-
Images
Kafuuka
-
Posts
499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by Kafuuka
-
-
[quote name='Vicarious' timestamp='1290181726' post='72575']
I would like to see some real proof <...>
[/quote]
Quoted for irony. -
I don't get it. Best rookie is <100 AD. Fossil is ~ > 700 AD.
=> The intermediate award either should be [100 AD; 700 AD]; OR [100AD; 365AD]; OR ( >=100 AD and registered after 1 november 2009 ) . Either everybody of any age is eligible for one of the age related rewards or everybody is eligible for a rookie award (at least) once. The purpose of [200AD; 400AD] is beyond me.
I personally favor [100AD; infinity[ and registered after november 2009. Might be annoying to verify though.
eg. I'd like to be able to nominate Curiose as a good newcomer. I'm almost certain she is above 100AD by now and registered after november 2009. I'm also positive I thought she was a good newcomer by the time she was, say, 50 AD. Why should I be forced to choose (or blanco) best rookie between people I probably never heard about, and not be able to vote for someone I think merits such a title? -
In the same spirit, here is Kyphis implicitly claiming to be mur
[quote name='Kyphis the Bard' timestamp='1290113850' post='72492']
Firstly: If he is one of Fenrirs alts, Mur is the only one who can say. Useing his alt checker.
Secondly: I am personally certain that this is an alt of Fenrir, since on the first time interacting with Seighart he IMMEDIATELY struck me as Fenrir, and I didn't know about any of the other pieces of evidence. It was just extremely obvious. I then wrote it on his PL, to which I got a PM CONFIRMING he was Fenrir, but that he didn't want people to know, so I politely removed it.
[/quote]
in other words:
only mur knows
kyphis knows
=> kyphis is mur!
I believe this is the first piece of evidence for the 'everybody is mur's alt' conspiracy. Shocking! -
-
[quote name='Vicarious' timestamp='1290035550' post='72358']
Therefore, I would like to charge dst with these accusations, I will submit my proof, and witnesses to the proper authority when asked to. I would also like to request that the Judge to be a Neutral party.
[/quote]
Don't ever write something like that. I have no idea why people don't feel like publishing proof when making accusations publicly, but even if there is a valid reason for it, know that nobody will ever believe you have proof when you are this unwilling to post it. A near-acceptable statement would have been 'I have sent my proof to Mur/Chewett.' - I'm including Chewy here because I guess he's more likely to respond soon and he is already responsible for the forum. If he's not able to deal with judging sensitive evidence, he wouldn't be able to run a forum either. - I'm not saying Mur or Chewett is going to like having to deal with it, but if you lied about having proof, we'll have a verdict on that before the topic is two pages long. Which is a ridiculous length for a topic without proof.- Kyphis the Bard and Watcher
-
1
-
1
-
[quote name='Grido' timestamp='1289955054' post='72279']
Rookie could get extended to <365 (I think someone else commented this), you do ofc then have the issue of are they still rookies?
If you want one for some intermediary period, then suggest a name for it? I believe it's like this way currently because rookies get rewarded for progressing well at a young age, and veterans for sticking around and still playing for so long, the middle don't come under either of those too...fittingly (imo), so some other..err...description or such would have to be thought
[/quote]
Annoyingly enough the only name I could think of was 'best middle aged person' which is not a good name, albeit moderately funny. I think the rookie issue was raised last year, at least it sounds like something I mentioned before and the argument that 365 makes them no longer rookies seems familiar too... even though they were rookies at some point during the time. "Brightest noon"? Considering rookies are rising and veterans are setting... seems a bit forced though.
[quote]
On suggestions to remove;
Least Convincing Alts
Most Annoying
--both were removed last year btw, but were in first year
[/quote]
I pleaded towards a removal last year because there wouldn't be enough new candidates. I know someone new I'd nominate for least convincing alt and I suppose I know someone who will get their first nomination for most annoying this year, albeit not from me. -
[quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1289877536' post='72227']
Puzzle Quest, Group Adventure Quest (split this category)
Event Organizer
[/quote]
As much as I'd like to have more chances at winning, I have to ask not to split categories too much until there is only one candidate left. You can categorize by difficulty (from insane to so easy it only took one minute for someone to win), by enjoyability, by amount of people participating, by integration into MD...
On the other hand, a lot of people would not think about events when asked about quests, so having a best event might be nice.
[quote]
Obnoxious Win Poacher, Biggest Mouth, Silliest Role Play, Biggest screw-up, Biggest Combat loss, Most jail time, Funniest
[/quote]
I think it's tricky to have and funniest and best PL and silliest RP. Seems to be highly related. You say it's a booby prize, so I guess it's supposed to be the silliest RP that was not meant to be silly? That would be difficult to judge, whereas most funny (intentional) is a lot easier.
If we have both best <100AD and best >whatever AD it takes to get on the vet list, shouldn't there be something for those in between? It seems to me that whenever there's a rookie I like, they get to be 101 AD by nomination time. -
[quote name='Darigan' timestamp='1289330757' post='71762']
Either way whats done is done. Pample, Keith, Rask and Aysun have been excommunicated from Necrovion (probably others but thats all I'm aware of at the moment) and yet from what I saw yesterday, if there was some sort of plot to overthrow Jester or at least get him out of kingship it worked all of his items save the spectral shard are with Peace, which I can only mean that he's more then likely stepping down unless once more I'm missing something here.
[/quote]
I think it failed, their plot has been discovered and they have been excommunicated. An item does not make a king or queen in real life nor game mechanics anyway. And I don't believe their only goal was to make Jester step down. It is inconsistent with the 'pample is her own master' thing, for her to be working for someone else. -
[quote name='Mya Celestia' timestamp='1289326742' post='71754']
[font="Palatino Linotype"][color="#8B0000"]The Pamplemousse I know does the manipulating. She isn't manipulated.[/color][/font]
[/quote]
Does it matter? Treason is treason. Not that I know the facts, but that's what she is being accused of. Her motives might make it a more plausible thing, but they are not the primary focus.- Ravenstrider, Mya Celestia, Eon and 1 other
-
2
-
2
-
[quote name='No one' timestamp='1289212327' post='71684']
This is exactly why. Strong creatures will become even stronger.
If you know the stats of all creatures (hint: dracs [winds]) you would not suggest this specific change.
[/quote]
I stated I don't have that data; you're free to pm it to me though. I posted my view on the formula's based on what has been asked for: creatures with strong stats should become stronger. For balance it makes more sense to base it on a new skill, call it 'intelligence' or 'cooperation' or whatever you wish. However that requires both introduction of a new creature-only skill, and while it is possible to use both this skill and eg attack skill at the same time (ie multiply them) to determine the redistribution of PE, I highly doubt people will like that complexity more.
[quote name='No one' timestamp='1289232202' post='71689']
And one more question : when do you apply the "stat balancing" before or after the tokens ?
[/quote]
I think the PE and tokens should be applied separately. That is the most certain way to keep the changes from breaking things.
[quote]
Do consider that the dracs tokened and boosted can be up to ... many many many times more then a single heretic in same ritual and not boosted.
So, unless you want to make the dracs (ok, ok, I know it is a spoiler ) even stronger in same ritual ... then do the changes.
Why don't you do some xls files and add there some formulas and see the impact. If it is promising ... add some comments and share it with us.
[/quote]
I did do calculations and thought the results were interesting. I shared them with you.
But I did them on archers instead of dracs... Of course, basing the redistribution on a new skill instead of innate stats solves all problems. The amount of new variables to be introduced then allows for a near infinite amount of possibilities... Is there a point in trying to capture infinity in a spreadsheet? -
Would you all have preferred if he had stated 'will only sell for the right price' and kept his intent a secret? A lot of trades are conducted in secret and I am certain enough of them are for questionable prices, but if someone is willing to pay a large price, is it not the nature of capitalism to allow the deal? You don't have to like it, you don't have to partake in it..
However, if you're going to actually crusade against high prices, I ask you do it first and foremost against those that are trying to keep their opportunism unknown. I have seen far more shade deals than this and I am not even dissecting the trade logs to look for them. -
[quote name='No one' timestamp='1288880731' post='71434']
As for the rest of ____ proposals you really must be kidding me. A game must be simple to be understood by "new ppl".
[/quote]
I am very serious. I wrote the formula's so people could compare them with Rendril's. What they mean is that Personal Influence (PI) is distributed to the creatures in a ritual according to their base stats. Creatures with a higher attack stat compared to other creatures in the same ritual, will get a larger attack boost from PI.
Examples:
1. two creature ritual, PI = 9000
creature a has 10 attack
creature b has 5 attack
-> creature a receives 10/15 = 2/3 of PI = 6000, creature b receives 1/3 of PI = 3000
2. two creature ritual, PI = 9000
creature a has 10 attack
creature b has 10 attack
-> creature a receives 10/20 = 1/2 of PI = 4500, creature b receives 1/2 of PI = 4500
3. six creature ritual, PI = 9000
creature a has 10 attack
creature b has 5 attack
creature c has 0 attack
creature d has 20 attack
creature e has 20 attack
creature f has 45 attack
-> a gets 900, b gets 450, c gets nothing, d and e both get 1800, f gets 4050
4. a knator and three chaos archers, PI = 9000
The knator gets approximately half of your PI, each of the chaos archers receives approximately 16%.
simplified: Knator 4500 attack, archers 1500 each (vs 2250 each in the old system)
If your opponent is weaker, eg PI = 3000 defense, six creature ritual, the new system results in 20% loss of efficiency for this ritual in round 0
If your opponent is stronger, eg PI = 12000 defense, six creature ritual, the new system results in 50% increase of efficiency in round 0
(this is hugely simplified of course, eg assuming the attacker strikes before protection is cast etc.)
I don't think this is that much more difficult than the battle system already in place. I do admit I used a spreadsheet, but hey, it's Friday evening... I also make no claims whatsoever about this favoring certain creatures, I don't have enough data of all their stats. It does however what's been asked for: conserve PI and keep creature stats important (when using mixed rituals). The only price you pay is a sum of at most six terms and one division... -
I admit I forgot about active days requirements, but I checked your claim on an alt and I saw a notice [i]'This is a list of possible items you could access if you had some wish points. The exact list available for your account will be displayed once you have at least one available wishpoint.'[/i] I also browsed through the announcement log and compared the list showed to what should be available and there is at least one option there which should not be there, nl 'balance profile' at 120 days. Hence there is no reason to assume that options which should be there actually are there either.
After a brief look, I've found only one wish requiring more than 130 days. At that point you'd have two WP plus the one assumed from BPG = 3. Silvertongue, which should be available by the current requirement and gift count, has been proposed to have a requirement of 8 spent WP... That would also imply you'd have to have 1200 AD and have solved the BPG to be able to get it by means of relatively easy to get WPs.
To me it is clear that we don't want to be overenthusiastic with imposing higher requirements - if at all. - It is far from trivial to both meet your goal of pleasing old and moderately old players and to keep from harming people who got other WPs at whatever age, by doing quests. -
- out of the 11 spells, 3 have been proposed for steeper requirements
- xp resets have been proposed for a push back too
- profile balancing is mostly useful for people in an alliance. It came to be mainly because without it a lot of people are totally gimped. Patches are cool and all but having to spend your free wp on a problem that other people created for you is not really awesome.
- VE might interest some, but VP increase?
- K doc is already down in the shop and proposed for further limitations
Looking deeper into the 8 spells left, there's two utility spells, two spells to help people and four spells for annoying people and/or making them more attackable. And that's only if nobody objects to any of those spells being available at the start.
[quote]
Are these not "cool" enough for new players and veterans alike? Cause if they don't, I don't see any use for them to be in the shop, since it's of no interest to anyone. The WP giving is already rewarding everyone; I'm just not favoring the idea of serving the deeper 'magics' of Magic Duel on a platter. Do that, and the magic is lost.
[/quote]
No, there's only a very limited amount of wishes left, that are really not alike, out of the whole shop. All the other types are considered 'dangerous' (and hence more cool). Currently upon receiving your first WP you have two dozen choices or more. How exactly it is cool for new people who legitimately solve the BP puzzle to be see their options diminished this much is beyond me.
Without changing the spent WP requirements, the WP will be rewarding everyone, albeit not uniformly. If you impose stronger restrictions, you will no longer be rewarding everyone; it will be more like a forced trade. It might be a nice trade for a lot of people but it will be a bad one for some.
Also, is there anyone that can explain to me how you can verify an alt to be an alt if it is behind a proxy? I know good proxies are hard to find, but I have never heard of a foolproof alt check method. Looking at trade logs is a hassle and anyone with enough intellect to go through a proxy will pay a small price to the alt and cover their tracks. There's no official prices for anything anyway. -
I think you should further simplify your formula's.
Define X the amount of stat added to a ritual by the player and A, B, C the innate stats of the creatures, then the easiest way to redistribute X to the creatures is:
A + X * A / (A + B + C) for creature a;
B + X * B / (A + B + C) for creature b;
C + X * C / (A + B + C) for creature c.
sum = A + B + C + X. Thus it adds exactly X all the time.
Alternatively you could invent a new stat for creatures, intelligence. So creature a has innate attack AA and intellect AI, creature b has innate attack BA and intellect BI etc. the new skills become:
AA + X * AI / (AI + BI + CI) for creature a;
BA + X * BI / (AI + BI + CI) for creature b;
CA + X * CI / (AI + BI + CI) for creature c.
sum = AA + BA + CA + X.
The first option is more interesting for efficiently distributing stats. eg a creature with zero power will not receive any additional power skill, while creatures that have a power stat will gain a larger share. Assuming that creatures only have zero for a stat that they can't use, this is nice. However the redistribution cannot be tweaked to favor specific creatures without altering their base stats. The second scheme allows that by including an intelligence or 'capacity to learn' skill or whatever one wants to name it. You could make these skills stat-specific to have the best of both worlds, but I think that would be highly noob unfriendly, while having a single skill is easy to calculate.
Unless I'm thoroughly mistaken, the current mechanic is the second scheme with all learning factors equal to one, so the second scheme is also a more 'natural' extension of the current mechanics.
I'd also propose to add tokens separately from the personal influence bonus.
A downside of both schemes is that using only a single type of creatures in a ritual has no added benefits. Removing this limitation is impossible without constraining on X. The constraint helps fix your scaling problem, although other acceptable solutions certainly exist.
Personally I think intellect skill could be very fun, if combined with new tokens, 'genius' and 'stupid'. Mixing dumb and genius creatures might create stronger rituals, while the randomness of tokens is sure to add agony for everyone. -
[quote name='lightsage' timestamp='1288809981' post='71390']
You wrongly presume that I claim that this is an argument in favour.[/quote]
I never said that, nor is it a hidden part of my argument. My argument is against your argument against pipster. Whether you claim your reply to pipster is in favor of the idea or not does not change the value of my argument as a tool to refute yours.
[quote]The only thing I've said is that 'day of tranquillity' and 'no sanctuary day' would be opposites. I have not claimed that this would mean they balance each other out or that there are no other factors involved concerning ballance.[/quote]
I suppose I should apologize for interpreting your words in the only way that makes sense. Pipster was talking about balance, the entire topic is about game balance, hence it only makes sense for you to be talking about balance too. Furthermore, as far as my command of English goes, talking about 'the opposite' implies the one and only opposite, otherwise you should use opposite without 'the'.
About being rude, I can accept we both are. -
If you push all the 'cool' stuff down the shop, then you are doubly 'punishing' new players and not even fulfilling the purpose of pleasing the old players who have little or no WP. Not that I agree with such a purpose, but apparently that is what this is about.
-
[quote name='lightsage' timestamp='1288779300' post='71372']
Actually, your comparison is flawed. There is already a day that everywhere is a sanctuary which seems to be the opposite to having no sanctuaries at all for a day rather than having older players put weak defences up. (For the record: Most of them already do)
[/quote]
Please read the entire topic, I already refuted your counterargument a mere page ago. For your convenience, here's a copy paste:
"The days of Tranquility are supposed to become tied to the day/night cycle (for lack of better word). [b]Regular days are its counterweight.[/b]"
And the quote from the announcements:
"Later when Night mode will be completed, these tranquillity days will happen always and only during night time."
Even if I can understand why you wish that a 'day of bloodshed' is the balance for a 'day of tranquility', it is not the only possible construct for balance. Personally I don't think days of bloodshed are balanced at all, but lucky for me I can refer to a higher authority, Mur, to prove my logic is better than yours. -
[quote name='Kamisha' timestamp='1288639213' post='71279']
Even if the second on is direct exchange of wish points if you look at the uncommon things you can do section. It states as an exception that if one is benefited then all of them are subject to a ban. Using a wish point from a separate account then sending that morph creature or what ever you have to the other account is benefiting the other one.
[/quote]
Like dst I will not say that the official statement makes sense or that I like it, but I'll refer to the most recent proclamation on this issue, for those that missed it: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/7531-alt-abuse/page__view__findpost__p__64958 -
[quote name='Kamisha' timestamp='1288630298' post='71273']
Well lets think about this. If an alt gets a wishpoint and makes an item then trades it to another alt that falls into alt abuse as a single account is benefited and the other is not.
[/quote]
Except that the official statement is that it is not alt abuse. Counter-intuitive as that may be. -
[quote name='Burns' timestamp='1288557628' post='71225']
Based on the latest announcement, i think that the spent WP requirements should be increased when/if WP for days are actually implemented. I know as well as all of you that it might be ages away, but solutions never come it too early.
[/quote]
As one of the few people who was openly against free wps, I have to be venomous and say it is too late for solutions now. The decision is made and no matter how brilliant your countermeasures, abuse/trouble will ensue.
eg xp reset has no spent point requirement afaik. Either you increase it a lot, or you're basically giving people who like harassing mp3s more tools to do so. -
[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1288380596' post='71155']
Something I noticed - the majority of people that have posted are intuitive and feeling. Anybody want to analyze why?
Awi
[/quote]
1. Not all types are as likely to occur eg the 'rationals' (NT) are 'very scarce, comprising as little as 5 to 10 percent of the population.' Opposed to 25% if the distribution were uniform.
2. Some types are more likely to take the test and to report their result; if memory serves right, INFP are very prone to take these tests.
3. The majority of a small group does not necessarily imply statistically significant effect. There's no measure of spread i know of for the global population and as such it's impossible to tell anything actually. -
My original post was based on two thoughts:
1. I seriously doubt that this method will increase revenue. I don't have any qualifications in economy, but the fact that my paypal revenue objection is not ridiculous doesn't help to make me believe it is going to help much.
2. WP value has, in my opinion, been under attack lately. There are not that many rare, merit based, things in MD that I am aware of and any 'threat' to one of them will be met with criticism from me. Afaik darks are very very rare. New creatures or features on the other hand I encourage on them being developed and distributed in whatever quantity is deemed fit.
n° 2 is no longer an issue, so I currently have no objections. (It's very unlikely to change my perception of n° 1, but not necessary anyway.)
I did NOT try to say Mur is greedy. n° 1 Above should be enough proof of why such an implication is ridiculous. Neither did I try to keep the value of my own dark, since I have none. -
Assuming we're allowed to discuss the tombola feature here as well:
"The prizes will include Morphs, Darks, special features, rare benefits and such, so that regardless of how rich your inventory is you will appreciate the prize greatly."
Why not include WPs too /sarcasm? Seriously, these creatures and benefits were special things given as rewards on rare occasions. What is the point of randomly giving them away, with larger chance for people who buy credits more often and probably in smaller amounts at a time. I'm not bothering to read paypall policy, but isn't this shooting yourself in the foot by means of more money going to paypal? I guess they charge a little amount per transaction; they're not a non profit organization after all. Is all of this balanced by the bonus for large purchases?
) even stronger in same ritual ... then do the changes.
The Free Knowledge Movement
in General Forum
Posted
There's the archives, the MD university, the MD newspaper... everything that was discussed there is freely available and thus sets a precedent for spoilers and research. They're also inactive long enough to declare them legally dead by now, which shows how difficult it is to maintain this kind of projects. I'd like it if someone revived one or made a new one either way, but I do think the past is a stern warning concerning feasability.
I also personally highly doubt it is possible to spoil everything there is in MD or that spoilers about the inner workings about principles are even going to be understood by people to lazy to research them themselves. I don't believe you can explain advanced things without your pupil first understanding the absolute basics. This is pure conjecture on my part, but seems plausible to me.