Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2968
Rank Level Requisites to Follow a Master

View Poll Results: What is your choice for the requirement of strict higher rank to follow a player?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • No changes on the following requirements.

    12 92.31%
  • Allow to follow a player with the same rank level.

    1 7.69%
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Rank Level Requisites to Follow a Master

  1. #1
    Otherwind's Official Spokesman Guild Masters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    195

    Question Rank Level Requisites to Follow a Master

    As you know, you may only follow players with a rank level strictly higher than yours. This matter has been appearing recursively in every discussion, and we want to settle he issue at once, so we can go on building the game without coming back again to the basis. Changing this base rule, would lead to a deep change in the game, so we want to ask the community about this matter.

    We have also heard some quite interesting suggestions about power and ranks, but we cannot and we won't make changes on the concept of the power. It will be always be a social concept, the key for the game.

    Said that, we have two options to vote, and we may not vote of a mix or any intermediate situation. If we vote for a change, we must vote for the whole pack:

    A- No changes on the following requirements.

    B- Allow to follow a player with the same rank level.

    This last option B will have associate these consequences:

    - There would be a degrade on the performance. The chain master-follower would have an undetermined length. The recursive update on the master's power (and master's master's power and so on), which is some of the bigger load of work for the servers would be increased. Furthermore the system would have to check and avoid loops on the chains master-follower with unknown length, and we would have to add lots of resources to avoid overflows, which we would never had the certainty to avoid.

    - This theoretically endlessness chain could take power scores out of control. To avoid this, the power score added to the master's score would not be straight anymore. Masters would obtain just one tenth (1/10) from the followers' power, so the power would not be added to the whole chain and it will be faded along the chain in few links.

    - As followers in the second level under you would give you 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100 of their power, we guess that, generally, masters would not be so likely to send their lower followers to the higher followers, so the guild structure would be much less ordered and players would tend to accumulate inactive followers more than help active followers. This would make even more difficult to some players to get followers.

    - This is a deep change on the ranks design, and they will have to be totally re-designed. Skill costs would also have to be reviewed.

    - Players would not obtain XP from other players with the same rank level.

    This is a deep chance for the game, so think carefully your choice. As always, voting will be anonymous, and the poll is not determinant for our final decision, though we will have it in mind seriously. Also, the higher be the participation, the most relevant will be the poll, so think carefully but finally, take your choice and vote.

    Thank you very much to participate in the game building and we hope you enjoy taking part on it.

  2. #2
    There are quite a few of us here who have already played with option B (in Knighthood). Zab. Flame. Guild Master. Princess Chiara. Braden. And more. It's doable but I believe with the consequences it would be disastrous. When you really think about it, it was probably THIS that killed the game. I have to say, not being able to follow equals is a letdown. I've been holding up my most active followers and finally had to let them go so they could promote and play a more interesting game. Now, I am slowed down. Doing the same quests over and over and over with xp degrading. If I have to choose between the two evils then I think I'll vote no change at all. However, before doing so, I'd like to hear some opinions from others who played KH.

    In response to your consequences:

    *We did have to battle lag in KH probably because of the complicated chains. It was not fun.

    *I don't mind having lesser power as we'd all be on the same playing field but I think people would be less likely to help lower players as they'll lose power. Been there, done that. The top will ignore the bottom. But at the same time, the top of the pyramid HERE will stagnate without equals following each other. People must hold back from being the best they can be. You level up faster when you're lower . . . so it's easier to catch your Master (especially when they have to do the same quests that degrade).

    *I don't really care about getting or losing xp from my Master. 300 points is nothing when you have to have 250,000 for a rank up.

    So, in sum, my concern is for player interaction at all levels. I'm thinking the power structure as it is now, is in the best interest for the little guys which I will be the key to the survival of your game.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Madrid
    Posts
    18
    Character
    Alfgut
    I think that Camille was very right in her views here. I also played the game she mentioned.I think that the thing which killed that game was just that the devs gave up the game to face new projects, but I agree everything else.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Character
    Zab
    I certainly do not want lag like the Knighthood game. Even here, the browser spinning at times is annoying. So if the outcome is lag, then I concede and do not want those of the same rank following me

    However, I still think the Guild Master should always be one rank above his followers. You mentioned more life-like take overs in your other poll, but also more real-to-life is the fact that the teacher is always one step above the students.

    While you do not want to change your ideas on power, I think it would be beneficial. You have complained that there is not enough change over and competition for the Guild Master position and it is because of how the power is made. Using my guild titles as an example: A level 60 rouge is likely never to achieve the title under the current set up of the game. But if he was allowed to promote to thief at level 10, hunter at level 17, then he has the ability to GAIN followers that may eventually lead him to that top position. Even if you do not want to give him the base power points until he fulfills the power requirement, it will become EASIER for him to at least find followers ranked below him. You stagnate his game by not at the very least allowing him to hold a new title. A rouge can only hold pick-pockets. You can make rouge in a few hours of play. How many people are going to willing stay at power 1 (besides a clone) for the length of a game?

    Also, I find it strange that you want to change rules because there is so little change-over at the top, but your achievements make it seem like someone SHOULD be at the top for a long time... my next award would be 180 days as Guild Master... it just seems strange to have it at such a high number of days, if you did not want people to hold the title for a long time...

    Also, maybe you should think of a sliding scale for the cost of skill points because even though I have to work my butt off to keep my generation at a decent rate, I can often update skills a few times a day. It's kind of out of control how high (I think) some of my skills are already. I think it should cost more, with the more power you achieve.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Madrid
    Posts
    18
    Character
    Alfgut
    Quote Originally Posted by Zab View Post
    You have complained that there is not enough change over and competition for the Guild Master position and it is because of how the power is made. Using my guild titles as an example: A level 60 rouge is likely never to achieve the title under the current set up of the game. But if he was allowed to promote to thief at level 10, hunter at level 17, then he has the ability to GAIN followers that may eventually lead him to that top position. Even if you do not want to give him the base power points until he fulfills the power requirement, it will become EASIER for him to at least find followers ranked below him. You stagnate his game by not at the very least allowing him to hold a new title. A rouge can only hold pick-pockets. You can make rouge in a few hours of play. How many people are going to willing stay at power 1 (besides a clone) for the length of a game?
    I think it's just the opposite. A level 60 rogue can gain followers much easier than a level 17 hunter. A level 60 gain much more XP, and he will be in the top of the masters ranking. In addition, the % if XP is higher as he has a lower rank, so he is even more on the top of the ranking for the pickpockets. I think that the devs are very right in their willing the more you play and level up, the more XP you get, the more you go up in the followers ranking over less active players, the more chances to be chosen as a master. When you get enough followers to promote, you let other players to go up in the masters ranking for pickpockets as your % is lower for them, and you now compete at the masters ranking for rogues. I think it is a really smart design and if it is not working at all just now is because there is no a coming of new players. We shall wait to the game launch to see, I think.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zab View Post
    Also, I find it strange that you want to change rules because there is so little change-over at the top, but your achievements make it seem like someone SHOULD be at the top for a long time... my next award would be 180 days as Guild Master... it just seems strange to have it at such a high number of days, if you did not want people to hold the title for a long time...
    This is a weird reasoning. The existence of an achievement doesn't mean that you SHOULD get it. Making something more challenging makes an achievement for it more praiseworthy in my opinion. I also think that they should tune their achievements goals after they finish their development of rules, not make their development and rules attending to the current achievement goals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zab View Post
    Also, maybe you should think of a sliding scale for the cost of skill points because even though I have to work my butt off to keep my generation at a decent rate, I can often update skills a few times a day. It's kind of out of control how high (I think) some of my skills are already. I think it should cost more, with the more power you achieve.
    I guess that if the guild masters are always in the top of the whole guild, their power will be always out of control, think after the game launch, if it would be 30-40 top players with the top rank, all them only may follow the guild master. The power of the guild master would be really boosted and it's the real root of the rats, eh... I mean, the problem. The skills points cost is already sliding and the cost is increased very much every level, I have already serious difficulties to upgrade them.

  6. #6
    Otherwind's Official Spokesman Guild Masters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    195
    Thank you for your comments, they are quite interesting, but we are going a bit off topic. We had a full week to discuss about the GM and the poll was closed. Now are discussing a different issue. We must go on!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •