Imp Suggestion

User avatar
Yoda
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Yoda »

I think we can agree on the fact that changes are needed.. but deletion altogether in one fell swoop is a problematic proposition. for obvious reasons and donations have nothing to do with it.

to say "delete the imps it will fix everything and bios prices would go up" although on the surface it may sound good to you has a absolute storm of complications, issues, and problems and wouldn't have the effect you think it would.
Guildmaster: JDI - Est 2011
User avatar
Agony
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:10 am

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Agony »

But it brings up the issue.
...Dimiir Borgu
User avatar
Yoda
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Yoda »

sure but not so much in a constructive actionable form.

they could use an adjustment as they have absolutely no achilles heel. but deletion isn't a solution working on things like the 2 and 3 slot pets is.. and giving them some sort of weakness

what comes to mind is

di reduction
resurrection delay
temporary statloss upon death (temporary)

or some combination of things like that coupled with adjusting the various breedable pets that already exist to make them more attractive.. I mean we have 4 custom dragons on this shard that are all 3 slots, and are essentially the same as a 1 slot hell hound. thats more where the changes should lie. It is entirely possible adjusting the 2 and 3 slot pets and giving a once over to the vast array of 1 slot pets would be enough to fix the system without touching imps at all.

Its far more easy to do this sort of "Forward" change than a nerf of any kind. its more acceptable to players, and less of a stress induced headache for staff.

Why I say your initial suggestion was unrealistic. 7 or so years down the line when likely 100-200 players or more give or take have imps, of various strength ointed and invested in. its not a feasable solution to say.. get rid of them. it just isn't. That would bring up a big storm of negativity and wouldn't fix anything. say you could get the negativity to die down it would bring up the issue of what is done upon their deletion. Do the players just take a massive uncompensated financial hit? Or do you compensate them for the loss. Well hold the phone there compensating them for the loss is unrealistic as well. player a) may have ointed his pack 3 years ago when oints were 6k per, player b) may have ointed them last week when they were under 1/3rd the cost and player c) may have hunted the oints and regs needed. so there is absolutely no fair way to handle that sort of change.
Guildmaster: JDI - Est 2011
User avatar
Agony
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:10 am

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Agony »

Yoda wrote:or some combination of things like that coupled with adjusting the various breedable pets that already exist to make them more attractive.. I mean we have 4 custom dragons on this shard that are all 3 slots, and are essentially the same as a 1 slot hell hound. thats more where the changes should lie. It is entirely possible adjusting the 2 and 3 slot pets and giving a once over to the vast array of 1 slot pets would be enough to fix the system without touching imps at all.
This is a cool concept, but if you look closely at imps, they all have 200% damage multipliers. Squirrels - 100 phys and 100 poison, Dogs - 100 phys and 100 fire. If you do the research, no other tamable in the game has this. They are multipliers, meaning the imps do much more damage than anything else in the game. Why worry about slots when you are doing 200% damage with 1 slot pets?
...Dimiir Borgu
User avatar
Yoda
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Yoda »

if you had included the lines previous to the quote you quoted you see that part a) of my suggestion did address that..
Yoda wrote:what comes to mind is

di reduction
resurrection delay
temporary statloss upon death (temporary)

or some combination of things like..
to clarify I do have an issue with the fact that there is no achilles heel and with the fact that they have no statloss AND a high di modifier.. there is no need for them to have both. and there should be some sort of penalty upon death. either a) you have to wait 5 minutes to ressurrect them, or b) for a period of time after being revived they suffer a temporary hit to their stats and are far less effective.

what I was suggesting in the second part of it that you didn't seem to grasp is if the changes are broad enough and done with enough thought there would be reason to use something other than an imp. I only suggested leaving them alone in the case where the changes made it unneccesary. and you replied with the CURRENT imbalances..
Guildmaster: JDI - Est 2011
Dementika
Journeyman Scribe
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:06 pm

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Dementika »

I think you are more toward the answer agony in your last post, its true that 200% when compared to say, nobles with 100%, is a bit off the board. It could be toned down to 150% as a test to see the true impact. They would still remain the top pet, but not so far in front of everything else. If at 150% it end up not being enough, it could be toned down again to 125%. That is a much more likely solution if the devs do not want to implement new tamables to address the issue instead of completely deleting something so important on the server.

That being said, i think bringing new tamable is the way to go to bring some new life into new like old players alike, as well as bringing new artifacts and armor sets to steer away from the mold everyone has fallen into. Sure its more work, but its needed to keep the community active i believe. I'm not saying that for myself, as a new player i have a good 3 month of gameplay ahead of me, but its kind of sad to see so many veteran bank-sitting all day.
User avatar
Agony
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:10 am

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Agony »

Yoda wrote:Why I say your initial suggestion was unrealistic. 7 or so years down the line when likely 100-200 players or more give or take have imps, of various strength ointed and invested in. its not a feasable solution to say.. get rid of them. it just isn't. That would bring up a big storm of negativity and wouldn't fix anything. say you could get the negativity to die down it would bring up the issue of what is done upon their deletion. Do the players just take a massive uncompensated financial hit? Or do you compensate them for the loss. Well hold the phone there compensating them for the loss is unrealistic as well. player a) may have ointed his pack 3 years ago when oints were 6k per, player b) may have ointed them last week when they were under 1/3rd the cost and player c) may have hunted the oints and regs needed. so there is absolutely no fair way to handle that sort of change.
A player that ointed his imps 4 years ago at 7k per oi9nt is just missing out because oints are cheaper now. I ointed 8 imps back when they were 6k each (gave 3 imps away), and I am not crying now about how the value of them depreciated. If you ointed imps 4 years ago, then you are subject to the current market value.
Yeah, getting rid of them would make people cry. Scared?
Yes, I say give a compensation to people who lose their imps. This would take time on the part of the staff, but for a larger benefit.
BTW- Have you ever taken a financial hit? In game or RL... Did you die? Did you bow down and say, "Ohhhhh man I'm done for".... Did you lash out, crying about how you were mistreated?
...Dimiir Borgu
User avatar
Agony
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:10 am

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Agony »

Dementika wrote:I think you are more toward the answer agony in your last post, its true that 200% when compared to say, nobles with 100%, is a bit off the board. It could be toned down to 150% as a test to see the true impact. They would still remain the top pet, but not so far in front of everything else. If at 150% it end up not being enough, it could be toned down again to 125%. That is a much more likely solution if the devs do not want to implement new tamables to address the issue instead of completely deleting something so important on the server.
This makes all the sense in the world. Tone down the damage. Seriously... Imps are insane.
Thx Dementika
...Dimiir Borgu
User avatar
Yoda
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Yoda »

the thing about new tameables, although I personally am not opposed to it..

there is no need to add new ones, just fix the existing. Excelsior has a huge pile of fundamentally useless custom tameables already.. including 4 dragons that really don't offer anything different to a regular dragon. precisely to what i refer with

"address 2 and 3 slot pets"

that would apply most to the customs... I mean they are specific to excelsior pets... so something like the juggy bear, should be astoundingly juggy, the energy wyrm etc etc etc etc

just saying before going on a quest to add new tameables as a fix.. you could always.. fix what exists..

Nox Steed, Bone Beetle, Aqua Stang, Golden Pony, Fire Wyrm, Energy Wyrm, Strupen Wyrm, Wyrmy Wyrm, Siberian Tiger , Juggernaut Bear, Holy Cat

some of those pets have rather high taming, have existed forever and are unique to our shard already.

revisit whats there and fix it before adding new..
Guildmaster: JDI - Est 2011
User avatar
Yoda
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Yoda »

Agony wrote:A player that ointed his imps 4 years ago at 7k per oi9nt is just missing out because oints are cheaper now. I ointed 8 imps back when they were 6k each (gave 3 imps away), and I am not crying now about how the value of them depreciated. If you ointed imps 4 years ago, then you are subject to the current market value.
Yeah, getting rid of them would make people cry. Scared?
it has nothing to do with me.. if my imp pack blew up with no compensation I wouldn't even bat an eyelash.. but no they can't do what you are suggesting. so move on.
Guildmaster: JDI - Est 2011
User avatar
Agony
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:10 am

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Agony »

Yoda wrote:it has nothing to do with me.. if my imp pack blew up with no compensation I wouldn't even bat an eyelash.. but no they can't do what you are suggesting. so move on.
This has nothing to do with what you would do. The greater good of the shard is not about you buddy.
Moving on, but moving with this in mind. You say they can't do it. This is final because of what... You say so?
Last edited by Agony on Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...Dimiir Borgu
User avatar
Yoda
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Yoda »

its pointless to argue with you back and forth.. if you read back in the post I have said multiple times they need adjusting

so technically that means from slightly varying perspectives we have a similar opinion..

imps don't need 200 di - we agree

i went further than that to suggest they need a death penalty of some sort.. so perhaps you should tone down your hyperbolic nonsense towards me.

if you are suggesting the greater good of the shard would be to delete a popular ingame item with/without compensation I disagree

1. the negativity would be larger than you may care to admit and thats not for the greater good of the shard
2. without compensation would further 1.
3. compensation would only serve to cause an instant amount of inflation..

none of the above are for the greater good of the shard. and that is why I disagree.

as for imps my opinion is

lower their di modifier to 100, unless they have a death penalty, resurrection delay or otherwise.. they shouldn't be indestructable and the most damaging pet. period. if they have a penalty, then perhaps they can keep SOME of their modifier which is what i have stated since page 1.
Guildmaster: JDI - Est 2011
User avatar
Agony
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:10 am

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Agony »

Yoda wrote:i went further than that to suggest they need a death penalty of some sort.. so perhaps you should tone down your hyperbolic nonsense towards me.
I agree with what you said in those posts. But one thing I will not do is, "move on". Maybe you should drop your hyperbolic nonsense toward me... :roll:
...Dimiir Borgu
User avatar
Yoda
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Yoda »

I'm sorry was I the one that brought up analogies to a real life financial hit for a videogame? I am suggesting "moving on" to constructive solutions and accepting that outright deletion isn't one of them. thats not hyperbolic. thats fact..
Guildmaster: JDI - Est 2011
User avatar
Agony
Legendary Scribe
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:10 am

Re: Imp Suggestion

Post by Agony »

I'm not the one who takes hits in a video game personally. Just sayin...
If we cannot delete them, then modify them at least... Any moron can see they devalue all other tamables...
Last edited by Agony on Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
...Dimiir Borgu
Locked