At what level are the base classes closest in power to one another?

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <really hating...>

henesua wrote...
Interesting. I supppose if you adjusted how time for crafting was tracked you could make this more relevant. I hadn't considered the time restriction in this, which would certainly help control the rate at which magic items entered the game. It seems to me in this case that one day should equal one real day. But that would also be a harsh penalty as you'd remove a crafter from play during that period as well.

I assume that they enter cutscene mode and become uncommandable until the time is up. And that this kind of crafting only occurs in a safe environment.

I developed a set of three prestige classes (pertinent to this) back when we were still in alpha. The three classes depended on each other for resources.

The primary one was the Artificer. I planned to stick very closely to the DMG on item creation, and that included both the requirement of a workshop/lab and the time requirement.  How I planned to handle both was through a sort of "house arrest" while crafting. The player had to start each stage of the formula in house and invest a bit of in-game micro-management. Then, while it cooked, he was free to engage in *local* *social* activities. If he left the area (as in town/estate/etc) he was considered to have abandoned the efforts. If he entered into any new plot threads (the voluntary ones ;-) likewise.

Because high-magic items are supposed to be so rare on Amethyst, things that take a year to make in the DMG take a year in game time. I don't penalize them for logging off, because while crafting they are in social/crafter play mode.
 
It is the *time* invested that I felt really made high-power items valuable. If an Artificer spends 3 months real time making an uber item... you think he's going to sell it? You think someone has managed to accumulate enough gold to buy it?

Well, maybe. That's what drives adventures, doesn't it ;-)

<...the loss of the Interplay forums>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

HipMaestro wrote...

How do you guys prevent muling?  I am referring either to 1) the use of a persistant storage per account, 2) dropping items logging and relogging with another toon and 3) simply passing items (like crafted wands) to a server-mate and then retrieving with another toon on the same account?  These are the only methods I've seen used. There may be more, though.

Is this related to balance in any way or purely something you're wondering for RP reasons?

Yes, completely related to the balance issue of the base classes, specifically rogue & bard vs. all the other classes. It addresses how the original question relates to environment in order to settle on this "equality level". 

The potential power of the default palette wands for UMD use can be controlled by the module design.  They can simply be omitted from shops, for example.  The crafted wands cannot, however, unless the bone components do not drop or made unavailable in shops.  The crafted versions are a product of default feats and the crafting component.  Like I said above, though, I am not sure how the value is determined as far as UMD is concerned, having something to do with number of charges and innate level or caster level, I suspect.  Not sure.  Never tried to sell one.

So, the availability of crafted wands (or even scribed spell scrolls that would not be available), can significantly unbalance those two classes vs. all the non-caster classes.

Now, I've played servers that encouraged the muling activity (providing an easy means of transferring items from one toon to another using the same account) probably because it recognizes that players can effect the identical situation with coop.  But on low magic environments, this would seriously bias the potential of those 2 classes vs. not only non-fighters but some casters since with UMD, any spell that can be crafted can be used, without regard to whether it is or arcan or divine origin.

So, after all the exposition, the basic question stands:  How do low magic designers/admins control this exploit (notice, am intentionally labeling it as that) or do they even care about the potential of exploitation in their quest to create the elusive universal balance?  I assume this issue was the catalyst for starting the OT in the first place.

It's just another factor to consider in the overall question of class balance and determining the optimum level.  It has nothing to do with roleplay.  It's a question of free enterprise vs. fascism. P
               
               

               

                     Modifié par HipMaestro, 24 novembre 2012 - 04:35 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

HipMaestro wrote...
So, after all the exposition, the basic question stands:  How do low magic designers/admins control this exploit (notice, am intentionally labeling it as that) or do they even care about the potential of exploitation in their quest to create the elusive universal balance?  I assume this issue was the catalyst for starting the OT in the first place.

It definitely relates. But its a difficult problem to solve.

Essentially you need to track the playerid and characterid of each PC owner of the item. Wheneever an item is picked up it checks the ownership history to see if any of the Player IDs are the same and yet the matching Character ID was different. When this happens, a script can execute which handles the problem.

The trick is how you track this data, and for purposes of security I am not going to spell out how I do that as any system has loop holes to be exploited.

This is a problem in my modul as I allow everyone access to everyone else's persistent storage - if they can find it, and break into it. Essentially persistent storage is always in game to allow rogues to be thieves, but this potentially enables PCs to transfer items between their characters.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <coming at it...>

With the idea of true death and inheritance, twinking (as I learned the term :-P ) is actually necessary. It is for this purpose, in fact, that I developed the heirloom system (er, still developing it :-)
By making items more powerful for their rightful owner (or her heirs), I both reward native players and reduce the onus of starting new characters. And eventually people want new characters. Always.

Put it a different way, if players have multiple characters on your server, they are *playing* on your server. It may not be the play-style you envisioned, but you obviously have something they like. Build on it and try to incorporate their play. Or encourage your customers to visit someone else's Target. :-P

If someone exploits a loophole, it is an advanced playing technique. Not saying it's right, but saying it is a technique *your* players are adopting. You respond to it preferably in an IC fashion and develop a little further down the line.

Do you have any idea how hard I argued for stealable spell books pre-alpha? At one interview Trent actually said "Oh no! Not Rolo!" (unfortunately, I was AFK at the time and missed the perfect opportunity for a quip :-P ). As the old guy said in Seven Samurai, you leave a weakness so you know where your enemies will attack. Or something. ;-P

So +1 for allowing theivery, knavery and twinking...under a watchful eye :-)

Edit: You can always persecute with the "stolen" flag... I believe A Dance With Rogues used that technique pretty neatly... so I've been told, anyway :-)

<...from a different direction>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Rolo Kipp, 24 novembre 2012 - 05:47 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               I never really liked the XP penalty for magical/Harper crafting.  One thing that I have toyed with is to replace the XP penalty with a reagent cost- each reagent limited within one spell school for the spell it can produce (note that reagents are consumed for crafting, not for general spell casting).  While this works in limiting the wands/potions/scrolls produced and is suitable for SP where spawns are limited, it could lead to farming specific creatures on a persistent world (although this is not much different than farming XP).
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WhiZard, 24 novembre 2012 - 05:56 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

WhiZard wrote...
I never really liked the XP penalty for magical/Harper crafting.

As a player you didn't like this? Or in general why not? Isn't XP a resource like any other?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <spelling his name wrong...>

For the record, I agree with WhiZard.
Just my opinion, but I feel XP represents the advancement of character and setting a character *back* for creating items? Counter-productive. We really want to *reward* crafting, not penalize it. I'd much rather have them cost other things, like time, money, playing effort, than cost advancement.

@ WhiZard: I make a distinction in my (so far imaginary) magic system between reagents and focuses. The items themselves can be used in either capacity, but used as a reagent, they are consumed (and more powerful). A focus is not consumed, but provides less benefit.

But that's just me, Cord Grimwinder. Yup. Old Cordy =)

<...to be sure they blame the wrong guy>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Frimbleglim]

               XP is a rescourse like no other in that it gives you an advantage just by having it.  A scroll just sits in your inventry until it's used, so does a potion.  A gold piece is the same.  The only thing XP can be compared to really is magic weaponry and armour.  

If you give magic items an xp cost to craft then they will only be crafted when the caster is sure they will get more xp from using them than they would from not using them.  So that it's a 'loan' of xp not a 'cost'.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

HipMaestro wrote...

Now, I've played servers that encouraged the muling activity (providing an easy means of transferring items from one toon to another using the same account) probably because it recognizes that players can effect the identical situation with coop.  But on low magic environments, this would seriously bias the potential of those 2 classes vs. not only non-fighters but some casters since with UMD, any spell that can be crafted can be used, without regard to whether it is or arcan or divine origin.

Hang on.

So if player A makes a character to craft wands, he can sell the wands to everyone else.  If player B makes a character to craft wands, he can sell the wands to everyone else.  Players A and B can even trade wands (I'll give X character a wand of Y if you give N character a wand of M).

This is all perfectly fine according to you.

But if player A simply gives a character of his own a wand, it's suddenly unbalanced?  Huh?

In short, this isn't an issue of muling, it's a issue of wide-spread wand/scroll trading and usage.  I don't really see how muling factors into this.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...
But if player A simply gives a character of his own a wand, it's suddenly unbalanced?  Huh?

Yes, it is. If a player can direct the resources of all of their characters into one character, you have a serious balance issue. The self-interst of players even when they are cooperating puts a significant check on this during exchanges.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

henesua wrote...

Yes, it is. If a player can direct the resources of all of their characters into one character, you have a serious balance issue. The self-interst of players even when they are cooperating puts a significant check on this during exchanges.

Dunno; have tried to not utilize Muling in smaller NWN1 servers and worlds per requests, and it has been enforced mostly via Honor Code. Since these are our worlds of play, we help police our own playgrounds.

To get around this in a respectful manner, it is generally held to be OK to sell said item to a shop, then have the other character purchase it.

But Muling is a better feature available in SWTOR among my own characters. I avoid mixing much at all with others, and have yet to try the Global markets. Worst part of MMO's are the MM's, IMO. So having a family run market is quite nice, and my meager offerings do not seem to bother such a grand economy and balance of power at all.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

henesua wrote...

Yes, it is. If a player can direct the resources of all of their characters into one character, you have a serious balance issue. The self-interst of players even when they are cooperating puts a significant check on this during exchanges.

Why?

Let's say the market rate for a wand of something is 1000 gold and it costs 400 XP and 200g to make, for example.  This means the going rate for XP is considered to be 2 gold for 1 XP.  So if I wanted you to make a wand that cost 800 XP and 300g, the market rate would be 1900g.  Following me so far?

If this is the case, then why does it matter if I earn the gold on my main character and trade the gold for the wand (made by someone else) or earn the XP on a second character and give the wand to my main?  By earning the XP, I'm giving up the gold I could have earned (meaning if I know a way to make gold very easily but I'm bad at getting XP, I'm better off obtaining the gold than making a crafting character).

Either way, the player has to invest time to get the item.  Either I spend the time to get the 800g extra I need to buy the wand or I spend the time to get the 400 XP needed to craft the wand.

And since this is based on the market rate determined by players, both of this cases should be equivalent in terms of effort.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:02 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               The reason why is in the self-interest of two players interacting versus two characters following one player's self-interest. This the root of multi-player games and markets. I'm surprised it need be explained.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:09 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

henesua wrote...

The reason why is in the self-interest of two players interacting versus two characters following one player's self-interest. This the root of multi-player games and markets. I'm surprised it need be explained.

Of course it needs to be explained.

If there's a person on my server who has a crafting character all set up and charges reasonable rates, I am *much* better off buying from him instead of making my own crafting character.  People do things on their own when they feel the asking price from someone else is too high.  I'd pay someone $20 or whatever to cook a great meal because I'm not a good chef.  But I wouldn't pay them $2000, because I'd rather just do it myself in that case.

You are familiar with opportunity cost, right?

And regardless, even if you argue you want to force more community interaction (even at the cost of economic efficiency), that doesn't explain your previous statement of

"If a player can direct the resources of all of their characters into one character, you have a serious balance issue."

If I spent 10 hours farming gold and obtain 20 powerful wands at an outrageous price instead of being able to make 40 wands of my own in the same time period...I still have 20 powerful wands at my disposal!  It doesn't make me unable to get *any* wands, it just means I can only get less.  Which in turn means I just need to spend more time farming to get said wands...but I will still have the wands available to use when they matter.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:26 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

henesua wrote...
The reason why is in the self-interest of two players interacting versus two characters following one player's self-interest. This the root of multi-player games and markets. I'm surprised it need be explained.

Of course it needs to be explained.

[/quote]

If you don't understand game-theory or market economics I shouldn't be the one to explain it to you.

MagicalMaster wrote...
If there's a person on my server who has a crafting character all set up and charges reasonable rates, I am *much* better off buying from him instead of making my own crafting character.  People do things on their own when they feel the asking price from someone else is too high.  I'd pay someone $20 or whatever to cook a great meal because I'm not a good chef.  But I wouldn't pay them $2000, because I'd rather just do it myself in that case.

You appear to be conflating a player driven market with muling. The two are unrelated, and thus this argument is irrelevant to the point I made. If its just a non-sequitor or pre-amble... *shrugs*

MagicalMaster wrote...
And regardless, even if you argue you want to force more community interaction (even at the cost of economic efficiency), that doesn't explain your previous statement of

"If a player can direct the resources of all of their characters into one character, you have a serious balance issue."

This is a straw man argument as it has nothing to do with muling or anything that I said.

Pick a fight somewhere else. I'm no interested.