The Reason Trains Went From 75 to 50 and More

Post 1: Gatz · 2010-06-30 21:25 UTC

As some of you have already noticed, recently, I've made a change to the amount of stats earned by players. I reduced it from 75 to 50. The only people affected are new players, and so in order to prevent a bitter taste in everyone's mouth, I want to explain why this happened, why it needed to happen and hopefully convince you all that this will be an overall positive thing because of it.

First, let me explain the reason why it was 75 to begin with. Simply put, the goal was to make it so all stats could be around 15-16 or higher or lower based on what you wanted. That way, if you wanted to be hit harder, you invest in more strength at the expensive of say intelligence. Very basic game concept. 75 felt like it was more than enough to provide enough variety to players, and to give an interesting game experience. However, over the years, my position has been changing.

Why did it change? Well, the Living Stat Code (LSC) was the driving force. I love the idea behind LSC, and the original idea behind it I feel is one of those situations of good on paper, bad in practice. So, what went wrong? Well, I intended to make LSC difficult, and optional. The idea behind it was that players could invest time in making their stats go even higher, but it'd be a time sink. However, I started to see a problem, which is common, and that is players getting roped into something they feel is necessary no matter how optional it is, just because it provides them a benefit. I'm not criticizing the mentality, because I fall victim to it. Why wouldn't someone want to do something to make them even greater?

As many of you know, it isn't the exception to use LSC to train your stats, it is the norm. This goes against my design of the system and the purpose of it. Some players, if not all, will say it -has- to be done to even be able to compete at higher levels. So, now, training points are now just used to make using LSC easier, rather than making LSC optional. My efforts to push more towards the 'optional' haven't been very successful, and I very much know some players avoid stat training until later in the game but inevitably they do it, many begrudgingly.

LSC was meant to be difficult, slow and obnoxious. The original design was to make it takes hours to train a stat up, and make it so if you want to stay uber it requires maintenance. When I initially implemented this on Cowboy Bebop: Space Cowboy, which is the MUD I coded on before NM, it was non-optional and the only way to train. Players were angry. They hated it being required, they hated the fact that it could drop and the initial implementation of it wasn't particularly very good, NM's is a lot kinder. A lot of people quit CB:SC when I implemented it and a lot of people just came on to insult me and the MUD. The early days of LSC were rough, and I think CB:SC might have even removed it now.

So, the astute reader will probably ask the very good question, “Why in the world would you want to keep this system?” Frankly, I think it is great in concept and can work. I believe LSC 3.0 is the answer. However, this system hasn't received a lot of love because the core idea of difficult, frustrating and optional, but now the system, in my eyes, has become difficult, frustrating and required. Even now, though, I feel like it isn't far from the ideal.

So, this is a long way of saying, LSC 3.0 will be happening. LSC will be getting a thorough pass over and the core idea, or mentality, will change. With 50 trains, it helps support this idea. It still lets low level players avoid LSC for awhile, and depending on build possibly forever. However, now when you want to do it, they'll be made to be a lot more fun and interesting. I still will probably keep many of the auto-commands, but they'll be re-worked a bit. I've noticed some people will prefer being lazy and using the auto-commands, but they'll never be as fast as using the mini-game like commands like Shadow Box and Sudoku.

Next, items have been slowly getting rolling changes. Almost all the equipment in the game has been getting setup to support layers. Also some equipment is getting setup to have upgrade branches. As such, some of their ACes are lowering or any special mods getting tweaked because of this. However, with this setup, it is possible, in theory it is possibly to raise stats much higher than now via items.

Lastly, the Race to Level 300 is going to be exposing an exciting new game play feature for everyone. This isn't the time to go into full detail, but the winner will be able to not only experience it first but get bonuses for this new game feature. It will add a totally new way to further distance shinobi from each other and I think add an exciting amount of replayability to the game. Discussion of this will happen later, probably around the time someone hits level 290.

I hope no one is still sitting at this point and is feeling anything but hope and excitement. I truly feel like the net gain outweighs the net loss. For the people who have 75 trains, they won't get those removed, but it will balance out eventually so that people with 50 trains are on the same plain as those with 75. Truthfully, with LSC, things can even out. For the items, these changes affect all new items and existing items players have won't be affected. Which will reflect our balancing guidelines where items without the ability to be layered will be better than an item that can be layered.

So, where does this leave everyone? Well, you can expecting LSC to improve, making it a lot more fun and exciting. You can expect a lot of more interesting items and item combinations. You can also expect something cool to come about from the Race to Level 300. I hope you all are as excited as I am, and if you have any more questions, I'll try to answer them as best as I can. The only questions I won't take are related to the Race to Level 300's end prize, as that will be a big reveal later.

Post 2: Yuuta · 2010-06-30 22:21 UTC

Gatz wrote:

I hope no one is still sitting at this point and is feeling anything but hope and excitement. I truly feel like the net gain outweighs the net loss. For the people who have 75 trains, they won't get those removed, but it will balance out eventually so that people with 50 trains are on the same plain as those with 75. Truthfully, with LSC, things can even out. For the items, these changes affect all new items and existing items players have won't be affected. Which will reflect our balancing guidelines where items without the ability to be layered will be better than an item that can be layered.

Might I ask how it is you plan to make people with 50 trains similar in power to somebody with 75 trains? As it stands, unless you plan to make stats have little impact on the game, the difference between 50 points and 75 points is staggering.

There are seven different stats and all of them are level 5 at the beginning, which comes out to be 35 points given to you free of charge.

35 + 50 = 85
35 + 75 = 110

Those who retain 75 training points very nearly have 30% more stats than those who do not.

15-16 or higher or lower based on what you wanted

If we were to allocate the points evenly, with 50 trains, we get approximately 7 points per stat.

The average is now 12.

With a maximum cap of 30, 12 is abysmal but, this could very well be the intention (and I can see this happening) -- in order to reach that godly 30, you have to sacrifice dearly. I can understand that. I can sympathize with the move towards stat allocation behaving more like a sacrifice game -- I'm all for it.

What I don't understand is how you plan to both make stats viable in the game in comparison to other methods (i.e., equipment) without breaking the game based on your decision to allow people to keep their 75 trains. If you plan to make stats less important in the grand scheme of things, then you're simply reducing the impact and, in so doing, the customizability afforded to the player with said stats. If you plan to retain the influence afforded by stats, then the 30% bonus afforded to others over new players will just break things.

To put it into an LSC perspective, the average stat is now 12 with 50 points whereas the average stat with 75 was about 15-16. This means that all non-new characters have effectively LSC'd all of their stats for a 3-4 point bonus. All of their stats. 3-4 point bonus. Permanently.

I'm very skeptical in how this would end up working.

Post 3: Giyoku · 2010-06-30 22:29 UTC

Sadly, I'm not excited.

None of my friends are excited.

I'd be hard-pressed into believing any player who has a serious interest in this game and building up a playerbase is excited.

Why? Because you went about this in a poor way. But this is just my opinion being voiced here, and though you'll likely not convince me of changing it, i'll at least try to explain why and offer some suggestions to not let this happen in the future.

First, the no announcement thing is just poor development practice. You note all kinds of changes on the 'changes' board, regardless of how tiny they are, but don't put something up like this? The only answer you provided is.. because I was going to do it later? You just don't do this, period. It only reads as laziness. The only cases in which a change can go unannounced that has an immediate and lasting impact on players, especially new, is some kind of bug or error that causes problems or can be exploited, and even then that's only to say fix the problem -then- post soon afterward so players can be aware and report back any other issues.

Further, your own admins didn't seem to know what was going on. The worse response? We're in alpha. We could have a pwipe at any time. if this is true, please, please, please update your helpfiles on this. It states that pwipes will only occur under very specific circumstances. So why is an immortal answering a question such as this code change in such a manner?

Second, you've not explained why doing it this way is better than any of the alternatives. Maybe you don't think you need to do this, and I would agree with you if you also thought building your playerbase was second to development. If it is, tell us, and we'll be relieved to leave the game until such a time that it is ready. Currently, your listing on at least one site claims that you're ready for players. This may seem mean spirited, but if you aren't ready, you aren't ready and it's better to do this than to give new players a bad experience that will leave them never wanting more.

When I read your response to my post, I immediately thought to myself.. okay, so why not change the stats -after- all these supposed changes?

Breaking it down:

LSC - You already have some LSC 3.0, if I am understanding what you're referring to (chakramold / shadowbox). So why are you changing trains -now-? Some others will be 'slightly reworked' but I imagine still work very similarly for a player. Further down in your response, you tell us that those who got 25 extra trains will be more or less balanced with the new LSC system. If this is true, why did it matter to lower them now, or at all? I simply don't believe you're correct in this statement. With the same effort, they'll be 25 points higher, period. This does not excite me.

Items - I'm not even sure how layering items has anything to do with this, except to think that you're basically saying you're giving us more slots for more gear, which will in turn, I assume, means gear that gives stats will give you -more- stats. Again, those who already have the extra trains can potentially have the same gear. To me, this is not a reason why stats absolutely -needed- to be lowered, and again, why did it need to happen before work has even begun to really know how much of a difference it will make?

You've a race to some level that you don't even think is worth discussing until -someone- is level 290. It doesn't make me excited, how could it? You said replayability so my only guess is some kind of remort/releveling system. After 300 levels I get to level more? That's the opposite of exciting. Again, I'm just making an inference, but it's all you gave me. Why bother at all. Even worse? You just put every new player at a disadvantage in this so-called race to 300, even -if- things will eventually somehow balance out, it isn't balanced now, when the contest is running.

I feel like maybe i'm being a little harsh, and while i've tried to be as constructive as possible, but I cannot help but feel like this type of continued development practice will only cause players to leave.

Post 4: Saikou · 2010-07-01 01:57 UTC

If you really don't understand why a player may be unhappy that another player gets 25 more trains... it is clear you have no idea what you're doing here.

I'm sorry. I gave your game a solid shot; I tried to provide at least a little input... but I'm out. Call this the (not so little) straw that broke my back.

Best of luck to you guys. Maybe in 6 more years when you start calling yourselves Beta or something I'll give you another go.

Post 5: Gatz · 2010-07-01 02:00 UTC

Well, let me say a couple things. First off, thanks for posting guys. You have no idea how honored it makes me that you guys like NM enough to post such well thought out responses. Let me go by saying I'm sorry I did this in such a lame way, there is no good excuses to make so I won't make them. I don't think there is any way to truly make you guys feel like you aren't losing something, because in a way you are. However. let me answer some specific questions and hopefully you'll stick around for a at least a little bit longer.

Giyoku wrote:

Why? Because you went about this in a poor way. But this is just my opinion being voiced here, and though you'll likely not convince me of changing it, i'll at least try to explain why and offer some suggestions to not let this happen in the future.

Sorry. I could have handled this better. Thanks for having the guts to be honest. A lot of players would have just typed 'quit' and said nothing, I respect you speaking up.

Giyoku wrote:

Further, your own admins didn't seem to know what was going on. The worse response? We're in alpha. We could have a pwipe at any time. if this is true, please, please, please update your helpfiles on this. It states that pwipes will only occur under very specific circumstances. So why is an immortal answering a question such as this code change in such a manner?

A pwipe is the last thing I want to do. However, in exchange for not pwiping, I take the right to make some legacy issues with older players. One such example is how existing players started at level 0 for Ningu. Also, occasionally if a bug occurs that favors a player, I might let them keep the bonus as a reward for reporting it, however those happen rarely enough not to become an issue. If a pwipe were to occur, I'd give everyone very ample notice. NM has had 1 pwipe in it's history and everyone had 1 months notice and the reason why it was happening and why it was unavoidable was noted.

So, don't worry about pwipes. The chance that will happen is very, very slim.

Giyoku wrote:

Second, you've not explained why doing it this way is better than any of the alternatives. Maybe you don't think you need to do this, and I would agree with you if you also thought building your playerbase was second to development. If it is, tell us, and we'll be relieved to leave the game until such a time that it is ready. Currently, your listing on at least one site claims that you're ready for players. This may seem mean spirited, but if you aren't ready, you aren't ready and it's better to do this than to give new players a bad experience that will leave them never wanting more.

One of the hardest things to do is make changes like these. It is always easing adding, but painful to take away. Don't think this was easy for me. NarutoMUD is a game that is meant for the enjoyment of players, but like a bonsai sometimes you have to carefully trim. However, looking forward and looking over the state of the average player I think it is a must. I hope you all can realize that, in the long run, this will add better balance to the game.

Giyoku wrote:

I feel like maybe i'm being a little harsh, and while i've tried to be as constructive as possible, but I cannot help but feel like this type of continued development practice will only cause players to leave.

It's okay, I totally understand. I think trying to do more drastic changes to balance like this can cause the player base to drop. So, with each change, I constantly have to weigh the cost versus gain. NarutoMUD is a little game, with a mostly niche audience, so every time we lose a player it hurts. However, I'm not going to pigeon hole myself into not balancing out the game. So, I'll continue to walk this tight rope and hope for the best, making sure each time I make a move like this it is done carefully and tastefully.

If the game was more PvP oriented, I'd 100% have pulled everyone's extra trains that had over 50. However, the game is more team oriented, but if enough players feel strongly about this then I'll definitely remove the extras. However, because of the nature of this system, if even after trying things out, if players feel like 50 is just too few, I'll raise the number until we can all agree it feels right. I want you all to feel like you have a say in this, despite my drunken despotism. Like I keep saying, your character is never broken, it is never too late. Even with this change, if we all think 50 is too few, it can be raised and people will gain what they're missing.

Thanks again for being so honest.

Post 6: Giyoku · 2010-07-01 02:10 UTC

I can be brutally honest at times, but I appreciate that more than dancing around and brown nosing.

Thanks for the response.

Post 7: Ichiro · 2010-07-01 02:14 UTC

I think the way it evens out in the long run is that LSC goes faster based on certain factors. The way I understand things, the primary factors are how high a stat is versus how high it could be. So, LSC's for people with fewer trains will go much faster than those with lots of trains until their stats start reaching a similar point.

I could be totally wrong though...

Post 8: Giyoku · 2010-07-01 05:01 UTC

Now that we've both had time to take some merit from each others perspectives, I have a final thought.

What this really comes down to is, who does this really affect?

If what you are saying is true, and the game will eventually be balanced, the only people who are suffering from this change are new players who were already playing the game -and- under level 75 at the time of this change. In the grand scheme of things, this is such a trivial audience that I can understand why now is as good a time as any, as this small margin of players is who it would always affect regardless of the time it's implemented.

But you know what?

That's me, that's Zato, that's Saikou, I believe there are probably as many if not more (Kentaro? Naori? Yuuta?) but I cannot verify at this time. When you say that if it bothers enough people that you'll lower everyone elses stats, who else besides us should really have any say, and how many more people than what appears to be at least half need to complain before one of the proposed solutions is made?

Post 9: Gatz · 2010-07-01 06:23 UTC

Giyoku wrote:

how many more people than what appears to be at least half need to complain before one of the proposed solutions is made?

Well, it isn't always a matter of raw numbers. A lot of changes or tweaks happen based on players making a good case. I usually run it by some people and get their take on it, and then make a decision. In this case, I have a couple technical hurdles before I can take away stats from people who have more than the current max. However, a good example, and one you might not be so upset about, involving tweaks is Hosenka. A player brought to my attention that they he thought Hosenka wasn't really setup well compared with a similar skill, so looking it over and talking with a few other people it really seemed like it needed a re-work, and it got one that I thought was good and a few players tested it and felt it was a good change, as well.

Not saying I take everything, but even 1 player's opinion matters to me. However, when I look at the game I do so from a bird's eye view of the current state of the game and the future, but as the game grows and gets more refined player's input is absolutely required to make sure we all stay on point, code wise and building wise. As most of the Immortals can tell you, they aren't just a bunch of 'yes' men, most of them came into being Immortals based on their desire to see NarutoMUD improve, and as mortals were very vocal about it, in fact if you know Hitoshi's mortal alt you can still find his posts on the forums where is very upfront about his views.

I never shy away from reviews or critiques, even from 1 player. So, while you may see your group as too little to make an impact, I view it as the perfect size to get an nice read on things. So keep posting here, keep looking things over. Never be shy to state your opinion. I honestly don't think every idea I have or every way I implement something is 'the best' it can ever be, but without feedback it is hard for me to realize issues. I still believe this is a good idea looking forward, and I believe the impact of this won't be as painful as you think.

Post 10: Giyoku · 2010-07-01 06:43 UTC

Gatz wrote:

So, while you may see your group as too little to make an impact, I view it as the perfect size to get an nice read on things.

Actually, the case I made above was pretty much the opposite of this. My position was that only a handful of us are affected, so we are the ones that should be providing feedback on this system, as it has no bearing on anyone else.

Gatz wrote:

However, the game is more team oriented, but if enough players feel strongly about this then I'll definitely remove the extras.

Gatz wrote:

Well, it isn't always a matter of raw numbers. A lot of changes or tweaks happen based on players making a good case.

If you think I am not making a good case that

A: The few people this is affecting -are- speaking out about it
B: They are the ones who should be voting or weighing in on this specific system
C: Enough of us are speaking out that it calls for the above action you said would be taken, to actually be taken

Then, we are at an impasse, and I politely agree to disagree

Post 11: Yuuta · 2010-07-01 09:44 UTC

Giyoku wrote:

I believe there are probably as many if not more (Kentaro? Naori? Yuuta?) but I cannot verify at this time.

Correct. I am one of the people who will be facing the lowered stats.

GENKAI

This skill means 'limit' in English. There are 3 total Genkai, each one
allows the user to train one statistic per Genkai from it's normal 20 to
25 using LSC commands. Kagirinai allows the user to train one statistic
from 25 to 30.

With a base stat of 5, you require 15 trains to get to 20. This equates to 45 trains. For the 25-30, you require another 5 trains.

This means, in order to get the most out of any of the Genkai, you must train those three stats exclusively.

Perhaps this is your goal and the reason for the specific 50 point limit? I'm not sure.

Ichiro wrote:

I think the way it evens out in the long run is that LSC goes faster based on certain factors. The way I understand things, the primary factors are how high a stat is versus how high it could be. So, LSC's for people with fewer trains will go much faster than those with lots of trains until their stats start reaching a similar point.

I could be totally wrong though...

This doesn't remove the cap of LSC's -- you can only LSC up to five points higher than the level afforded to the stat by trains, currently. This effectively means that new players have a lower LSC cap which, no matter how much easier it is to reach it, still restricts them in comparison to old players.

Gatz wrote:

If the game was more PvP oriented, I'd 100% have pulled everyone's extra trains that had over 50. However, the game is more team oriented, but if enough players feel strongly about this then I'll definitely remove the extras. However, because of the nature of this system, if even after trying things out, if players feel like 50 is just too few, I'll raise the number until we can all agree it feels right. I want you all to feel like you have a say in this, despite my drunken despotism. Like I keep saying, your character is never broken, it is never too late. Even with this change, if we all think 50 is too few, it can be raised and people will gain what they're missing.

Sue me for being a perfectionist, but I don't have to have a direct PVP disadvantage to feel the sting of reduced combat efficiency. In the world of Naruto, your fighting ability can be a key component, and if old players are naturally favored to the new ones, this creates an artificial rift in power between the two for no apparent logical reason, a rift that isn't removed simply with experience or effort. How would it feel to have somebody who is smarter than me, stronger than me, and faster than me not because of any training or effort they put in on their part, but simply because they joined before the changes occurred? Even if I am not fighting them directly (which means the arena -- a fun pastime -- is out), seeing them be 100% better would be disheartening.

As I had said before, I don't necessarily mind the change from 75 to 50 trains as I see it as a step in the right direction in making the stat allocation far more of a sacrifice game than it currently is. That being the case, the biggest reason for my discomfort is the new rift in power between me and the old players that I will never be able to cross.

Gatz wrote:

However, I'm not going to pigeon hole myself into not balancing out the game.

But that feels exactly like what has happened. The move to not affect older people feels either as if you are afraid they will leave if their stats suddenly got reduced or that you personally favor them over the new player crowd. If a move is made to make new players have 50 stats for balance reasons, then how is leaving other people with 75 stats fully balancing the game?

Post 12: Gatz · 2010-07-01 13:27 UTC

Since you both have said a lot of similar things, I won't use quotes but answer generally. Players with over the max on stats, will have them reduced. Also, you can use LSC to raise a stat, if you wanted, from 5->30. However, when a stat hits 20, it can only go higher with Genkai or Kagirinai using LSC.

However, back to older players. What I meant with the PvP comment is that I didn't want to rush to the most obvious way to remove the offending trains, i.e. full re-spec. Just because that means their work they did with LSC would be ruined. However, this isn't to say it won't happen, it just means it'll probably happen this weekend after some playing around, to find the best way to do it.

So, older players wont hold any sort of raw advantage over you in the train department very soon. Again, with my PvP comment, I just meant that I felt a wait wasn't totally unacceptable. If the biggest concern here isn't the reduction of max stats, at least for now, but the fact that older players will have an advantage, then I hope this eases your mind a little.

Post 13: Yuuta · 2010-07-01 13:38 UTC

Gatz wrote:

Since you both have said a lot of similar things, I won't use quotes but answer generally. Players with over the max on stats, will have them reduced. Also, you can use LSC to raise a stat, if you wanted, from 5->30. However, when a stat hits 20, it can only go higher with Genkai or Kagirinai using LSC.

Ahhh, and here we have the crux of the change. I have no problem with LSC being required to gain proficiency in a stat. If a reduction in the LSC stat limit bonus (currently five) is removed, then this change will add more emphasis to such while allowing trains to be a useful substitute until time that you have enough chakra / endurance to efficiently LSC (as it is very consuming early on). I have no problem with the premise behind it.

However, back to older players. What I meant with the PvP comment is that I didn't want to rush to the most obvious way to remove the offending trains, i.e. full re-spec. Just because that means their work they did with LSC would be ruined. However, this isn't to say it won't happen, it just means it'll probably happen this weekend after some playing around, to find the best way to do it.

I don't understand this. Aren't trains and the bonuses from LSC separate? I know that they both have a hand in deciding your final stats, but I was under the impression that, for example, if I untrained a stat, the LSC would remain exactly how it was.

So, older players wont hold any sort of raw advantage over you in the train department very soon. Again, with my PvP comment, I just meant that I felt a wait wasn't totally unacceptable. If the biggest concern here isn't the reduction of max stats, at least for now, but the fact that older players will have an advantage, then I hope this eases your mind a little.

Yes, my mind is eased. As long as it is confirmed that there will not be an obvious rift in power between people for an arbitrary reason, then I, at least, am satisfied.

Post 14: Gatz · 2010-07-01 13:54 UTC

Yuuta wrote:

I don't understand this. Aren't trains and the bonuses from LSC separate? I know that they both have a hand in deciding your final stats, but I was under the impression that, for example, if I untrained a stat, the LSC would remain exactly how it was.

This is the core issue, and I'll illustrate it through the example I found the problem in. Player X uses training points to raise strength to 20, however because he doesn't have Genkai, he can't raise it any further. Player Y uses LSC to train a stat to 20, he then uses training points to raise the stat to 20, the base stat, and now his strength is 30.

So, what I did was that if you Base Stat (5 + Trains) + LSC Stat was 20 or more, you can't sink another point into that stat. So, for this example, lets say Player X, again, has worked his tail off to get his strength to 30. If I forced the re-spec, his strength, without trains, would be 15. As it sits now, Player X would be cutoff from putting any more training points into strength once it hit 20 and they'd have to LSC from 20->30 again.

That is why I need to figure out something a bit better, so folks don't lose the work from 20-30, as that is a long road. So, I'm devising a way to make something make sense without totally ruining older players, since with this everyone with over 50 stats would be forced to 20 at the highest stat for them across the board until they tried to raise it. I know guys like Ichiro and Yamashita have spent tons and tons of time training their stats, so I don't want to render that null and void.

The only good news is that it is pretty easy to see who has too many, so whatever I decide to do, it'll be easy to see who needs them lowered. Also, if you have any ideas on how to do reduce stats for older players, feel free to throw them out, I'm open to suggestions.

Post 15: Yuuta · 2010-07-01 15:22 UTC

Gatz wrote:

So, what I did was that if you Base Stat (5 + Trains) + LSC Stat was 20 or more, you can't sink another point into that stat. So, for this example, lets say Player X, again, has worked his tail off to get his strength to 30. If I forced the re-spec, his strength, without trains, would be 15. As it sits now, Player X would be cutoff from putting any more training points into strength once it hit 20 and they'd have to LSC from 20->30 again.

The only good news is that it is pretty easy to see who has too many, so whatever I decide to do, it'll be easy to see who needs them lowered. Also, if you have any ideas on how to do reduce stats for older players, feel free to throw them out, I'm open to suggestions.

You did it wrong.

(Attempts to put training point into skill)

IF Base Stat (5 + Trains) is equal to 20
=return "You've already trained as much as you can in that stat!"
==endif

ELSE
=IF Base Stat (5 + Trains) + (LSC Stat) is equal to or greater than 25, check for Genkai_Kagarinai_Marker
==IF Genkai_Kagarinai_Marker = False (It is not possible to increase the cap, either due to lack of Genkai or there is already another stat using it)
===Set Base Stat = (current base stat) +1. Set LSC = (Current LSC) - 1
===Endif

(This will decrease your LSC as you increase your trains to keep you within the limit imposed upon you)

==ELSE
===IF Genkai_Kagarinai_Marker = True (You have Kagarinai and it is not currently increasing a different stat)
====Set Base Stat = (current base stat) +1.

ELSE
IF Base Stat (5 + Trains) + (LSC Stat) is equal to or greater than 20 but less than 25, check for Genkai_Marker_Ichi
IF Genkai_Marker_Ichi = True (You have Genkai_Ichi and it is not currently increasing a different stat)

Set base stat = (Current Base Stat) +1.

ELSE
IF Genkai_Marker_Ichi = False (it is not possible to increase the cap, either due to lack of Genkai or it has already been used on a different stat), check for Genkai_Marker_Ni
IF Genkai_Marker_Ni = True (You have Genkai_Ni and it is not currently increasing a different stat)

Set Base stat = (Current Base stat) +1

ELSE
Set Base Stat = (current Base stat) +1. Set LSC = (current LSC) - 1

(As each Genkai specifically only allows for one stat to go above 20, I am assuming you have some sort of marker to keep track of how many stats are currently above 20, to prevent stats from moving higher without the use of Genkai through LSC when they shouldn't).

A bit of the things are redundant (such as checking if something is false after it comes back as not being true), but makes it easier for an outside person to see the steps involved in what I'm suggesting.

This is very messy "code", though, as I don't know how the coding is specifically written. I just hope that I have communicated the basic premise well enough that you can understand what it is I am trying to say. =/

(Just put it through Notepad+)

"Training Check"

IF Base Stat (5 + Trains) is equal to or greater than 20
    return "You've already trained as much as you can in that stat!"
ELSEIF Base Stat (5 + Trains) + (LSC Stat) is equal to or greater than 25
    IF Genkai_Kagarinai_Marker = True
        Set Base Stat = (current base stat) + 1
    ELSE
        set base Stat = (current base stat) + 1
        set LSC = (current LSC) - 1
    ENDIF
ELSEIF Base Stat (5 + Trains) + (LSC Stat) is equal to or greater than 20 but less than 25
    IF Genkai_Marker_Ichi = True
        Set Base Stat = (current base stat) + 1
    ELSEIF Genkai_Marker_Ni = True
        Set Base Stat = (current base stat) + 1
    ELSE
        Set Base Stat = (current base stat) + 1
        Set LSC = (current LSC) - 1
    ENDIF
ELSEIF Base Stat (5 + Trains) + (LSC Stat) is less than 20
    Set Base Stat = (current base stat) + 1
ENDIF

In this way, your LSC should decrease if and only if you do not have the Genkai necessary to increase them past the limit and will allow you to train regardless of your LSC progress.

EDIT: Edited the code again once doing some research on "end if". I hope it is more correct, now.
EDIT2: Cleaned some more.

Post 16: Gatz · 2010-07-01 15:44 UTC

I think I get what you're saying, the only real difference between what you're doing and what I'm doing is that you factor in whether or not they have Genkai or Kagirinai. This might work, I think you might have saved Christmas, Yuuta.

Post 17: Yuuta · 2010-07-01 16:07 UTC

Gatz wrote:

I think I get what you're saying, the only real difference between what you're doing and what I'm doing is that you factor in whether or not they have Genkai or Kagirinai. This might work, I think you might have saved Christmas, Yuuta.

It checks in this order :

Do they have 20 trains already put into the stat? (they can't train anyway, if this is true)
If 25-30, do they have Genkai_Kagirinai available / put on that stat? (If they don't, they lose LSC)
If 20-25, do they have Genkai_Ichi available / put on that stat?
If not, do they have Genkai_Ni available / put on that stat? (If they have neither, they lose LSC)

If lower than 20, then it doesn't matter.

And, yay. Christmas. Glad to be of some assistance.

Post 18: Gatz · 2010-07-08 21:33 UTC

I'm curious if any of the players currently affected by this have gotten a read on whether or not they feel truly hurt from this or not. I've delegated some of the higher level players to try out using their characters with reduced stats to see how it feels, but I'd love to have a level 60-90 player give me insight.

Post 19: Gatz · 2010-07-08 22:00 UTC

Saikou wrote:

If you really don't understand why a player may be unhappy that another player gets 25 more trains... it is clear you have no idea what you're doing here.

I'm sorry. I gave your game a solid shot; I tried to provide at least a little input... but I'm out. Call this the (not so little) straw that broke my back.

Best of luck to you guys. Maybe in 6 more years when you start calling yourselves Beta or something I'll give you another go.

I had been ignoring this comment for awhile, but I figure I might as well take a stab at responding and, hopefully, not causing more of a stir. As a MUD Owner and as a MUD Player, one of the most painful kinds of decisions to make is to remove something. I'm not going to go into any real philosophical debate, but it is my personal experience that shows most people are a lot harder on a MUD than a commercial game, simply because there is a lot less upfront cost to play a MUD.

If I buy an MMO, and it gives me a one month subscription, I'll probably play it for that month even if I hate it and hope things 'turn out alright' in the end. However, on a MUD, I have no monetary investment or real attachment to a game I just started. If I can't see or figure out why it is fun, I leave. That said, I didn't think this change would necessarily be hailed as the greatest thing ever. It doesn't help that an Imm mentioned a pwipe being possibly 'at any time' and that probably only stirred things up.

However, all that said, if I became the kind of MUD Owner too scared to make changes because it might cause the player base to go down, I think the game would suffer for it. I do, however, take in everything players say. I seriously consider everything. I've stopped newbies who've spammed the Newbie channel with things like "This game sux!" and asked if they wouldn't mind talking to me about it. Sometimes, they have a valid point, and most of the time, even in their blind rant, there is something in there that might actually make the game better.

If I ruled with an iron fist, the game wouldn't be fun either. As I see it, we're all in this together, but at the end of the day I'm the one who has to say what goes. It can feel overwhelming and I think my style isn't practiced by a lot of MUD Owners, but I feel it is one I appreciate the most. I run the game for people like you, and without players like you there is no point. When I log in to NarutoMUD and it's empty, it weighs me down, but if I stopped working hard, then NarutoMUD probably doesn't deserve the players in the first place.

So, I think ultimately, I'm sorry this is what did it for you. Your insights were appreciated, and it was a lot of fun having you guys around. However, to me, NarutoMUD isn't about working towards X and then just sitting there. It is about moving forward, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and keep moving forward. While I can imagine some people hearing that might get turned off, I think over the years it has lead us to slowly grow a stable of players that feel like they have left a lasting mark on NarutoMUD and an overall better experience for everyone.

I hope you come back, even if it is in 6 years, and check us out again. We'd love to see you active on the forums, or even building on our builder port. Hopefully by then we've removed all the back breaking straw or at least you can help us pick out the last bits that are left. :)

Post 20: Yuuta · 2010-07-09 06:09 UTC

Gatz wrote:

Saikou wrote:

If you really don't understand why a player may be unhappy that another player gets 25 more trains... it is clear you have no idea what you're doing here.

I'm sorry. I gave your game a solid shot; I tried to provide at least a little input... but I'm out. Call this the (not so little) straw that broke my back.

Best of luck to you guys. Maybe in 6 more years when you start calling yourselves Beta or something I'll give you another go.

I had been ignoring this comment for awhile, but I figure I might as well take a stab at responding and, hopefully, not causing more of a stir.

...

The problem isn't that what you did was horrendously wrong and you should be ostracized from the world for ever conceiving it, but that what you did and why you chose to do such, as well as your future goals concerning it, were not properly communicated. The first post in this thread implied that, in order to fix things, you wanted to reduce everybody's stat total to 50 max... unless you happened to be an old-time player. Your reasoning was that the game wasn't PvP and, thus, it's not a high priority, or that you didn't want to ruin their hard work.

The problem is you didn't mention that this was an undesirable outcome. Judging from your posts afterward, you never wanted old-time players to retain the 25 stat points, but that you currently were unable to find a solution to the problem. Without fully understanding that you intended to, as soon as you were able, reduce the max stats on old-players to correspond to the new-players' cap, it was worded in such a way that you had no intention of doing so at all. Your following statements -- "It's not a PvP game, so it's not of great consequence" -- only seemed to further this point.

The result? The quote you are referring to is his response to the situation as he perceived it. As I perceived it, as well, until further discussion allowed me to understand what was going on.

Post 21: Gatz · 2010-07-09 21:20 UTC

Yuuta wrote:

The result? The quote you are referring to is his response to the situation as he perceived it. As I perceived it, as well, until further discussion allowed me to understand what was going on.

The main thrust of what I said was more about "in the future" and going a bit deeper about changes roll on NarutoMUD. Obviously, a lot of the older folks are sort of used to things running this way and I wanted to make sure I communicated the 'community development' type approach I like to try and do.

Yuuta wrote:

The problem isn't that what you did was horrendously wrong and you should be ostracized from the world for ever conceiving it

If I made it sound like that, it was just my poor writing ability. If I think what I did was horrendously wrong, I would have never done it or would have undone it. My point earlier was that I weigh all my changes heavily before I do them, and that I don't go around and take things away lightly. I don't think I'm losing sleep over this, and I would hate people to just have knee jerk reactions to anything like this.

However, I don't want these posts to drown out my last one:

I'm curious if any of the players currently affected by this have gotten a read on whether or not they feel truly hurt from this or not. I've delegated some of the higher level players to try out using their characters with reduced stats to see how it feels, but I'd love to have a level 60-90 player give me insight.

Post 22: Giyoku · 2010-07-16 18:54 UTC

Imagine instead you paid your subscription to the game, only to find out that because you weren't playing a week or two earlier earlier, your character gets to be the first and only nerfed by some change that will only affect you for the time being. Seeing as this started over two weeks ago and there's still been no announcement that everyone else has been equalized, this analogy is much better for our experience.

If you're asking if we felt hurt by it, the answer is still yes - especially because we were all around the levels that cut off these extra trains which left all of us on pretty uneven ground. We're all competitive, and to be honest, the only thing that really kept us playing was each other and our own quest to build a great character. However, it was critical to our development that we each be playing by the same rules, which changed because we were all at different stages of our character, but within this critical span of time that each level meant a lost train.

From what I can tell, the only other player that is actively participating seems to be satisfied with the fact that sometime down the line this will be rectified. No one else is or ever really was affected by this, which is why it was such a big deal to us.

I've really nothing else to add, because I feel at this point all you can do is take this as a lesson on mud administration and use it for the next time. It would have gone a long way for you to have acknowledged this much earlier, and undid the change until -everything- was ready and you were able to communicate the reasons why after the fact.

Post 23: Gatz · 2010-07-16 19:47 UTC

Giyoku wrote:

Imagine instead you paid your subscription to the game, only to find out that because you weren't playing a week or two earlier earlier, your character gets to be the first and only nerfed by some change that will only affect you for the time being. Seeing as this started over two weeks ago and there's still been no announcement that everyone else has been equalized, this analogy is much better for our experience.

I still see a big difference between a free-to-play game like NarutoMUD and say WoW. One of the biggest differences is that in WoW, you are paying for the server and staff to make sure, before changes go live, they do extensive QA on them. The bugs that creep into the game are minor. However, NarutoMUD is a donation model. The staff is volunteer and the server costs are paid by me and any donations received. Also, WoW has millions of people world-wide while NarutoMUD has only around 100-200 players, and far less than that number actively playing.

However, I don't play WoW, so this will have to be second hand anecdotal evidence, but with WoW I know people still flip out anytime a class is changed or tweaked. I have friends who have left alts because they are now 'worthless'. I realize the whole class gets nerfed at once, however I feel the reason this is important to note is because even with a budget beyond 'free time', the designers of WoW still feel they haven't balanced out certain systems perfectly. Except, for NarutoMUD, I use players to help balance, along with myself and other Immortals. Without players help though, sometimes issues go unnoticed. A good example being an issue with Shoumei, which went months without being reported, players simply put up with it randomly dropping.

While the change hasn't gone into effect for all players, I have asked players in a multitude of ranges to test things out with different stat builds. Stats will be lowered from 75, but I wouldn't do it at cost of players existing stats and LSC work. At this point, things will be fixed up, but it boils down to time to implement. Since I donate time to the game, sometimes I don't have the time to implement things as fast as I'd like.

Giyoku wrote:

to be honest, the only thing that really kept us playing was each other and our own quest to build a great character.

I think you can still do that just fine. I believe, amongst the three of you the greatest difference was 8 trains. That isn't that large a number, and I am hard pressed to think this reaction is really worth it. Now, it could be more than 8, but still, I've see plenty of players be competitive in D Rank arena fights. Also, with hard work, no one has an advantage, ever. I think somewhere earlier you said you didn't want to use LSC or haven't used it, but with it you could have already gone way past any stat difference. Same with hunting down rare items or using PSM to make up for it.

This change still follows the mantra of you can never mess up your character and hard work pays off. If you guys were that competitive, you could have beaten all their stats by now and really rubbed it in their faces before I got the fix in to lower people's train amounts that are too high.

Giyoku wrote:

I've really nothing else to add, because I feel at this point all you can do is take this as a lesson on mud administration and use it for the next time.

Frankly, NarutoMUD is free to play. I've invested well over 10,000 hours into the game. Collectively, you can add another 10,000 hours in other Immortal's time. I'm sorry you didn't like the change, but I have strong doubts that you have even tried things out to see how strong of a change this would be. Instead, you are focusing on how, for a limited time, you will be slightly weaker than one of your friends, this is ignoring doing any LSC, getting better items or using PSM.

It is impossible to please everyone, and it is a hard pill to swallow to log into an empty MUD. However, sometimes it is unavoidable. I have a collective 10 years of experiencing running different MUDs from a variety of themes. I've seen pretty much everything at this point. I can honestly say that no matter what, if you have a strong passion for a game then you shouldn't give up because of a change you don't like.

Active players lead to active Immortals. Active discussions lead to active developments. Like I said before, NarutoMUD is free for players, not for me. It costs me money to host the server. The joy I, and the staff, get is from enhancing the game and providing more fun for players. Your comments, while I think are mostly valid, highlight how so many MUDs close.

"Why work on a game no one plays?" Was the beginning of the last conversation I had with a buddy of mine before he closed both of his MUDs. One being a DBZ MUD, which was not a DB Saga clone and that actually had some fun things on it and I helped code up some new things, the other a realistic MUD in the style of GTA, which even had drivable cars. Except it is very difficult to work on something you feel will never go anywhere. As I said, I make no money from NarutoMUD. No one will ever log in and go "Wow, this is amazing, I want you to make me an MMO! Here is a 1 million dollar budget!"

I don't mean to turn what you said around on you, but this might be a lesson for you to not just throw your hands up in the air and walk away. I do want to add that I respect that you have kept coming back to post, because it does mean a lot to me. I feel like I had to say that, because I've seen way too many fun MUDs die before they could mature, because players are very hard on free games, simply because the investment in them is purely time based.

Thanks again for your reply.

Post 24: Giyoku · 2010-07-16 21:39 UTC

I'd like to start off to say that I'm really not trying to drag this back up, but seeing as you've responded to someone that probably isn't going to be back to give any of the input you ask for, this is why I responded in his absence to re-affirm what is more or less his position

I'm not even sure why an analogy to paying for anything is relevant to the discussion, however it was used as a stepping off stone in one that I felt wasn't correct enough.

I also feel that, and maybe I've missed this but you've never disputed it - Only 4 of us are currently or ever were affected by this, considering the activity of the playerbase. There aren't a million people. This isn't WoW. It was a -very- small number of people. If you would have spent just 1 of your 10,000 hours asking us, who have been around and active every single day with over 100 hours each of our own already put into the game, I think the call would have been a simple one to make. It's the context of who is actually affected. So, the point is, it was only us... so when you ask if it bothers us.. and it clearly has and we've been over it all, I'm sorry if this comes off as contrite, but I don't see how, for this situation, anything else really matters. Do you think we're going to all sit here and cackle that we made an immortal change his decision and gloat? Besides a little justified frustration from the post this is in response too, I feel we've come off as about as reasonable as you can expect.

Throwing our hands in frustration was hardly our response, sir. We posted, articulately. You said if enough players (again, pretty much everyone this affects) spoke up, you would fix it. Your decision, which is indeed the only one that matters at the end of the day, was to not undo what had been done. This is why I said that there isn't anything left to take from -this- discussion besides the lessons that we've all learned. Trust me, if I didn't respect you, I wouldn't even bother posting.

That said, if the intent was to find out if the experience really truly affects things.. for me, leveling alone was pretty stagnant all through that range. I could level in the wolf den almost to 70.. since this takes care of the bulk of the affected levels, all it means is that I dont have as much of whatever stat I would have been training up, but I was always waiting on wolves to pop so worrying about health, chakra, or stamina regen wasn't an issue.

Post 25: Gatz · 2010-07-16 22:03 UTC

Giyoku wrote:

this is why I responded in his absence to re-affirm what is more or less his position

I figured, but it is strange to phrase it as such.

Giyoku wrote:

If you would have spent just 1 of your 10,000 hours asking us

I had supposed that this would be a more open dialog, which I think I mentioned in another post.

Giyoku wrote:

Throwing our hands in frustration was hardly our response, sir.

No need to throw around "sir"s here. I just wanted to speak for the extreme and encourage any other players who might have left that they shouldn't feel alienated.

Giyoku wrote:

Besides a little justified frustration from the post this is in response too, I feel we've come off as about as reasonable as you can expect.

I praised your passion for the game. The mere fact you keep posting is touching and very appreciated.

Giyoku wrote:

We posted, articulately. You said if enough players (again, pretty much everyone this affects) spoke up, you would fix it. Your decision, which is indeed the only one that matters at the end of the day, was to not undo what had been done. This is why I said that there isn't anything left to take from -this- discussion besides the lessons that we've all learned. Trust me, if I didn't respect you, I wouldn't even bother posting.

This is all being considered. I just haven't had the time recently to fix it. However, I think...I mentioned earlier, but it has been awhile, that adding trains to people who missed them is a lot easier than removing them from people who lack them.

Giyoku wrote:

That said, if the intent was to find out if the experience really truly affects things.. for me, leveling alone was pretty stagnant all through that range. I could level in the wolf den almost to 70.. since this takes care of the bulk of the affected levels, all it means is that I dont have as much of whatever stat I would have been training up, but I was always waiting on wolves to pop so worrying about health, chakra, or stamina regen wasn't an issue.

Well, how about pop on later and I can work with you a bit.

Thanks again for your posts. I hope to see you online in the game, so we can talk about it more and maybe work together on something that you feel is a good middle ground.