Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Valefort wrote:Except RP can't be monitored and your perception is partial, consider the bad usages of a suggestion instead of insisting on the postitive sides.

In case of non-profit server, positive usages should be given higher priorities. Meaining make more stuff that will be taken positively by existing well-behaving crowd, instead of trying to shut down every possible loophole that could possibly ever used by a few "bad apples". Bad player can be permabanned upon being discovered, you know.

Concentrating on negatives would simply lead to conclusion that the only reasonable thing is to shut the server down - because this is the only way to ensure that nobody is ever going to abuse any mechanics on it.

Valefort wrote: This reminds me of muling, except instead of items and gold we have experience points. At this point we might as well have a big account wide inventory together with an account wide exp pool that you can move around at your leisure... and I'm sure some people would enjoy it for a time... completely ignoring that it's a character who earned the exp and the loot, and not a player.

Because muling is allowed on bgtscc, yes, this feature would make perfect sense.

For it to stop making sense, you should forbid muling on bgtscc. Frankly, the muling is in place because there's no crafting system and because getting items is rather painful as a result.

How many years has the crafting system been in development, by the way? 8?

But this suggestion isn't universally desired... in addition you're going to extremes which does nothing to further the argument... how do we go from "avoid allowing simple to exploit mechanics" to "shut down the server? " that's beyond silliness.

chad878262 wrote:But this suggestion isn't universally desired...

But nothing is universally desired. So?

chad878262 wrote:how do we go from "avoid allowing simple to exploit mechanics" to "shut down the server? " that's beyond silliness.

it is logical. "all exploits should be prevented". "No game, no exploits". Also google "paperclip maximizer".

You don't have manpower to prevent all the possible exploits. It is also not possible fundamentally. There has been a flurry of features implemented to "combat all possible exploits" (for exampel, "do not equip while casting"). In practice those features tend to make life more interesting for people that hasn't been exploiting in the first place. For example, a false positive on "do not equip while casting" botches up casting sequence, and can actually put character out of action till the rest timer runs out. On level 30 rest timer is... what... 20 minutes?

This is not good.

Basically, you should be worried about people who play well, and do not misbehave. If there's one cretin on the server that is going to exploit the feature, ban them by CD key. Let the rest have fun. That's the way I see it.

By trying to prevent "all possible exploits ever", you'll end up creating more and more bugs that will make life more complicated for people that weren't exploiting to begin with. And thus it'll be pretty much the same as shutting down the server to prevent exploits. Value players more than exploit prevention.

NegInfinity wrote:"No game, no exploits".

reductio ad absurdum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOoXwxqeVzg

Call me crazy, but I really think this thread has gone on about five pages too long.

Dragonslayer wrote:Call me crazy, but I really think this thread has gone on about five pages too long.

Welcome to the forums. Where anything triggers 7-pages long discussion, and as a result of the discussion nothing actually happens.

NegInfinity wrote:it is logical. "all exploits should be prevented". "No game, no exploits". Also google "paperclip maximizer".

Only a computer would take the logic so far. On the contrary I would argue (and I'm speaking only for myself here, but I do think this would be the Admins/Staff position as well) that being incapable of preventing all exploits is no reason to introduce new ones or to avoid fixing those we can. That is why your argument is flawed, you assume that because we can't fix all we should just shut things down, while the reality is we do our best to fix the ones we can, when we can and through the DM Team try our best to find those exploiting the ones we have been unable to fix and address with the players doing the exploiting.

"What are you doing Dave?"

NegInfinity wrote:You don't have manpower to prevent all the possible exploits. It is also not possible fundamentally. There has been a flurry of features implemented to "combat all possible exploits" (for exampel, "do not equip while casting"). In practice those features tend to make life more interesting for people that hasn't been exploiting in the first place. For example, a false positive on "do not equip while casting" botches up casting sequence, and can actually put character out of action till the rest timer runs out. On level 30 rest timer is... what... 20 minutes?

Which is why we continue to tweak these things to disallow exploits while avoiding negatively impacting play.

NegInfinity wrote:Basically, you should be worried about people who play well, and do not misbehave. If there's one cretin on the server that is going to exploit the feature, ban them by CD key. Let the rest have fun. That's the way I see it.

Have to find them first... You said yourself not enough staff, why would we have enough to find them all and ban them. Some exploits can be tracked (and are), but not all of them. Also, I believe it was either AoS or dedude that has said in the past it's far better to prevent the exploits in the first place then to have to punish players for using them.

NegInfinity wrote:By trying to prevent "all possible exploits ever", you'll end up creating more and more bugs that will make life more complicated for people that weren't exploiting to begin with. And thus it'll be pretty much the same as shutting down the server to prevent exploits. Value players more than exploit prevention.

Hmmm...odd theory which to date has been proven false. In 2014 when there were no updates up through March 2016 our server was in fact waning. We had anywhere from less than 10 in game to maybe 50 at most. At similar times today we are at double those numbers with all of the updates, bugs, fixes, etc... So you're argument fails to resonate for me because I have seen what the server looks like when no changes are have/will happen for the foreseeable future and the current atmosphere is far superior.

chad878262 wrote: Which is why we continue to tweak these things to disallow exploits while avoiding negatively impacting play.

The correct idea is to never add thsoe "anti-exploit" systems in the first place until they're absolutely necessary (see YAGNI principle and KISS principles).

Any new feature creates more bugs, and adding new features needlessly will create more bug-fixing workload.

chad878262 wrote:Hmmm...odd theory which to date has been proven false. In 2014 when there were no updates up through March 2016 our server was in fact waning. We had anywhere from less than 10 in game to maybe 50 at most. At similar times today we are at double those numbers with all of the updates, bugs, fixes, etc... So you're argument fails to resonate for me because I have seen what the server looks like when no changes are have/will happen for the foreseeable future and the current atmosphere is far superior.

Updates are good for populace because they add new content, and not because they add new creative false positives on anti-exploit systems.

Also, correlation != casuation.

2014 had all time peak RP at the beginning of the year, past that point there were standard yearly fluctuation in populace. Situatiosn when it wasn't possible to log on due to server being full were also very common. "50 at most" is simply false. There were many occasions with 75 people online, typically at the weekends, because weekend DM events were still a thing.

Also there was a dip in population in past two or three days.

Either way, what does it have to do with the "Periodic 100% RCR" suggestion?

Calodan wrote:If we were to get any RCR at 100% I for sure would prefer we not make us keep the same name of the PC please. Let us the players decided if that PC is going to become Frankenstein's monster.

"Doctor Jekyll! How are you?"

"The name's Hyde. Mister Hyde to you!" <I RCR'd>

I asked this earlier:

I changed the name of my character with the disguise tool bug, I changed the deity in Nexus, I changed the appearance of the character's items, and I came up with entirely new interaction tangent for that character. Is it still the same old character, or is it a new character?

Sun Wukong wrote:I asked this earlier:

I changed the name of my character with the disguise tool bug, I changed the deity in Nexus, I changed the appearance of the character's items, and I came up with entirely new interaction tangent for that character. Is it still the same old character, or is it a new character?

It's the same old character pretending to be different - play your character sheet.

Sun Wukong wrote:I asked this earlier:

I changed the name of my character with the disguise tool bug, I changed the deity in Nexus, I changed the appearance of the character's items, and I came up with entirely new interaction tangent for that character. Is it still the same old character, or is it a new character?

Mind readers are on vacation.

Do you believe it is the same character? If you do, then yes, it is the same.
You beleive this is a new char? Well, then you technically used an exploit in place of 100% RCR mechanic and probably shouldn't have done that.

Thorsson wrote:

Sun Wukong wrote:I asked this earlier:

I changed the name of my character with the disguise tool bug, I changed the deity in Nexus, I changed the appearance of the character's items, and I came up with entirely new interaction tangent for that character. Is it still the same old character, or is it a new character?

It's the same old character pretending to be different - play your character sheet.

He's pointing out technicality - his sheet in this case will not actually display that this character used to be someone else. Now, the name of a BIC file will be unchanged, as far as I know, but, sheet data won't indicate anything.

NegInfinity wrote:He's pointing out technicality - his sheet in this case will not actually display that this character used to be someone else. Now, the name of a BIC file will be unchanged, as far as I know, but, sheet data won't indicate anything.

He is still the same character in disguise. HE knows the difference even if he fools some others.

He also (without RCR) has the same abilities, skills and feats.

Thorsson wrote:

NegInfinity wrote:He's pointing out technicality - his sheet in this case will not actually display that this character used to be someone else. Now, the name of a BIC file will be unchanged, as far as I know, but, sheet data won't indicate anything.

He is still the same character in disguise. HE knows the difference even if he fools some others.

He also (without RCR) has the same abilities, skills and feats.

The disguise exploit causes the name to stick, I believe. Same skills, looks and feats do not mean it is the same person.

Now, if the name doesn't stick, and it is possible to "undisguise" and revert to the old name, then it is the same character.

Calodan wrote:

chambordini wrote:

aaron22 wrote:of all the things i could consider the one that to me stands out as being the worst would be a doppelganger.

the doppelganger is a level 30... everything. whatever is popular right now.

elf mage guild starts up... 30 elf mage
zhents get some cool events centered around them... zhent cleric
UD picks up with regular DM events..... Drow weapon master
elf mage guild gets some attention.... back to elf mage on fridays, but can play the Drow WM
on sundays.
the other days i can play my merchant build and make money on the transactions as well as sell some homemade pots and wands.
on tuesdays i can play a red wizard and get some cool evil diplomacy RP in BG.

We could possibly forbid that sort of RCRing mechanically, like say, enforce the same name, same base class, comparing RCR'ed character with redeemer, but IDK if that would be very appreciated. There's two sorts of RCRs, character rebuilds and character retirements, I don't think either are particularly illegitimate.

I do not know about you but I would rather a PC disappear than have 500 different professions.

I am sure everyone just loved Kory going from regular fighter to wizard to favored soul in his time......

For me Frankenstein builds are far worse than a PC just going away if you as a player were not having fun with it then chances are the PC was not really known well enough for RP to be an issue with them cause you did not play them well enough or even often enough to establish that type of bond IG with other PCs.

If we were to get any RCR at 100% I for sure would prefer we not make us keep the same name of the PC please. Let us the players decided if that PC is going to become Frankenstein's monster.

How about a system of "steps" and cooldowns?

We have a rogue 20/SD10 who wants to become an Arcane Trickskter. They are level 30.

1st step: At December 1, they RCR to Rogue 20/wizard 3/SD 7
2nd step: At December 1 + cooldown (say March 1), they RCR to Rogue 20/Wizard 6/SD 4
3rd step: At March 1 + cooldown (say June 1), they RCR to Rogue 17/Wizard 6/SD 4/Arcane Trickster 3
.....
nth step: They have their ideal build.


In other words, if you are RCRing a character to the same character at 100% XP, the new build MUST be within X steps of the original, and you are locked from RCRing under the same name again for Y months.

This would require DM oversight, however due to the strictly defined sense of steps, favoritism accusations are avoided.

Due to enforced cooldowns with enforced steps, the changes are also not sudden, but provide a progression beyond level 30.