Log in

I forgot my password






Latest topics

» Unknown Lands RP : Where Anything Can Happen!
Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:27 pm by Agent C

» Friday! (March 3rd)
Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:27 pm by Ami~

» Zecarayus H. Trevelean
Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:56 pm by Ami~

» Knuckles' Perks
Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:50 am by Knuckles Shi

» Challenger Approaching
Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:23 am by Erebus

» I'l give it a shot
Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:30 pm by Ami~

» W.I.P
Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:30 pm by The howitzer

» W.I.P
Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:09 am by The howitzer

» A little organization?
Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:06 am by The howitzer



The Owner
Silver Wolf

Administrators
AmiiKitty PrydeRoland Gates

Guests : 0
Hidden : 0
Registered : 0
Users Online :
Refresh View the whole list


    discussion on cbox continued

    Share

    discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Ean Sableheart on Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:38 pm

    I'm busy with homework but the rest should continue here.

    Topic was a stat system.

    Spoiler:
    [18:31:42 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : ragein this system it doesnt matter

    [18:31:50 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : as long as you are higher rank, lowers ranks mean nothing

    [18:31:58 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : note: Mostly everything that's traditionally used in fairy tail sites was really simple systems simply meant to function. None of it was actually good it just 'worked'. Hence why I would throw anything universally used by other sites out the door as they're really just poor half-assed systems.

    [18:32:17 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : I completely and utterly agree

    [18:32:23 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : granted I ain't a staffer here and quit fto because of school but meh.

    [18:32:32 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : Ean

    [18:32:36 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : i completely and utterly agree

    [18:32:36 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Ean, remember FT-RP?

    [18:32:53 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : yes I left due to boredom

    [18:32:55 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : DO you mind putting that in a suggestions topic as well Smile

    [18:33:11 20/03/2016][REDACTED] : Ean how would you feel about being able to grow your character and his spells/attacks ala a statistical system

    [18:33:26 20/03/2016] Ragecano : If you had to ask me, I would love that.

    [18:33:48 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : right? it would be amazing

    [18:34:07 20/03/2016] Takashi : Like playing a real rpg

    [18:34:07 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : please mention that

    [18:34:12 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : in a suggestion topic

    [18:34:13 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : exactly

    [18:34:22 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : but the stats wouldnt have mathematical functions

    [18:34:29 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : like a DnD type d100 system

    [18:34:43 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : it would just be compartive stats

    [18:34:47 20/03/2016] Ragecano : It would make it so that the members of each rank aren't automatically evenly matched.

    [18:34:51 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : so if i have like 100 speed and you have 59 speed

    [18:34:55 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Like

    [18:34:59 20/03/2016] Takashi : Shall be playing d&d with friends on wednesday Very Happy

    [18:35:03 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : id be faster

    [18:35:13 20/03/2016] Ragecano : This D-Class mage would be better than another D-Class mage at some certain thing.

    [18:35:24 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : exactly

    [18:35:33 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : comparitave stats are usually the most ideal. Where say a difference of 10 stats really is irrelevant but a difference of 20 is mildly noticable and moving from there

    [18:35:33 20/03/2016] [REDACTED] : which in my opinion is better

    [18:35:41 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : already rp bleach in a system like that

    [18:35:53 20/03/2016] Ragecano : And it would probably even out the gap between ranks a bit.

    [REDACTED]

    [18:36:10 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Say an A-Class is good at offense, but really horrid at speed

    [18:36:13 20/03/2016] Takashi : And make people wanna grind out rps to level up

    [REDACTED]

    [18:36:36 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Now if a C-Class mage was good in speed, it would give the S-Class a bit of a hard time.

    [REDACTED]

    [18:37:00 20/03/2016] Ragecano : It basically defeats "I'm a higher rank than you, so I'm better than you at everything we do."

    [REDACTED]

    [18:37:24 20/03/2016] Takashi : Will make t-shirts and signs lol

    [REDACTED]

    [18:37:55 20/03/2016] Takashi : Whyyy o.o

    [18:37:57 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : so please, make a topic about it

    [18:38:01 20/03/2016] Joe Wiccan : Work on a topic in the miscillaneous section where we build this system between us then post it to the suggestions page with each of us replying with support for it. Mods needs to listen

    [18:38:09 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : yep

    [18:38:17 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : that would be perfect

    [18:38:24 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : please do Smile

    the majority of neccesary info is in the spoiler

    Claire Anderson

    Posts : 77
    Location : Crocus

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Claire Anderson on Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:59 pm

    You know it's kinda hard to help with that, if you don't post at least a basic recap of what was said in the chat... If you are busy leave it to someone else to start this topic <.<


    Takashi

    Posts : 32
    Location : San Pedro, CA

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Takashi on Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:07 pm

    I dunno if this is a good idea or not but maybe every can start off with basic stats like 10 strength 10 speed etc. Then based off your Rank you get a starter set of skill points that you can distribute how you see fit. So if you wanna be a real tanky strength focused guy you can do so or if you wanna be speedy or super focus on your mana pool or so forth. That way you kinda can have an idea of what kinda mage you wanna be other than spells. Maybe there could be a cap though to how much points you can have in one skill at a certain rank.

    Also as we were discussing, having your spells and magic grow as you do should definitely be a thing. I understand as Mages we should always be looking to create stronger spells and discover new magic but sometimes you wanna stick with the basics ya know? And if my D rank spell is absolutely useless against an A rank an higher why would I wanna keep the spell? I'm not good at explaining things compared to everyone else who was chatting in the box and I'm sure they can say what I'm saying far better but yeah just my opinion. Obviously a lower spell isn't gonna obliterate someone higher than me but I feel in the fairy tale world you wouldn't wanna always start of with your trump cards you'd start the battle off hitting your basic moves and as the battle progresses then pull out the big guns o.o probably not making much sense but yeah x_x



    Name: Takashi

    Rank: B

    HP: 12 health

    Mana: 28



    "Don't make me work harder than I have too..."

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Joe Wiccan on Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:10 pm

    Basically the way the stat system is set up is in need of a huge overhaul because as it stands a D-Rank mage cannot damage an A-Rank at all. Which is just unfair. I'm not saying a D-Rank should be able to throw down and kick ass against an A-Rank but there should be some standard of fairness involved. This Thread is to discuss possible changes the to stat system.

    Below you will find the Conversation that took place in the Chatbox which lead to this thread being created. WARNING! It's a bit of a read.

    Converation:
    Yeah, about how status spells at D-rank are capped at B-rank

    [22:16:29 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : so A-rank and highers just gain immunity

    [22:16:42 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : It make sno sense

    [22:17:34 20/03/2016] Takashi : I mean a D rank Mage aint really doing jack against an A rank especislly not S or higher

    [22:17:50 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : yet physical spells that do damage at D-rank still have full effect

    [22:18:16 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : better in everything still doesn't mean defying the odds.

    [22:18:37 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : I mean you can't train yourself not to suffer from the effects of vertigo

    [REDACTED] : just assume that the higher rank (IN THIS SYSTEM) means that you are better at dealing with everything

    [22:19:21 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : But then it means at S-rank

    [22:19:32 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : your D-rank status spells are still useless against A or higher

    [22:19:54 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : Which means buff/debuff/status mages are essentially useless

    [22:19:59 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : hence why you should seriously start working on something else :p Don't accept a shitty system

    [22:20:10 20/03/2016] Takashi : But you can teain your spells right?

    [22:20:17 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : if you have issues with this, please post this in the suggestions system

    [22:21:16 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : So does that mean that D-rank physical/offence spells are also unable to damage A-ranks and higher?

    [22:21:17 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : yep!

    [22:21:39 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : no D rank can damage but they only do like 0.5 damage. With equipments and the like, D rank essentially do no damage

    [22:21:41 20/03/2016] Takashi : welp

    [22:22:00 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : Like I said before, please post all issues you have in the suggestions forum

    [22:22:07 20/03/2016] Joe Wiccan : wow i'll be posting in suggestions soon then, if we voice opinions surely it'll make adifference

    [22:22:41 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : Yeah, Ill post too.

    [22:23:02 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : Because it makes very little sense

    [REDACTED] : What I would like is a spell/spell training system where you have a base spell that grows with you but that cant happen without a undamental change in the base system

    [22:24:20 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : I agree. An S-ranks d-rank spells should be out shining a d-ranks d-rank spells
    [22:24:49 20/03/2016] Tracey Harper : I like the point system for spells

    [22:25:05 20/03/2016] Ragecano : #ILikeTheIdeaOfTheBaseSpellThatGrowsWithYou.

    [22:25:25 20/03/2016] Takashi : I mean I get that as Mages you'd wanna create more powerful spells as you grow in power but sometimes ya gotta hit em with them basics and kick some ass

    [22:26:12 20/03/2016] Ragecano : If you're an S-Rank

    [22:26:23 20/03/2016] Ragecano : S-Rank spells should be more of a last resort than a first resport.

    [REDACTED] : D rank buff spells shouldn't be strong but they should effect people

    [22:27:08 20/03/2016] Takashi : At least scratch em

    [22:31:18 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Who the hell's gonna use an S-rank spell against a D-Rank mage.

    [22:31:36 20/03/2016] @ Axel Tengoku : meh

    [22:31:38 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Unless said D-Rank mage is giving the S-Class mage a hell of a hard time.

    [22:31:58 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : note: Mostly everything that's traditionally used in fairy tail sites was really simple systems simply meant to function. None of it was actually good it just 'worked'. Hence why I would throw anything universally used by other sites out the door as they're really just poor half-assed systems.

    [22:32:23 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : granted I ain't a staffer here and quit fto because of school but meh.

    [REDACTED] Ean how would you feel about being able to grow your character and his spells/attacks ala a statistical system

    [22:33:26 20/03/2016] Ragecano : If you had to ask me, I would love that.

    [22:34:07 20/03/2016] Takashi : Like playing a real rpg

    [REDACTED] it would just be compartive stats

    [22:34:47 20/03/2016] Ragecano : It would make it so that the members of each rank aren't automatically evenly matched.

    [22:35:13 20/03/2016] Ragecano : This D-Class mage would be better than another D-Class mage at some certain thing.

    [22:35:33 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : comparitave stats are usually the most ideal. Where say a difference of 10 stats really is irrelevant but a difference of 20 is mildly noticable and moving from there

    [22:35:41 20/03/2016] Ean Sableheart : already rp bleach in a system like that

    [22:35:53 20/03/2016] Ragecano : And it would probably even out the gap between ranks a bit.

    [22:36:10 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Say an A-Class is good at offense, but really horrid at speed

    [22:36:13 20/03/2016] Takashi : And make people wanna grind out rps to level up

    [22:36:36 20/03/2016] Ragecano : Now if a C-Class mage was good in speed, it would give the S-Class a bit of a hard time.

    [22:37:00 20/03/2016] Ragecano : It basically defeats "I'm a higher rank than you, so I'm better than you at everything we do."

    [22:38:01 20/03/2016] Joe Wiccan : Work on a topic in the miscillaneous section where we build this system between us then post it to the suggestions page with each of us replying with support for it. Mods needs to listen

    Claire Anderson

    Posts : 77
    Location : Crocus

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Claire Anderson on Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:10 pm

    To my knowledge, the whole "improve spells as you grow, so that a low-ranked mage can stand a chance against a higher-ranked one" thing is already in the works. So yeah, while I am certainly not one to defend the current systems (I was the first to criticize them, butting hads with Kyoto in the process), I do think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. In other words, we should wait for the final version of the systems to be out, before criticizing.

    As far as stats go, I do have a system in mind, which I succesfully employed in many roleplays I hosted in the past, which IMO is very effective and even fun to use. However, from what I understand the higher-ups are against implementing stats at all, Remix herself told me, since I first started a topic with my own suggestions, that she really really opposed the idea.

    In short, since I first joined this site, I found that the issue with its systems were two:

    1) An excessive difference in power between ranks. While it is pretty obvious that a D-rank mage should be easily brushed off by a S-rank one, a B-rank mage should at the very least stand a reasonable chance against an A-rank one, which however was not the case in the first version of the rules.

    2) Powerplay. Currently, all spells deal fixed damage (meaning, you cannot describe the amount of damage you take, and thus you cannot try to block or otherwise reduce the damage: you are hit, you take exactly that amount of damage no matter what), and even if you train them with the new system, all you are achieving is effectively to go from fixed damage to MORE fixed damage, but it is still fixed damage. And all mages have a fixed amount of HPs at their disposal (again, even if you train or buff your HPs, all you are doing is going from fixed HPs to MORE fixed HPs, but still, they are fixed nonetheless). In such circumstances, battles risk to become a mere game of "I hit you, you hit me, I hit you, you hit me" until someone goes down... Which of course gives an automatic disadvantage to whomever is hit first. And considering that, currently, there is no objective way of determining accuracy and evasion, this will encourage players to avoid taking damage in the only possible way: by powerplaying their asses off to avoid being hit no matter what.

    Basically, it all boild down to an issue I had highlighted in my very first topic here: lack of reasons. In the current systems, players are given no reason for making spells that are less powerful than the maximum allowed per rank. They are given no reason for ever accepting to be hit during a battle. They are given no reason for developing a strategy outside of "get your strongest spell, train it to the maximum, spam it in every battle, win". It is a situation that very much encourages powerplay.

    How to solve these problems? A solution for the first one, as mentioned, is already in the works, so I would personally give Kyoto (and whomever else is working on it) the benefit of the doubt before criticizing. For what we have seen so far, the new system does not solve the "people are not given any reasons for making spells any weaker than the maximum allowed" problem (a while back, I had suggested an alternate system to solve it), but it DOES solve the "low-rank mages cannot beat high-rank ones", or at least, it makes a huge step in the right direction. So yeah, that's a good start.

    For the second problem, unless we go all the way and turn this forum into full-blown D&D (which not only Remix, but I myself would oppose), I honestly don't think that a stat system would be the solution. We already have a situation with "partial" stats, in that, despite the lack of stats, we have HPs expressed with numbers and spells dealing fixed damage, and that is what caused these issues to begin with. A better idea could be to create a situation in which stats are used as reference for determining the roleplaying effort required. Example: if you have an Atk of 10 and your opponent has a Def of 20, no actual, D&D-esque calcs to determine a specific damage number are made... But you do have to come up with some impressive strategy to deal any serious damage, because your opponent's Def is twice your Atk. If you just throw a punch, don't be surprised if they "effortlessly block" it. Conversely, if your Atk is 20, their Def is 10, and they "effortlessly block" an attack of yours, you can report them for powerplaying.

    Such a system would be particularly important for accuracy: if your Accuracy is equal or greater than the opponent's Evasion, no actual calc or dice roll happens to see if you hit or not, but if they constantly dodge your attack just because, as mentioned, in this system being hit first puts you at a disadvantage, you can have a solid, objective base to report them for powerplaying, because if your Acc and Eva are even, you should be trading blows evenly, not dodging everything. Heck, I would go as far as to have this system JUST for accuracy and evasion, ignoring all other stats, because realistically, the biggest problem are going to arise with dodging. Unregolamented dodging is just an invitation for powerplayers.

    Tl;dr: it seems to me that, in this forum, there is a very harsh conflict between those who want stats and those who don't want them. However, once problems have been dissected accurately and put in the right perspective, IMO it is possible to find "middle ground" solutions, compromises that can make everyone happy. Remember, being stubborn is always wrong, as it prevents dialogue and, therefore, progress. A project, any project, with no dialogue is destined to be stale.
    However, it takes two people to make a dialogue: sure, it is bad for a staffer to be stubborn and to refuse all help offered to him (which reminds me, I had promised I would pray for a certain someone to never need help), but it is equally bad for users to just criticize everything that is not their own suggestion. It particularly baffles me to see people criticize the "low-rank mages cannot beat high-ranked ones" bit, without acknowledging that the last version of the systems DID address this very issue, or at least tried to.

    We should all try to be reasonable. All of us. All it takes is a single unreasonable person, to ruin a project. Trust me, I learned this the hard way, and in that occasion the unreasonable person was myself.

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Axel Tengoku on Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:18 pm

    A better idea could be to create a situation in which stats are used as reference for determining the roleplaying effort required.

    I call this a "comparative stat system". It's something I toted and would truly enjoy. Thank you for the suggestions. Are there anything else you guys think that would make this an amazing site?

    Claire Anderson

    Posts : 77
    Location : Crocus

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Claire Anderson on Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:28 pm

    Again, while I understand that some people would be happy about a "comparative stat system", as Axel called it, I also understand that others would really oppose the idea of having stats in general. So IMO a compromise between the two "factions" could be reached, by using such a system JUST for accuracy and evasion. Again, most of the problems are going to come from that aspect anyway, and with spells having fixed damage, stuff like Atk and Def wouldn't matter that much either.

    The only other suggestion I can make is this (I had already posted it in that old topic of mine):


    @Claire Anderson wrote:Implement a system based on points. Basically, when creating your spell you have a certain amount of points you can allocate (of course, the higher the rank of the spell, the greater the amount of points at your disposal). It costs X points to increase the power of your spell by 1. It costs X points to make your spell capable of inflicting one status aliment. Making it a ranged spell costs X points every 10 m. Giving it an AoE costs X points per 10 m radius. Healing/Buffing/Debuffing spells cost X points every X% HP recovered (or X% stat boosted/lowered). This way, some people would want to sacrifice reach for power, while others would sacrifice damage output for range. Since there are currently no rules on cooldowns either, cooldowns could be tied to this system too: the amount of turns you must wait before using the same spell again is proportional to the amount of points you invested in it (in other words, one post of cooldown for every X points you have used to make that spell). This would give people a valid reason for wanting to make weaker spells, by allocating less points than the maximum allowed: let's say for example that C-rank spells can allocate 6 points, while B-rank spells cann allocate 9 points. A guy could decide to make a B-rank spell that only allocates 7 points, for the sake of having a spell that is still more powerful than a C-rank one, but has a lower cooldown compared to most other B-rank ones. In short, with such a system diversity would be promoted.

    If the staff can come up with other solutions to address the problems I highlighted, that's fine too. The important is that such problems are addressed, because if left alone, they WILL come back to haunt us eventually. I still think that criticizing now, with the systems still being WIP, is a bit premature. I am into the business of giving people the benefit of the doubt.


    Kyoto Vyner
    Administrator


    Posts : 358

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Kyoto Vyner on Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:36 pm

    So before anyone continues to bash the system as Axel has continually done as of lately a small piece of the conversation between him and I on skype before he brought it publicly because I told him to be patient and wait, yet he refuses and wants to rush things out. In the conversation I described how each rank will be able to train up to a certain level of strength for that rank. I didn't go into detail, but depending on how many points you had in strength would determine your "Level" which currently right now in my rough draft is 3, Basic, Enhanced, Advanced. Now as you see below he agrees that you should not be able to gain more than your rank.
    (so C rank can only get up to C rank stats)

    As I have said be patient and it will come out, once it is complete then yes you can complain about the system or needing improvements, but trying to do a "complete overhaul" on something you have no clue about or the workings about the finished product isn't cool.

    Yes as a Developer I take pride in my work and stand behind it, but that doesn't mean it's perfect or can't be revised to be better. I'm a computer programmer as well and have created MUDs and coded other things, so yes I understand there will be issues that will need to be addressed whether that is adding something in or changing something completely. But you can't up and judge an unfinished project.

    As I have said I welcome all suggestions but when you try to trash or talk down on something because you can't get your way isn't cool.

    Red is Axel, Blue is Me

    Nurok
    yeah
    From:
    Nurok
    when we do the stats system, please let me head it up
    From:
    Nurok
    I think I would be able to bring out something that would appease the gamers in all of us as well as the RP-only quality of this site


    For example
    D Rank Strength would have 3 levels as well
    Which would mean Strength Advanced at D Rank would do more damage than Basic Strength at D Rank


    From:
    Nurok
    ok
    From:
    Nurok
    as long as a person can't have X rank advanced in every single stat I'm cool
    From:
    Nurok
    limit the type of stats you are able to get by rank (so C rank can only get up to C rank stats)


    Claire Anderson

    Posts : 77
    Location : Crocus

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Claire Anderson on Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:49 pm

    Well Kyoto, if you have a job, then you should be familiar with the old adagio, "the client is always right". If there are players who are dissatisfied, maybe you should listen to them. Although I will agree that a topic like this, when the systems still aren't finished, is premature to say the least.

    If I may, both of you guys should make a bigger effort to see each other's point of view. As I have said multiple time, my greatest desire is to just see everyone get along, and that goes double for staffers. Try and have a sit, take a deep breath, and be honest about your feelings, trying to settle your differences, and to agree to disagree when a compromise is impossible, ok? Possibly when Remix is around, as you guys both seem to be very stubborn and she, as nice and kind as she is, could act as the voice of reason.

    In fairness, this topic, and the whole discussion that led to it, was not Axel's idea. He just happened to be there, but this is something that came from the people. So please see this as an attempt, on the people's part, to be of help, and not as a personal issue of sorts, ok?


    Kyoto Vyner
    Administrator


    Posts : 358

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Kyoto Vyner on Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:06 pm

    "the client is always right"

    That is true, but as it has been acknowledged the system isn't complete and most client's don't complain unless it's something they completely dislike, or it's finished and they dislike it. Here everyone is complaining about "lack" of something, when that something is coming when we get to it.

    If I may, both of you guys should make a bigger effort to see each other's point of view. wrote:

    Honestly it's more of him being impatient rather than waiting til we get to stats to work on it. As with everything in Development I post it and await for comments and suggestions from staff.

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Joe Wiccan on Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:49 pm

    Whilst i agree people are very much getting ahead of themselves (myself included) The point remains that as the system is shaping up to be it looks as if it will be extremely unfair with Lower ranks being unable to Damage higher ones. Is this still going to be present in the finished product as i believe this was the main issue people were having?




    Joe Wiccan
    Main Theme

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Tracey Harper on Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:36 am

    @Claire Anderson wrote:Again, while I understand that some people would be happy about a "comparative stat system", as Axel called it, I also understand that others would really oppose the idea of having stats in general. So IMO a compromise between the two "factions" could be reached, by using such a system JUST for accuracy and evasion. Again, most of the problems are going to come from that aspect anyway, and with spells having fixed damage, stuff like Atk and Def wouldn't matter that much either.

    The only other suggestion I can make is this (I had already posted it in that old topic of mine):


    @Claire Anderson wrote:Implement a system based on points. Basically, when creating your spell you have a certain amount of points you can allocate (of course, the higher the rank of the spell, the greater the amount of points at your disposal). It costs X points to increase the power of your spell by 1. It costs X points to make your spell capable of inflicting one status aliment. Making it a ranged spell costs X points every 10 m. Giving it an AoE costs X points per 10 m radius. Healing/Buffing/Debuffing spells cost X points every X% HP recovered (or X% stat boosted/lowered). This way, some people would want to sacrifice reach for power, while others would sacrifice damage output for range. Since there are currently no rules on cooldowns either, cooldowns could be tied to this system too: the amount of turns you must wait before using the same spell again is proportional to the amount of points you invested in it (in other words, one post of cooldown for every X points you have used to make that spell). This would give people a valid reason for wanting to make weaker spells, by allocating less points than the maximum allowed: let's say for example that C-rank spells can allocate 6 points, while B-rank spells cann allocate 9 points. A guy could decide to make a B-rank spell that only allocates 7 points, for the sake of having a spell that is still more powerful than a C-rank one, but has a lower cooldown compared to most other B-rank ones. In short, with such a system diversity would be promoted.

    If the staff can come up with other solutions to address the problems I highlighted, that's fine too. The important is that such problems are addressed, because if left alone, they WILL come back to haunt us eventually. I still think that criticizing now, with the systems still being WIP, is a bit premature. I am into the business of giving people the benefit of the doubt.


    This to me is the best system for spells anyway, I was on a site that had points and it worked well, each spell should be given a set of points [for example I'll make up a mok one]

    Using the base speed and ranges for the non enhanced areas. So say a D-rank gets 3 points to allocate per D-rank spell and a C-rank spell has four for example. So we use the infomation on the site for now. That a D-rank offence does 1 hp damage but what if the strength of the spell was enhanced via the point system? If one were to put all their points into damage [meaning 3] that spell would do 4 points of damage. If range for a D-rank was 5, and say each point increases it by 3 meters. Speed is 2m/s and lets say each point increases it by a further 2m/s while AOE is 5 meters all around and each point increases by a further 3. So below the points for my spell would look like this.

    Name: Sirens Burst
    Rank: D-rank
    Type: Offence Offense
    Range: eight meters
    Appearance: By playing some form of music from either the body, the mouth or an instrument, the user releases a burst of sound that is concentrated together to do physical damage. This burst moves with a green tinge and releases a gentle hum as it flies. It is the size of a basketball. I'm going to need an actual dimentions. Size of a basketball is a bit vague
    Description: A simple damaging spell in which the concentrated ball of sound strikes the opponent much like a powerful burst of air to do physical damage. This does blunt force damage at .50 you can increase to 1 damage if you'd like flying at a total speed of 2m/s with an instant use and cooldown of 2 posts. Costs the Standard D-rank [2.5 mana]
    *Strength = 1 Point
    *Speed = 1 point
    *Buff/Debuff - 0
    *AOE - 0
    *Range - 1 point.

    So this would mean instead of my standard bases, my spell would have no debuff ability, it would do 2 points in damage while travelling at 4m/s per second up to a range of 8ms.

    This too me allows spells to be similiar but have a degree of uniqueness, someone could make the same spell but have it solely be damaging putting all points in the strength area. I'm not sure if this makes sense but i know what im trying to say XD.


    Also @Kyoto, i would like to interject about blaming Axel, It all stemmed from my question and confusion about how being a higher rank grants immunity which is highly illogical. He instead gave full reasoning of why due to the current system and urged us to make suggestions,







    [center]r]

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Epitaphless on Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:49 am

    While comparative stat systems are effective, I find that without numerical values they can actually be difficult to deal with and hard for combat mods to maintain. I would recommend a numerical system if going by a stat system. Essentially you could do 10 stat points per rank (roughly) and the top tier of that rank would be considered almost equal to the low tier in the next rank. i.e. not significant difference between 10-11 but the difference instead becomes more noticeable between a 3 or 4 point lead.

    I like the idea of spell stats; however, I caution that it will become much more difficult for people who choose to fight at a range, as someone who is in close range does not need to focus on range at all. A strength and speed alone spell would be monumentally different. Just a word of warning. This also applies to buffing / healing / aoe magic. If aoe is a stat, is range no tied in? So would they not have to take both?'

    Another stat to consider is casting speed. =x I will elaborate on this perhaps more when i get home tonight.

    Kyoto Vyner
    Administrator


    Posts : 358

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Kyoto Vyner on Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:10 am

    I'm just curious where does it state that higher ranks have immunity?


    Claire Anderson

    Posts : 77
    Location : Crocus

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Claire Anderson on Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:19 am

    I think she means that, the way status afflictions currently work, it would be virtually impossible for a D-rank guy to inflict one on an A-rank one. Or at least, this is what I understood from what she wrote in the chat, honestly I myself am not that sure :/


    Kyoto Vyner
    Administrator


    Posts : 358

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Kyoto Vyner on Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:36 am

    And where is that written?

    Edit: Now if they are referring to a sleep spell that someone created not sure what the outcome was but originally it was going to be D-Rank only, I suggested that it be their current rank and down (Believe the person is B Rank, not sure)

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Tracey Harper on Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:15 am

    Thats were it stemmed from, then the issues kept flowing in, though my regular statement still stands that it very much doesnt make sense, how does a single rank justify immunity to spells? Rank in fairy tail is the power of the wizard in terms of their capabilties. Yet it doesn't mean they suddenly have passive immunities to abilities simply because they have been stammped as an A-rank mage. The logic just doesn't fit.

    @Epitaphless wrote:While comparative stat systems are effective, I find that without numerical values they can actually be difficult to deal with and hard for combat mods to maintain. I would recommend a numerical system if going by a stat system. Essentially you could do 10 stat points per rank (roughly) and the top tier of that rank would be considered almost equal to the low tier in the next rank. i.e. not significant difference between 10-11 but the difference instead becomes more noticeable between a 3 or 4 point lead.

    I like the idea of spell stats; however, I caution that it will become much more difficult for people who choose to fight at a range, as someone who is in close range does not need to focus on range at all. A strength and speed alone spell would be monumentally different. Just a word of warning. This also applies to buffing / healing / aoe magic. If aoe is a stat, is range no tied in? So would they not have to take both?'

    Ranged spells would take a hit in that sense, but power and abilities should all be about giving and taking, if you want a massive range in terms of spells or mass power or even superior speed other areas should take a hit in their scale of abilities. Passives could be incorporated in to such a skill set such as a range user could have increased damage on range attacks [unless perks are nont combat based which is kinda silly imo] As for AOE and Range yes both are somewhat the same, though on most sites and like this site here has stated, range is the over all travel distance in a straight line unless of course the spell has some form of movement ability while area of effect allows for the entirety of an area to be struck such as a 15m Range can travel in one direction up to fifteen meters while an AOE range would mean that entire 15m range is struck by the spell. I do agree casting speed might be an issue but that could easily be tied in to spell speed

    Another stat to consider is casting speed. =x I will elaborate on this perhaps more when i get home tonight.

    I do agree casting speed might be an issue but that could easily be tied in to spell speed



    [center]r]

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Ean Sableheart on Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:19 am

    I think I've got a bit of an idea on how I can build something. It'll take a little while but I hsould have something up for you guys within a week.

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Ean Sableheart on Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:31 am

    I lied I did this just now. It's fairly general and needs more detail and is missing plenty but I believe this is great overall.

    Stats:

    Strength: The general attack power of a person. The primary offensive stat. Physical attacks use this stat as well as more physically oriented spells and magic, such as ice make, and many forms of slayer magic.
    Endurance: defensive stat against strength. Determines how much damage you generally take.
    Intelligence: Power of magical attacks. Note that not all magic will use this stat. The effectiveness of status moves can also use this stat.
    Resistence: defensive stat against intelligence. Resistance against damage and status based moves are based on this stat.
    Agility: Quickness or mobility. This stat determines how quickly you can throw out physical attacks and how well you can evade attacks.

    Speed: Speed will have a set value that can’t be increased. One may buff it or debuff it temporarily using magic however one can not add to this stat as they please, hence its independence from the five stats above. This is due to the OP nature of speed itself and, from every single visual I’ve seen, nobody has been so much faster than another character in the canon we are using that it made a difference, with the exception of using magic.

    Spells: Spells have a base power based on their rank. The overall power of an attack is the base power of the spell + the corresponding stat. (Notice: these numbers are purely example and not in any way shape or form something you should use unless your numbers are similar to mine.)
    D-rank spell: 0 base power
    C-rank spell: 5 base power
    B-rank spell: 10 base power
    A-rank spell: 25 base power
    S-rank spell: 40 base power
    SS-rank spell: 60 base power
    L ranked spell: 75 base power

    Examples:
    -Let’s say a fire dragon slayer has a fire punch spell that’s d-rank. Naturally, this makes sense to affiliate with the strength stat. Said dragon slayer has a strength of 30.
    The power of the spell is 30 + 0. Power of the spell is 30.

    -Let’s also say said fire dragon slayer is going to use his breath attack. Now we’re using the intelligence stat. Let’s say his intelligence is 40 and the spell is a b-rank spell.
    The power of the spell is 40 + 10. Power of the spell is 50.

    What’s missing:
    Max/Mins: Such system would need to cap 1.) a maximum power and 2.) a maximum buffed power. Basically how powerful you can be normally and how much more powerful you can buff yourself with magic. Additionally, you’ll need to set minimum amounts so people don’t leave their unused stats at completely zero so they can spam whatever they want.

    Buffs/Debuffs: These would need to be independent from this stat and based solely on the rank of the spell. Why? Because if we used the intelligence stat to buff everything then these would either be nerfed beyond usability or become over powered out the ass.

    Perks: This is something fun to support not dropping stats entirely while also being useful. Basically this works by having a certain amount of stats allocated in a particular stat that you get some bonuses. For example if you have say 50 intelligence you can now sense the magical power of those within a 20 meter radius or if your agility is 100 you can attack an additional time(assuming we limit how many attacks one can do in one post(you should do this as, since any attack post should only last a few seconds or a minute at most, nobody should be able ot get more then two attacks out at once or one attack if it’s a long attack).

    how to raise stats: this is also something you need to figure out on your own.

    tiers: something nice to show people that having stats that are only 5 apart doesn't mean much but having stats that are 30 apart is a big deal and how much damage such differences deal(relatively the numbers end here use actual kinds of injuries like broken bones or ___ degree burns. Also need to do this to determine the effectiveness of status spells)

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Maria Fay on Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:33 am

    My suggestion would be to drop the entire stat system entirely including HP and MP we already have. We don't really need to have system to what and when we die or magic runs out etc. Ranks should be enough. It limits creativity and therefore is not only unnecessary but also just a plain bad idea. Stronger spells are dangerous enough on their own, but if we implement a stat system higher ranks get even more of an advantage then they already have. Yes I know they are supposed to be stronger, but who wants to play D-rank if everyone is already B or higher?

    Instead I think it's better to just let people decide whatever happens to their own character if they lose. Sure within reasons, if someone's head has been ripped of he isn't going to move anytime soon. But after most regular defeats it could be quiet possible a character survive. Let's just say it out loud. Nobody likes it if their character dies, so we shouldn't impose it on someone with a silly system.

    We still should limit spells somehow, maybe with a cooldowns system and leave it at that. Just to make sure they don't make just one damaging spell and always use that one. To keep spells more varied. Stats also slow down the entire application system especially when going for high ranks, which already take a longer time than low ranked people. They also slow down roleplay in general as one can't be flexible with their spells as they have to keep their stats in mind. Anyway, I have voiced my opinion. Have fun with it.

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Axel Tengoku on Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:45 am

    I agree with all of that Maria. The only problem is that an only-RP system allows for a much easier time to godmod. Some people on the interwebs LOVE to godmod, and love to RP untouchable characters. That is my issue, is that from my experience with RP sites, is that those that have stats its much harder to godmod strength/speed/magic power/etc, while those that don't requires constant attention from the moderators to make sure no one is godmodding.

    Why I LOVE a stat system, especially for sites like this, is that it creates tension. What I mean by that, is that it makes it a justifiable difference between spell damage, characters/etc. No one can godmod a character's strength over another just because they like to RP that. It's justifiable- if I am A rank, but my stats are lower then yours, your character is stronger then mine. And by a stat system, I keep talking about a comparative one. Basically, instead of it determining like functions, it determines the comparitives of characters. Plus the spell system talked above, where you put points to spells, it creates actual customizabality, with the added functions of limiting godmodding.

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Silver Wolf on Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:25 am

    I have written an announcement yesterday and therefore will be locking this. I will reopen when things are all done and ready for criticizing

    Sponsored content

    Re: discussion on cbox continued

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:45 am