Brew / Scribe: Labelling

FinneyOwnzU · **Joined:** Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:51 am **Posts:** 1500

Aelandron wrote:

FinneyOwnzU wrote:

This wouldn't add anything exciting to the game, in my opinion. It would just introduce another time sink, which is the last thing that a text-based MUD competing with console games and MMOs needs.

It would especially be a PITA for classes that don't have identify. The drawbacks of this change would exceed any benefits.

Can I ask a question of you? When you PvP how many consumeables do you use on a regular basis? Is it perhaps the reliance on consumeables that have people worried about this?

If so then I would be even more supportive of the change. Again keep in mind that this would only be something that players would control in how it is used, this wouldn't affect shop consumeables.

You are only helping my argument. Consumables are used frequently in both PvE and PK. If this change gets implemented, no veteran play will use consumables without having them identified.

So now you will have a time sink on top of a time sink (cue up Xzibit meme): the time sink of brewing potions and the time sink of identifying potions. This isn't going to create RP. It will simply make players like me go play 3 vs 3 on WoW, Halo or CoD.

In short, good idea in theory. In practice, it would cost SK players.

Dralan · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:55 am

This doesn't even make looting difficult. Looting is easy. Get all, run to the batcave, identify. All this change does is add an extra inconvenience, but it ultimately changes nothing.

As for RP value, what RP value? "Hey guys, look at my vial of (insert ridiculous name that people will use to "distinguish" themselves)". There's literally no SUBSTANTIAL RP value to this. I'd be relatively down with this idea if brewing/scribing didn't already add "Vial of <spell>" but since it's already there, why make it more complicated and ultimately more annoying with little to no reason?

ObjectivistActivist · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:59 am

First, it's Objectivist, or as most people shorten it to OA, not Objective.

Second:

Quote:

[HP:100%] [ME:100%] [PE: 95%]
>
OA is UNAFFECTED by your wall of text!
Overall, OA is in excellent condition.

[HP:100%] [ME:100%] [PE: 95%]
>

You are trying to seperate integral parts of the consideration process for ideas that are not proper to separate.

You are also starting to use all-caps in your rabid defense of an idea that has merit only in the unlikely event that all other possible options for improving/increasing RP in the game have already been implemented, and the well of as-yet-unstated better ideas has run dry. This tells me you're about to go full bushido, and so I am removing myself from this conversation.

Aelandron · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:00 am

FinneyOwnzU wrote:

Aelandron wrote:

FinneyOwnzU wrote:

This wouldn't add anything exciting to the game, in my opinion. It would just introduce another time sink, which is the last thing that a text-based MUD competing with console games and MMOs needs.

It would especially be a PITA for classes that don't have identify. The drawbacks of this change would exceed any benefits.

Can I ask a question of you? When you PvP how many consumeables do you use on a regular basis? Is it perhaps the reliance on consumeables that have people worried about this?

If so then I would be even more supportive of the change. Again keep in mind that this would only be something that players would control in how it is used, this wouldn't affect shop consumeables.

You are only helping my argument. Consumables are used frequently in both PvE and PK. If this change gets implemented, no veteran play will use consumables without having them identified.

So now you will have a time sink on top of a time sink (cue up Xzibit meme): the time sink of brewing potions and the time sink of identifying potions. This isn't going to create RP. It will simply make players like me go play 3 vs 3 on WoW, Halo or CoD.

In short, good idea in theory. In practice, it would cost SK players.

I think you're overestimating the amount of deception that will be used, and the time investment players will care to place in not trusting their source of potions. Only an idiot is going to directly falsify and give consumeables that are false directly to a player.

That will be done through sleight of hand, more than likely. OR brewers / scribers themselves will mislabel their own potiosn in a bid to try to keep people's hands off their goods.

I also think you're using a red herring by quoting other games that will take players away from the game. If they're here they're here and they made that choice for a reason. A text based game is a time sink in and of itself. One or two identifies when looting another player isn't going to make or break that.

What you're not addressing though are the pros to this sytem.

I agree though that it will mean that people who want to be as sure as they can be will need to identify their potions. Will everyone do this? I doubt it.

Aelandron · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:02 am

ObjectivistActivist wrote:

First, it's Objectivist, or as most people shorten it to OA, not Objective.

Second:

Quote:

[HP:100%] [ME:100%] [PE: 95%]
>
OA is UNAFFECTED by your wall of text!
Overall, OA is in excellent condition.

[HP:100%] [ME:100%] [PE: 95%]
>

You are trying to seperate integral parts of the consideration process for ideas that are not proper to separate.

You are also starting to use all-caps in your rabid defense of an idea that has merit only in the unlikely event that all other possible options for improving/increasing RP in the game have already been implemented, and the well of as-yet-unstated better ideas has run dry. This tells me you're about to go full bushido, and so I am removing myself from this conversation.

You are accusing me of writing things I never have, and cannot answer the issues I raise, and are seemingly afraid to repeat in a quote because it shows you are wrong and are stooping to said techniques.

ObjectivistActivist · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:03 am

Aelandron wrote:

ObjectivistActivist wrote:

Aelandron wrote:

Why should looting someone be easy?

Because usually, unless you're talking about people who don't have even a small grasp of mechanics and they aren't going to be carrying a lot of consumables in the first place, killing them is not easy.

I don't see this idea adding anything significant to RP in the game as a whole, either, and given that it would require code support I think there are other RP-oriented ideas that could and should take precendence.

I'm not talking about what priority this would be given in the grand scheme of all the issues that are on the plates of those who consider the game, that's another argument all together. I'm saying it adds to the RP of scrolls / potions. I cannot think of any argument against that fact.

We're also not talking about the ease of killing someone, we're talking about the self-interest of someone who made the item in the first place. OR those who wanted a specifically labelled potion in the first place. I don't see any argument that you've given that indicates to me that someone sorting through another's consumables (keep in mind they have to be ones that were made by another player) should be easy.

I think this would add an exciting element to the game myself, albeit you're right it's not going to be the be all and end all, though on the flip side I don't think the investment to make this a reality would be that difficult (though that's my intuition).

Anyway take for example the Harlequins. I could certainly see them asking for a shipment of false Word of Recall potions which they'd spread through the game. How does that NOT increase RP?

It's also not a bad thing for PvP, as it makes something reliable potentially less so. That's not a bad thing, honestly.

ObjectivistActivist · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:04 am

Aelandron wrote:

ObjectivistActivist wrote:

You are talking about something that requires code to function. Given that there is only one coder for this game, yes, you are talking about the priority this should be given in the grand scheme of things. Given that the time taken to implement this could be far, far, far better used to implement other, more impactful RP-oriented code modules, it's important to make the argument that the actual gain vs cost of this particular idea is an extremely poor ratio vs other options that also fall under the "RP-oriented code" heading. Temote, to provide even a single example. The two conversations are not separated; they are inextricably intertwined.

You specifically asked why looting someone should be easy, and I provided an answer. That answer happens to be directly related to the ease or lack thereof of killing someone. So yes, we are talking about that. Again, the two conversations are intertwined on a fundamental level.

Again, and really what should be the final arbiter on the merit of this idea, the gain vs cost of effort that goes into this idea is not worth it. There are plenty of other things that will increase RP and quality of RP in the game as a whole that have been suggested over a number of threads in the last few months that are much better foci for coding time than this idea.

It's not that it will not generate RP; it's that it will not generate enough quality RP for the time invested. I'm sorry you don't seem to like to hear that, but that's just the way it is.

No, Objective, YOU are talking about priority, I am not. This could be a very good suggestion that the imms like and put on their list and isn't implemented until 4 years from now and the value of the suggestion is still the same.

I do not talk about priority because I do not know all the items on the list the imm team keeps. And so the relative priority is an unknown to me, as I do not know what they're considering in full.

As I've said before it's a suggestion and that's it.

Again looting someone and the ease of killing them although related (because you cannot loot someone until you kill them) are still seperate issues. You could kill a level 1 character that's loaded with potions and you could kill a level 50 character that took you hours to kill that had the same set of potions and you'd still be faced with the same question. The ease of looting someone. Why should it be easy to sort through someone else's belongings? It shouldn't necessarily be easy. You don't know their belongings.

You speak about quality RP, I'm not, and have specifically never talked about the degree of RP this adds. What I did say was that it ADDS RP. Why? Because it adds another element that must be negotiated. It makes something that was certain, not as certain. Therefore decisions must be made. It invests you in the object more, because you must make that decision.

That is adding RP. Again no comment was made on the degree.

Are you asking me if I think that there are other things that should be looked at before this? Sure there are other things that should be looked at before this.

If you're trying to convince me that this has no value as a suggestion, you're failing miserably.

Aelandron · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:04 am

Aelandron wrote:

ObjectivistActivist wrote:

You are talking about something that requires code to function. Given that there is only one coder for this game, yes, you are talking about the priority this should be given in the grand scheme of things. Given that the time taken to implement this could be far, far, far better used to implement other, more impactful RP-oriented code modules, it's important to make the argument that the actual gain vs cost of this particular idea is an extremely poor ratio vs other options that also fall under the "RP-oriented code" heading. Temote, to provide even a single example. The two conversations are not separated; they are inextricably intertwined.

You specifically asked why looting someone should be easy, and I provided an answer. That answer happens to be directly related to the ease or lack thereof of killing someone. So yes, we are talking about that. Again, the two conversations are intertwined on a fundamental level.

Again, and really what should be the final arbiter on the merit of this idea, the gain vs cost of effort that goes into this idea is not worth it. There are plenty of other things that will increase RP and quality of RP in the game as a whole that have been suggested over a number of threads in the last few months that are much better foci for coding time than this idea.

It's not that it will not generate RP; it's that it will not generate enough quality RP for the time invested. I'm sorry you don't seem to like to hear that, but that's just the way it is.

No, Objective, YOU are talking about priority, I am not. This could be a very good suggestion that the imms like and put on their list and isn't implemented until 4 years from now and the value of the suggestion is still the same.

I do not talk about priority because I do not know all the items on the list the imm team keeps. And so the relative priority is an unknown to me, as I do not know what they're considering in full.

As I've said before it's a suggestion and that's it.

Again looting someone and the ease of killing them although related (because you cannot loot someone until you kill them) are still seperate issues. You could kill a level 1 character that's loaded with potions and you could kill a level 50 character that took you hours to kill that had the same set of potions and you'd still be faced with the same question. The ease of looting someone. Why should it be easy to sort through someone else's belongings? It shouldn't necessarily be easy. You don't know their belongings.

You speak about quality RP, I'm not, and have specifically never talked about the degree of RP this adds. What I did say was that it ADDS RP. Why? Because it adds another element that must be negotiated. It makes something that was certain, not as certain. Therefore decisions must be made. It invests you in the object more, because you must make that decision.

That is adding RP. Again no comment was made on the degree.

Are you asking me if I think that there are other things that should be looked at before this? Sure there are other things that should be looked at before this.

If you're trying to convince me that this has no value as a suggestion, you're failing miserably.

Here's another good one. Grow up.

FinneyOwnzU · **Joined:** Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:51 am **Posts:** 1500

Aelandron wrote:

Here's another good one. Grow up.

U mad, bro?

Expect criticism on this forum. Your idea is decent, but it comes at the expense of both time and fun factor.

Not worth it on either count.

Aelandron · **Posted:** Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:19 am

FinneyOwnzU wrote:

Aelandron wrote:

Here's another good one. Grow up.

U mad, bro?

Expect criticism on this forum. Your idea is decent, but it comes at the expense of both time and fun factor.

Not worth it on either count.

Not mad, tired of being told I'm saying things I'm not.

We aren't the arbiters of priority, oh sure we can suggest one, but how can you talk about priority when you don't know all the issues at stake? It's hard. That's why I don't. A suggestion is a suggestion, and should be debated on it's own merits. At least that's how I try to tackle things I bring up or discuss.

Truth be told, I'm actually quite happy right now, excited even.

Shattered Kingdoms

Brew / Scribe: Labelling

Who is online