Kyphis the Bard

Its worth pointing out that this is not possible for all lands. The four main lands allow it, I believe no other land does (not certain though)

Check the one he is refering to though, Rophs ;) That said, I agree with everyone else here (bar OP). No reason to remove it - indeed plenty of reason not to.

Username: Kyphis AD: 1646 Volition: 1.42 Grinding: Yes. *cough*

Hmm? I don't understand where that conclusion is coming from. AP is still AP. If a scene requires more than one AP to travel into, then it takes more than one AP to travel into. So no. 1: A "foreign" location would be the full cost (that is, the static entrance fee in AP, and the variable entrance fee for Ex[ploration] P[oints]) 2: A land with high loyalty is an interesting scenario. I had not considered this aspect prior to your question (so thankyou). I would expect the best solution would be firstly to reduce the ExP cost in the same way AP cost is currently reduced, with any excess reduction from loyalty applying to the AP cost. Although that's messy. This sort of thing is why AP cost for certain locations would need to be re-reviewed. It may also be suitable to instead apply a reduction to both ExP and AP costs for high loyalty regions, but reduce the rate at which loyalty reduces travel costs (ie, 1/2 what it does now applied to AP, 1/2 applied to ExP). This ones an interesting one, and will need more thought. 3: Gates are the sort of location that would need their AP costs reviewed. Some gates, like Marind Bell, need to be highly accessible. Other gates, like Necrovion, need to be almost completely inaccessible. This discussion would tie in to how land loyalty works; so something like the second suggestion (splitting the reduction of travel cost between both for high loyalty) coupled with a re-evaluated travel cost would likely be needed. To take a stab at three in a little more depth: Take the Marind Bell Gate. It is supposed to be highly accessible. As such, an AP cost of 20 allows all players through. MB citizens get a bonus to travel, so say they have massive loyalty they would find the travel cost to be 1 AP and 0 ExP, no matter the viscocity. The Golemus Golemicarum Gate is supposed to be semi accessible, while still off limits to the youngest players. The land is also supposed to be accessible through the front gate even if you are not a citizen at current. As such, setting the AP cost to 100 does not really fulfill the initial goal of keeping the land off limits to younger players, while setting it above 100 does not allow for the second case (that is, non-citizens entering via the front gate). That said, GG is actually accessible via the Labyrinth as well, and we have Land Pass Papers that bypass gates. With these two factors, it is possible to set the AP cost to something only a GG citizen could pass, while still leaving this gate open to non-citizens (not quite exactly as it was prior to the introduction of viscocity - GG would still be more accessible than it was back then, however only to people with GG land loyalty). The Necrovion Gate is supposed to keep pretty much everyone out. As such, setting the AP cost to something incredibly high is not a problem. With Land Pass Papers in existence, this still lets non-citizens enter. In essence, because GG is an in between state (keep young players out, let old in), it is the most interesting one of the situations (so kudos for getting me to look at it). In the format where loyalty reduces both AP and Viscocity costs ("travel costs"), this would reduce its current accessibility, while still leaving it more accessible than it was prior to the introduction of viscocity. I think ultimately one thing that could change to make this possible and accommodate all situations (Sages Keep, for example) would be to give some locations a default ExP cost, which is comparable to the current above starting limit AP costs. This would allow it to be set so that Loyalty has no effect on AP cost, and only effects ExP cost. To take GG gate as an example again and assuming ExP was set to start at a maximum of 100 and scale based on age at half the current rate that AP scales, you could set its AP cost to 50 and its ExP cost to 150+/- visc. This would keep new players out of GG for roughly the same period of time. So in this scenario, no matter your loyalty you would pay 50 AP to enter GG, but based on your loyalty you might be able to ignore the ExP cost, or at least mitigate it. (note: there is no reason to assume that ExP would actually be set to a starting maximum of 100 for new players, I only use it in the example as its relatively easy to wrap the concept around. values like that would be something to discuss far down the line if the idea was ever seriously considered, which based on what I have discussed with Mur and what he has said in this topic, does not appear likely in the slightest)

Yes, still valid. You can even post your attempts here if you want (although that gives any competitors an edge) Might as well put a time limit on it, I'll reveal the numbers at the end of the month.

Welp, that's nice. Chewett decided to split the posts and never say anything, hence the nonsense repetition. And Alyon, your numbers are wrong ;)

Thanks for confirming that Active days % rounds up! Now I know that I can get 100% :D Did the math, I'll have 100% on Tuesday the 11th of January, 2056. Gold coin to the first person to PM me the date I joined and exact number of missed days I have ;)

Thanks for confirming that Active days % rounds up! Now I know that I can get 100% :D Did the math, I'll have 100% on Tuesday the 11th of January, 2056. Gold coin to the first person to PM me the date I joined and exact number of missed days I have ;)

That means I will have 100% active days on Tuesday the 11th January, 2056; so long as I don't miss any between now and then :P (Gold Coin to the first person to figure out both the date I joined and the exact number of missed days I currently have ;))

I do actually read all responses I see. Just because you have understood your intent, does not mean it was clear to me. We both have our own way of perceiving and processing information - hence why I stated what was coming through from your posts in my response to them. To the first one, it is simply because it fits better, as well as helping to correct an imbalance. I posted this topic because Mur asked me to when I discussed this idea with him (as a result of the volition skill discussion), so that people could give feedback about any potential problems/advantages they could see. To the second point, not really a question so its hard for me to answer, so I'll try as best I can but I apologize if I can't really get it across. The idea is to separate viscocity from AP, and instead use exploration. Ideally, everything to do with AP would be left as it was prior to the introduction of Viscocity (ie, as if viscocity had never been introduced). Exploration points would then be updated to suit their new role (in essence, an increase to the maximum amount of EXP, as well as the amount generated at each regeneration). To put it another way, the aim is to separate Viscocity from the non-movement related functions of AP, while still leaving it as operating the same way in terms of movement. There are a few advantages to splitting Viscocity from AP, essentially being to reduce the potential imbalance high AP can cause, as well as freeing up AP to be used for other things in the future. A change to the way Exploration points are handled also has potential benefits for the future.

Oh sweet, its actually possible to get it to round up? Excellent :D

There are a lot of things out there for people who want to play Healers to utilize. There are heal spells, resurrection items, even a creature that can heal your enemies instead of yourself ;) You actually came at the right time, the creature that heals your opponents is one of the special Christmas creatures, so you might have a chance to get one. It's normally a creature you need to spend credits to get, but if you do Quests then you might win one as a reward. (there is also a link at the top of the MD page that you can use to get free credits, I highly recommend it. Some of the most powerful fighters in MD have never spent a cent on the game, since you can get roughly 2 credits every 8 days). There might also be a "quest creators" quest running for Christmas, the treasure keepers alliance and Council often run those for major community events (like the birthday party). If you have any good ideas for a quest and can organize to run them, they often handle all the rewarding of them and also give you gifts, if its a good quest (there will be an announcement with details on what you need to do to qualify anytime these run) All but three quests in MD are player run, so there are a lot of really interesting things to uncover ;)

You could probably do this if you made volition gains take into account the highest point viscosity has been at in the last say 10 minutes, and how many times it has been decreased within that time. Although it will probably be buggy trying to retroactively give volition to whoever turned up first from people turning up. Might be possible to avoid by also granting people a small volition increase for people entering the scene for the first 10 minutes they are in the scene. Although then you need to do something about people who have just come out of idle, ie make it so the 10 minutes does not apply if you just exited idle.

No One: Your saying this is a bad idea, but the only argument you seem to provide is "Don't do this, it is so stupid it shouldn't have even been thought of, your wrong, I'm right, and you don't understand!". Unless you can be more constructive in this discussion, please refrain from posting in it, as I don't really want this to turn into a flame war. (get dst to help you, I understand she is good at helping you express yourself in english?).

Your direction of thought intrigues me - Care to expand on that idea?

You might want to double check that. Having a limited amount of EXP would be interesting... it would mean that it might be impossible to visit every location in MD without useing items to expand you pool, and that might end up meaning hitting arbitrary barriers (image entering GG from the front gate, but not going all the way in, and then coming back via the labyrinth, and running out of EXP before the two halves of your exploration meet... no easy exit/have to travers half of MD just to visit another scene in the same land). Its an interesting thought; I had not considered this conceptualization of EXP as I am more familiar with exploration from the english language - which does not require something be new to be explored. If it had been named something like "Discovery Points" then I would have drawn that conclusion, however if it was called that it would not fit so well with what it currently does, haha! Such a conundrum. Oh, and Rophs, that is only a fraction of the things AP lets you do, not to mention side effects of some of the things it lets you do ;) The list is actually really, really long.

*cough* EXP is an abbreviation for exploration points. Thought that was obvious >.> And the ultimate goal of this is actually to make viscocity use EXP instead of AP, without changing much else in the way things work. And to answer all your other questions: Yes, no, no, no, no, yes, yes. Aim of the change is just to use exploration instead of action points, ideally without changing anything else. AP is tied to a lot of different actions, whereas Exploration is largely neglected. The large number of things that relly on AP has resulted in a larger pool of AP being available, which has allowed older players a little bit of an imbalanced advantage in certain areas (usually only a sleight advantage, however in some situations it can be significant). As EXP suits the concept at least equally as well as AP, shifting this aspect onto the largely un-used EXP allows for eliminating those imbalances, without actually changing the way things where intended to function.

Exploration points instead of AP for Viscosity

Mur told me to post this here for you all to discuss, so have fun... Viscosity currently increases or decreases the AP cost for travel. Exploration points (EXP) currently only play a role when entering new locations for the first time. Based on the intended purpose of viscosity - that is, for locations which are not visited often to become "forgotten" - there is more merit to useing EXP to overcome viscosity than AP. However, such a change would impact several areas of gameplay as it currently stands. First of all, some locations (MDA gate, for example) have a higher than necessary AP cost because player action can reduce this cost through preventing viscosity buildup. Many locations have a high AP cost for a reason however, for example Sage's Keep. While these locations benefit from a malleable AP cost through viscosity, it is intended for these locations to be difficult to enter regardless of viscosity. Locations with a high AP cost will need to be assessed to determine if the AP cost is primarily as an incentive to keep viscosity down, or primarily to keep people from entering freely. This may involve a lot of work in the long term, however with organizations like Public Council it should be possible to organize this task. Second, there are many items which exist primarily because of the need for extra action points when traveling in forgotten places (for example, tea). However, even without viscosity increasing AP cost to travel, there is still merit to having AP replenishing items. There are significantly fewer items that increase AP than there are locations in the prior point, however discussion would still be needed to determine what would boost AP, and what would boost EXP. And, potentially, whether anything would boost both. This task may be a simple matter of assessing what impacts the mind and memory, for example tea, and what acts as an energy boost, for example candy and spicy pickles, and dividing them along those lines. Lastly, the current format of EXP would need to be reviewed. Currently, it is normally only possible to gain 30 EXP at most through regeneration. This would likely need to be increased significantly. It also regenerates at a far slower rate than AP, so its replenishment rate would likely need to be adjusted. These are comparatively simple tasks, however suitable values would still need to be settled on. There is also the final consideration, which may not even be necessary to discuss, that without viscosity's usage of AP we likely would not have an AP value that increases with age. This ability to have our AP increase over time has allowed for a lot of locations to receive far higher AP costs than they used to while still remaining accessible, and has even allowed formerly inaccessible locations to be accessed freely once you reach a high enough AP value. Depending on what happens with location access AP costs, it may be best to leave the current AP with age scheme in place, or it may be best to alter it. Because we also have an AP cost reduction based on land loyalty, I would advocate completely removing AP/age, and instead implementing EXP/age, at a value half that of the current AP/age rate. Please discuss this suggestion constructively, and if you have any concerns or ideas about this suggestion I encourage you to voice them here. That is after all the whole point of posting it publicly - you will all likely think of things Mur and I have not ;)

Username: Kyphis ID: 104972 Word: Perceptibility Meaning: adjective capable of being perceived; recognizable; appreciable: a perceptible change in his behavior. Word: Lucidity Meaning: noun 1. the quality of being easily understood, completely intelligible, or comprehensible: She makes her argument with pointed logic and exemplary lucidity. 2. the ability to see things clearly; rationality; sanity: In a rare moment of lucidity, the senator sided with his political enemies for the good of the country.

What browser? Operating System?

I feel like a white Rabbit.... Which is odd, since I just cooked rabbit for the first time, and it was tasty :P Happy Birthday!

In all honesty, nor do I. In fact, we are more inclined to use insane as a compliment. After all, would you feel more insulted if I called you Insane (operating outside the normal expectations of society, pushing the boundaries of what is possible) or Normal (not standing out, not really contributing to progress, just reinforcing the current status of society)? That said, an insult is not truthfully derived from either its wording or its interpretation. An insult is an insult based on intent alone. (I consider unintentional insults to be misunderstandings/miscommunications, rather than insults)

[spoiler] [/spoiler] Sorry No one, my rage compels me to reply to them, so please don't feel to angry at them for replying again if they do (as it will be my fault) [spoiler] [/spoiler] For one who seems to think changing one word changes the whole meaning (which, admittedly, CAN be true), you fail to notice the markers that invalidate your argument. To begin with, lets look at the ENTIRE quote (which is three paragraphs long) [spoiler] [/spoiler] We have an analysis of farming techniques, talking about their pro's and cons. We then have a paragraph, explicitly aimed at No one (stating as such) that presents an analogy saying he is doing exactly everything negative about the presented process. Lets analyze just the last paragraph here. [spoiler] [/spoiler] What we have now is a statement that says "This is what you do". Not "are doing" or "have done", but an absolute "do". By your own argument, this would qualify it as an insult. This paragraph is aimed explicitly at No one. It explicitly calls him a stupid cow (the argument of simile does not hold up here, given the context of having just discussed the impacts a "stupid Cow" can have is allowed to overgraze) and thus associates all the negative consequences they have just outlined with him. It re-inforces this by saying that they have produced nothing of benefit (milk and meat are the primary positive benefits of agricultural farming of cows) and only produced waste. And now, to analyze just the last two words. [spoiler] [/spoiler] Now, It might seem tempting to argue that Dung can be considered a positive product. However, Rumi has stated that it is Infertile dung, not just dung. Fertility usualy refers to an ability to procreate, so it seems oddly out of place here, yes? Incorrect. What he is saying is that the only potential thing that his actions as a "stupid cow" that could mitigate his actions, ie refertilizing the area, is in fact not a benefit but a further pollutant. Manure is used to add nutrients to the soil that plants might grow. However, it is possible (typically through illness) for manure to contain a buildup of toxins instead of nutrients that actually harm the soil and stymie plant growth. What Rumi, who has already expressed a great deal of farming knowledge just in his post, not to mention his role, is saying, is a very educated insult. Every single point of those last three sentences is an insult. While I have inside knowledge on some of the terms he has used having grown up on a farm, even without that it is easy to see the insult intended in those words. There are a hell of a lot more things I could say here, but I doubt anything properly constructive to the argument as my rage has already made it hard to type without just yelling at you, so I will leave it there. EDIT: edited to make less wall of texty. EDIT: edited to remove several insults.

Suggestion: AP cost for picking up items? Perhaps even a persistent AP cost increase for movement while carrying some? Say for Example someone (lets just go ahead and call them Tipu) decided to make a hobbo-box fort, and someone else (lets just call them dst) decided it was ugly and wanted to drag it somewhere they didn't care about.