Exploration Point Usage for Viscosity

[Kyphis the Bard]

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 ;)

Edited October 8, 2013 by Kyphis the Bard

[Muratus del Mur]

summary: consume and require exploring points instead of action points for viscosity. probably adapting exploring points amounts and regen rate

[Chewett]

Too many expl allowed = no visc

 

Too little expl allowed = visc as usual after using up expl

 

Whats the aim of the change? Becuase all it looks like it does is reduce the effect of visc by "delaying" its affects a bit.

[No one]

I vote NO for the change.

(or as you might say : I vote 100% positively absolutely against this change)

-----------------------------------------

The fair question for the one that raised this problem would be : Do you know where you use "expl"/exploring points  ?

 

 

 

In the end, leave the viscosity as it is.

It is / was a crappy feature invented to keep ppl together and not to travel too far too fast.

Now, as it is working so damn well, but to keep ppl too far apart, you are not happy with it and you want to allow ppl to walk faster ?

Or worst, because it is not buggy anymore / it is stable you want it replaced.

 

And on top of it you want involve other stats, great.

It is a real joy to see these new features.

 

And almost like a joke:

 - why don't you use the attack stat value when "fighting" to advance ?

 - or why don't you use "energetic immunity"

 

The "energetic immunity" is already used, somehow, on travel to grant/lose heat & ve  .

 

-----------------------------------------

And now on the other tone: I don't understand.

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.

So you want to rename the AP to EXP ?

But ... exp (experience) was renamed to "heat". Are you sure you want it named like that ? Or you want it to be "exploring points" ? And if so, i come to the first question : "Do you know where you use "expl"/exploring points  ?"

 

Forget about tools/items/spells, just explain what do you want this thing to look like / to do.

-----------------------------------------

So far, I vote NO for the change.

[Muratus del Mur]

@no one:

i find your answer arrogant as usual,i should ignore it, but a reply is needed for others that might think in the same displaced way you do.

 

It is / was a crappy feature invented to keep ppl together and not to travel too far too fast.

 

Viscosity is a CONCEPT. I know you don't really understand such things and all you would want is a command mode game "clean" of such flavors. In my view, the fact that it is hard to advance in a scene is a side effect of viscosity not a purpose of viscosity. See it as a memory of the land, a "collaboration" between the setup and the active factors (the players). The realm remains fluid just where it should, while forgotten parts of it become less accessible. If you keep in mind its a concept, you can consider all other things and code future features differently, better integrated, compared to thinking of it just like an other 'feature'

 

The point of changing ap to expl is to better fit the concept..not to change any functionality right now.

 

I can't say i am for or against this change. I am uncertain of it from a concept point of view, and i am a bit against it from a functional point of view, it will cause trouble till such a change would be integrated. I wish to hear peoples opinions however, from all points of view, to convince me of one or the other, pro/contra aspects of such a change.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Muratus del Mur

[Kyphis the Bard]

*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.

 

 

Too many expl allowed = no visc

 

Too little expl allowed = visc as usual after using up expl

 

Whats the aim of the change? Becuase all it looks like it does is reduce the effect of visc by "delaying" its affects a bit.

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.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Kyphis the Bard

[Chewett]

*cough* EXP is an abbreviation for exploration points. Thought that was obvious >.>

 

Dont use exp, use expl like Mur did, it was always used for exploration points because previously heat was called experiance, and denoted by exp.

 

 

 

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.

 

Now, two sentences above you said that the aim was to make visc use expl instead of AP. Now you are saying its replacing it completely?

 

When you say "large number of things that rely on AP" you mean, the massively small list of things that rely on ap? Countable on one hand, that being movement and fighting. Not at all a massive list.

 

Since my question wasnt really answered, Murry what do you say to my points since Kyphis' points seem confused and im not sure he knows whats going on.

[Rophs]

There are many other things that rely on ap chew

• redtext chat commands
• saccing creatures
• posting in the mood panel

Not just movement and fighting, and there's probably a few I also missed. AP is used for lots of different things, and the concept of using expl for clearing positive viscosity seems extremely viable to me. Perhaps viscosity could even "flow" from scene to scene down the heat lines in a river to a central location (possible the GoE?) Actually implementing such a concept in a balanced way that makes the game more fun (or atleast doesn't detract from the current amount of fun) would be extremely difficullt.

[Muratus del Mur]

chew i am not sure what question you are refering at. the purpose of this change woud be to better fit the concept, it is not to change anything about how viscosity affects anything.

however ..i thought of something else that should be cinsidered. lowering viscosity does not mean you discover anything "new" to justify use of expl. xplring points are meant to be used for discovering new things. I think a better change would be to remove xpl points from regenerable and make thwm available in fixed amounts from rewards, items, and such, not regenerable because at some point really early in the game ..you no longer need them that much. having them limited makes more sense, and that won't fit with this ap vs xpl replacement...just a thought

[Kyphis the Bard]

 

Dont use exp, use expl like Mur did, it was always used for exploration points because previously heat was called experiance, and denoted by exp.

You might want to double check that.

 

 

chew i am not sure what question you are refering at. the purpose of this change woud be to better fit the concept, it is not to change anything about how viscosity affects anything.

however ..i thought of something else that should be cinsidered. lowering viscosity does not mean you discover anything "new" to justify use of expl. xplring points are meant to be used for discovering new things. I think a better change would be to remove xpl points from regenerable and make thwm available in fixed amounts from rewards, items, and such, not regenerable because at some point really early in the game ..you no longer need them that much. having them limited makes more sense, and that won't fit with this ap vs xpl replacement...just a thought

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.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Kyphis the Bard

[Ackshan Bemunah]

If it's about discovering new things, then would use of in-game chat (assuming no change to the rules of in-game chat) might make sense as a restorer of expl?

[Kyphis the Bard]

If it's about discovering new things, then would use of in-game chat (assuming no change to the rules of in-game chat) might make sense as a restorer of expl?

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

[Chewett]

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

You move around, you run out of expl, you post 4000 dots in chat, you continue moving

[No one]

Darn, I have to write again in this topic even if I said I wouldn't.

 

... I think a better change would be to remove xpl points from regenerable and make thwm available in fixed amounts from rewards, items, and such, not regenerable because at some point really early in the game ..you no longer need them that much. having them limited makes more sense, ...

I must remember you 2 things :

 - you use expl for acquiring creatures;  removing this limitation ... It would be interesting to see someone (or more) buying and saccing 100 creatures / hour or more

 - really early in game,  (that can take months)  one can visit most of the places available, then some land expansions happen (like labirinth & LotE) (yea, that was a bit of sarcasm here) 

 

Limiting the expl to questing ... would be a HUGE limitation to new players. Also, consider the HC/BHC/TC and all other quests.

Consider that one quest requires you to go deep within Necro (like that is that far) but you don't have expl points. Quest failed. No new expl. points. Feature failed.

 

And coming back to viscosity ... I wonder how many of the new ppl (under 1 year) visited Broken Pattern Gazebo ? And why so many ? (another small amount of sarcasm)

------------------------------------------------------

Just consider leaving the AP & expl points as they are.

There is a lot of space available for new and (possible) exciting features.

Why would you like to get stuck in conceptualize - thinking - rethinking - redesigning - modifying - fixing - fixing - adjusting - fixing -fixing - adjusting - new features - fixing - fixing - adjusting - fixing -fixing - adjusting - new features - fixing .... and so on ?

 

Taking the coding time alone required for "just one small change" in this AP/expl versus the impact / valued added service ... this features should have been rejected in the first part of the "conceptualize" / "rethinking" part.

 

------------------------------------------------------

[spoiler]

@no one:

i find your answer arrogant as usual,i should ignore it, but a reply is needed for others that might think in the same displaced way you do.

 

 

Viscosity is a CONCEPT. I know you don't really understand such things and all you would want is a command mode game "clean" of such flavors. In my view, the fact that it is hard to advance in a scene is a side effect of viscosity not a purpose of viscosity. See it as a memory of the land, a "collaboration" between the setup and the active factors (the players). The realm remains fluid just where it should, while forgotten parts of it become less accessible. If you keep in mind its a concept, you can consider all other things and code future features differently, better integrated, compared to thinking of it just like an other 'feature'

 

The point of changing ap to expl is to better fit the concept..not to change any functionality right now.

 

I can't say i am for or against this change. I am uncertain of it from a concept point of view, and i am a bit against it from a functional point of view, it will cause trouble till such a change would be integrated. I wish to hear peoples opinions however, from all points of view, to convince me of one or the other, pro/contra aspects of such a change.

@ Mur : I am sorry that me being blatant or sticking to the point seems arrogant. I cannot force you to read nor I want you to agree with me. I enjoy small surprises every once in a while.

[/spoiler]

 

Yes, the viscosity may be considered as a concept for some type games and even MD.

But taken into a wider context, "viscosity" and now "volition" are just features and limitations for AP concept / feature. Something that can be considered as Viscosity is "time" and "expl". So, all I can see is that this Viscosity thing is just another limitation.

 

I am not asking for a reply but think a bit of the AP and the flow I described above and the amount of time spent on it.

 

 

conceptualize - thinking -rethinking - redesigning - modifying - fixing - fixing - adjusting - fixing -fixing - adjusting - new features - fixing - fixing - adjusting - fixing -fixing - adjusting - new features - fixing ....

 

 

__________________________________________

I know that I am kind of a freak but I am not alone nor do I care.

I don't care what it meant ... all these concepts, even if they are placed under the "spoiler" tags and never documented, I enjoy the game for being able to work with the system, around the system and against the system sometimes. (system as in game mechanics)

You can add whatever you want in game, I (and probably others) will not care what that it means / is named but just to work with it.

You can ignore me as long as you please, as long as in the long run I am right, we all lose. I just happen to know it before you do.

Edited October 11, 2013 by No one

[Ackshan Bemunah]

You move around, you run out of expl, you post 4000 dots in chat, you continue moving

 

Even this would be an improvement from timed regen, especially if a few people got punished.

 

But no, there are more robust implementations.  e.g. have gain depend on reality requirement

[Kyphis the Bard]

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?).

[No one]

Hi Kyphis,

 

It seems that you like to write long posts but you don't read similarly long ones.

I will simplify my post for you :

 

1. why do you want the change ?

2. I don't understand your proposal.

 

For each feature proposal I try to answer those 2 things, if I cannot ... then I post my thoughts.

So, please reply the 2 points above so that I can have a chance to change my mind. Otherwise, it will remain a stupid idea.

 

Best regards,

  No one

[Chewett]

Whats the aim of the change? Becuase all it looks like it does is reduce the effect of visc by "delaying" its affects a bit.

Hi Kyphis,
 
It seems that you like to write long posts but you don't read similarly long ones.
I will simplify my post for you :
 
1. why do you want the change ?
2. I don't understand your proposal.
 
For each feature proposal I try to answer those 2 things, if I cannot ... then I post my thoughts.
So, please reply the 2 points above so that I can have a chance to change my mind. Otherwise, it will remain a stupid idea.
 
Best regards,
  No one

I also wish to know this and as yet have not had one as far as i can see.

[Kyphis the Bard]

It seems that you like to write long posts but you don't read similarly long ones.

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.

Hi Kyphis,

 

It seems that you like to write long posts but you don't read similarly long ones.

I will simplify my post for you :

 

1. why do you want the change ?

2. I don't understand your proposal.

 

For each feature proposal I try to answer those 2 things, if I cannot ... then I post my thoughts.

So, please reply the 2 points above so that I can have a chance to change my mind. Otherwise, it will remain a stupid idea.

 

Best regards,

  No one

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.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Kyphis the Bard

[No one]

So, considering that I have 200 Max Ap ... then, you mean that I could travel 100 locations, no matter the land or AP restrictions ?

(Lets consider the GG gate that has a 400 AP requirement, I think, + viscosity)

 

And currently I have max 20 Expl(oration points).

 

So, explain how would Expl & AP would impact  / change the movement in

 - a "foreign" place

 - a land I belong to (and I have high loyalty)

 - a gate (like GG's)

[Kyphis the Bard]

So, considering that I have 200 Max Ap ... then, you mean that I could travel 100 locations, no matter the land or AP restrictions ?

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.

 

So, considering that I have 200 Max Ap ... then, you mean that I could travel 100 locations, no matter the land or AP restrictions ?

(Lets consider the GG gate that has a 400 AP requirement, I think, + viscosity)

 

And currently I have max 20 Expl(oration points).

 

So, explain how would Expl & AP would impact  / change the movement in

 - a "foreign" place

 - a land I belong to (and I have high loyalty)

 - a gate (like GG's)

 

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)