|
Levels
May 23, 2005 16:31:24 GMT
Post by Tempest on May 23, 2005 16:31:24 GMT
What I am taking issue with is the fact that having gone through most of the approval process with a few projects and seeing what they require of projects before they are implemented, it feels like they made an exception for this project. I really doubt if any other wizard would have been allowed to implement this code without crossing the t's and dotting the i's. This project wasn't an area, or small mudlib addition. It changed the entire mudlib. I, personally, can't see this project coming in in any other way. *shrug* I realise that the documentation is cosmetic, but just like I was told by people doing the approval process on my own code: "If it's just cosmetic, why not just get it done so it's no longer an issue" (Pretty sure it was Idul that offered up that bead of wisdom). True, it could've been done all along those seven years at any point that they knew for sure of the resulting level points, etc. But why nitpick? If this project were a simple area or mudlib addition, I could understand the requirement for [near] perfection before implementation, but it wasn't. So the resounding question in my mind is this, "IF the code was pushed through in a rush and things were missed, why?" The only answer that I can come up with is that the it was hoped to effect an attitude change amongst a group of people that were being very loud and very displeased. Yeah, like you, I think the loud and reverberating complaints gave them a push to get this in. Now, that's most likely not the reason there were bugs and lack of proper documentation. See, not many projects change the -ENTIRE- mudlib in one fell swoop. Sometimes, admin just have to decide to implement a large change and put out the fires instead of trying to prevent the fires in the first place. If we waited for this 7+ year project to be perfect, we'd never see it. The mudlib itself is constantly changing, and it's huge. Not even Paldin could predict the behavior of the mudlib after such a large change. This is all due to archaic code and less than perfect design and control of the mudlib over the years. No MUD lacks the problems, so it's all good. I'm glad that you're happy, for now. I'm sure that Malire and Paldin are happy as well. This project could also be the answer to a year ago when it was suggested we try to retain current players /as well as/ obtain new players. In the end, I hope maybe this will calm things down for a little while. And before something else happens to spark another uprising, I hope maybe some of us can learn to read before we write, take time to try to understand the big pictures or the hard-to-discern feelings of others, and to try to learn to live with the current administration and not try to oust someone just because we have personal differences with them. *bow*
|
|
|
Levels
May 23, 2005 17:05:05 GMT
Post by Frostbite on May 23, 2005 17:05:05 GMT
I'd like to see AA adopt that as a policy. That is to say, just install things when they're "Good Enough" and then firefight when necessary... you'd see a lot more new stuff a lot more often...
|
|
|
Levels
May 23, 2005 17:45:26 GMT
Post by ScarecraZy on May 23, 2005 17:45:26 GMT
If I may:
Given how quickly the Knights wanted to rearrange the titles that was thought up for them, and add their own new ones, it is not hard to see why we thought that we'd leave them till last. Everybody on AA is encouraged to come up with the new titles for the various guilds and classes. Post them on your guild or class board for discussion, or send some mud/e-mail.
So, set those creative juices flowing!
(PS: All the guildmasters were warned 2 years ago that they will need to come up with new titles, if they didn't want the level 19 title for all the higher levels.)
|
|
|
Levels
May 23, 2005 19:43:41 GMT
Post by tehlung on May 23, 2005 19:43:41 GMT
dubanka was right on top of things! within 10 minutes he listened to our pleas to become epic and granted it! now elfdar are truly the most epic collection of players on aa.
|
|
|
Levels
May 23, 2005 22:06:12 GMT
Post by Frostbite on May 23, 2005 22:06:12 GMT
Rich the Epic CoonAss
has a nice ring to it
|
|
|
Levels
May 23, 2005 22:20:39 GMT
Post by tehlung on May 23, 2005 22:20:39 GMT
epic coonass in chief!
|
|
|
Levels
May 24, 2005 13:23:53 GMT
Post by CalviN on May 24, 2005 13:23:53 GMT
;D *cackle* Niiiiiice.
|
|
|
Levels
May 25, 2005 5:54:08 GMT
Post by Tempest on May 25, 2005 5:54:08 GMT
I'd like to see AA adopt that as a policy. That is to say, just install things when they're "Good Enough" and then firefight when necessary... you'd see a lot more new stuff a lot more often... The only problem I can see with that is bugs that cause harm to playerfiles. Such as accidently dropping them in xp or gold permanently. Otherwise, I agree completely. So long as the wizard understands there is still a ton of work to do after release of the area. If a wizard doesn't handle the upkeep, then there should be a policy allowing other wizards to jump in and fix bugs for a short period of time after the area first goes in. Beyond that, it should just be handled as it is now, I suppose.
|
|
|
Levels
May 25, 2005 12:10:51 GMT
Post by Frostbite on May 25, 2005 12:10:51 GMT
I suppose by "Good Enough" I'm suggesting that AA take a more "corporate" approach to their quality control process. In business, software gets released after a fair amount of testing and generally there is a pretty good list of "known issues" with a piece of released software that the coders intend on addressing later.
Most of the time, issues like this are cosmetic or inconvenient at their worst. While the only experience I have with software companies is on the business side of them, I can say that I've never seen any professional organisation go through the rigors that AA does to approve code.
If it's good enough to pay for... certainly it ought to be good enough for free ;-)
|
|
|
Levels
May 29, 2005 17:14:50 GMT
Post by Wolvie on May 29, 2005 17:14:50 GMT
Ok, anyone else finding it annoying that there are no longer enough capable lvl 19s around to help your lvl 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 alts get up in levels and stats (then again, I wonder how many people here have alts that low). My rogue alt is gonna be stuck low forever. Its bad enough when there aren't any people logged in when I feel like tanking, but its another thing when he can't party with anyone who is logged on when he used to be able to.
On another note, I wonder if there should be a change in the division of party xp once we reach 20+.
|
|
|
Levels
May 29, 2005 17:54:06 GMT
Post by Tempest on May 29, 2005 17:54:06 GMT
I know AA isn't DAoC, but I like DAoC's take on level difference in parties. Now that AA has 50 levels, maybe they should rethink the party requirements.
-DAoC- Any level can party with any level. The highest level player in the group is used as a reference for xp divvying. XP is evenly divided by the players based on total number in the group (2-8 for DAoC). Then each person divides their xp share by the percentage of their level versus the level of the highest level person in the group. Then the hard caps chop off the top.
-What AA could look into- Perhaps keep the level requirement, but expand it out past 5 the higher you go past level 20.
Here's an example formula: (level / 20 + 1) * 5 = max difference
1-19 = 5 difference 20-39 = 10 difference 40-50 = 15 difference
Thus, a 19, a 24, and a 14 could party together; A 50 could party with a 35; A 34 could party with a 24, and so on.
Now, for xp divvying. The problem with DAoC's formula is that it loses xp into limbo. After the xp is divided evenly amongst members (less for higher levels in this system than AA's current...another problem), it is then cut down for each player who's lower level than the highest level player in the party, and the cut xp goes byebye.
I can't think of AA's formula at the moment. I know it's similar to DAoC's except it doesn't lose xp, but divides the entire pool across the members. Perhaps it could stay the same. Anyone have the current formula and want to show what would happen to a 50 partying with a 35?
|
|
|
Levels
May 30, 2005 6:43:09 GMT
Post by The Abyss on May 30, 2005 6:43:09 GMT
is it not simply:
Player 1: (50/85)*100% (59%) Player 2: (35/85)*100% (41%)
The numbers are rounded to nearest integer.
|
|
|
Levels
May 31, 2005 3:58:55 GMT
Post by Tempest on May 31, 2005 3:58:55 GMT
That doesn't seem to be much of a spread for such a large level difference. Not bad at all, really. So if they wanted to, then they could do the sliding scale for max level difference like or similar to what I posted above.
|
|