Originally Posted By: Ganelon

Even with changes to XP rate it should be possible to recalculate XP of existing players based on the proposed rate and their time online.

So instead of leveling the playing field for all, rebalance existing characters. So if you've gained experience at a rate that is untenable in the newly controlled, buffered system, you are simply relieved of that excessive xp because you haven't spent enough time idling online since you gained all that xp.

While the idea is definitely possible, and it's admirable to want to keep the efforts of those who leveled in a perfectly natural way intact, I don't think it's advisable to hamstring some players when there exists a multitude of good reasons to reset the entire base. With nothing even close to agreed upon (beyond the nebulous "change comes") on the administrative side, it's hard to list the reasons that would make a pwipe the best option, but next I will try to address this concern:

Originally Posted By: Gabe

(sic)
I strongly object to a player wipe. It seems to me that any of these planned changes and expansions can be integrated into Darke mud without having to wipe out the current players.

Anything can be integrated without wiping out progress of current players. The caveat of course is whether there's a question of fairness to be answered to the players. Is it fair to arbitrarily remove the work of (in the case of some players) years? No. Is it fair to determine that enough new content is in place to make compairisons between old and new players questionable? I don't have an easy answer for this. My gut says yes, there is a point where compairisons become weak, and it is less desirable to integrate than to reset. I imagine we'd need quite a bit of data collection to occur to mathematically support my gut, but that it could be done. Area modificiation/addition/subtrations alone won't do it, even though it adds a level of uncertainty in comparison that I believe is worth reviewing - for instance, if I spent all my time in area A and the xp gained in area A is lowered, while you spend all your time in area B and the xp gained in area B is increased, should there be a reinc for both of us to reflect the potential xp gained? What about the person who just started in area C which reflects the new values of area A + B? Does the fact that they gain xp at a rate different than could've been gained before the changes to areas (only) even out the differences between you and I in some way that means there's no value in giving this question further thought?

Originally Posted By: Gabe

I'd like to hear some solid reasoning for the *need* to erase other people's hard work in character development. Any person who feels like abandoning their own work and starting over when new changes go in has the same ability that they've always had: rebirth. Personally, i've spent over 3 years developing a character that i enjoy playing and continue to enjoy improving.

First off, is there anyone who can with certainty say that they would no longer enjoy making and improving any character simply because their current character was removed? I happen to think that Darke is a series of minor goals that aggregate into a majorly fun character. If you don't see a disparity

Originally Posted By: Gabe

that has been in existence ever since the CMS system was put in

as a problem, what qualifies as a problem? Is there a statute of limitations on problems, such that eight or ten years later fixing this problem means that people who have gained under the problem should be grandfathered in to the new system? In the same post that the above quote is from, the claim is made that xp balance among guilds is not related to the changes that have been presented of late. I find it wholly discouraging that the view exists out there that relative xp gain among guilds is not related to a pwipe. I believe the argument in favor of a pwipe would in fact be an overhaul of the xp gaining system, and that all the buzzworthy new Trades/Crafter guild and the like would be installed in additon to a newly minted xp gaining system.

Originally Posted By: Gabe

No instabilities will be introduced by merely expanding the current mud content, and allowing current players to continue playing, if everything is properly tested.

There is no reason why new areas wouldn't go in as they were finished, or new content added with gusto as it became available. There is an intrinsic instability to changing the way xp is gained, and allowing folk who have gained xp either too quickly or too slowly in terms of the new system to stick around. If they've gained xp too slowly should they be retroactively gifted with xp they neither earned nor would have been guaranteed to have earned by their age online? (How much of that age was spent idle? How much at maximum xp gain? How often did they have the capacity to gain xp at the maximum rate? Were they frequently without equipment or in deathcheck?) If they've gained it too quickly should an announcement be made so they can idle 24 hours a day until the changes, so they can legally keep the xp gained? Should they have some of it forcibly removed without notice so as to keep in line with the system they've never experienced? The idea that no instabilities exist by adding new content is a great one, but it vastly misidentifies new systems that replace old as new content. A strong argument that adding new things in the form of areas, skills, items, spells, or any sort of superficial content does not impose instability. I happen to agree entirely, assuming those items are properly tested and reviewed. But a new system for crafting items is a change in the way content is interfaced with, not new content. New formulas for experience gain are a change in the way content is approached, not new content.

Originally Posted By: Gabe

So, again, why the *need* for a player wipe? High level players have put in a lot of time and effort to get there... i can say that holds true, at the very least, for my self, and i strongly object to watching the fruit of all that hard work just disappear.

This argument is operating with the underlying principal that a player wipe is needed, and we should be justifying that need with enough changes to make one irrefutably inevitable. I pose a rebuttal question here: "What is the point at which enough change has occured in which to make a player wipe the only viable option?" While it's true that player wipes are the most drastic step a mud can take in order to get itself on solid footing, there are obviously alternatives - a great many of the good ones have been posted in this topic, no less - but there does come a point when it's the only step available. If the changes that have been churning on these boards aren't enough to warrant it, what would be? I personally feel that an experience gain overhaul is enough to warrant it, simply because there is not a convincing enough route by which to port old system xp gain into a new system's formulas without pouring over years of logs for each individual. Is there some other standard that we should set, and then check if we meet, rather than setting the bar as a pwipe and adding new changes until we reach that bar?

Originally Posted By: Gabe

The applicable reason i've heard so far is to make the dissolution of the tinker and enchanter guilds, and the creation of the new proposed crafter guild (a combination of the two former guilds), easier. If the new crafter guild actually did go in, it seems that chanter and tinker reincs into that guild be supervised such that former tinkers would have to train tinker skills within the new guild, and former enchanters would have to train enchanting skills within the new guild. Combat skills would be a moot point.

Again, the ease with which the trade guild could go in is a byproduct of a pwipe, not the impetus for one. If there were reincs instead, why would one who leveled as a tinker be required to train tinker abilities and one who leveled as an enchanter be required to train enchanter abilities? That would presume them to be of the old system, whereas the new system would likely guide them into either dealing with weapons alone or armour alone. Shouldn't they be guided into whichever they were closest to before the change? Why would they be really, since they are in an entirely different position at this point, being that they can choose either weapons or armour which they never had to choose before, and what if they'd previously trained mostly weapon runes, but no forge weapon and only forge armour, and they tended to use the weapon runes more than armour but billed themselves as an armour maker?

Originally Posted By: Ganelon

Even with changes to XP rate it should be possible to recalculate XP of existing players based on the proposed rate and their time online.

All these foolish scenarios I have until this point listed do have reasonable answers but the number of possible scenarios are many, and the answers that cover all possibilites are few and unsatisfactory.

Originally Posted By: Gabe

The mud is already on an even playing field, so arguments in that vein seem like falsely-rationalized or veiled desire to rip off people who have put the time in to get big.

I'd like to know where this view comes from. All I've read in the forums seems to point to quite the opposite - just for a top-of-the-head list (sorry about lacking references) paladins and MA users gaining 10 times the combat xp possible in all other guilds, Arch-mages and Necromancers gaining twice the magic xp possible in most, Monks being incapable of training all of their semi-caster-guild skills and spells well into highmortal, some higher level players being for all intents and purposes impossible to match in terms of levels because of past changes to xp gain rates. None of this screams "even playing field" to me. It smacks largely of status quo, which is quite different in my mind. If the meaning here was that the mud is stable in its unequal footing for a great many years, and stability is the equivalent of even footing since everyone knows that the differences are there, the statement is flawed. If the meaning here is that everyone has the same opportunity to join any guild, and so people who choose a guild at a disadvantage do so knowingly and can switch guilds, the statement is undercutting the worth of real options. If, as I feel, the statement is made as a closing argument based on what had been established before - that pwipe is not the only alternative, and others should be explored - I would like very much to hear at what point a pwipe is the only viable option. That way the admin can (at the next meeting) establish what changes are going to be made over the next year and test those changes against the level established by our players as needed to justify a pwipe, rather than trying to justify a pwipe by adding new changes until we meet that minimum standard.