would be better off. With DR instead of having almost every good mod at max people would have to make some choices because it would be imposible to max everything out. This would make people with less uber suits more competitive. All DR does is close the gap. My really nice gear would still be really nice, just not insurmountable to someone with jsut pretty good gear.

    To address your other points. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about, the more you stack after a point the less you gain. I'm also not sure how this would make it more WoW based? Does WoW have DR? I don't think new players will have a hard time grasping DR. But, I do agree we should do something about getting new players. I think DR would go a long way in making it less overwhelming to overcome my 11 years of acualated wealth and compete. Sorry for all the misspelled words.
     
  16. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    So far, I haven't seen a good argument against DR.

    They probably exist.
    But so far all I've seen are either:
    1.) Rage
    2.) Fallacious

    Give me something to think about >.<
     
  17. nateee

    nateee Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kim,

    I agree. I ment to say something to that effect in my last post.
     
  18. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    The way it was initially presented, it was a series of fairly complex math equations, and none of us wanted more math than we already had. Well, few of us did. I think most supporters of it actually looked beyond the math to the core of the proposal. Which is what I wish I'd done. Granted, it's really their fault (presenting things in a palatable way is part of the job), but still....It's just weird looking back and seeing how wrong I was, how wrong many of us were...

    -Galen's player
     
  19. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    528
    ...

    I think most supporters of it actually looked beyond the math to the core of the proposal.

    Thinking about it, I think there is truth in that statement. Personally, I didn't worry about the hard numbers, what started Diminishing where and at what rate, I just accepted that after a certain point, the effects diminished until you had 100% (or artifact level) intensity on all possible items that hold a given mod to reach the absolute maximum.

    Then when it went on Test Center, I logged in, set skills that I used to max, artied out and hit Ilshenar to try out how it worked. To me the combat was MUCH better than what we've been dealing with as you didn't HAVE to have all 70's resists (they were possible, but not an outright necessity or beginning point), With Magic Resist and a decent suit you could be set up nicely. Combat flowed differently, a little slower, but had removed the insta-kill aspect that we've had for a LONG time for formerly powerful creatures.

    As stated in my first post, the biggest problem was that there wasn't a fully fleshed out mod display (like there is now in KR) and that's where a lot of the "I don't want math" people revolted.

    So yeah, I gotta agree, it was a difference in perception of the proposal that ended up killing it. Thankfully, we did NOT get the alternative one.
     
  20. nateee

    nateee Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    with any luck the devs will revisit the idea.
     
  21. WarUltima

    WarUltima Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    WoW does but not as much as the super uber suit players want to make it out to be.
    WoW has no diminishing return on gear mods other than AR(armor value) which only affects physical attacks. For example at 1000AR you will mitigate 32% of damage at 3000 you will mitigate 42% and at 6000 you mitigate 50% and 9000 58% ect.

    WoW do have DR on spells and moves with special ability. And they break them into different groups. For example: Stun, Incapitate, Fear, Horror, Sleep, Slow, Frozen and so on.
    Say first stun from cheap shot will last for 4 seconds and within a set timeframe if you hit the opponent with another cheap shot then the 2nd cheap shot will last only 2 second then 1 then immune. All other effect groups works in the same fashion.

    If anything the DR effect in WoW is much severe than the current TC changes however the DR decay time comes much sooner. Also in WoW all pots has a 60 second cooldown. You have to pick the right time to use a potion otherwise you are screwed for the next minute if you really need that heal. UO is almost like instant(or scripted) chain chugging since the cooldown on GH is only 10 second and with EP it heals over 30% of players total HP where WoW pots generally heals 10 to 20% range depending on class.

    You really cant compare UO to WoW and imo UO has much better PvP. Where WoW is based on A counters B counters C counters D counters A. And the tamer class in WoW (Hunter) dont have a pet thats capable of killing someone full HP in 2 to 3 seconds with nearly unlimited range.

    I am a 9 yr vet(almost 10) and many people like me have been thru a lot. I dont care about DR or not buff or nerf. If DEV see something needed to balance the game better and I will adapt and that's all there is. I want to see some PvP overhauls, revive worthless special moves, DR on certain moves like bleed and disarm, DR on pots is great too (well I see it as a way of item balance). The power of potions differs WAYY too much when used by someone with no EP and someone with 50. With just one item mod you get pots thats more powerful AND last much longer. But that's just my .2cents.