zio joe Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 What about a change in the requirement for creatures to have X wins? Since losses are as important as wins, why not have the requirement be number of battles. Obviously, this would require a higher value, but at least a player isn't forced to win several battles. So instead of say 30 wins, maybe have 50 battles or something... Also, you could have it be say, 70 battles, but wins count as 2 and losses count as 1, or something like that... In addition to this, why is it that when you can no longer gain XP, creatures also stop gaining wins in battles? That doesn't make sense. Also, the max XP cap is counter productive, I'm not very far in the story, I don't think, and it's slow going at 24 hours intervals. Now that I can't improve my creatures, because of the XP cap, it's pretty boring. Although I admit, I have time to waste, so I come here and read, which I wish I would have done a long time ago...
Root Admin Chewett Posted July 11, 2008 Root Admin Report Posted July 11, 2008 (edited) [Redacted] Edited December 18, 2012 by Chewett Redacted
zio joe Posted July 12, 2008 Author Report Posted July 12, 2008 battles are easy and do not actually mesure how the creatures have progressed. you could have gained them all through losses And what's wrong with that? You have to lose intentionally, and you don't get XP when you lose. If losing is a requirement, then why not allow losses to count... The creatures were still in the battle, it's not like it's a new creature everytime they are revived... What if you lose and live, are you not gaining fighting experience, could you not have learned something?
Root Admin Chewett Posted July 12, 2008 Root Admin Report Posted July 12, 2008 (edited) [Redacted] Edited December 18, 2012 by Chewett Redacted
meiche Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 I think the system is pretty good. Besides which, creatures (even if they loose) do gain experience when they survive. I don't think that there really should be an expectation for dead creatures to get experience. Dead folks don't learn too much.
Calyx of Isis Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 I don't think that there really should be an expectation for dead creatures to get experience. Dead folks don't learn too much. Ah! But there is no death here! The only "true" death in MagicDuel is the deletion of an account or resetting it it to zero. What people are calling death is merely forced inactivity and meditation. In real life, this is when we learn the most. Most wise people in the real world tell us we usually learn more when we fail than when we succeed. This had been know since before the dawn of history. Success tells you something that works, but it is only a single data point with unknown bounds. So called "failures" or "losses" are often more productive as they define boundaries and reveal then entire breadth of things that might succeed. MagicDuel improves on this by requiring a virtual zero sum with so called "wins" being approximately equal to so called "losses." While I have seen some interesting ideas about counting losses -- and maybe this should be done -- I have accepted the way "creatures" get upgraded because losses go hand-in-hand with wins. However, as I write this, I realize that while the character must have a "zero sum," her creatures need not. This fact suggests to me that maybe losses and wins should both be required to upgrade. My reasoning is this... If we learn the most from from balanced experience, then so it must be for our creatures as they are but parts of or extensions of ourselves. Our aspects and abilities (our "creatures") grow best when they have balanced experiences, not when we manipulate their experience [through manipulations of rituals] to only "succeed." As balance to maximize learning is such an integral part of this world, creature upgrades should require an equal number of "wins" and "losses," and not simply assume the game will force this balance.
Kragel Posted October 13, 2008 Report Posted October 13, 2008 [quote name='chewett' post='11002' date='Jul 11 2008, 12:22 PM']battles are easy and do not actually mesure how the creatures have progressed. you could have gained them all through losses[/quote] one could suggest that there were 3 branches of the tree of growth depending on the number of won and lost battles all wins or mostly wins would grow the creature into one thing balanced win/lose could be a second and mostly loses could be the third ... then from there 3 more as the creature would continue to grow but you have to think about this still being alpha and the many many lines of programing this involves ..... not to mention all the new artwork it would intell but i do like the idea my 2c Kragel The Metal Mage
Liberty4life Posted October 14, 2008 Report Posted October 14, 2008 that would be a way too much in my opinion (creature branches) and huh no way to get creats leveled up just by losing, so i could by creats and go around spam attacking others and in no time my creats are ready to level up, just to age them huh, and to remove xp cap and allow gaining xp for dead creats in lost fights, uffff mp8 here i am
Bootes Posted October 15, 2008 Report Posted October 15, 2008 Well I don't think it would be too hard in terms of Programming (Basically a Ratio, keeps track) but the amount of artwork that would add would be way too much. A normally 3 Lv Creature would end up having 13 Different stages and Artworks (1 for LV 1, 3 for LV 2, and 9 for Lv 3 (or 3 for every LV 2 Option)). A Creature with 4 LVs would then have as much artwork (or more) than all the creatures currently in Game. Personally I'd rather just get some new critters, rather than have new evolutions for the old ones...
stormrunner Posted October 15, 2008 Report Posted October 15, 2008 I think bootes is right new creature would be better
PapaMojo Posted October 20, 2008 Report Posted October 20, 2008 Oh you could use the same artwork, but have different stats depending on how it leveled, so a critter that levels through mostly losses might get a higher defense boost, but a lower attack boost. Leveling by wins could have higher attack, but less defense, etc. It would add to the diversity of creatures, and even rituals and strategies. I also think it could become a programmers nightmare project. But, then all you'd need is name changes, like Warrior Aramor, Line-holder Aramor, etc
dst Posted October 20, 2008 Report Posted October 20, 2008 You will need new art work. Why? Cause you can customize the name of a creature. Even now the battle log gives headaches to most of the players, think how tough will be to read a battle log in which you don't even know what creatures were fighting. So my vote goes to new creatures (there are a lot and really good). Hope we'll see them as soon as possible.
Recommended Posts