Monarchs get hit again! [Archive] - Asheron's Call Forums

Tasmania

08-09-2004, 11:20 AM

All of those saying "Get your house in order before the expansion!" and "Level up your monarch!" look around. I'm talking about the future. Right now I have a friend whose monarchy is dieing... it's falling apart left and right. He's looking into swearing into me to keep anyone left under him in a good home. He won't be able to do this after the expansion, and therefore will be FORCED to go elsewhere... so he'll turn to another small monarchy (I know who it is, just not nameing names.) I'm almost certain they do not have any level 190's under them, so he will be forced out of their house as well. Now he's stuck with a dieing/dead monarchy and has to swear into a large allegiance because the small ones are more based around family time than leveling time.

As for leveling, do you really think that as a monarch who has to spend his time devoted to issues and usually DOESN'T get to complain... that I'll have time to hit 240? 260? 275? before the expansion? I have to set an example for my followers, therefore I cannot UCM, I cannot complain... and I can't do much else that would make me a poor rolemodle. They are nerfing Caul this patch (Wednesday.. please note I do not care about this, just makeing my point.) and makeing it more difficult for upper levels to level more.

I'm looking at the future. Expect the unexpected.

MaddyFF

08-09-2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Aiko II
Maddy the level 150s really are 150s

Turbine is calulating it the same way these plugins you speak of are. Admit defeat and give up, you are making yourself look very very foolish.

Tell me what world to log into to see one of these 150's then.

I am well aware how Turbine is going to calculate out someone's level if they purchase the expansion pack. That isn't the point I am making. The point I am making, which many don't seem to grasp, is that currently within AC your highest level is 126. You can continue to increase your skills and attributes once you hit 126, but your leveling stops there. The expansion pack will change that and I see no reason to change how swearing to characters work. For those seeking a change I would ask two questions:

1. Are you a monarch?
2. Are you in an XP chain?

And yes, it would be a change. As it now stands, if your level in AC is greater then another person's level in AC (notice how I say "in AC"), then you can't swear to them.

Tasmania

08-09-2004, 11:26 AM

1. Are you a monarch?
2. Are you in an XP chain?

Yes.
No.

I know I'm speaking the minority, but there are many things that Turbine COULD do. I thought of two solutions in 3 hours to this problem that would work. Unfortunately, I must leave for a while now... I'm glad that someone else out there agrees with me.

Mogosh

08-09-2004, 11:32 AM

Any disgruntled follower of any monarchy could wreck havock in old established respected monarchies, that have made this game.

The XP-chains monarchies didn't last. Those did. They wouldn't survive the common crisis they face so often now accounts change hands, without the ability to stitch back.

This is wrong. This has never been asked for by anyone.

PS: Maddy... *sigh*... Find a dead horse. I don't know... Get busy, or something. :rolleyes: You kinda transmitted everything you had to say about that. A dozen times. We can't understand what you say? Oh well, let us be idiots. Thanks.

MaddyFF

08-09-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Mogosh
We can't understand what you say? Oh well, let us be idiots. Thanks.

But I'll make sure you are informed at least. :)

Zenato

08-09-2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by MaddyFF
The point I am making, which many don't seem to grasp, is that currently within AC your highest level is 126.

Maddy you should stop speaking... you're only making yourself look stupid.

Here is WHAT you're missing Maddy. It takes only a certain amount of effort to get a character to the max level of 126. At this point a player can be a monarch to ANY other play in the game. Isn't this correct, Maddy? Some players like to RP as a monarch and are good at it. They enjoy helping others and buildiing relationships and working hard to make a clan successful and enjoyable to belong to. Wouldn't you say so too Maddy? For some getting to level 126 to be able to play AC in this capacity has been a struggle and something they're proud of achieving. Not everyone powerlevels and macros Maddy.

After the expansion this won't be the case anymore will it Maddy? No. You will NO longer be able to be the monarch to any other character in the game. The only thing the expansion is going to do is reward the power gamer and the macroer, by making it virtually impossible for the normal player to ever get to a level high enough (under the new level rules) to be a monarch/patron to existing characters already well over the level 126 cap as it is today.

Here is an example to illustrate this issue for Maddy.

Boddy Knight is level 126+ (TS level 150).
Major Payne is level 126+ (TS level 180).

As it is today Major can swear to Boddy as they're both the maximum level of 126.

After the expansion things will look a little different.

Boddy Knight will be some level not 126.
Major Payne will be some level not 126, but higher than Boddy.

It will now be impossible for Major to swear to Boddy. This will significantly reduce the number of people who can belong to Boddy's new allegiance.

Raising the max level to a level way beyond the reach of the non-power gamer and non-macroer will have a disasterous effect on the monarch/patron/vassal system in this game. Players which are fabulous monarchs will get discouraged and players will be discouraged they can't leave a clan because they're so much higher in a new level system there aren't any other good clans to belong to.

To stand here and claim there is going to be no change Maddy, makes you look like a .... <edited>.

Shelendil

08-09-2004, 01:50 PM

This isn't really a monarch issue. As a monarch, I've got no problem with the proposed changes. The problem for me stems from leveling my tinker mules, which are always lower level than the pushers. I will have to make sure everything is in order before I get the expansion. *shrug*

Davidge

08-09-2004, 02:00 PM

I think we should hold off making judgments until we see the official announcement with details. Have a feeling we don't have all the information.

Having stated that, I have one social concern that I feel Turbine should consider while designing the dynamic around this change.

Zenato and others mentioned it, I want to expand on it:

Players which are fabulous monarchs will get discouraged and players will be discouraged they can't leave a clan because they're so much higher in a new level system there aren't any other good clans to belong to.

There is a lot of truth that excellent monarchs have less powerleveling time than other characters. We do spend more time helping, leading quests, organizing events and making our clans interesting places to be.

In the past, the level cap has been low enough that it was achievable by a monarch in waiting in a reasonable time. The current level restrictions allowing same level or less to swear to you have always meant that you needed to level a figurehead or monarch to 126 to maximize your ability to take on anyone that wanted to join your clan.

However, when the worlds were young we all faced that restriction on a more immediate way, and we all dealt with it just fine. The problem becomes one of scale on the growth curve. It will take a normal player (by normal I mean one that does not level to 126 in a month ) MUCH longer to get to a 200+ level. Loosely speaking about 100 times longer. Meanwhile the serious powerlevelers will get there faster, that's what they enjoy doing and they do it well.

So the question that Turbine needs to consider: If you want to continue to have strong and fun clans for people to organize into; do you want to create a structure that encourages powerlevelers, whom I would say are often social loners, to be the leaders, or wouldn't you prefer to design a structure that allows people that show actual leadership, that take time from their personal gratification to help others, and are willing to sacrifice the highest levels in favor of leading quests and doing those things that make truly successful clans realize their potential?

Cash_we

08-09-2004, 02:18 PM

nothing will happen after buying the exp pack if nobody breaks from their patron. And before the expansion, nobody is over 126 in the game.

sylphia

08-09-2004, 02:22 PM

Maddy may be being a bit pig-headed about what TreeStats vs AC displays--and its a moot debate, since the two wil be essentially the same once the pack gets here, and arguing over which one to go by NOW is silly--but the actual point she is trying to make is correct.

Anyone complaining that a lvl 180 wont be able to swear to a lvl 130 post-expansion needs to get a grip and listen. The only thing changing here is the actual level limit, NOT how swearing works in the first place. You cannot swear a lvl 126 toon to a lvl 80 toon. There is no reason to pretend that raising the level cap in any way changes the basic functionality of the way swearing works. Yes, the "on paper" lvl 180 has been able to swear to an "on paper" 130 up until now, because of a deficit in the system that has been allowing it due to inneficient level caps. Thats not the way the sytem SHOULD be working. If you are higher level than someone else, you cant swear to them--period.

If a higher level toon breaks from you, they cant swear back to you. Period. Thats the way its always been. The lvl 126+ crowd being able to jockey around is nothing more than a glorified glitch in the way the system handles post 126 toons. Turbine is FINALLY adressing that issue, such that our ACTUAL 126+ levels will be displayed AND we get some rewards for leveling past that soft cap number now (IE skill credits, etc). The benefits outweight the problems it may cause. The simple solution is that, if you think you are going to have an issue with one of your vassals breaking from you for some reaosn after the pack comes out, resolve it NOW, before it becomes an issue. You have plenty of time and plenty of advance warning.

Yes, that means get your house in order now as opposed to later. If higher level toons are going to be an issue for your rank trees or whatever else, then you need to resolve it now. Once the pack hits, post 126 toons will be subject to the same level restrictions that they were for the previous 125 levels. You cant swear to someone lower level than you. Period. Deal with it; thats the way the system has always worked, and now one of the fundamental flaws in that system is being corrected. Post 126 toons will display as ACTUAL levels now, rather than inflated 126's.

I dont cry about it when my lvl 100 toon cant swear to a lvl 50 toon. I see no reason to start a bunch of grief because a lvl 240 toon cant swear to a lvl 150 by the same game mechanic.

Bottom line: fix your trees NOW. If you choose to complain and whine about it rather than actually doing something constructive about it, then you deserve whatever issues you are stuck with later.

Deiwos_WE

08-09-2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Davidge

So the question that Turbine needs to consider: If you want to continue to have strong and fun clans for people to organize into; do you want to create a structure that encourages powerlevelers, whom I would say are often social loners, to be the leaders, or wouldn't you prefer to design a structure that allows people that show actual leadership, that take time from their personal gratification to help others, and are willing to sacrifice the highest levels in favor of leading quests and doing those things that make truly successful clans realize their potential?

That's about as well put as this issue could ever be stated, and has actually changed my mind and convinced me that this is a REAL issue. Thanks for a well thought out post Davidge. :)

Davidge

08-09-2004, 02:50 PM

Hi Sylphia, :)

Sylphia

Bottom line: fix your trees NOW. If you choose to complain and whine about it rather than actually doing something constructive about it, then you deserve whatever issues you are stuck with later.

Short term, definitely yes. Long term . . . AFWriter had an interesting point on another thread to think about that I am copying here since its relevant.

AFWriter
For example, in a current monarchy a virtual level 131 is the monarch. This monarch has a virtual level 140 direct vassal, who in turn has vassals at virtual level 135, 164 and 150 underneath him/her. When the new expansion converts the cap levels – if the level 140 leaves the monarchy, the three vassals underneath are now homeless and unswearable to their old monarchy if they wanted to return.
(Bold added by Davidge)

This of course does not happen often, but it does happen.

hippiechick64

08-09-2004, 02:55 PM

heres what concerns me as a monarch. Lets say player A breaks from my allegiance. Player b is under him but wants to STAY in my allegiance. Player B is higher level than me, not by a few mil or bil but by HUNDREDS of billions xp. He will NEVER be able to get back into the alleg that he felt loyal to. This is a wreck and I propose that ANY 126+ can swear to ANY other 126+ toon. Its the only way. Otherwise, allegiances will never again be based on LOYALTY. They will be based on who you are able to swear to cuz yer level 223 and the monarchs, who CANNOT hunt and PL like other toons can, are all level 150. Im really upset by it and think Turbine needs to respond on whether they have considered this problem or not.
MJ

Mogosh

08-09-2004, 03:16 PM

Stop this "if you don't break and be a good boy, everything will be fine". Anyone in a monarchy can break, and then, with the privileges of a monarch, shatter to pieces whatever is under him, even if it's like 90% of all followers. That's not taking into account the fact that many accounts change hands at the moment. Anyone may dislike the player who will end playing the patron they have been faithful to for years.

Monarchy explosions can happen today. It did happen quite a few times actually. Today, it can be fixed. Tomorrow, it won't.

The whole thing is so silly it makes me sick. Nobody ever asked for that. It's completely natural to most of us that at some point, the limitation of swearing disappears. Reaching 126 is the most natural and prepared-for accomplishement of any mule, the long awaited freedom for any pusher. Nobody has ever complained about the current 126+ swearing system.

Some fanatics here keep saying "it will stay above 126 the way it has always been under 126". Gaaaah! Maddy and Sylphia are both in the top-5 posters, I know they just want to raise their post count. They have great fun today! Still, they're hijacking a serious problem with futile posts.

I bet Turbine will not be as stubborn as those ayatollahs, and remove this stupid idea.

MaxV_FF

08-09-2004, 03:30 PM

Personally, I think they should just remove the restriction of levels when swearing to someone. Instead, the XP passup should take into account the level differences. Thus if the vassal is 50 levels above the monarch, then the XP passup would be like 5%, but if the vassal was 50 levels below the patron, then the XP passup would be like 90%. This would address the chains that still exist in the game, and would make it easier to balance content.

-MaxV

daemo_nn

08-09-2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by MaxV_FF
Personally, I think they should just remove the restriction of levels when swearing to someone. Instead, the XP passup should take into account the level differences. Thus if the vassal is 50 levels above the monarch, then the XP passup would be like 5%, but if the vassal was 50 levels below the patron, then the XP passup would be like 90%. This would address the chains that still exist in the game, and would make it easier to balance content.

-MaxV

BEST post on this thread, imo. This would be perfect, if you ask me.

Chipsky

08-09-2004, 04:59 PM

I'll miss the fireworks when hitting 126... #8 (

Mogosh

08-09-2004, 05:01 PM

Yes, very good idea :D

Unfortunately, Turbine is well aware of that from past proposals. See this thread, regarding sub-126s:

http://forums.ac.turbinegames.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=89868#post89868

We have heard instead that they will extend to all levels the sub-126 swear limits. :rolleyes:

However, I still want to believe that Turbine is not completly blind, and can see a big problem when it's early enough, and simple enough to fix.

It looks like they have decided against this at the moment. Let's wait until they change their mind. I BET they will.

MaddyFF

08-09-2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Mogosh
Gaaaah! Maddy and Sylphia are both in the top-5 posters, I know they just want to raise their post count. They have great fun today! Still, they're hijacking a serious problem with futile posts.

I can't speak for Sylphia, but having been playing this game since beta I tend to have strong opinions on it. Heck, I have strong opinions in general about everything. I love playing AC and speak out if I see something I don't like. If Srand came out this thread and said "With the expansion pack anyone above level 126 can swear to anyone else above level 126.", I would state my disagreement with that change, and why I disagree with it. BTW, I have zero knowledge of my post count or any other poster on this board, I never look at post counts.

Now that is what it boils down too. You want a change to to how the current system works. Level caps at 126 within AC, period. Even you have to admit that. When swearing to someone there is a couple of checks in place to prevent abuses, one of which is a level check to make sure you are at a lower level or equal to the person you want as a patron. That is what you want removed.

The arguments I have heard are "what if" arguments, and we both can play "what if" games all days. Give me a good reason argument for why a level 126+ should get special treatment over someone that isn't. Someone breaks and their vassal wants back in but can't because they are a higher level then everyone else? That has been an issue since day one, monarchies have survived (that is how I became a monarch, but that is another story).

So go ahead and try a rational argument on the issue, not one that resorts to name calling. I'm more then willing to listen to it.

Some fanatics here keep saying "it will stay above 126 the way it has always been under 126".

You referring to the Turbine devs working on the expansion pack?

Q: Will the level cap raise effect vassal/patron relationships?

A: They will behave as they do now.A character may not swear to one who is a lower level than them. However, if they out level their patron, they may stay sworn to them.

BillBraskey

08-09-2004, 05:05 PM

the above post about changing the way passup works and removing swearing restrictions is a great idea.

Maddy is being rediculous here. I posted something saying that it would be nice to not have to be lvl 200+ to be a monarch (obviously meaning that you practially would have to be that level in order to start/maintain a monarchy). Then she replies that you can technically be a lvl 1 monarch etc. blah blah blah. WTF. Everyone knows that but we are talking about being able to ACTUALLY set up a monarchy. Stop trying to up your post count with rediculous and trite statements!!

Anyway, I like the fact that they are raising the level cap, BUT i think the swearing issue is important. Sure people can make the arguement that it has alwasy been impossible to swear to someone higher level for you. That was fine years ago when everyone was progressing through the game and there were constant newbies coming into the game. But now its about five years old. Almost everyone is a veteran. Character level will have very little correspondence to how long people have been playing AC and how knowledgeable they are about the game. The level restictions in swearing has continued to not be a problem simply because after reaching 126, the restrictions all dissapear. 126 is no small feat, but for someone aspiring to become a monarchy, it's not all that difficult. As someone said before, at this point, being a monarch should be about your skills as a leader, not about whether or not you can PL to an insane level.

Heideggar

08-09-2004, 05:07 PM

I think MaxV is onto something there.

As a patron, if you're a high level person, you can give a lot of help to low level people, but not so much to those relatively close to your own level. Id' assume the compensation for the patron's acts would reflect in the xp-rewards, as it's Turbine's feeling to reward the patron-vassal relationship. That relationship tends to be stronger, in terms of patron helping vassal, when their levels are most seperated. Conversely, it's least helpful for a high level to teach/help another high level in that same compacity.

As it is, it's in reverse. Patrons taking on low levels get a 25% xp push, but they would usually do more for that low level than if the person was already seasoned and/or mid to high level. Now, a lvl 150 can be a vassal of a lvl 170, both of which need little to no guidance whatsoever from anyone, let alone from the patron to the vassal. Things like: Leading quests, Loot hunting, and small things like this, would be the few things that patron could do other than be a friend for the vassal. However, this is where the least amount of effort is required by the patron to help the vassal. Yet, this is the same area where the vassal can push roughly 50-90% of their earned xp to their patron. That seems a bit odd to me.

Now, throw in the fact that monarchs perform more duties usually, and have the same abilities as the patron in gaining xp, and you can start to see the problems starting to rise.

BillBraskey

08-09-2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted By MaddyFF
So go ahead and try a rational argument on the issue, not one that resorts to name calling. I'm more then willing to listen to it.

I see that the crux of maddy's argument is this: You have never been able to swear to someone that is higher level than you. The fact that someone Treestats calculates as being lvl 127 can swear to a character that is 126 is irrelevant because as turbine see's it, you are both lvl 126. This is how the game has alwasy been and should continue to be, even after the lvl cap is pushed back.

Using the exact same logic, i can make an argument for the other point of view- Currently after attaining lvl 126, anyone can swear to you, no matter how much xp they have earned. It's just another way of stating how the game mechanic works. It's just as true as saying "no matter what level they are". But after they push back the lvl cap this will no longer be true. So I could say that after they lvl cap is pushed back that anyone over 126 should be able to swear to anyone that is 126 because that is the way the game worked before.

Furthermore, after you hit 126, your fighting abilities do not improve all that much. They might improve a bit over the next 10-20 levels as you max your important skills, but you won't be getting very much more xp/time. So the problems that would exist with getting passup by having higher levels swear to you (like if a lvl 126 could swear to a lvl 1) simply do not exist. A level 125 could pass up just about as much as a level 200.

So far I have just been attacking the arguments against removing the level check for 126+ characters. But there are also good reasons for doing this. This person said it better than i could:

Originally posted by Davidge
So the question that Turbine needs to consider: If you want to continue to have strong and fun clans for people to organize into; do you want to create a structure that encourages powerlevelers, whom I would say are often social loners, to be the leaders, or wouldn't you prefer to design a structure that allows people that show actual leadership, that take time from their personal gratification to help others, and are willing to sacrifice the highest levels in favor of leading quests and doing those things that make truly successful clans realize their potential? [/B]

Nobody complains about the difficulties of starting a monarchy with a level 40 character, because it's not all that hard to get a character up to 126 (or very near it), at which point you can be a monarch to anyone. In the early days of AC, the level check worked very well, because in general, a higher level person had been playing longer and knew more about the game. This is no longer true (in general). These days, being a higher level means you are more likely to be a power leveler/macroer. Once you reach level 126 you should have some benefits including taking on 126+ vassals. 126 has been a milestone in a person's AC career for so long, that it should retain some special significance. Taking on vassals of any level is perfect for this, but i feel that there should be even more.

Tasmania

08-09-2004, 09:13 PM

To be honest, I posted this thread not with the "What if someone breaks under me" intention everyone is takeing on, but the "What if someone wants under me" intention. As of right now, 126 is the level of everyone who is max level. Period. You have the same total XP as every other 126. Until recently did Turbine even ADMIT that there was an actual level system beyond 126... they've always said that their leveling system after 126 is so sketchy that even they do not know the levels.

There are four options Turbine could do:

One is the great idea of makeing everyone able to swear to another but decrease XP by different %'s done by a calculation in variance in total xp between the two characters and an subtraction done in XP passup. This takes time, but it would solve issues and make everyone quite happy. At the moment a level 1 CANNOT be a monarch for the following reason: You can only have one character swear to you and they MUST not be above level 1. In which case, you would have to level the vassal to 126, thus leveling the level 1 monarch to... ~90. A monarchy would not grow with an inactive monarch and the inability to swear to the monarch directly... as you loose the patron/monarch/vassal tie. You forget that everyone looks for something in a monarchy and it would be extremly slow to build one if you had a level one as the monarch. ;)

The next idea is to have a database of all monarchs of 6 months older or X ammount of followers, and do a check to see if the character who is 200 trying to swear to a 150... if the 150 is a monarch listed in the database... then bypass the check and allow the next commencement of the check (Whatever that may be). This would be a short term fix to a long term problem, and would create conflict in the future as the monarch would fill up with directs (however this is natural and possably won't be a problem as he'll have the ability to swear anyone below him) and it would be an ultimate goal for a monarch to get a 275 under him. The problem is, the ammount of 275's will be quite... limited... makeing for short selection after the monarch fills up with directs until the followers level up.

You could also allow all 126+ characters to swear to any other 126+. This would cause the problem of XP passup, as I'm assumeing that you will gear content towards 200's, 250's and 275's... meaning the 200's will be makeing more XP/h than the 150's and messing with passup. This would also make most everyone happy as they could take advantage of the fairly recent passup changes and level a 126 to 170 fairly fast just through passup.

Then you always have the option of leaveing things be. This would cause 1/5'th of all monarchies in each world to be halted or quickly slowed down in growth and prosper. How do I figure? You only have so many people who can swear under the monarch. Then you also have to deal with the griefers who will swear in to the monarchy... containing a vassal of upper level... grab the folks who want to be in the monarchy the upper level is in for XP and follower count, then break off and force the monarch to either A) Swear under the upper level or B) "Deal with it." It's emotionally crushing to see a monarch fall, and if you are that monarch or you are tied to the monarchy, it's even harder. You then also admit that those who macro'd would make a better monarch.

There are always more options and to those who are saying "Who cares", well obviously someone does. Maddy, if I remember correctly, you have several "200+" characters? If that is correct, god you must be loveing this! You'll force lower level monarchs to swear to you so they can grow! Heh I bet you'll even offer them an upper level position in the clan and then throw it out the window with your own opinion and force them to be a peon under you! Wooo push more xp to me! :eek: ;)

I'm hopeing Ibn or someone from the dev team will respond with their input on this.

Engl

08-09-2004, 10:11 PM

Since everbody seems to have a major problem with the whole "level" concept (and some crazy ideas about how it "actually" is), lets just look at it in terms of total XP gained (all XP spent + all unassigned XP).

As it currently works, once you gain 4.3 billion XP, you can have any character in the game sworn to you. Before you get to 4.3 billion XP, you can only have characters with equal or less XP than you (or in some cases, a tiny bit more, a level 50.9 can swear to someone level 50.1).

With the new system, there is no XP point at which you can have any character in the game sworn to you. That is a drastic change from the current system, some people just cant comprehend the change ("But the system has always worked like this!"...).

Personally I think the new system is horrible (as is the monarch passup nerf).

Skinnerc

08-09-2004, 11:14 PM

YES the fact that they are raising the level cap does not mean they are nerfing monarchs, however, NO it is not good and must be implemented differently. In my eyes, the reason for this is thus following... If in the origional game they had the level cap at 275, then the system would not be affected (obviously) however, because people at the moment are high enough to be monarchs to every player, and afterwards, they wont be, it is in a sense a nerf... If players were all 126 after expansion without including the *fake* levels they have obtained, the experience after 126, no it wouldnt be a nerf, because potentially everyone can swear to everyone, they simply have to level up like they would from 1 currently, however, this cuts the hard work put in, and is not possible. Another thing to look at is making lvl be no object in who can swear to who, safe guarding pass up exploits (such as anyone can swear to anyone, however, you must have sworn to them below their level to pass up, using the current legitimate system for pass up and a no req pass up for rank and or simple friendship.) this may be difficult to get understand, especially in the way i have portrayed it, however, i would like my basic point to be seen... people are going to end up different levels, which will destroy allegiences, therefore it is not fair this way, because monarchs will no longer be monarchs. (although it would be cool to say that the viamontians are destroying allegiences, tearing people from their old vows, and wrecking nations, but players would be mad, no matter how good it is in a storyline)

smaweet

08-10-2004, 12:11 AM

The level cap was good for allegiance purposes. At least add a feature for anyone lvl 100+ to swear to anyone that they would like much like the 50+ fellows.

Tasmania

08-10-2004, 12:28 AM

I'm just saying, this issue needs to be resolved or I may be moveing on and not looking back. 'tis not right to tell me that I have to reject someone else because I need to powerlevel to some ungodly number.

SZ_FF

08-10-2004, 12:36 AM

yeah, i dont want to turn away people that i could have accepted under the current system :(

it took me 4 years to hit 126, and i really dont want to work anymore at it

sylphia

08-10-2004, 01:01 AM

Davidge,

That same thing can happen now. If my toon is lvl 80, and I have another toon sworn to me that is 80, HIS vassal is 100, and the one swron to me breaks, the lvl 100 toon cant swear back to me. If my lvl 80 toon is the highest in the clan (other than the dropped 100), then he cant swear back to ANYONE in the clan either. Its the same principle, and its something we have dealt with since the game first started. There i sno reason to hit the panic button over this just because the same thing can now happen post 126 (once the pack comes out). There will be folks that break, and folks that want to stay. It happens. But nothing has actually changed in the mechanics.

Yes, I understand the arguement that folks say "Well i am 126 now, and since the lvl cap is 126, I never have to worry about that happening again". But again, I see it as a glitch that we have been able to take advantage of for some time. Like any other bug or glitch inthe game, it needs to be adressed and fixed, sooner rather than later, and we need to move on and accept that we can no longer exploit that glitch. The level cap has needed to be raised for some time, particularly in reference to the ability to earn further skill credits in the post 126 lvls. One of the side effects of this is that the allegiance system will now have to encompass the "true" levels of all players who are post 126 and treat them the same as it does those pre-126.

Maybe Turbine will opt to put some kind of "cap" on level-checking for swearing-in purposes. Perhaps all 130+ toons will be swearable however you want. Or they may just leave it working the way it always has: you must be equal or higher than the person you want to recruit. To be frank, either solution would be fine to me, though I prefer them to stay true to the system and keep the progressive levels working like the lower ones. My point is everyone that is doomcrying and naysaying is drastically overreacting, and pretending like this is a completely new and foreign thing to them. Its not.

Long-term: thats exactly the "what if" kind of things i was talking about. I have no doubts that the folks in MY clan can resolve these types of issues amicably. Pretty much anyone who joins our clan does so "for life", and swapping and droping of middle players simply isnt an issue. While I realize that this is not the case for all clans, especially larger ones, I see that as mostly a "you get what you pay for" kind of thing. We make it very clear up front what we, as a clan, are about to new recruits before they even join us. We weed out these issues before they ever get into the clan and cause those problems. In the entire 5 year history of our clan, we have only had 4 forced-dismissals or hardship drops of any kind. It takes more effort at the front end, but the result is a better group in the end. Yes, things change, ppl's views change, and their wants and needs, etc. But again, thats no different than it was 3 years ago when no one in our clan was over 80 and we had to deal with lvl restrictions on who could or could not swear in. I just wont get worked up over this particular supposed problem :)

Mogosh,

You have shown a great deal of ignorance in a very short amoutn of time. Fanatics? ROFL nice buzz word, but you obviously have no clue what the meaning of the word is. And if you thinkg my post count means a damned thing, you show even more ignorance. The only thing my post count should clue you into is the fact that I have been on these boards a very very long time, because AC issues are important to me, and I like to discuss the game with others who are as empassioned about it as I am.

And some food for thought: Maddy and I almost always butt heads on topics. We see things fundamentally different on nearly every issue. There has even some degree of ill feeling between us on past issues. When we both AGREE on the same thing, then it should give the casual observer some pause to consider whether there may actually be some validity to what is being said. But apparently, you are more concerned with our post counts than any points we may be trying to make. If anything, YOUR post looks more like an attempt to pharm than anything either of us has ever posted.

BillBraskey

08-10-2004, 01:39 AM

I can easily poke huge holes in all your arguments.

First off, you say that the same thing has happend before with level 100 people not being able to swear to level 80 people. This is true, but there are some important differences between that and the 126+ situation that we are discussing. A level 100+ character can earn much more xp per day than a level 80 (or for that matter a level 1 person could). Thus it wouldn't be right for them to be able to swear to someone much lower unless passup was changed somehow. The xp earning potential of a level 180 is not that much higher than a level 126. So there are none of the passup complications like there are with the lower level example.

Second, you say that you view the no 126+ level check for swearing mechanic as a bug/glitch that is being fixed? That's subjective and a stretch at best. I don't think you can really use that for an arguemnt since it's really nothing more than saying, "well, i just think it should be this way".

What the particular situations of your clan are don't concern me one bit. My concerns about the level check are more centered around people wanting to start new clans rather than preserving older ones. Existing clans really won't be that affected by this execpt for a couple of situations that could come up. But if we get lots of new people playing, I think we should make every effort to give them the chance to start new clans. Not being able to recruit veterans because of their very high level is a problem.

Don't get me wrong. I am TOTALLY in favor of increasing the level cap. I just think that the level check for swearing allegiance shoudl be removed after 126 to make allegiance forming less of a pain.

hippiechick64

08-10-2004, 02:43 AM

The arguement about a level 100 not being able to swear into the alleg is silly. If he wanted in bad enough its not that hard to PL the monarch from 80 to 100 with the cooperation of the alleg. Granted hunting is a precious commodity for monarchs but it still can be done with help in a reasonable amount of time not years. Level 100 guy could wait a bit, trust me this happens, did for me, while the monarch levels. Not so from 126 to even a low number like 130. Dont even think of getting from say 130 to 175 anytime soon. The other thing I want to say here is that the perception of monarchs that a lot of people have seems a little off. I know most of them in MT and dont know ONE who has macroed, in fact all have strict rules against it in their allegs. As for me? I earned every single point I have. My passup was always bad to say the least, worse since the changes, and I never used a tessera. I did turn in my share of trophies, all found by me, but hey thats what they are for. There are very few monarchs who got that way any way other than hard work and dedication. Finally, I think the new level cap is a good thing, its a bit high but thats ok we will live thru that. The monarchs arent complaining about that its about who can swear in and who cant. ONE person not being able to swear into the clan they are loyal to is as bad as it gets. Doesnt have to be lots of peeps just ONE. Itll be more though. This system will in effect completely ruin the loyalty based system. Monarchs represent an extremely low percentage of the player base and Turbine knows it and ignores us and our needs constantly. They nerf us time and time again, and I think we need to do something since they are totally absent from this topic. Meeting? Im game,
MJ

Tasmania

08-10-2004, 03:08 AM

Well, see, being a monarch for a while I was there when times were good and I've been through it all. I can safely say that the xp passup now is jack to monarchs... that was a perk to being a monarch, getting xp. Fine, I have never needed the xp (until now I guess... *Cough*) anyway. Next, mansions were a sign of GREAT royalty, when you owned one it was the most treasured item in game and you could come back with someone bragging about a major and say "Oh yeah well I have a mansion!" Now, mansions are worth SQUAT! Mansion purchase kits cost roughly 2-3 times more than the mansion itself. My friend bought a mansion on FF for 200 plats... 200 plats?! C'mon now! Fine, I don't care, I'm not selling my mansion because it's such a great place for my followers... they love it. I've YET to complain about them like this... I may have posted once, or twice about something, but I don't go around stepping in other peoples BS for the fun of it. I don't complain either... makes for poor rolemodle. This, I do have a problem with. You are telling me that if my friend wanted to swear in, I need to get a 250 under me immedately before the expansion comes out so I can have him swear under me if he ever wants to? Wow. Just wow.

You will tear the foundation of the game out from underneath us. Loyalty will go out the window for XP.

sylphia

08-10-2004, 05:54 AM

A LVL 80 toon can earn the exact same amount of XP that a LVL 100 toon can earn. They have access to the same areas, with only a couple exceptions, and have no problems getting into the same fellows that their lvl 100 counterpart does. And there is very little difference, skillwise, between the two. Every point counts, but a difference of 10 in a skill does not make a gamebreaking difference in how effective a toon is.

If the game were intended to hardcap at 126, we would have been prevented from earning XP past that level. The original game design simply didnt allow for players who would reach 126 in the first couple of years, and all of the changes that later came along which made doing so even easier. Our ACTUAL levels have progressed beyond 126; its been a problem with the code that has prevented displaying that; the devs have told us this all along. As I have said already, its nothing more than a glorified glitch in the system. Following the XP curve, we can easily calculate what our levels SHOULD be, based on our total spent and unspent XP. Treestats will be a good rule of thumb to determine what our actual levels will be when the expansion hits.

We already have players who are actually 240+ thats a difference of 114 levels, almost TWICE the current lvl cap. And you think its an issue that someone nearly twice your own level wont be able to swear to you? You may as well let a lvl 100 toon swear to a lvl 50 toon. Yes, the post 126 toons will have problems if they break and want to swear in somewhere else. But thats the issue you deal with when you decide you want to leave a clan. Its no different at 150 than it is at 50--if the person you want to swear to isnt equal or higher than you, you cant do it. Period.

Now, as for wanting to form "new" clans. Once again, do it before the expansion hits. You know its coming, and you know whats going to happen. So get your tree done before it hits. Anyone you want recruit after that--oh well its the same principle we have always lived by.

And anyone who thinks that you cant get form 126 to 130 with easy is naive. VT should have proven this to you by now. If you really want to get those 4 levels (or 10 or 50), you CAN do it. It takes time, effort, and dedication, and it DOESNT require macroing, but it WILL probably require the help of 10-12 very dedicated friends. If you dont have the time to put into it, well then you need to either rethink your plans to start a new clan, or--once again--you need to take care of it before the pack goes live.

Anyone who chooses to break and try to reswear after the pack has to deal with the consequences of doing so. Just like you have to do now pre-126. My recommendation is to get into a clan NOW that you know will be stable. There are hundreds of them out there for you to choose from. Or start your own NOW if thats what you are going to do. Its not like Turbine is dropping the pack on us next week and you dont have time to prepare for it.

And as for new players who start new clans. WTF are you thinking? You DO realize that new players start at level 1 right? How are they supposed to recruit a lvl 126+, REGARDLESS of whether they are 126, 150, or 275, in the first place??? Its much more likely that the newbie player will get picked up by the veteran player. When the newbie player has a good vassal base of his own, and he chooses to break and become his own monarch, he will have the same freedoms and issues that all monarchs have when it comes to level restrictions on recruitment. And he will have his own seed from which to grow his clan--recruiting ppl who are at or below his clan's level limit. Arguing that he cant recruit a lvl 130 player is silly, when he couldnt even recruit a lvl 50 player. The only "veteran players" he would be able to recruit in the first place would be rerolls, and that assuming that someone with a lvl 130 toon would want to follow a newbie monarch in the first place.

Now as I said, i UNDERSTAND the concern here. But its simply not the huge issue being portrayed. You already know you cant swear to someone higher level than you, regardless of what that level may be. We have been allowed to get away with essentially exploiting a glitch in the code all this time, and that lophole is now being fixed. Turbine MAY decide to implement some kind of a break that allows us to continue doing something similar, but it wouldnt surprise me one bit if they decided to let the allegiance system continue to scale up just as it always has; level 240 toons NOT being able to swear to lvl 126 toons anymore. And given that we have plenty of time to adjust to that, it wouldnt bother me one bit.

MaddyFF

08-10-2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by BillBraskey
First off, you say that the same thing has happend before with level 100 people not being able to swear to level 80 people. This is true, but there are some important differences between that and the 126+ situation that we are discussing. A level 100+ character can earn much more xp per day than a level 80 (or for that matter a level 1 person could). Thus it wouldn't be right for them to be able to swear to someone much lower unless passup was changed somehow. The xp earning potential of a level 180 is not that much higher than a level 126. So there are none of the passup complications like there are with the lower level example.

What the particular situations of your clan are don't concern me one bit. My concerns about the level check are more centered around people wanting to start new clans rather than preserving older ones. Existing clans really won't be that affected by this execpt for a couple of situations that could come up. But if we get lots of new people playing, I think we should make every effort to give them the chance to start new clans. Not being able to recruit veterans because of their very high level is a problem.

Speaking from personal expereince, I've had my level 80+ mage (at the time) killing with a group in VoD (pre-Caul). Not acting as a healer, but actually vuling, imperiling, and killing. Soloing a Virindi Paradox was fun at that level. I've had my mage in the 90's hunting in Caul fellows a few times, and even soloed some of those evil litle dragons one on one. I've know archers in their 80's that could kill things in the Caul, huting with a mage they were pretty much unstoppable. Characters that low may not kill quite as fast, but they can still be effective, so I don't buy the XP earnings arguement.

As for starting a new clan, that has been the case since day one. I've been a monarch since 2000 and didn't hit level 126 till 2003. More then once I've had to turn away people because no one in the allegiance was high enough level for them to swear allegaince. That is part of the monarchy system, alwasy has been.

Now if you want to change it, argue to change it for all levels and not just level 126's. You could do this a couple of ways. You could cap the XP a patron could earn from vassals on a level by level basis (say 25% of their XP for that leevl can come from vassals). Or even more evil make it so you get a reduction in XP to your patron if you are higher level then they are. Say you knock 2% off the passup XP for each leevl difference. So if you are 50 levels or more greater then your patron, they don't get any XP from passup for that vassal. Evil as I am, I kind of like this solution. Main issue is both of these impact trade/tinker mules which tend to depend on passup XP for leveling. If somethig liek this was done, a leveling/XP generation means would be needed for tinker/trade mules.

Yinchi

08-10-2004, 07:49 AM

Sylp, you are oversimplying a problem.

These things happen continuously in a monarchy, I have been a monarch for 4 years of a large clan. Say your patron breaks, he is level 126, your monarch is 131, you are 170. No one else in your beloved clan is 170, so you cannot swear back in.

You just lost a clan that you have been loyal to for 3 years, all of your friends are there. You are left to solo or find another clan. It is not a simple problem that can be fixed before the expansion pack and everything will be fine. These are ongoing situations.

Ariella

08-10-2004, 09:39 AM

One thing I see that will happen...

It will stop some of the "auctions of xp" from happening, and the "mini-chains". :)

Personally, I agree with Maddy and Sylphia. It's always been this way, and I don't see why a 126+ should get special treatment.

BillBraskey

08-10-2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by sylphia
A LVL 80 toon can earn the exact same amount of XP that a LVL 100 toon can earn. They have access to the same areas, with only a couple exceptions, and have no problems getting into the same fellows that their lvl 100 counterpart does. And there is very little difference, skillwise, between the two. Every point counts, but a difference of 10 in a skill does not make a gamebreaking difference in how effective a toon is.

It's possible that a level 80 could get the same ammount of xp as a level 100 on a particular hunting trip. Of course a levle 80 and 100 fellowed together exclusively they would get the same xp. But in general, the level 100 will get resisted less, evade more, etc. etc. So they have greater xp earning potential. You cannot argue against this. You know that there is a significant difference between a level 80's skills and a level 100's skills. but anyway, the point is valid whether comparing a level 80 or a level 1 character to a level 100. The level check for swearing was put in 1) to prevent abuses of the passup system 2) because higher levels were generally more knowledgable about the game/had been playing longer.

If the game were intended to hardcap at 126, we would have been prevented from earning XP past that level. The original game design simply didnt allow for players who would reach 126 in the first couple of years, and all of the changes that later came along which made doing so even easier. Our ACTUAL levels have progressed beyond 126; its been a problem with the code that has prevented displaying that; the devs have told us this all along. As I have said already, its nothing more than a glorified glitch in the system. Following the XP curve, we can easily calculate what our levels SHOULD be, based on our total spent and unspent XP. Treestats will be a good rule of thumb to determine what our actual levels will be when the expansion hits.
Again, that's just the way that you see it. Show me where the devs have stated that not being able to display levels above 126 is a bug. I don't think that was the case. There were problems that prevented them from CHANGING the system to show >126 levels, but they designed the 126 cap intentionally.

We already have players who are actually 240+ thats a difference of 114 levels, almost TWICE the current lvl cap. And you think its an issue that someone nearly twice your own level wont be able to swear to you? You may as well let a lvl 100 toon swear to a lvl 50 toon. Yes, the post 126 toons will have problems if they break and want to swear in somewhere else. But thats the issue you deal with when you decide you want to leave a clan. Its no different at 150 than it is at 50--if the person you want to swear to isnt equal or higher than you, you cant do it. Period.

Yes, I do think that is an issue. It is different at 150 than at 50 because if you are level 150, a lot of the smaller clans might not be able to get you in. Give me one reason besides the "well that's the way it's been" BS argument for why a level 200 should not be able to swear to a level 126? I'm waiting.

Now, as for wanting to form "new" clans. Once again, do it before the expansion hits. You know its coming, and you know whats going to happen. So get your tree done before it hits. Anyone you want recruit after that--oh well its the same principle we have always lived by.

This is a BS argument. New players will come in. Allegiance's will break up. (happen to me not to long ago). You have no arguments here why it should be that way.

...
Anyone who chooses to break and try to reswear after the pack has to deal with the consequences of doing so. Just like you have to do now pre-126. My recommendation is to get into a clan NOW that you know will be stable. There are hundreds of them out there for you to choose from. Or start your own NOW if thats what you are going to do. Its not like Turbine is dropping the pack on us next week and you dont have time to prepare for it.

You can never know what's going to happen.

And as for new players who start new clans. WTF are you thinking? You DO realize that new players start at level 1 right? How are they supposed to recruit a lvl 126+, REGARDLESS of whether they are 126, 150, or 275, in the first place??? Its much more likely that the newbie player will get picked up by the veteran player. When the newbie player has a good vassal base of his own, and he chooses to break and become his own monarch, he will have the same freedoms and issues that all monarchs have when it comes to level restrictions on recruitment. And he will have his own seed from which to grow his clan--recruiting ppl who are at or below his clan's level limit. Arguing that he cant recruit a lvl 130 player is silly, when he couldnt even recruit a lvl 50 player. The only "veteran players" he would be able to recruit in the first place would be rerolls, and that assuming that someone with a lvl 130 toon would want to follow a newbie monarch in the first place.

I was meaning that after new players get to high levels (126+. This can be easily done in a year), that they may want to form new clans. Don't patronize me. Do I know ppl start at level 1? No. I had no idea. I thought it was random!

Now as I said, i UNDERSTAND the concern here. But its simply not the huge issue being portrayed. You already know you cant swear to someone higher level than you, regardless of what that level may be. We have been allowed to get away with essentially exploiting a glitch in the code all this time, and that lophole is now being fixed. Turbine MAY decide to implement some kind of a break that allows us to continue doing something similar, but it wouldnt surprise me one bit if they decided to let the allegiance system continue to scale up just as it always has; level 240 toons NOT being able to swear to lvl 126 toons anymore. And given that we have plenty of time to adjust to that, it wouldnt bother me one bit.

I never said it was a huge problem. But I do think it's a problem And I still have yet to see a good argument FOR keeping the level check for swearing. Just because it has been that way for <126 doesn't mean that applying it to >126 is a good idea. I'm waiting.

AvatorLC

08-11-2004, 12:07 AM

I am a Monarch,

I have been playing for 4 years now and have had the samge gang for just about that long. I took over when out original monarch left. I have quite a few players that are higher level than I am and your telling me that if someone in my rank chain who is higher level than me breaks (accidentaly) that my entire monarch will be fubared. I worked my *** off getting to 126 so I could take over he monarchy.

I think that this could potentally lead to very bad things happening. especially for the casual players. Not everone macros 24/7 to get to lvl 200+

But if the land changes things happen And I can turm my mansion into a castle I'll be very happy :)

Tasmania

08-11-2004, 12:14 AM

If I have to be 275 to have everyone be able to swear under me, give me the XP my vassals are passing up to their patrons. You know, for the longest time this game has NOT been about the xp... it's been about the quests, and the loyalty system... in fact, that's what keeps ALOT of the people here! Friends! A monarchy is a place where you intend to meet new friends... (heavon forbid you actually make another friend, I mean gosh that would just mean all hell would break loose!) or keep in contact with old friends. I guess I just see this as a turnover in what they are saying, there's more to what they've always said... they just choose not to say it because it'll disagree with some.

Tasmania

08-11-2004, 04:20 AM

Interested in more thoughts.

Yinchi

08-11-2004, 05:25 AM

This is a very serious issue, especially for older clans where we have many high levels and the monarch is lower. Monarchs are busy people, they don't have the time to hunt like everyone else, especially if they have large, organized clans.

It should be resolved before the release of the expansion pack or you will see old clans breaking apart. Some people only play because of their loyalty to their friends in their clan where they have been for years. If for some reason, not of their choosing, they are no longer in that clan, I can see them leaving.

sylphia

08-11-2004, 12:38 PM

Responding to multiple posts here, and with the boards screwing up, its hard to track it properly, so bear with me.

(1) No, there is NOT a great deal of difference in skills between lvl 80 and lvl 100. Anyone who has actually played the same toon from 80 to 100 knows this. That was one of the arguements players made for allowing high lvl players to be exempt from the 5/10 lvl fellowship rule. Even Turbine ackowledges this fact. Yes, someone with 10 points higher in their skill will be evaded/resisted less--slightly-less. I said that. But its not enough of a difference to prevent a lvl 80 toon from getting into a fellow in VOD; nor is it enough to cripple the lvl 80 and prevent them earning the same XP. The lvl 100 and lvl 80 toon will make exactly the same amount of XP, just as I said. There are only a couple of places in all of Dereth that a lvl 80 toon cant get into, due to a lvl 100+ restriction (only one I can think of off the top of my head is Lacuna), so they have essentially the same access as a lvl 100 toon does.

(2) I have said this repeatedly. The devs have been asked why the lvl cap hasnt been raised before now; we can earn XP past 126, yet our levels wont display past that. The response was that it is a problem with the code. The current code wont ALLOW them to display levels beyond 126. The experience calculator simply cant understand a level past 126. As I have said, thats nothing more than a glorified glitch--one which they can (and will be) resolving in the expansion pack. We have always been able to level past 126; the CODE has simply prevented the system from registering those actual levels, and BECAUSE of that, the allegiance system currently lets lvl 240 toons swear to lvl 126 toons, because it cant perceive the actual difference in their real levels. This bug/glitch will be fixed with the X-pack, the system will be able to recognize the actual different levels, and JUST LIKE ALL LEVELS PRIOR TO LVL 126, you will no longer be able to swear a higher lvl toon to a lower lvl one.

(3) When a player breaks from a clan, and there are higher level vassals involved below them that want to get back in, its always presented the same problem, The only difference here is magnitude. If the highest lvl toon in your clan was lvl 80, and you wanted to swear in a lvl 110 player, would you be going on and on about how unfair it is? Not if you had any common sense, because you already know that it is impossible. The principle is the same post 126. Just because we have gotten used to being able to exploit this at post-126 levels, that doesnt change the facts. Higher lvl toons cannot swear to lower level ones; period. It doesnt matter if the levels are 10 and 50, 80 and 100, or 150 and 200. Higher level toons cannot swear to lower level toons. If, after the XP a lvl 130 toon breaks from a lvl 126 toon, he wont be able to swear back to him. Neither will a lvl 50 toon be able to swear back to a lvl 46 toon. Its the same conept, and one that has bene in game since day one. The glitch/bug/exploit that has allowed post-126 toons to swear to lower toons is being removed. Its really as simple as that.

(4) If a player gets to 126 in a year, then they can recruit any othe rplayers who are 126 or less. They cannot recruit someone who is 127 or above. If they get to 100, they can recruit 100 or less, but they cant recruit 101 or above. This is a simple concept. If you dont want to be patronized, then quit pretending you dont understand it. If you want to start your own clan, thats your perogative. You dont get to recruit any player you see just because you want to. You have to get at or above their level, regardless of what it is. If you cant, then you cant recruit them; its that simple. There is no reason to hold back everyone who has made 126+ from finally being able to progress our characters again, just because you want to "what if" over allegiance ties.

The simple version: If you suspect someone specific will breakfrom you after the XP, resolve it now while you can still exploit the 126+ glitch. Otherwise, you are puling a Chicken Little over what MIGHT happen. If someon breaks from you and in doing so prevents someon under them from rejoining you due to levels, again: OH WELL thats the way it is; thats the way it always has been. And as a rule, when someone breaks from you, their vassals tend to want to go with THEM as opposed to the clan itself, since their first loyalty was to the patron who recruited them. Usually they only wound up in your clan because either (a) they were already sworn to the person when that person decided to join you or (b) they were recruited by that person while he was in your clan, and they joined becuase they liked THAT PERSON. In rare few circumstances, a player may seek out a specific clan to join because of that clan's rep (I have encountered this a few times when I was monarch). But the vast majority of the time it is because of one of the first 2 reasons.

Now Bill, all of this has been explained multiple times. Every question you have had and every snide remark you have made has already been adressed. More than once. I am done explaining it to you over and over.

Now, on the flip side: *IF* Turbine could come up with an allegiance solution similar to that in AC2 Beta (any level toon can swear to any lvl toon, but the patron can only receive a certain percent of their XP to LVL from their vassals), then it would make the whole issue of relative levels of patrons and vassals moot. Unfortunately, due to the way that AC1 is designed, this would pretty well bork the method most players use of leveling "trademule" type toons. That being the case, it isnt really viable. But if they COULD find a way to resolve that amicably all the way around, such that you couldnt swear a lvl 100 toon to a lvl 1 toon, go hunt with the lvl 100 toon and get the lvl 1 toon to 50 inside of an hour, then it would allow you to bypass all of the level restrictions on swearing, without imbalancing the game and breaking the whole allegiance system. But the same situation would have to allow us to continue to use the allegiance system to lvl "non combat" toons without having to resort to giving them gimped wpn skills just to "finish off" levels like the AC2 system would require.

But until that is the case, we have to deal with lvl restrictions on swearing. Just like we always have pre-126.

BillBraskey

08-11-2004, 02:30 PM

Responding to multiple posts here, and with the boards screwing up, its hard to track it properly, so bear with me.
(2) I have said this repeatedly. The devs have been asked why the lvl cap hasnt been raised before now; we can earn XP past 126, yet our levels wont display past that. The response was that it is a problem with the code. The current code wont ALLOW them to display levels beyond 126. The experience calculator simply cant understand a level past 126. As I have said, thats nothing more than a glorified glitch--one which they can (and will be) resolving in the expansion pack.

You are stating that the 126 level cap is a glitch. I have not seen this stated anywhere. The devs were asked why we can't see levels over 126, and they did state that it was because the code won't allow for it. But I was under the impression that the reason was that they had designed it to cap at 126 in the first place. When they later wanted to raise the cap, the code where they intentionally capped it at 126 was preventing them from being able to do that.

It's possible that you have the correct interpretation of what they were saying, but I think you are mistaken there.

As for the level 80 versus level 100 argument, first I would like to say that 80 versus 100 was just an example. Originally i said that you couldn't swear to a lower because a level 100 can earn much more than a level 80 OR FOR THAT MATTER A LEVEL 1. I don't know why you all locked onto the 80 versus 100 thing, but the point was that being able to abuse passup was a reason why you can't swear to a lower level character. But, hell you are still just making my point because i'm arguing that over 126, xp gained doesnt change that much, so that reason for level checking swearing goes out the window. Also, i checked out some clanmates on treestats. one was lvl 79 the other level 105. the 105 had between 20-30 more points into his magic skills than the 79. Whereas at level 127, my skills are only about 10 points higher than the 105. level 80 and 100 making the exact same xp? LMAO. maybe if they are in the same fellow, but not solo. If were talking fellow'd, the a level 50 healing can make the same xp as a levle 275.

If you want to make the "level check has always been in place- deal with it" argument, then I can also make the "after 126 you have always been able to recruit anybody" argument. Until you can actually show me a quote from a dev saying that they did not intentionally place the 126 cap in the game (i.e. it's a bug as you have stated), my argument is just as valid as yours.

Now, on the flip side: *IF* Turbine could come up with an allegiance solution similar to that in AC2 Beta (any level toon can swear to any lvl toon, but the patron can only receive a certain percent of their XP to LVL from their vassals), then it would make the whole issue of relative levels of patrons and vassals moot.

As I said before, what I would like to see is a way that you could "swear loyalty" instead of "swear allegiance". After swearing loyalty to someone, you give 0% passup, but you can swear loyalty to anyone regardless of their level. Problem solved.

Tasmania

08-11-2004, 07:36 PM

You know, up until recently I always thought the patron/vassal situation in this game was about loyalty... hell I even interpreted that since the skill that passes XP up to the patron is called "Loyalty"! Maybe I was wrong... maybe they just designed it as some intricate form of XP machine.

Tasmania

08-11-2004, 07:52 PM

In relation to Sylphia's post...

Believe it or not, my followers are loyal to my allegiance and would rather break their bond with their patron and swear back into my allegiance than to follow them blindly. Most of my followers are there because of me and for me... and most of the breaks happen without their knowledge.

MaddyFF

08-11-2004, 08:21 PM

Believe it or not, my followers are loyal to my allegiance and would rather break their bond with their patron and swear back into my allegiance than to follow them blindly.

My expereince has been different, most people are loyal to their patron and will follow them where they go. Some don't, but seems to be the case.

Tasmania

08-11-2004, 09:18 PM

Then I must have some great people under me. In fact, today someone broke for a few hours... I had 2 people swear back in under me and the other didn't log in while the character was broken.

sylphia

08-12-2004, 12:38 AM

Tas,

As I said, there are exceptions to the rule; I have had ppl come to join my allegiance in the past because they knew our reputation. But by far, the vast majority of recruitment is person to person, wherein the patron and his vassal are a "sub family" within the clan (the first 2 examples I cited). While I would welcome anyone who wanted to stay with us when their patron decided to leave for whatever reason, I would never step between a patron and vassal bond. If there were ever a conflict of "loyalty" between allegiance and patron, I would encourage the follower to stick with his patron. But then again, nearly all of our breaks have been amicable. Even if they no longer carry our clan tag, they are still considered family. And the vassal I turned the clan over to continues these policies now that he is monarch.

It comes as no real surprise that other clans inspire such fierce loyalty, but it still remains that the vast majority of players would choose to go with their patron, who is often a real-life friend, or someone that they have grown close to and bonded with in-game, rather than desert them for a clan that their patron (for whatever reason) no longer wishes to be a part of.

Kossuth

08-12-2004, 06:57 AM

Sorry if this has been covered but I ran out of steam on page 4. :)

Context: I'm the rank chain manager for a monarchy on Leafcull.

What worries me is that I have seen situations where raising the cap and instituting it rigidly would have turned painful situations into nightmares.

About 5 months ago our monarch resigned and handed over reigns to the person who had primarily run the monarchy while he had been away for most of the prior 6 months. At that time we were the largest monarchy on Leafcull. Several people were very hurt that he had told others his intentions 1-2 months before and prepared things but not told everyone. Over the following week the monarchy imploded and split into two with friends on both side feeling hurt etc. The most catastrophic breaks were near the top as we are not in a xp chain type structure so when one person broke they could take say 5-15% of the monarchy with them and there was no easy way to remedy things as hundreds of people were moving (or more accurately were being moved) around each day. Then the vassals of those players were breaking and swearing back in to the other monarchy! Needless to say it was incredibly stressful and painful for everyone involved as we had been a very close and friendly monarchy. The godsend was the 126 cap as it meant that we could swear people in and resolve things with a minimum of "difference" from before. Remember we were one of the oldest monarchies on Leafcull and therefore a significant proportion of the active clan members were 126+. It was also an opportunity to dump a lot of loose mules that served no purpose nowadays and organise our structure.

The problem I see is that a significant proportion of our clan who had not broken of their own choice would no longer be able to stay with their friends as they had before under this system. They had no choice about being broken from the clan this change would seem to directly penalise them.

BTW the war has subsided and we have been growing ties between the two new monarchies so the future looks good.

Sorry for the ramble but I am desperately hoping that Turbine can find a way to balance everything so that in the case of a disaster as above the new rank structure won't make things worse.

Yinchi

08-12-2004, 08:39 AM

I believe my clan is the oldest on Solclaim, I know we are the 4th largest.

Kossuth, I have always been the monarch but I have had our clan implode serveral times over the years. My vassals always came back eventually but we had to restructure. This would no longer be viable with the new level cap. I had enough problems finding enough 126's to take people after these things happen, I can't imagine what will happen when there are higher levels to contend with.

Tasmania

08-13-2004, 01:46 AM

Well, I'm still interested in hearing from Ibn... here...

hippiechick64

08-13-2004, 02:16 AM

Oh I can come up with dozens of scenarios which support that the monarch has to be the highest level toon in the clan OR has to be able to let ANY one swear to them. Then they fill up. So on to the officers. Who fill up. They need to make it so that any 126+ swear to any other 126+. Nerf the passup for that is fine. Cuz its NOT about the xp. Im telling you this will KILL the loyalty based system if they dont fix it. Im with Tas, whenever someone breaks from me the peeps under them always trickle back to me. A group that moment, then one by one over time. I encourage alleg loyalty big time, not just patron vassal loyalty. Its going to kill the system the FIRST time someone cant swear into the alleg they are loyal to. And the level arguement, that its always been that way? NO. One of my followers waited 4 months for me to get to 126 to swear in. Yes waited. Would have waited longer but doubt they would have waited 15 yrs while I get to 275. Its BAD BAD BAD and we need a reply as to whether or not turbine sees this as a prob and if so what they intend to do about it.
MJ

ShaunaEyebright

08-13-2004, 05:37 AM

Monarchy explosions can happen today. It did happen quite a few times actually. Today, it can be fixed. Tomorrow, it won't.

Honestly, this is an insult to everyone who is below level 126. Monarchy explosions can happen further down a chain, and they can happen in allegiances where the monarch (*GASP*) ISN'T level 126. To make a blanket statement that Turbine is making something currently "fixable," "unfixable" is asinine.

I fully understand the implications of raising the level cap. We are talking about exorbitant amounts of XP. Personally, I have trouble imagining my main as a 126, much less a 275, and I've been playing since 2000. To me, the next level is a daunting task...and 126 might as well be an insurmountable wall. So, I can understand what is going through the minds of some of the bigger monarchs.

That said, I'd like to ask exactly how level 126's are fundamentally different from those characters less experienced. People have been skating by on what is basically a glorified bug for years and now that Turbine is fixing it, people are finally realizing what "fixing it" means...specifically that they won't be able to skirt the system anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Please don't misunderstand me...I am not trying to belittle the problem or the people whom this will affect. However, I am trying to point out that to treat everyone 126+ differently is elitest. You worked very hard to get where you are. I worked very hard to get where I am, too. I'm sorry, but I can't see how being level 126 should automatically be a free ticket to the Land Where The Rules Don't Apply.

And the argument of "this is the way it has always been" doesn't cut it in my book.

For the record, I am not level 126. I have a member in my allegiance that outlevels me by about 10 levels. We have had level...issues...in the past when trying to organize the tree and it's not fun. If things ever truly break down I suppose I will have to swear to him. Consider: the point of the vassal/patron relationship is that the patron is more experienced that the vassal. If I can't keep up with the curve, then out with the old and in with the new.

MaddyFF

08-13-2004, 05:39 AM

Can do what we did one time, we needed to re-arrange the allegiance because of a split and we had to a appoint a new monarch that was the highest level at the time. For us it wasn't a matter of who carried the monarch name but rather the people in the monarchy.

Yes, I think that is a viable solution if it matters more about what people are in a monarchy instead of what the monarch's name is.

morrigan

08-13-2004, 05:50 AM

the point of the vassal/patron relationship is that the patron is more experienced that the vassal. If I can't keep up with the curve, then out with the old and in with the new.

That holds true if the game were about experience points only. With power levelers etc, yes. With ingame history etc, a person who is 126 in four months vs a player who is not yet 126 in four years? I would have to say I disagree.

Yinchi

08-13-2004, 07:52 AM

Maddy, I would be glad to step down as monarch, however, I have been monarch for 4 years. I doubt whether my clan would be happy if we were forced to choose a different route, pay for our mansion again. I don't think we should be forced to do this, there has to be a better way to keep our higher levels in our clan if someone breaks. I am a high level, I could release some of my directs, restructure, but is this what a guild of friends is all about. Restructuring? Forcing people to leave their vassals or patrons they have had for years?

hippiechick64

08-13-2004, 09:53 AM

LOL Im sorry for how that looked. I did NOT get to 126 in four months LOL. I started my alleg at 55 ish and at around 75-85 I met a friend. As we got to know eachother, into my 90s he had decided to swear in when I got to 126. THATS what took 4 months, getting to 126 from somewhere in my 90s or early 100s. Anyhoo he waited patiently becuse it was ATTAINABLE. We KNEW I could do it in some time in the relatively near future. That would not have been possible if he was 226. And Im not even that concerned about the new peeps coming in. Ive lived without em this long, Ill be ok without longer. Its about ONE person not being ABLE to swear into a monarchy that they are loyal to and that they WERE able to pre-expansion. Im not being elitist, or trying to be BETTER than the lower levels. But it doesnt effect them as badly as it effects the higher levels. Its a lot tougher levelling the higher your level goes.

MJ

BillBraskey

08-13-2004, 11:52 AM

Shauna, to answer your question, there is nothing fundamentally different between a 126 and any other level. However, you say that the current ability for any 126 to swear to any other 126 is a glorified bug. Well, I tend to look at it from the other perspective. The level check when swearing was put in for 2 reasons. 1) If you could swear a level 100 to a level 20, it would lead to potential passup abuses. 2) Higher level characters were generally more experienced and had been playing for longer. As you can see, #2 simply is not true any more. You have been playing since 2000, and I'm sure many people that started a year ago are higher level than you. #1 still holds true, but really only for levels under 100 (or thereabouts. It's not an exact thing). Xp gained per time roughly equals out as you approach the max level. So the cap at 126 (if you want to call it a bug, go ahead) really has just been eleminating an annoyance that no longer has any reason for being in place. Can you see what I'm saying? Currently the annoyance stops at 126. I wouldn't mind it being put in place at 100, but the level cap needs to be higher than 100.

What I would really like to see is a new way to swear to someone that has no level restrictions but no passup as well. It seems like that would solve all the problems if it could be coded.

hippiechick64

08-13-2004, 04:23 PM

Even better than nothing is like a flag. It would flag you that you were in this particular alleg and in case of accidental break you could come back to any 126+ toon. We really arent complaining about the new level cap in and of itself. We are just adressing a problem it is for monarchs. And as the title of this thread implies, Monarchs get hit AGAIN. and AGAIN. and AGAIN. Yet here we are. We obviously dont hate turbine, or the game, its mechanics, or YOU guys. This will RUIN the loyalty based system drastically. You watch, itll change it drastically AND it will RUIN the entire allegiance system as we know it today. It will be at least partially based on ABILITY TO SWEAR. NOT loyalty.
MJ

Myk

08-13-2004, 05:04 PM

This changes nothing, back in the day before 126s were common you had this same issue and it didnt seem like a big deal then. You making mountains out of mole hills and need to think about it some. People have gotten spoiled by 126s being able to swear to any 126.....now they are just fixing something that got in someway broke due to all the 126s.

Tasmania

08-13-2004, 05:05 PM

Well, the point I'm trying to get across is that this new system will force me to turn people away. I don't have a choice in the matter when I would have had the choice before the expansion. You are takeing away yet another choice and putting it on the burden of the mechanics of the game. This needs to be addressed, because if I have to turn one person away from my monarchy because I am not high enough, I will take action to make sure I don't have to feel the loss again.

Take that however you want to take it.

ApolloAce

08-13-2004, 05:26 PM

Simply because folks are use to having people with more xp and skills under them and getting the xp and ability they do from them doesn't mean that was how it was going to stay.

The one thing you can count on is change and if you expect everything to always be the same , at some point you will be dissapointed.

hippiechick64

08-13-2004, 05:33 PM

I dont think non monarchs realize how we feel about our allegiances. Ill go first and expose myself to flames for the cause! We LOVE them, they are like children to us, we nurture them, cry over them, sweat for them, make huge sacrifices for them, (sheesh my husband doesnt play and knows more about this game than a lot of peeps IN it just from helping me). Its a whole lot different than you think it is. And to turn someone away who 1) would have been able to get in for the entire first 5 years of the game and/or 2) WANTS to be in your allegiance because they are loyal to it. They aren't LOYAL somewhere else and this is a loyalty based system and 3) is so much higher in level that there is no way in this lifetime that they can wait for you to catch up or help PL you past them or anyother solution that is available to us NOW.
Yes the system will be the same, couldnt do it then, cant do it now. But the SOLUTION to it is impossible now. A monarch, who hunts very little and generally has bad passup because of rankers and other 126s under them, will NEVER catch even the MOST loyal and patient friend if they are 100 levels above them. It takes like 160 mil to get from 125 to 126. You dont think thats alot? Go try it. ( Dont forget to try it the way we would have to, with constant interuptions from alleg requesting bod recover and tinking and bad passup from vassals.). And it INCREASES with every level.
This HAS to be fixed. Im with you, the first time I have to turn away a loyal follower who would have been able to swear in before the expansion I WILL rethink my position. And Im not alone.
MJ

BillBraskey

08-13-2004, 05:41 PM

I don't see why people are saying "well, we have had to deal with this problem before, so deal with it again".

You are acknowledging that it is a problem. There is no good reason to require people to be lower level for them to swear to you. Except for passup concerns which 1) can be addressed for people lower than say 100 or so and 2) doesn't even apply to those 126+.

Allow people to swear to lower level ppl at the cost of not giving passup and you solve ALL POSSIBLE SWEARING PROBLEMS!!!

ApolloAce

08-13-2004, 05:59 PM

Hippie I been there,

Question...

What did you do before you reached 126 and someone above that wanted in?

hippiechick64

08-14-2004, 01:12 AM

This story is told in an earlier post to this thread. A very close friend of mine waited 4 months for me to get 126. It was a long haul but we knew it was ATTAINABLE sometime in the future and he could continue to play, but would have stopped to wait if needed. I doubt he would have if it was going to take me 5 years to catch him. I wouldnt want him to. Thats ONE scenario. When I first became monarch someone needed in. If I couldnt catch his level in 3 days then I would swear to him. I was 42 he was 52. He PLAYED and I caught him. I have more stories of how peeps over my level waited and slowed thier play down so they could swear to me. It was POSSIBLE to fix the swear in prob and will NOT be after the expansion pack. THATS what I did, I repaid the LOYALTY with hard work for a few levels.
MJ

Sunjhi

08-14-2004, 02:15 AM

Remove patron/vassal passup. Then the levels wont matter. It may also stop the macroing to some degree. It's not like the passup needs to be there anyway. I never counted on it. It was nice at times to log in to some xp, but I never expected it, nor asked anyone for it. If the passup is removed, why would a level matter for swearing purposes?

I'm sure a lot of folks will have a fit if they even hint they will removed passup. But really.. it's not necessary to the game.

Sunjhi

Tasmania

08-14-2004, 06:28 PM

"What did you do when someone wanted to swear in and you wern't 126?"

The answer to that question, at least for me... is I have been 126 for as long as I've been monarch. I started as a monarch on Tasmania and moved the followers to Deaths Apprentice when he hit 126. Nobody knew about my clan except a select few people until I was 126... didn't need the stress to PL even faster than I already was. So in answer to your question, I've always been a monarch at 126.

Yinchi

08-14-2004, 07:44 PM

Sunji, passup is not necessary to anyone but Monarchs. It really is necessary to a very busy monarch. Leading quests does not gain a lot of xps. My time is totally taken up with quests, holding meetings and doing things for our clan. I level our tinker mules and alchemists, I don't pass up xps to them since I am at the top. As it is, I am far behind a lot of my vassals on VT. I am monarch on two servers, we have a clan on Sol and VT that I take care of. We are 4th largest on two servers.

Without those xps, I could not lead quests. :(

ApolloAce

08-14-2004, 07:47 PM

The original intent for passup was a reward to the patron for the teaching and help he/she was suppose to give to the vassals.

To be honest folks don't really have to be in Guild to be a family. There was a time when we didn't have housing and folks would just meet in town or at the towhall. Nowadays that can still be done.

If the family really is close then being part of the same guild is not a neccesity.

As far as passup being removed I doubt Turbine would go that direction with AC1 (i.e. what happened in AC2). Your probably right about folks complaining about that as well.

Now of course for me (since I don't seem to have as much attachment to individual characters of mine) if I really wanted to join someone in a guild, erasing and remaking would be the answer (which I actually did when I joined Cotho's guild on Wintersebb, even though he was high enough level to patron the characters I had at the time).

That might not be an option/choice that others would/want to do to solve the issue. Then again you folks are asking others to give up something they want (i.e. XP) so that you are satisfied.

The only suggestion I can make is get your family together and work so that it doesn't occur. If your families are really that close then you won't need to ask, they will offer because it's best for the situation you find yourselves in.

Eruditus

08-15-2004, 01:59 AM

Gee I love the way you can manage to see 2 or 3 years down the line :)

In my experience most monarchies currently see at least one large break in a year due people leaving the game, wishing to start their own monarchy and so on. It is impossible to plan to ensure that this is not a problem.

Also the most important guild feature is alliegance chat which negates the problems associated with a very small friends list (especially since each player has 6 characters now) and allows all members to talk wherever they are.

Someone has proposed a simple solution, reduce the passup for signing to someone below you under the new system. This would allow people to still be in their monarchies and in cases where EXP is all that matters then being able to reswear into your monarchy after unfortunate circumstance would not be an issue.

Tasmania

08-15-2004, 02:00 PM

Aye, I believe they should make it dynamic so anyone can swear to anyone but the passup gets limited on % difference of xp... or something... I really liked that idea...

Tasmania

08-16-2004, 01:31 AM

I'm still waiting on Ibn and more ideas/comments...

Eruditus

08-16-2004, 11:17 AM

It would be nice if Ibn responded to say a single thread on this board :)

Tasmania

08-16-2004, 02:32 PM

I'm sure there is alot of debation going on over this topic right now...

ApolloAce

08-16-2004, 02:50 PM

What fix?

A higher level character cannot swear to a lower level character.

Thats not broken thats how it's suppose to work.

hippiechick64

08-16-2004, 06:10 PM

That is true, but to date its been FIXABLE. If an 80 wants a 100 to swear in, and hes LOYAL, which is what the entire allegiance system is based on, its POSSIBLE to get that 80 to 100 for him in a reasonable amount of time. As I stated before, I had people wait for MONTHS for me to get to 126 so they could swear in, they would not have waited years, nor would I want them to. So, they would have been forced to swear into an alleg where they were NOT loyal but could swear due to level. This wouldnt be THAT bad but its totally against the loyalty based system that allegiances are set up under. It used to be fixable in reasonable amount of time after expansion it will NOT be easily fixable or even fixable at all.
MJ

sylphia

08-16-2004, 06:54 PM

I have ben kicking this one around for the last couple of days, and I think that a good compromise has been offered. Allowing higher level toons to swear to lower level ones WITHOUT generating passup would solve the "social" dilema of higher level toons, without breaking the system by allowing grossly higher level players to swear to lower ones--which the current 126 cap allows to be exploited. I have been looking at it from every angle I can think of, and I see no real issues with this, with a cople of provisos:

(1) If/when the patron eventually does pass the higher level vassal, he should be able to begin earning XP form that vassal just as if the vassal had just sworn to him, but with his timers for time sworn intact.

In other words, if Bob is lvl 50 and swears to Tom (lvl 20) Tom would receive no XP from Bob. But if Tom manages to catch Bob in levels, Tom begins earning XP as normal, and his and Bob's current sworn-timers DO NOT reset.

(2) A patron never gets penalized when his vassal outlevels him by having his XP reduced due to the level difference--remember many players level tradetoons and alts this way.

Bob is lvl 50, Tom is level 50; Bob swears to Tom, then outlevels him to 60. Tom is not penalized by his vassal being higher level, and he DOES NOT stop receiving XP as he would if Bob had sworn to him already at a higher level.

(3) Current patron/vassal relationships would be unaffected by this. If you arre already sworn to someon lower level than you are, see Rule #2. If you BREAK form that person, and reswear to anyone at all, then you have to go through the whole process.

(4) Rank would work like it already does, ignoring relative levels--though rank needs work anyway, thats another discussion..

Allowing this compromise would let the allegiance system be more flexible. It would eliminate the worries of accidental breaks or fissions in the clan, no matter what relative levels they are.

And this is something that should be offered game-wide, not just via the x-pack. Assuming of course that the allegiance system can be made to behave in this fashion.

ApolloAce

08-16-2004, 07:04 PM

Swearing isn't and will not be broken after the X-pac.

It is working as intended.

A higher level character cannot swear to a lower level character.

Just because people thought the cap was going to stay at 126, doesn't mean it was.

Loyalty and friendship is about loyalty and friendship, not who's swore into what guild.

Nothing is broken and nothing will be broken after the X-pac, so there is nothing to fix.

Edit: Now thats a possibility Sylphia.

hippiechick64

08-16-2004, 08:54 PM

The people who dont see the problem with this:
I just want to know what exactly do YOU think the loyalty based allegiance MEANS? All we want is at least a way that people who are ALREADY in our allegiances and loyal to us can come back if they should be broken to no fault of thier own or accidentally. I know what loyalty is, I wouldnt even WANT a person who broke themselves to be able to come back, it was disloyal to begin with. But thats not our concern. Our concern is our rankers who are higher level than us now and under other people who may not be so loyal, our higher level followers who may be broken by a patron or grand patron and want back and cannot get back, things like that. It is NOT about xp. As far as monarchs go you may as well take passup away all together, most of us are getting squat anyway. I just dont get why you cant see what this will do to the LOYALTY BASED allegiance system we now are under. And would like to know, thanks,
MJ

ApolloAce

08-16-2004, 09:24 PM

As long as something along the lines of what Sylphia said happens it shouldn't be a problem. Everybody keeps what they have and the rest get to have an open ended future, as far as level.

morrigan

08-16-2004, 09:52 PM

I know it has been a while since I played AC2 so my memory of how it worked there could be fuzzy at best.

But this seems pretty much how it was in AC2, something along the lines of what Sylphia posted :)

morrigan

08-16-2004, 10:28 PM

ugghh two cups of coffee and head / eyes a bit clearer, I mean that higher could swear to lower LOL but xp was nothing :) for 2.

All my vassals outleveled me *grin*

Tasmania

08-16-2004, 11:17 PM

Again, that's what I'm interested in seeing happen... an exponantial passup setup. Since exponantially, there is a cap where there is negligable difference and a slope which increases as your level increases. This probably doesn't make any sense as I haven't thought this out... but I also agree that current vassal/patron XP passup shouldn't be affected... only newly sworn toons...

sylphia

08-17-2004, 12:10 AM

For reference:

In AC2, there is a cap on the total amount of XP a patron can earn from all of his vssals. IIRC, the patron can receive no more than 25% of his level--thats from all of his vassals combined, not per vassal; whether you have one vassal or 10, you can only receive 25% of the XP you need to reach the next level. Consequently, levels are moot, since even a lvl 65 toon cant push more than 25% of a lvl 1's XP up to him. Again, this is going on memory of the Beta, so dont take those as hard and fast numbers, but thats the gist of it--the player has to actually go out and get the remaining XP himself; he cant just sit back and let his vassals pump him up to the top. However, AC2 also handles tradeskills in a completely different manner as well, so it neatly sidesteps the "need" to be able to level "trademules" with "pushers". I have lobied for a similar change in our engine as well, but until such a change occurs, we DO need the ability to level our tradetoons with alts. The crafting quests being added are nice, but realistically they just dont compare to having 4 or 5 good pushers under a mule.

I think if Turbine can pull of this little caveat, it would satifsy the vast majority of players who are up in arms about this issue--on both sides. Those that want a "safety net" in case of emergencies have it (being able to swear toons to lower lvl toons). Those that want to preserve some sanctity of common sense when swearing one toon to another get it (you cant swear a lvl 240 toon to a lvl 126 toon and pass insane amounts of XP to the lower lvl toon), and those who want to keep the existing functionality in place ALSO get what they want (toons sworn at or below the level of their patron can still pass XP as normal, and even if they outlevel that patron, they continue to do so--so long as they never break their ties).

Of course the true zealots, who want to eliminate passup altogether--well sorry but you get left in the cold. Or you could just make sure you always swear your toons to a lower level toon and never let them catch up to you :D

Edit: Oh and to give credit where it is due, the original suggestion was NOT my idea; it has been put forth a couple of times in this thread before me. I merely "tweaked" it a bit for balance :)

ApolloAce

08-17-2004, 01:06 AM

Sylphia,

The tweaks work tho sylphia.

It's the zealots ideas i was against from the beginning, they were just an attempt to hold everyone back for a number of personal reasons.

I think we both know most of the reasons were pure selfishness. :cool:

Tasmania

08-17-2004, 02:36 AM

I merely suggested multipul ideas of which people could exagerate on, if you are referring to my post. I don't care about XP, I never have... if I need it I know where to go get it... but I do care about loyalty.

morrigan

08-17-2004, 08:44 AM

Yes but put together and tweaked well :)

and what do the non-monarch zealots want for this then, you know, not all of us posting are monarchs lol (based on the implication I gather from the comment)

Tasmania

08-17-2004, 11:47 AM

what do the non-monarch zealots want for this then, you know, not all of us posting are monarchs lol (based on the implication I gather from the comment)
The non-monarch zealots get the ability to have anyone swear to them or them swear to anyone...

hippiechick64

08-17-2004, 11:49 AM

Where is Turbine? Again!
Monarchs are the lowest percentage of the player base and apparently Turbine, yet again, is going to ignore our concerns.
There was an extremely active thread or 8 about the xp changes and their effects on monarchs. Those concerns were real and sure enough it happened just like we said it would. Monarchs get literally ZERO passup and work their tails off for it. This was discussed and talked about and labored over by every one but Turbine.
AGAIN they ignore us. Here's why I think they are not responding to the threads about things that effect Monarchs: they 1) Know we wont give up on our people no matter what they do to us or 2) simply dont care about us because we represent such a minority of the player base.
Can someone from Turbine PLZ respond and let us know whether or not you at least recognize that this will cause serious changes in the loyalty based system so we at least know where we stand? And if you DO recognize this issue then is it just tough cookies for us or are you actually considering a way to make it right? Please respond, tell us to go fly a kite if you must, just respond so we know you hear us.
MJ

sylphia

08-17-2004, 02:52 PM

Yes but put together and tweaked well :)

and what do the non-monarch zealots want for this then, you know, not all of us posting are monarchs lol (based on the implication I gather from the comment)

The "zealots" I refer to (Notice how I am learning how to use all those trigger and buzz words too! :cool: ) are the ones who insist that allegiance XP should be eliminated from AC altogether, that it has "destroyed the game", "ruined true RP", blah blah blah. Of course, the same zealots will insist with the next patch that adding snowcones to the game destroyed it, so *shrug*

Being able to choose to swear a higher level toon into your clan without XP passup allows you to recruit your friend, Billy Joe Bob, who is lvl 160, whereas the highest person in your clan is currently 115; that kind of thing. And since he isnt passing up any Xp, balance issues of higher lvls being sworn to lower levels dont come into play. Of course, the guy who sowrn in "legitimately" 2 years ago who is now 50 levels above his patron still does that, but that relationship has been "earned" over time. I am sure this will be a sticking point in the arguement. WHich is why one of the provisos I have listed is to leave existing patron/vassal relationships alone, and another is to specifically allow patrons to be outleveled by their vassals without penalty (as it is now)--once they are "properly" sworn in etc etc.

morrigan

08-17-2004, 03:31 PM

LOL sorry Syl, wasn't referring to your zealots, thats what i get for putting two together. I like your idea.

as for those that can swear to anyone anytime, not true either. That was to Tasmania :)

Example, I love the group I am in, it is monarch, casual playing vassal (my patron) and me. I am 22 levels above my patron, 4 levels above my monarch. Suddenly casual vassal (my patron) decides for whatever reason gone. Monarch spends lots of time helping out those below, so xp time spent is diminished because said monarch believes in being there for all, not just the directs. I spend more time hunting because that is what I like. Several of us like that. A blended group of hard core fighters, hard core helpers, and those in between.

Suddenly my patron gone, I am out in cold. I don't want to be said monarch (not all of us have that desire).

Yes I can still be friends, yes we can still quest, but there is nothing like sitting at the mansion after a good quest with your group and recapping, talking and enjoying being together. I would no longer have that. Or being able to log in for only 15 minutes, recalling to our monarchy home (how many of us have done that, just poke our head in) to see what was going on?

Something gets broke that is intangible when a person also breaks. It is not part of the game mechanic per se, something gets lost along the way. Now, I may see one or two of a group at any one time instead of recalling to the group I have been with forever and see everyone. So, I am friends of the group but no longer "part" of that group.

There are aspects to this game that even the players cannot predict.

Players are passionate about this game, for many reasons, not all of them are over game mechanics, but those unspoken things and non-game things that make AC great as well.

This game supposedly has that social aspect, bonds of many years for a lot of people.

So what is the harm at this stage of the game of wanting to keep those strong bonds, and still build new ones :)

Hamfast

08-17-2004, 04:44 PM

Example, I love the group I am in, it is monarch, casual playing vassal (my patron) and me. I am 22 levels above my patron, 4 levels above my monarch. Suddenly casual vassal (my patron) decides for whatever reason gone. Monarch spends lots of time helping out those below, so xp time spent is diminished because said monarch believes in being there for all, not just the directs. I spend more time hunting because that is what I like. Several of us like that. A blended group of hard core fighters, hard core helpers, and those in between

Morrigan,

Using your above example... you are 22 Levels above your patron, 4 above your Monarch...

You are level 118, your Monarch is level 114, your Patron is level 96...

Your Patron breaks, how do you swear under the monarch?

Nothing has changed, except now the max level is 275 (about unattainable if you ask me) and not 126... that I hope to still reach by 2006.

morrigan

08-17-2004, 06:27 PM

Sorry Ham, I should have used 126, we were talking about how that is to change :) thanks for pointing it out.

As it is now, it is only treestats level, not game level.

Davidge

08-17-2004, 06:48 PM

I really like this idea, it appears very well thought out Sylphia.

It protects monarchies from the unexpected, and it achieves balance in the game.

Now to convince Turbine that this is worth doing, as I suspect the technical aspects are fairly difficult given the legacy code they would have to touch.

I would rather see the Xpack postponed to get this right, than see it left out.

I have ben kicking this one around for the last couple of days, and I think that a good compromise has been offered. Allowing higher level toons to swear to lower level ones WITHOUT generating passup would solve the "social" dilema of higher level toons, without breaking the system by allowing grossly higher level players to swear to lower ones--which the current 126 cap allows to be exploited. I have been looking at it from every angle I can think of, and I see no real issues with this, with a cople of provisos:

(1) If/when the patron eventually does pass the higher level vassal, he should be able to begin earning XP form that vassal just as if the vassal had just sworn to him, but with his timers for time sworn intact.

In other words, if Bob is lvl 50 and swears to Tom (lvl 20) Tom would receive no XP from Bob. But if Tom manages to catch Bob in levels, Tom begins earning XP as normal, and his and Bob's current sworn-timers DO NOT reset.

(2) A patron never gets penalized when his vassal outlevels him by having his XP reduced due to the level difference--remember many players level tradetoons and alts this way.

Bob is lvl 50, Tom is level 50; Bob swears to Tom, then outlevels him to 60. Tom is not penalized by his vassal being higher level, and he DOES NOT stop receiving XP as he would if Bob had sworn to him already at a higher level.

(3) Current patron/vassal relationships would be unaffected by this. If you arre already sworn to someon lower level than you are, see Rule #2. If you BREAK form that person, and reswear to anyone at all, then you have to go through the whole process.

(4) Rank would work like it already does, ignoring relative levels--though rank needs work anyway, thats another discussion..

Allowing this compromise would let the allegiance system be more flexible. It would eliminate the worries of accidental breaks or fissions in the clan, no matter what relative levels they are.

And this is something that should be offered game-wide, not just via the x-pack. Assuming of course that the allegiance system can be made to behave in this fashion.

Frieze

08-17-2004, 07:02 PM

Anyone complaining that a lvl 180 wont be able to swear to a lvl 130 post-expansion needs to get a grip and listen. The only thing changing here is the actual level limit, NOT how swearing works in the first place. You cannot swear a lvl 126 toon to a lvl 80 toon. You need to get a grip and listen. It takes 4.2 bil to get to level 126.

At 172 I am sitting on 19 billion XP. To get to 250+ I would be looking at hundreds of billions of XP. HUNDREDS. Compared to 4.2! The problem is, there is a band-aid fix to being too low level now - level. So many people have said "just level your monarch" - but it's not that simple. That's the point. This is changing the game dynamics whether you want to admit it's changing them or not.

Yinchi

08-17-2004, 07:26 PM

Frieze, you are right. People don't understand.... unless they change things.. if it took you two years to get to 126, it will take you 35 times that to get to 260. There is only one way, at present, to do that. Perhaps, Turbine will have a level lever for us.

sylphia

08-17-2004, 11:00 PM

Frieze you should try reading the entire thread before you respond to one post. The End.

Tasmania

08-18-2004, 07:09 AM

Ok... lets just take a look at something for a moment... right now lets say it took me 6 months to get to 126 (It was possable and *Cough* I did do it... but that was back when chains were in full swing.)... guessing off of that which is 4.2 billion XP and Treestats, Level 241 is 100 Billion XP. Roughly 100 times that of 126. If you keep the current XP rate up, you will hit 241 in 2 years (24 months) after which you hit 126. Now they also indicated that the total xp you have at 250 will be the total ammount of xp it takes to get from 250 to 275. I'm off on the low end here, but if you hit 126 in 6 months and continue to produce the same ammount of xp and nothing more, then you will hit 275 in 5 more years.

Think about it.

Yinchi

08-18-2004, 08:58 AM

Tas, I don't quite get your math. If you are correct and it is roughly 100 x 126 and it took you 6 months to get there...... 100 x your 6 months, how is that equal to 2 years? 100 x 6 months = 600 months. 600 divided by 12 (1 year) = 50 years

Fortunately, it is not 100 x. Actually a 126 is approximately 4 mil, a 260 is approx 143 mil. 35 times higher. So that would mean 210 months, only 17.5 years. That is much better. :p

So...... if it takes you as long to get to 250 as it does to go from 250 - 275...... :eek:

Someone correct me if they see my math is wrong. Or if Turbine has indicated that our xps will be calculated to give us xps at a higher rate.

Arch Magi

08-18-2004, 10:21 AM

My personal opinion is that Monarchs have been screwed over enough. We have a "figurehead" named "Legend of Cragstone" and we are leveling her to 126 as we speak. I am level 169 and a 192 toon and several other toons who are level 126+ and others in our guild have level 190+ and 126+.

Monarchs are already got nerfed with the XP Passthrough, now it just makes managing their guild with a "figurehead" that much harder for "new guilds".

It changes nothing. I will swear my 169 Mage, 192 tinkerer, 126 Archer, and other key people will swear a few "key" post 126 toons to them so that unless Turbine DOESN'T "Grandfather" the patron/vassal relationship (and if the don't ALL HELL will break loose).

I don't see the big deal about letting a higher than 126+ toon swear with a lower 126+ toon. You can get 105% of a level with Gromnie teeth and couple that with a temple run, that is a free 300 million XPs every 2 weeks. Not to mention, starting at level 50, a toon can "fellow leech" with a level 200+ toon.

IMO, Turbine is attacking a problem at the wrong end.

Mogosh

08-18-2004, 10:38 AM

Not trying to interefere with Tas/Yinchi's maths... However, here are a few "milestones" to help figure out the numbers behind levels:

(level) : (billion XP)

126: 4.3
180: 24 (central skills/attributes/vitals almost maxed)
200: 40
239: 96 (central & secondary skills/attributes/vitals completely maxed)
275: 191

A maxed char (~240) requires 4 times the XP of a close-to-maxed char (~180).
A maxed char is only halfway to the XP of a 275.

bertman

08-18-2004, 11:30 AM

How do you get 105% with gromnie teeth? I thought it was 5%. And what temple are you referring to where you say you can get 300m xp? I've never heard of such a place. The most xp that I know of is whatever the Harbinger quest gives you, which can be close to 300m, but that's on a four month timer.

Palum

08-18-2004, 12:04 PM

You take fletching, raise it to -1 from max, do the gromnie rewards to get ~250 or so mill, untrain every two weeks via gem and retrain immediately and do rewards again.

It does take up 4 skill credits, but most people can live with that for awhile in order to get insane xp.

If you want to make even more exp, for the first 5 runs, raise fletching up to -2, do gromnie rewards to get -1, then turn in a tessera and untrain. Easily 500 mill until you run out of tessera turn-ins. Scroll of dark rain is 3 points, if you want to wait 6 weeks to rearrange your character you can score a bill xp by speccing it, max -3, then untraining it back to trained.

Not to mention every other fletch untrain run you do harbringer and get double xp (triple if you're doing it in conjuction with tesserae).

You could do the same with cooking of course, or alchemy if you had 6 extra creds to play with while you're maxing your character.

sylphia

08-18-2004, 01:48 PM

Something to point out here: for all those who are trying to use math to show how "impossible" it is to get to 275.

You can reach lvl 126 in approximately TWO WEEKS, not 6 months--2 weeks. It not only is possible, it is EASILY done, if you have the time and a few friends to help. Once again, VT has proven that. So whatever total it actually takes to get to 275, the base calculator is 2 weeks, not 6 months.

Now, assuming that it IS 191 Bil to hit 275, thats 1.8 years to get to 275, if the xp curve were the same. However, one thing to remember is that a significant portion of 1-126 is earned at a much lower rate of XP (not the 20-40Mil/hr that is possible in the latter poriton of it, and which would continue thereafter), not to mention the fact that we will have higher level content for the post 126 crowd, which will undoubtedly allow even higher xp/hr gains. Factoring all of that in, a dedicated group of players would probably be able to get their monarch from lvl 1 to 275 in about a year, perhaps slightly more.

Now, keeping in mind that it took 13 players who were DEDICATED to powerlevling one toon up to 275 that long and that much effort (you can expect a minimum of 8-12 hours every day on all 13 toons), how often do you really think that the average player is going to run into an issue of BEING 275 and having nowhere to swear?

So basically what we are looking at here is a HUGE "what if". The problem is nowhere NEAR the epic proportions some would have us believe. And it certainly is not a "monarch only" issue. Every player who ever wants to swear another toon to him goes through the same issue. And it is by no means a NEW issue; again the only thing that has really changed here is magnitude. The core issue is still the same.

At all levels, no matter if it is low, mid, high, or extreme, the problem is the same: You cant recruit someone if they are higher level than you. Period. If, however, the proposal for an option to swear in without XP gain were added, then it would solve the issue at all levels. When the theoretical lone 275 toon shows up who wants into your clan, he could swear to your lvl 100 toon if he wanted to--without giving you any passup. I honestly think it solves the majority of the issue rather neatly--IF Turbine can implement it properly.

ApolloAce

08-18-2004, 02:19 PM

Agreed Sylphia.

The last nail in the chain (formal, informal, or completely casual) coffin is all.

Effectively destroys the ability to change around every other week to maximize XP in a chain of any kind.

And your plan will allow friends to stay togther without being able to create a new chain scenario.

The only reason to disagree with your tweaked plan is that XP is somehow involved in the reasoning.

Mestivious

08-18-2004, 02:19 PM

Too much speculation... better watch out or they'll lock the thread, lol.

Xen

08-18-2004, 02:22 PM

Having an option to recruit a "companion" as opposed to "vassal" would be great. There a few ways to implement, but the basic point is companions will be completly outside of pass up tree (possible exception - small capped amount of xp that goes directly to monarch and noone else) It would also allow certain players who strongly dislike this whole "noble/serf" "patron/vassal" terminology/structure to participate in allegiance/guild system with greater ease. As far as I am concerned it is win/win situation.

Some details to workout is "Companions" are tied to individual players or to allegiance as a whole? If they are tied to individual members, is there a limit on how many companions one char can have? Does it also mean that char can boot his companion(s) from allegiance? But those are just details.

sylphia

08-18-2004, 02:52 PM

I like the idea of a seperate name for non-xp vassals; this would make it easy for the patron to immediately differentiate between the two, though "companion" doesnt appeal to me personally. Other than that, treat them just like normal vassals.

(1)They are tied to the person that they swear to, not to the clan itself; that would be nearly impossible to resolve if their patron left--they would still have to break and swear back into the clan (or stay with their patron as they choose).
(2)The total number of xp and non xp vassals would still be 12. This could be modified a bit to allow for 12 xp vassals and a similar number of vassals that produce no xp. IN any case, the number needs to be controlled, or you would wind up with 50 ppl sworn to one toon, which would be a nightmare to track.
(3)Non xp vassals do not count in the formula for calculating passup.
(4)Non-xp vassals can be booted by their patron or a clan officer/monarch, just like any other vassal.
(5)If a non-xp vassal breaks from their patron, it DOES NOT cost them XP to reswear to someone--in fact, I think that mechanic is obsolete anyway, and should be done away with. It doesnt stop players from leaving, and it doesnt stop vassal-loot scamming. Its really more of an unnecessary annoyance, and it only really penalizes the player who is having a hard time finding the "right" clan for themselves. Addin the fact that the delete/restore pretty much nixes it anyway, and there is no point to keeping that mechanic.

Thats all I can think of off the top of my head...still sick as a dog, so I will revisit it in a couple days when my head clears heh.

ApolloAce

08-18-2004, 03:08 PM

I like the first tweaked one Sylphia.

Short simple to the point.

Short simple and to the point makes it harder to take advantage of ... lol. ;)

sylphia

08-18-2004, 04:00 PM

Yeah but it never STAYS simple :p

If we hash it all out here on the boards, we can present Turbine with a plan that will make as many ppl happy as possible, without borking the whole system or catering to the whims of a select few at the expense of the many. Besides, these are questions that will inevitably be asked by players (or by the devs as they brainstorm at the table), so may as well hash THAT out too while we are at it :)

bertman

08-18-2004, 04:18 PM

Monarchs, schmonarchs. The level cap is artificial, and I don't like it. I prefer no level cap. If taking off the level cap causes peoples' levels to change upwards, and then prevents other people from swearing to them, well , I don't know what to tell you. The level cap is artificial. If there were no level cap, the situation would be the same now as it is expected to be when the expansion pack comes out. I'm sorry if monarchs are going to take a hit, but you need to learn to deal with it instead of trying to make Turbine preserve an obsolete status quo. It's not my problem, and I don't want a bunch of whiners dictating a game that I have as much a stake in as they. I have no sympathy.

And just because you hang around a mansion all the time, doesn't mean you deserve special treatment. You get the great big mansion with all the rooms and hooks and storage, and yet still complain how worthless it is. Whaa whaa whaaa. Make my mansion more valuable. Don't you know who I am? I'm a monarch!

So just get vassals lower than you, and let higher level people swear to higher level monarchs. Or maybe you should rethink who should be the monarch. Or keep the ones sworn to you that have outleveled you, and let other clanmates swear to them. Not everybody has to be your direct vassal, you know. I mean, how much thinking is it going to take to figure this out? People who aren't even monarchs figured out xp chains.

Hey Turbine! Don't forget those of us who aren't monarchs! We have opinions too!

bertman

08-18-2004, 04:28 PM

Having an option to recruit a "companion" as opposed to "vassal" would be great.
Oh, please. Companion? Hey I have an idea! Maybe we could get a system of gangs, where they choose the gang leader by electing or pking or whatever method they choose.

How about we just let the people of higher levels swear to higher level monarchs than they are? Or maybe decide that the higher level person should be the monarch. It's not that complicated to keep the vassals that have already sworn to you, and if it is going to be a problem, maybe you shouldn't be trying to be a monarch.

Yinchi

08-18-2004, 04:44 PM

Sylph, we know it is possible to get a toon up to 126 in two weeks, VT proved that.

But provided you would find 13 people with no lives to powerlevel that toon for 8 hours per day for 1.3 years, it still is flawed, unless those 13 were level 275's themselves. Assuming that those who are powerleveling him are 126's themselves, they could no longer powerlevel him after 126, he would be older than they. Of course, people would advance some as he did but if they were leveling him instead of hunting, they would not keep up.

However, I am glad you are finding alternatives to the monarchy system that Turbine is proposing, keep going, you will find a solution. When you do, I will sign your petition. :D

Mogosh

08-18-2004, 04:51 PM

Sylphia, this is so funny. I'm sure Turbine is really happy that you help them so much on these boards :D I like especially the "catering to the whims of a select few at the expense of the many". I wonder how many share your opinion :rolleyes:

In a forum-hosted world of posts, it's possible to "Get your house in order before the expansion" and "level up your monarch". But it's not true in AC. Monarchies rise and fall, people leave the game and come back, players play and then don't, some monarchs keep helping everyone at the expense of their XP, some monarchs fade into the "flag" they created and never log in again - ever, vassals out-level their patrons all the time, accounts change hands, people have arguments and slam doors, then make peace...

Monarchies are living entities. Breaking is the norm, there is no perfect world where you can "clean your house". Worse - whatever order you try to set never stays. With the current 126+ swearing system, monarchies are much more resilient than when few people were 126s. That INCLUDES ALLEGIANCE XP, not just the front tag when you assess someone.

So what about the no-xp swearing?

It's a good start, but it completely ignores the reality of AC. Why do you swear to someone? To help, not to get help. In today's AC, people help chars who cannot make XP by themselves, because they are mules, questers, bots, hard templates, etc.

The no-XP swearing would reduce the relation vassal-patron to a mere "tag" when you are assessed. Not useless, but completely unable to solve the mule problem.

Who would like to play an alchemist or an armor tinkerer? It's quite doable for 60-80 levels, but a monarchy-class mule is level 158, no less. The old XPChain-grown mules should not remain forever the top mules in this game. The ability to push a mule is part of the fix to this situation. Quite fankly, it is also the only resource of "lesser" monarchies who didn't have very high levels at the time of chains. But guess what happens when you push a mule? The pusher out-levels the mule. All the time. It's not a "what-if" problem, it's 100% guaranteed. Currently, after 126, anyone can push anyone. It's a great system for shared monarchy mules.

I do remember what was said at Turbine Nation ("it won't be possible to swear to a lower level, even post-126"). However, the drawbacks are so obvious that I believe that Turbine will change their mind, and bring back a swear threshold - not a "no-XP" swearing, a true vassal-patron relation, involving XP.

Speculation? Exactly. I speculate this whole thread will become pointless when Turbine tells Ibn "oops... Ibn, tell them we'll keep the swear thingy". We'll have a great long entertaining post from Ibn, with new thresholds and level bands, etc., and everyone will be happy.

Wanna bet? :p

sylphia

08-18-2004, 06:52 PM

Playing for 8 hours a day by no means equates to "no life". When AC first hit the scene, I played for 6-10 hours a day, worked a 40+ hr/wk job, AND was still in the early phases of my relationship with the woman I eventually married (which means I spent every other spare waking moment in the whole dating thing :) ). The main reason I dont still play those kinds of hours is simply because it isnt "new" anymore.

And the way it actually works with those 13 players is that 12 of them get sworn to one. They then run around powerleveling like mad, with as many of them in the same fellow as possible, guaranteeing that the monarch gets HUGE loads of XP. The monarch toon might hit 100 about the time the other 12 hit 80, but they are still quite easily fellowable on the same content. The other 12 obviously wont hit 275 as quickly as the monarch, but they willbe high enough in level to where that really doesnt matter for hunting purposes. And th epoint is only to get ONE of them to 275---the monarch.

Like I said, it takes dedication and determination--even more so if your goal is 275, as opposed to just 126--but it can be done. Its not something *I* personally would undertake, but for someon who is really concerned with lvls? Well there are plenty of folks who do that already :) I dont see where you get that the other 12 toons could no longer powerlevel the 13th toon post-126, nor your basis that it is because he is "older"??? 12 toons pushing 20-40M/hr can most certainly powerlevel a 13th toon, even assuming he doesnt hunt at all. Perhaps you missed that the first 12 are sworn to the 13th? Regardless of any level seperation, he would still be receiving their vassal XP. And once they are all 50+, they can always hunt together, so they would be splitting fellowship Xp as well.

This puzzles me too:
Of course, people would advance some as he did but if they were leveling him instead of hunting, they would not keep up

I dont get it...? They are leveling him BY hunting in the first place. We have some seriously crossed wires here Yinchi, cos I dont understand where ANY of this stuff is coming from.

Now, for the casual player, these goals are obviously way beyond them. Allowing no-xp recruitments at any level would solve the entire level issue for them. But for those who are into the leveling game and have the resources to draw upon, its not really that hard to do.

Yinchi

08-18-2004, 07:32 PM

No, I missed the "swearing to" part. I saw only powerleveling, which meant buffing and hunting with a person to me. Either way, its not a very realistic plan to level someone to 275 either way. Turbine must have plans to level people faster with this extreme level.

It really won't matter to me, I will not buy the expansion pack, I am tired of treadmilling, I was looking forward to a different type of game. The thought of leveling to great levels just to participate in content leaves me cold. After 5 years of AC and 4 years as a monarch, it will be time for me to move on.

I am level 171 now as a monarch on one server and 73 as a monarch on another server (my clan decided to have a clan on Vt too). I don't want to worry about someone leaving and someone else not being able to swear back into the clan. A monarch has enough to worry about, especially if it is a large clan such as mine.

I do hope you come up with a solution that will work for everyone. Good luck with your ideas. :)

hippiechick64

08-18-2004, 11:56 PM

Exactly what I said. Monarchs are such a minority that when we DO have a relevant concern is is said that Turbine would be catering to "the select few" if they gave it attention. To the guy who said hanging out at a mansion all day doesnt warrant getting anything special? OMG. Try monarching for ONE week. We have to keep websites and message boards going, tink for everyone, dye, supply armor, weapons, salvage, etc for everyone, answer dozens of questions about content and lore, solve arguements, figure out the rank and how to keep it after someone leaves, read other peoples boards (like this one) to keep up on things, recover bodies, I could go on but you would not believe the work a good monarch does. Hunt? AHHAHAHHAHAHHAH now yer funny. I havent hunted in so long I prolly forgot how. WHen I try I might make it 5 mins before someone needs something. I cordially invite you to spend a day with us. THEN maybe you will change your mind. NOW? Now we gotta worry about toon A leaving and taking toon B with them and toon B not being able to come back. Its not what if. IT WILL HAPPEN. Someone left alleg today and the peeps under him came back. THEY ARE LOYAL. The new system will KILL the loyalty based system we have now. There is NO doubt about it. The allegiance system as we know it WILL fall.
MJ

Davidge

08-19-2004, 12:33 AM

. . . The allegiance system as we know it WILL fall.
MJ

I sometimes wonder, in the dark of the night, when no one is around to tell me how stupid my thoughts are, if that is not Turbine's intention.

Yinchi's points on this thread reverberate with me greatly . . . but I have already said my say, see no point in repeating it over and over. For now will just watch and see what happens next.

hippiechick64

08-19-2004, 10:12 AM

Yes, I agree with waiting and seeing. I would like to get Turbine somehow just to answer one simple question. Have they considered the ramifications of this or not? We NEED to know if they have considered the problems associated with swearing and the new level cap and 1)dont care, 2)plan to fix it, or 3) designed it that way and intend to keep it. Whatever the answer is we need to hear it.
When it was about xp passup it didnt really matter that they completely ignored our pleas and posts because the only person in the alleg that got hurt was the monarch him/her self. I dont know one single monarch who would give up over xp. But this is not about xp and it hurts every one.
I think raising the level cap is a good idea. And wouldnt be here posting if it were 150 or even 175 because that would be attainable. Might be hard, might take some work and time, but getting to 126 from 70 so someone can swear in also takes work and time. This issue effects every single person in the game. It does not effect "the select few" and does not make monarchs special to do something about it. It simply makes us be able to do our job and preserves the allegiance system as we all know it. You think mansion are available too much now due to the nerfed value? Wait until we start losing our rankers due to level. But here I go again. Ranting. Its hard not to though. I tend to get a little protective over my allegiance and will stand up for it, and others, til the final days of this game.
MJ

ApolloAce

08-19-2004, 10:42 AM

It would take approximately 3300 hours Sylphia, with your 12 hunting vassals scenario, to reach 275 (200 billion).

2500 hours if the Monarch character hunts to.

Of course this is on the normal rising scale for the game at present, with the new levels that will show after the cap (based on approx. level 200 as per as post that Turbine had mentioning content and 200 was listed as the next level for higher content above the current 161 base of high end monsters).

If they include higher level/XP monsters the scale will flatten some and the time above will decrease.

bertman

08-19-2004, 10:53 AM

I really don't know what's up with all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth. The level cap as we know it is arbitrary, related to some exponent of 2. It was a result of some programmers sitting around trying to decide how big of a number they were going to need to count to. They settled on 2 to the 32nd power, or a 32-bit register. This was a lot like the guys who programmed computers in the early 1960's, when they wondered whether they should use 2 or 4 digits to keep track of years. Many of them reasoned that 40 years was so far off, they would never have to worry about what would happen in the year 2000 when 99 rolled over to 100. It was easier to program a 2-digit year.

Now the programmers of AC are having a lot of people reaching the 126 threshold. 4 years ago, they were probably not sure their game was even going to be around long enough for people to reach level 100, let alone 126. But success has a way of changing things, and now we have level 126 people who would actually be much higher if the register had 40 bits. I would venture a guess that most of the players are over 126 by now. Having a character that would be of level 141 if the registers counted that high, I want to be that level, with some sort of game-related award for levelling, such as a skill credit or two, or some other incremental bonus, along with the display of my level to the rest of the players.

Since the mechanics of levels 1 through 126 require that a person has a higher level than his vassal, then logically the same rules should apply above 126. Any other mechanism would require coding and testing, with the potential to add bugs to the software, and to require a lot of dev time to figure out and address. The simplest means of removing the level cap is by increasing the register size. No other coding is necessary. There might be some lag when you log in and it calculates your level, and then all the fireworks go off, but that is already in the code. Why in the world do you want to complicate the jobs of the developers by asking them to code in some method of tracking time in game and time of birth of the potential patron and vassal? As I said before, for my 12.99 of Derethian taxes each month, I don't want any spent on artificially extending the current system.

You can hash out all sorts of positive suggestions for preserving an obsolete status quo, just like the people who make buggy whips try to protect their industry through legislation. But the reality is that the level cap was not imposed because they thought that 126 was to be an ultimate milestone, but because the way they applied the experience calculation and the size of the register used to track total experience. What you as a monarch should do is figure out some way to structure your allegiance so as to have your most loyal high level subjects swear directly to your monarch, and then put a little effort into ranking those that aren't as high. It wouldn't be any harder than the effort many of you put into the xp chains that pushed the senior members of your monarchy to the levels that they are now, which had the unforseen side effect of making their really high levels something to worry about. Actually, a lot of your level problems come from having used macros and xp chains to propel some players to levels that send many other players into jealous fits. In all actuality, you have some 8 months of advance warning to prepare. Rather than wail and moan that the end of the world is coming, you should try to look past the event you dread and adapt.

When you signed the petitions to get MS and Turbine to produce an expansion pack, didn't you consider that they might take the level caps off? This is like applying for the job you really want, and then finding out that some of the work is not to your liking. In that case, you either do the part you don't like and enjoy the rest of the time, or you quit.

hippiechick64

08-19-2004, 11:17 AM

What you as a monarch should do is figure out some way to structure your allegiance so as to have your most loyal high level subjects swear directly to your monarch, and then put a little effort into ranking those that aren't as high.

My directs are my most loyal people, who are of course also my rankers. Noone is worried about their rank really. Most of us are set up so that the rankers are the people who arent going anywhere with people under them who arent going anywhere. They couldnt be moved anyway because of the level restriction which is FINE today. The problem is not how things are NOW its how they will be effected if someone were to leave in the future and the people under them want back in. Not to mention new members, which I think is ok to leave as is. Im not concerned with those who can't come in as new members so much as those who want to STAY in the event that they are broken to no fault of their own or accidentally. It happens almost EVERY DAY that someone leaves and their people want to stay. That is called LOYALTY. Loyalty will be dead if they dont do something.

It wouldn't be any harder than the effort many of you put into the xp chains that pushed the senior members of your monarchy to the levels that they are now, which had the unforseen side effect of making their really high levels something to worry about. Actually, a lot of your level problems come from having used macros and xp chains to propel some players to levels that send many other players into jealous fits.

How dare you make an assumption like that about me. You do not know me and if you asked one person in MT about me they would confirm that not only did I NOT chain or macro, I am also semi-famous for my insanely horrible passup. Which btw was nerfed to non existent with the passup changes. Anyway, to assume we all chained and macroed is SO not fair. All of the monarchs I know, which is a LOT of them in MT, worked extremely hard to get to their level, and work extremely hard to be the best monarch they can be.
Edit: Every single monarch I know has strict anti UCM rules in their clan CoC. Most also did not support chains within their allegiances. Just FYI

When you signed the petitions to get MS and Turbine to produce an expansion pack, didn't you consider that they might take the level caps off?

I signed no petition, Im happy with the game as it is personally. However I support growth and change. I think that the new cap is a GOOD thing. I LIKE it. I think its a tad high but thats ok. Most of us are not saying a word about the cap being bad. Plz read a little more closely.

In conclusion, until you are a monarch, and have been ignored by Turbine at every turn, nerfed til you are blue, and worked your tail off to support the allegiance you love and watch them be unable to do the LOYAL thing, (which is how the system is based) plz keep your under informed comments to yourself. This thread is about the monarchs, working WITH Turbine, not against them, finding a way to solve an problem that effects EVERY one in the game, most importantly OUR allegiances that we have nurtured, loved, sweated over and sacrificed for.

Ariella

08-19-2004, 02:06 PM

I guess what I don't understand is your use of the word "loyalty". "Loyal" people don't just break allegiance. Loyal people will stick with you through thick and thin.

The allegiance I'm in has had 1230 characters sworn in for the longest time. It will go up by 1, or down by one if someone either makes a new character or rerolls one. To me, that says loyalty, not a break every day. When I first joined, it was 600ish. People come and stay.

Personally, if they remove xp passup as sylphia suggested, that would be fine and dandy. :)

Oh, and a suggestion - Delegate some duties. There's no reason why any ONE person needs to dye everything, tinker everything, recover every bod, lead every quest, make every trade, find everyone armor, weapons, etc.

Since allegiance chat came in, it's made life so much easier. There's usually more offers for help than a person needs when they ask for it. :)

Yinchi

08-19-2004, 04:09 PM

How many of you who are telling us Monarchs how easy it is to adapt to the system are actually monarchs of large old clans?

Mine is the oldest on Solclaim, we are 4th largest on the server. I have been a monarch for 4 years, please dont' tell me how easy it is to run one. I have been there.

The reason that this will be difficult is becase people ARE loyal. Someone decides to try something new, they may want to try being a monarch themselves, they decide to strike out on their own but some of those under them want to stay with the clan they presently are in. They are out o fthe clan through no fault of their own. With the new cap, it may be impossible to rejoin.

I had two people decide to leave AC forever and decided the only way they would do that would be delete their characters, no amount of persuading would change their mind. All those under them were moved prior to deletion, it could be accomplished, this is not true of the future.

Bertman, look at my signature, we have NEVER allowed xp chains or macros! We didn't allow buffbots til this year. You presume too much!

hippiechick64

08-19-2004, 05:48 PM

The allegiance I'm in has had 1230 characters sworn in for the longest time. It will go up by 1, or down by one if someone either makes a new character or rerolls one. To me, that says loyalty, not a break every day. When I first joined, it was 600ish. People come and stay.

Well you are lucky. Although I have a hard time believing that noone in your allegiance ever quit the game, noone ever struck out on their own, noone ever just didnt fit in. Or maybe you arent as particular as we are about who stays in our family. This year alone 2 new monarchies were created out of mine. Good successful ones, with our blessing and help. But, some of their people wanted to stay with us and they could. Not all of them would be able to under the new system. Also, several people joined who just could not adjust to our high values and standards. They came with people, and left with them. Guess what? A lot wanted back and were able to get back. This would not be true for some them under the new system. A few people quit the game deleting thier toons when they went. Guess what? The people under them wanted to stay, and could. Some of them would not be able to under the new system.
THATS loyalty. Its not about the people who arent loyal and leave. Its about the ones who ARE and want to stay.

Oh, and a suggestion - Delegate some duties. There's no reason why any ONE person needs to dye everything, tinker everything, recover every bod, lead every quest, make every trade, find everyone armor, weapons, etc.
And...
I do delegate. With 1800+ peeps in clan we are one of the most active clans in MT. It takes all day long for me to do my part and all day long for everyone else to do theirs. Sorry, but Monarching is a full time job when done right. Even my spare time is spent with the clan. Hunting with the wee ones who just need attention (wee ones being kids in RL), questing with them, just hanging out in VOD or arcade or where ever my attention is needed or wanted. I have toons in all level ranges just so I can spend time with people lower level than me.

Anyway, since you are the only monarch in the history of AC whose never had a person leave the alleg for one reason or another then your opinion on this subject just doesnt factor in. It is simply uneducated. Having never had it happen to you, and no fear of it happening in the future, makes you naive to the situation. Its sure enough happened to the rest of us, the comment of "every day" may have been a bit over board but its more on the mark than "never".

May you have continued success and 0% drop rate in your numbers,
MJ

bertman

08-19-2004, 05:52 PM

Read carefully, I didn't say all, I said many, and if that doesn't apply to you, it wasn't meant to. Neither did I say that anyone in particular encouraged people to macro, and many people did macro before it was against the Code of Conduct, and that was legitimate at the time. I'm not trying to find fault with people who have improved their characters (you know, those things you call "toons") by using whatever legitimate means were available at the time.

What I'm getting from all this is that monarchs in general want to have special coding done to allow people of higher levels to swear to people lower than they are in order to maintain monarchies. I do not agree that there is a need to do this, since the distribution of high-level characters is less at each level the higher you go, although there is probably a statistical bulge at around 130. Now you do realize that each level takes more time to pass through, as it takes a minute to go from one to three, and hours to go from 39 to 41, and days to go from 98 to 100, and even longer the higher you go. The time required to go from level 130 to 132 is probably months for the casual player, and weeks for fairly busy players. So the higher the level, the fewer characters you are likely to find.

Now if you, as a monarch, haven't leveled your character enough to stay ahead of the bulk of your allegiance, you may have a problem, but the higher your level, the less of a problem this will be. Also, the more high-level vassals you have, the less difficulty you will have getting people back into your allegiance. But it probably (notice I took the time to spell out the word "probably") isn't as big a problem as you are expecting it to be. Imean. how many vassals do you have that are a higher level than you, and how many of their vassals are also higher than you?

To a certain extent, you are anticipating a problem, and trying to forestall it, when you might be better off planning for the change and preparing to adapt. I will be glad to lose the level cap.

hippiechick64

08-19-2004, 06:23 PM

I must apologize. This is the most active Ive been in these boards because I truly care about this topic and I have been posting without properly introducing myself. I will tell you a little about me. I wont bore you with my life story, Ill stick to my typing and use of the English language since it has been ridiculed however subtly. (Actually you made me laugh, thank you!)
My RL name is Mary and I am terminally ill and disabled/disfigured with a rare brain condition called Arnold-Chiari Malformation. I spend my time in a wheelchair unable to do much other than watch television and do things on my computer. This game has given me means to meet people, be social, run around, albeit virtually, shopping and exploring throughout the land. It has made more of a difference in my life than I can possibly convey.
The only thing that gives me trouble on the computer and in the game is typing. My difigured, arthritic hands hurt so bad sometimes it would make a grown man cry. Because of that I have started using shortcuts for words, saying prolly for probably, toons for characters, member for remember. There's a lot of them. People who know me are used to it, so I apologize for not being more diligent about making sure none of my shortcuts slip through here where most people don't know me.
This used to bother me, I was a 4.0 GPA English major student at Gonzaga Law School and took great pride throughout my career in my proper usage of the language both written and spoken. When I started playing this game I backspaced to correct any and every error no matter how slight, and trust this, took no shortcuts. As time went on and my desire to play grew I made an executive decision.
This is a game. This is my fun time, my relaxation, my haven from this horrible disease. I decided to relax and have fun and not worry about it. Since then, I can play longer because my hands dont hurt quite as much. In the message boards I try to be more precise. I can take breaks from typing and come back to it later, or simply decide not to post at all. However, much to my chagrin, things slip through sometimes.
Life is too short to worry about an apostrophe' or a word spelled wrong. And yes it's also too short to stress over who can swear into my allegiance or not. But it is not too short to get involved, to be passionate about the things I believe it, to stand up for the people who look to me to do so and to care what happens to this game that has given me so much.
Now that you know this and know me a little more maybe you will understand when the spelling and punctuation is not perfect in my posts. It'll prolly happen often. LOL.
MJ

Oh, and I agree, I think the level cap being raised is a good thing. In fact this game has needed that for a very long time.

Yinchi

08-19-2004, 07:49 PM

/e gives Hippie a big hug. :)

I don't agree about the level cap, not as it stands now. I think the developers could have used a little more imagination. Now, the game, even more than before, will be all about levels. I know.... we don't all play the same game.. but EVERYONE gets tired of leveling eventually. Then they leave for another game. It would take imagination but ... given time... I think they could have come up with something more original.

I hope I am wrong, I hope the developer's come up with something that will "knock our socks off" as Ken Karl once said.

ApolloAce

08-19-2004, 08:20 PM

Well Yinchi,

For some it is about leveling (even a few that claim it isn't ... lol).

For those that say it isn't about the level, the cap should be unimportant, because after all their not doing it for the leveling ... right? ;)

Sylphia's idea (the one I originally agreed with) should work just fine.

It's lets the levelers level and fun-seekers ... fun-seek ... monarchs have no worries ... and so on.

And, Yinchi, if everybody gets tried of leveling eventually then it's not about the game, its about interest. If somebody loses interest it wont matter what the cap is.

Personally, after 12 characters over 110+ and a myriad of mules and tinkers/crafters I'm not bored yet and this new cap just makes it all the more interesting and fulfulling for more years to come. :D

Frieze

08-19-2004, 09:02 PM

assuming that it IS 191 Bil to hit 275, thats 1.8 years to get to 275, if the xp curve were the same. Ridiculous. Never would happen. The person who hit 126 in 18 days on VT had tons of passup, plus a 60% time spent logged in. That's FOURTEEN hours per day!

Yes, if you have the time, you can get to 126 in two weeks. But you expect 14 hours per day for 20 months straight? Yeah. Right.

sylphia

08-19-2004, 09:07 PM

Funny I remember a time when everyone said 50 would never happen...when lvl 126 would never happen...when 126 in less than a month would never happen. You should avoid words like "never", because they assume a definite, which you cannot guarantee. Even turbine has learned not to use it.

What you need to understand is that there ARE players who play like that..case in point, once again look at the folks who did it on VT. I dont believe YOU decide whether they will want to continue or not, i believe THEY do. It IS possible to do it, therefor someone WILL eventually do it. It just wont be me, because I have no desire to do so, and it wont be you, because you are stuck in never-never land :rolleyes:

Al-Egre Arn

08-19-2004, 10:02 PM

I've been a monarch since either November/December of 1999. My allegiance has seen people leave due to both real life issues and in-game issues. No one in my allegiance, to my knowledge, has ever UCM'd or chained. I hit L126 last year.

1. The swearing system as it is, is not broken. It won't be broken after the level cap if things stay the same. Characters have never been able to swear to someone of a lower level. Yet why all the commotion now? If L275 would have been the cap from the beginning, there would be no commotion right now, even though the same issues would be present. Isn't that strange? If you think the system is broken, why wait til now to complain? Its the same situation as when you were L10, or L50, or L100, or L120, or L126.

2. This is not a monarch issue. Don't make it out to be that. The swearing system affects everyone who wants to have followers, not just the monarch. Do I think monarchs need love? Yes I do. But don't use that card to justify changes to the swearing system.

3. We wouldn't have to have this discussion if Turbine would have implemented a Hero type of character advancement instead of merely raising the level cap. Oh well.

4. If Turbine wants to let higher characters swear to lower level characters, with no xp pass-up allowed, and if implementing that change requires minimal resources, then I will have no problems if they go that way. I will also have no complaints if the current 'you cannot swear to someone lower level than you' system is retained.

Tasmania

08-19-2004, 10:38 PM

Since when was it the followers concern to get numbers up? To be honest I've had over 20 great people under me who all have passions about everything and I've known hundreds more. Out of them I only know one, maybe two... who would do everything in their power to get the follower count of an allegiance up.

Also, the follower doesn't have to deal with a "number" being stuck on their character ;)

hippiechick64

08-20-2004, 12:08 AM

What about other options? Since our main concern is people returning when being taken out of the allegiance to no fault of their own or accidentally, {yes that happens, IVE accidentally broken people myself. Its rare but it does happen}, Jthen flag them. Once you have been in the allegiance you can return, even within a timer period. Say your patron breaks and you want back in. You adore the alleg and the monarch and your patron suxxors. BUT you are higher level than everyone in the allegiance. If you had a flag allowing your return, even within 30 days, that would work. Make it without a "time sworn" penalty. You could get a message that reads something like "On [date] you were broken from the allegiance of [merryjuanita]. You have 30 days to pledge allegiance back to [merryjuanita] without penalty. After this time you will no longer be able to swear into the allegiance of [merryjuanita] if level restrictions prevent it. I dont know Im winging it here LOL. There are a lot of options that would make most of us at least happiER. I will always stick to my guns on this one. If ONE person is prevented from swearing in over a huge level difference that is too big to overcome by PLing and such, then the loyalty based system is nerfed. Just ONE. But it will not be just one. Remember, with the current system there is no level gap that cannot be fixed in a reasonable amount of time. Under the new system there IS.
MJ

Yinchi

08-20-2004, 01:45 AM

Al Agree, if your tree stat ages is 126 and your clan is 5 years old, I am sure you have people under you that are older than you, perhaps as old as 200. There may be only that one person that is that old but he is not a direct, his patron's patron is. His patron leaves, he wishes to stay, can you level to incorporate him and all his followers back into your clan?

As clans grew, there were usually a few that were older than the others, it made no difference because someone in the clan could take them. After all... we only had levels 1-126 to contend with. There is a HUGE difference between having 1-126 and 1-275 to deal with. That is the factor that we will be dealing with in the future. Extreme levels, level that may not be achieved except by a few select few.

We are talking about existing clans, clans that planned on levels from 1-126, now suddenly we are having different rules thrust on us. Yes, the rule of not swearing to someone older than you has not changed but the upper age level has, so yes, the rule did change.

However, I agree with #3, I looked forward to another type of "Elder" game, I think Turbine took the easy, cheapest and fastest way out with AC1.

hippiechick64

08-20-2004, 02:10 AM

Was just checking to see if we had a dev response yet and am not surprised to see that we do not. Should someone make a new thread entitle "Please respond to 'monarchs get hit again' thread? Ill work on it in morning. Its been an honor getting to know each and every one of you thru this thread. Even the people I disagree with! Goodnight!
MJ

Tasmania

08-20-2004, 12:07 PM

To be honest, I'm surprised this thread has grown this much... I left for a day and wasn't able to read a page of responses... I mean... wow...

Yinchi, I posted this with the "New members" in mind, not "Existing members."

Deiwos_WE

08-20-2004, 01:01 PM

By the way, I dont' think this is a MONARCH issue, its a MONARCHY issue...which is really what I think the monarchs on this thread have been saying all along.

Changing the level cap without addressing this WILL make keeping a monarchy together harder, it WILL make creating a new monarchy harder, and it WILL make changing monarchies harder. This is due, not to some changing dynamic, but to the incredible amounts of xp we're talking about at the higher levels.

As an Elder in my guild, this is of interest to me even though I'm not the monarch. I'd like to see some means for higher level characters to swear to lower levels. Limit the xp passup, or even get rid of it. Just don't make it SO much harder for monarchies that aren't xp-based to keep its members or to gain new ones.

hippiechick64

08-20-2004, 01:09 PM

Heheh I agree, I am not concerned with getting my numbers up, in fact we are trying to get ours down now! We are particular about who stays in our family. We will help a troubled soul out but they have to want to be helped and make a strong effort to better themselves. This doesnt always work, and they are asked to leave, of course we continue to help them but just not with our name on thier ID. But, sometimes it DOES work. I cant name names but we have several members who came to us as "undesirables" and have become some of the best people in MT. Sometimes a kid just needs a chance. Its worth all of the ones that dont work out for ONE that does. The rest of the clan, the ones who weren't troubled souls when they came to us, are some of the most tolerant, patient and kind people you will ever find. They have put up with my "save the world" attitude and have treated every single person that comes to our family with decency and respect no matter how "bad" they were. For a second chance they have to be voted back, and without fail the family continues to believe that it will work and have never failed to vote a second chance for someone. We have a few members who are not welcome in just about any other clan for some reason. Maybe its because they know this is their last hope for a family but they have been absolute angels with us. We have strong values, a strong foundation, and we try to pass it along the best one can in a virtual reality, and it seems to have helped several people. It certainly makes US feel better. Judging and condemning are best left to someone far more qualified than me! /e points up. All in all, anyone is welcome to join us as long as they arent an incorrigable theif or something of that nature (I continue to try to help those people just not with our name on them) but to stay? They have to try to become better, and put forth an effort to fit in. Someday Ill share our favorite success story with you but this is not the place or time. The numbers? As long as there is ONE person under me I will extend all of my time, resources and energy to take care of him/her.
Here is a link to a little thing we wrote that sort of says who we are and what we stand for if anyone is interested: http://www.psend.com/users/DaFamily/importanat_info.html
Back to the topic LOL. I will continue to care about this issue and will try to keep this post alive until we at least get a response. Thanks
MJ

Tasmania

08-20-2004, 09:19 PM

Well... I'm not exactly sure what will come about because of this post, but I do hope Ibn reads it.

Ariella

08-21-2004, 08:49 PM

Well you are lucky. Although I have a hard time believing that noone in your allegiance ever quit the game, noone ever struck out on their own, noone ever just didnt fit in. Or maybe you arent as particular as we are about who stays in our family.

then a bit further down in another post you say this...

I cant name names but we have several members who came to us as "undesirables" and have become some of the best people in MT.

I never said nobody quit, and I'm no longer a monarch. I am an elder, and watch out for my family just as my monarch would. He's on a vacation.

We've had people quit, go to SWG, or try out many other games. They don't want to be homeless, so we leave them sworn in, for their return. We don't concern ourselves with passup that would make us dump a friend, or family member.

After the above statements about "picky", I'm not sure what you mean. I'll admit, I'm not Mother Theresa, and won't let "undersirables" in, to reform them. My monarch won't either. I would personally feel responsible for anyone being taken advantage of, and I don't want that.

And...
I do delegate. With 1800+ peeps in clan we are one of the most active clans in MT. It takes all day long for me to do my part and all day long for everyone else to do theirs. Sorry, but Monarching is a full time job when done right. Even my spare time is spent with the clan. Hunting with the wee ones who just need attention (wee ones being kids in RL), questing with them, just hanging out in VOD or arcade or where ever my attention is needed or wanted. I have toons in all level ranges just so I can spend time with people lower level than me.

If you are "hanging out in the VoD", I'd have to call that hunting. :)

Anyway, since you are the only monarch in the history of AC whose never had a person leave the alleg for one reason or another then your opinion on this subject just doesnt factor in. It is simply uneducated. Having never had it happen to you, and no fear of it happening in the future, makes you naive to the situation. Its sure enough happened to the rest of us, the comment of "every day" may have been a bit over board but its more on the mark than "never".

May you have continued success and 0% drop rate in your numbers,
MJ

All I can say is LOL! Love the sarcasm!

Let me ask...how many threads are there on MT about "selling or auctioning xp"? How many are concerned that the people that left them for this "temporary whoring" job might not be able to get back in?

As I've said, I could care less if they make it 0 xp passup like Sylphia said. I only posted to express my views, and find out what people think loyalty means.

I'm not planning on responding further, so have at it Mother Theresa. Quote me and twist it to whatever again.

Have a nice evening all!

hippiechick64

08-21-2004, 11:25 PM

Not going to bother with responding because my reputation and the reputation of my allegiance speaks for itself. All I want is a dev to respond? DEVS?

Tasmania

08-22-2004, 01:11 AM

Why did they put a seperate forum for this stuff? So they don't have to read it?

Yinchi

08-22-2004, 05:11 AM

Ariella says" "We've had people quit, go to SWG, or try out many other games. They don't want to be homeless, so we leave them sworn in, for their return".

That is our point, Ariella, I hope you see that. People DO leave, if someone above that person who left leaves the clan, those below them either can reswear to someone else or go to another clan, they presently have a choice. The person who left can return and swear back into the clan if their patron had broken.

With the new level cap.... that person who left decides to return but... guess what.... she is older than anyone else in the clan.

or

When that person leaves and their patron breaks, those below her are left without a home, they can break from her and reswear back into the clan.. But .... guess what... no one in the clan is old enough to take them. Get the picture? This is where no matter how loyal you are to your clan, the decision to return may be taken out of your hands.

hippiechick64

08-22-2004, 08:31 PM

The only reason it even matters is because its a loyalty based system. If it were a level based system it would be fine. But it's not. A person should be able to swear where they are loyal, under the present system they can. It might take some work, but its possible. As I said, I had two people wait several months for me to get to 126. NOT years. Anyway, I just want to hear what the devs have to say on this subject and am waiting ever so patiently.
MJ

Tasmania

08-22-2004, 09:22 PM

This is 6-8 months away? Aye? Erg... I hope it doesn't take that long to get a response to this thread...

Ibn

08-23-2004, 06:14 PM

I just want to let folks know that the lack of an answer doesn't mean that this thread is being ignored. It's obviously a very important issue to many of you. It's being discussed internally, when I have an answer it will be posted.

hippiechick64

08-23-2004, 06:46 PM

YAY Thank you Ibn! We will shut up now for a while hehe.
MJ

ApolloAce

08-23-2004, 08:22 PM

IBN just needs time to get an official answer ... very understandable. :)

hippiechick64

08-24-2004, 04:42 AM

Understandable indeed. At least now we will know that no matter what is done or isnt done about this issue it was discussed and considered. I have no doubt that whatever the outcome is, it will be what Turbine feels to be the best thing for the longevity of the game. Which is all I am concerned with too. This game has given me so much. After a forced name change, constant nerfing to my Monarch character and several other things I still think this is the best game available. The good it has done for me outweighs the bad things that are in it. Long live Asheron's Call!
MJ

Tasmania

08-24-2004, 04:35 PM

Aye Hippie, the good most certainly outweighs the bad. It's a wonderful day when you log in and everyone under you is chatting and haveing a great time...

Thank you Ibn for your reply.

Seishin_HG

08-25-2004, 04:47 PM

Tell me what world to log into to see one of these 150's then.

and

The point I am making, which many don't seem to grasp, is that currently within AC your highest level is 126.

First, this is slightly off topic.

Second, unlike some rude individuals, I know you are not stupid and I do understand your point. Your point is quite valid for some issues. However, for some issues it is not. At least tell me that you understand the other viewpoint.

Here is the formula, suitable for Excel.
=ROUNDUP(((Level + 5)^5 - (6^5)) / 9,0)

Thus, a level 126 character has between 4,286,609,098 and 4,452,737,183 xp's to spend on skills.

A level 250 character (using the formula) has between 119,800,433,511 and 122,167,957,777 xp's to spend on skills.

Hopefully, you can see that despite the display limit showing both characters to be level 126 one of the level 126 characters has a slight advantage over the other. This is true even if the character types and races are the same person creates both characters.

Now, if at level 126 you lost the ability to increase unspent experience then I would agree with you completely.

Seishin_HG

08-26-2004, 01:04 PM

Wow, I originally ambivalent on this subject now two issues have been brought up that make this an important thread.

I only spoke up in the last post because Maddy professes that a 126 is no different than a 275 character because they are both really 126. Checking back to see if she understood the "other" side of this argument or not (she has not responded) a couple of other quotes were read...

heres what concerns me as a monarch. Lets say player A breaks from my allegiance. Player b is under him but wants to STAY in my allegiance. Player B is higher level than me, not by a few mil or bil but by HUNDREDS of billions xp. MJ

When swearing to someone there is a couple of checks in place to prevent abuses, one of which is a level check to make sure you are at a lower level or equal to the person you want as a patron.

Both excellent points. First, I don't think anyone is suggesting that a level 126 be allowed to take a level 1 as a patron. They are, I hope, talking about a level 180 pledging to a 126 or similar.

The only real abuse I see here is the "take a group 13 and alternate who is patron to the other 12" exploit.

A suggestion to limit the xp's passed up based on level is IMO too intrusive. However, that type of formula could be added such that it has no effect after some arbitrary time period. Say, one month. This would "hurt" the new chainers but not so much everyone else. At least I think so without giving it further thought.

It is good that they are considering the ramifications now.

Yula_the_Mighty

08-26-2004, 06:17 PM

The basic problem is that AC capped our level at 126 but allowed us to continue to earn experience so that when the level cap is raised there will suddenly be all these 130's, 150's, etc. characters running. If they capped or experience at 4.2 billion total so that when the expansion comes out every one was still 126, it would not be so bad.

I like the idea that the higher the level of a chacter the more likely they are to float to the top most levels of an allegiance and have lower level characters underneath them.

For a number of characters we been stuck in this funny situation where everyone looks the same (level 126) but the amount of total experience they have is wildly different.

We have gotten used to being able to easily swap characters around when the original concept was that a character should have a patron equal to or higher in level. How we will not penalize patrons if one of their vassal surpasses them.

I do not like the idea of vassaling a character to a lower level character. However, at the same time I do not think it is fair to completely forbid this situation for elder characters. However, I do think there should be a penalty if you choose to do this.

I can think of a several possible penalties when you are in this situation:

1) Limit the total amount of experience toward the next level the patron can receive from their vassals e.g. no more than 40% of the experience to the next level.
2) Reduce the amount of experience that you collect from the over level vassal to some percentage lets start with 10% and work our way upwards.

These reductions would represent the leadership penalty from being in that ackward situation of trying to teach your master.

Yula the Mighty - HG

hippiechick64

08-26-2004, 11:04 PM

Yes! Penalize my xp because thats not what its about. If you take away pass up to monarchs all together it wont hurt me a bit LOL. Its not about the xp. Its about the loyalty. Not the loyalty SKILL the actual loyalty that people feel towards their allegiances. Not just to their monarch, but to all the other people in the allegiance. I could count the number of people who are in the allegiance because I'm the monarch on one hand. Most are there because of eachother. Im just lucky enough to be part of such a great group of people. So a big resounding YES! I'll trade xp for loyalty any day of the week!
MJ

sylphia

08-27-2004, 12:07 AM

Except that many players level alts and trademules via vassals. Even with the additions of the pacifist quests, the absolute best way to level a trade character is by swearing another toon to them. Any proposals to nerf passup--including limiting how much per level a toon can receive--utterly destroys that. Any "real" character sworn to a a trade toon will quickly outstrip them in levels. There is no reason to penalize those players, nor players whose vassals simply play more than they do and outlevel them. You are trying to force your ideals and playstyle onto others who have no interest in your way of doing things. There is zero reason to penalize players in such a harsh manner. If the players involved in such a relationship are OK with it, then its not the business of anyne outside of that relationship to try and change it.

Wanting to make it possible for higher level toons to swear to lower level toons (without passup) simply as an option to allow them into a clan that otherwise could not except them--thats one thing. But trying to force the elitist idea that only certain ppl are allowed ot have passup, or only a certain amount OF passup--no. Thats not your place to decide. Fortunately, Turbine has made it clear in the past that they understand this and do not intend to make such sweeping changes.

Yula_the_Mighty

08-27-2004, 01:46 AM

Sylphia,

I looked over my post, I guess I did not make it clear.

The whole idea is the following which I copied from your post:

Wanting to make it possible for higher level toons to swear to lower level toons (without passup) simply as an option to allow them into a clan that otherwise could not except them--thats one thing.

Not convinced it is necessary to take away all the passup experience in situation. That seems a bit harsh.

The check for the experience point penalty only occurs at the time the you decide the accept a vassal who is higher than you and it would only be for elder characters. The patron must be 126+ and the vassal must be higher than the patron. For example, patron is 129 and vassal is 150.

I do not see an point in changing the existing system for characters 126 and below. Its been that way since the release to market.

If for example the patron was 133 and the vassal was 131. There would not be a penalty. If at some later time the vassal became 134 and the patron was still 133 there would still be no penalty. There isn't a penalty today when a vassal grows more powerful than her patron, I do not see any reason to introduce one.

I agree with you - There is nothing wrong with creating a trade, tinker, fletcher character and swear a bunch of lower level hunters under the character to pass up xp. Generally the hunters will surpass their patron unless there are a lot active vassals earning similar experience.

I just do not think you should be able to swear twelve 250 level hunters to a level 126 or 128 trade mule and the trade mule get same percentage of passup that the trade mule would have gotten if the twelve hunters had been level 126.

Sorry to have unclear and upset you. I will try to be write more clearly in the future.

Yula the Mighty - HG

hippiechick64

08-27-2004, 09:41 AM

I did not mean to imply that they should nerf all xp passup. Only that to the person who accepts a higher level vassal. If that happens to be a trade mule then oh well. Im sorry if I implied that I agree to ALL xp passup being discontinued, I was simply agreeing with the idea that if a higher level toon swears to a lower level one that the passup could be penalized. Thanks!
MJ

sylphia

08-27-2004, 01:17 PM

Yes, I agree that taking on a higher level vassal should result in penalties to XP--up to and including no passup at all. I am even for allowing this all the way up and down the level ladder--it hurts no one, and it gives players more options as to what clan they wish to join, or whom they want to be their patron. What I DONT want to see is vassals who are already sworn to their patrons, who are now higher level than their patrons (or vassals who swear to a patron in the future and then outlevel them), being given penalties on the passup to their patrons. There are too many zealots who seem to think that XP is the root of all evil, and that everyone who has an XP-produicing vassal should somehow feel ashamed of themselves for having one, or for desiring one.

Tasmania

08-28-2004, 01:20 AM

Lots of good points being brought up still...

Yula_the_Mighty

08-28-2004, 03:14 PM

You will not find me amongst the folks that think experience point gathering is a bad thing by using any technique available to the player (as long as it is permitted by the CoC or ToS).

I play for relaxation and to spend time with my in game friends. Experience are not a priority for me. Certainly xp is nice. My daughter will happily bang away in the Tusker Holding. I get bored of that kind of stuff usually after one buff cycle.

I think most people that are angry about vassal experience are mad for two reasons:

1) You did not work to earn that experience. That may be true for some of us but I spent a lot of time with vassals and followers over the years. Now, I still spent time with my vassal's vassals and get nothing for my trouble (experience wise) except the shared experience from the fellowship (assuming thet are 50+).

2) A lot of us me in included did not care much for the discovery of the xp chain with the hunting requirements that so resembled work. Goshm I have a job with schedules and milestones. I certainly did not need another one to conflict with family and a real life job. More importantly, it saddened me each time one of my long time in game friends felt he was falling behind in the xp race and left the family to join a group of strangers. Most of my friends who did this completely lost the concept of fun playing AC because all they were doing was an xp grind. Soon the treadmill got boring and they left the game. I miss them. Sigh - :(

I just remind myself that AC allows many different play styles, each person chooses one that suits them and may change that decision later. No choice is more or less right than another. If someone chooses a play style that I do not approve of, that is their right. If they are a friend, I will take it up personally with them.

Yula the Mighty - HG

MM Crew

08-28-2004, 08:47 PM

Ya I'm not sure partly due to the fact that i just started playing this game 2 months ago althou i do know that my monarch is lvl 81 or 82 and i know there are others in our clan higher than him. You may know him he is El lol, we now have over 300 followers!!! Whether u can have follwers higher than you in the new Expansion I'm not sure. Again I am pretty new to the game so maybe im just blowing smoke out muh mouth. What eva just throwin a point out.

reven

08-29-2004, 02:19 AM

Haven't had a chance to follow this topic or AC closely due to RL, but I remember reading somewhere that if you do not buy the expansion, then your level will stay at 126.

Does anyone else see this as a potential exploit, particularly by the experience-selling ebayers who run multiple combat macro accounts? Just leave their "xp-pusher" accounts un-upgraded, so they are stuck at level 126, and can continue to push xp to people willing to buy xp. (ie so they can swear multiple guys to a lower level buyer, since they're stuck at 126). There's a potential niche created here for the power-gaming ebayers with multiple accounts.

hippiechick64

08-29-2004, 03:59 AM

Just coming to check new posts. I love that we have these discussions. Im with you Yula on the style of play. I really dont care what someone else does. I am like a pitbull when it comes to my clan and thats why I care about this issue so much. Other than that someone else cant hurt me. Not even someone who finds a way to exploit stuff. Let them have it. I worked hard for what I have accomplished in the game and have great pride in that. They will never feel that. Well, goodnight and Ill see you all tomorrow!
MJ

Dj_Viper

09-02-2004, 01:35 AM

I havn't read any of these posts...too long. All I am going to say is there hsould still be some significane to 126+. Once you are 126, anyone should be able to swear to you. THat's just my personal opinion.

Rak -=KoC=-

09-03-2004, 07:02 AM

Now as I said, i UNDERSTAND the concern here. But its simply not the huge issue being portrayed. You already know you cant swear to someone higher level than you, regardless of what that level may be. We have been allowed to get away with essentially exploiting a glitch in the code all this time, and that lophole is now being fixed. Turbine MAY decide to implement some kind of a break that allows us to continue doing something similar, but it wouldnt surprise me one bit if they decided to let the allegiance system continue to scale up just as it always has; level 240 toons NOT being able to swear to lvl 126 toons anymore. And given that we have plenty of time to adjust to that, it wouldnt bother me one bit.

If you understand the concern why do you pollute the thread with such negative comments towards those raising an issue which Turbine would be wise to work on before releasing something that will piss several of their customers off instead of making them happier?

Is it so much to ask than to expect Turbine to release a product that will make people's gaming experience better instead of making it worse? IMO thats exactly what these boards are about, players sharing their gaming experience with Turbine to let them know that the way they planned things is not adapted to the game's reality in several cases. These are free and accurate advises from experienced players which Turbine would be dumb not to follow if they want to stop their game from falling in the abyss as new games come out...

As you said several of us have level 220s to 240s in our monarchies and the expansion as currently designed instead of improving things is causing troubles.

While monarchies can adapt with issues from 1 to 126 due to the reasonnable time it takes to get this amount of xp, there is no way a currently 126 monarch will outlevel currently level 240 chars within so few months left until release. In most cases it won't even happend within a year. And while chars can stay sworn below, anyone who has experience at running a monarchy knows that things can be pretty unstable over months since there is not 1 month without a few chain breaks, a few accounts being hacked, a few people getting drunk or pissed not only causing their own chars being removed but most often people below them aswell due to other chain breaks resulting of the 1st ones...

Tasmania

09-05-2004, 02:15 PM

But see, if you stay 126 as the max level, there is -no- way to have someone beyond 126 under you, according to the current system... so it hurts you... unless you are going to tell your entire clan to not upgrade...

princess_sarah

09-06-2004, 01:53 PM

they should instead change it to xp ranges..

it is reasonable to assume that there will be high level hunting grounds for high level players. i would expect to see level 200+ restriction dungeons, earning 100mil + an hour, introduced with the expansion.

this means there is a problem letting people who are level 200+ be sworn to those who are 126.

so maybe those who are 126, should be allowed to have anyone 150 or less swear to them, but no higher. a level 150 could be allowed anyone 175 or less to swear to them, and so on.

this provides a lot of flexibility but should hopefully stop exploitation.

or, of course, just do the ac2 system. anyone can swear to anyone else, but can only pass up a certain amount of xp per level. i think that realistically we will see something like this happen.

magusofatlan

09-08-2004, 01:27 PM

I'll repeat that I'm in favor of allowing 126+ characters to swear to anyone else of level 126+.

However, after reading so many of the posts above, I'd like to point out that some of you harm your own arguments. Examples include:

1. Claims that this is a "monarch issue". It's not. It's a PATRON issue. But instead monarchs are making it out to be their own issue.

2. Claims that people cannot be sworn into the allegiance if the monarch isn't higher level than the toon desiring to join. This is incorrect - they could swear to any character within the allegiance that is higher level, and an allegiance of 1000+ people will likely have a few super-toons.

3. Monarchs are claiming they need to do everything and have no time to hunt. I'll pick on hippiechick for a moment here. You do NOT need to "run" your website. People can help with that, in fact, in every instance where someone is sought out to do such a thing, people willingly jump at the chance to take them over. The monarch is NOT the only tinkerer, cook, alchemist, fletcher - especially in a large allegiance. Note that I'm not stating that in anyone's particular situation that you AREN'T kept very busy. But claiming you're rearranging the clan and such for a huge portion of the time every day simply is either a lie, or you have poor time management skills, or your clan doesn't help others internally, or you've cultured a large set of very needy individuals. Any or all of these may be true in anyones particular situation.

Have you ever seen a post by a UCMer on the boards after they were banned? They commonly give a very brief and ALTERED description of what occurred, then complain that it was unjust. However, when the full facts come out it was indeed justified? Similar situation here. If the full facts were stated rather than overblowing everything, then outsiders - which is what the developers are in this situation - wouldn't look at many posts and figure that someone's just crying wolf.

Stick to the facts, stop crying wolf, and state a reasonable case - along with realistic possible solutions and you'll find your concerns being more legitimately considered. (I'm not saying everyone is crying wolf either, but it rings true of too many posts in this thread.)

The coding change for this is ultra simple - pretty much an additional if command in the function checking for levels. I'm hoping Turbine backs the ability to continue to swear at 126+, or 100+, or something similar.

hippiechick64

09-09-2004, 02:30 PM

3. Monarchs are claiming they need to do everything and have no time to hunt. I'll pick on hippiechick for a moment here. You do NOT need to "run" your website. People can help with that, in fact, in every instance where someone is sought out to do such a thing, people willingly jump at the chance to take them over. The monarch is NOT the only tinkerer, cook, alchemist, fletcher - especially in a large allegiance. Note that I'm not stating that in anyone's particular situation that you AREN'T kept very busy. But claiming you're rearranging the clan and such for a huge portion of the time every day simply is either a lie, or you have poor time management skills, or your clan doesn't help others internally, or you've cultured a large set of very needy individuals. Any or all of these may be true in anyones particular situation.

[/QUOTE]

Man! I never meant to impress that I spend all my time doing the things that I listed. The things I listed are a small portion of the things I do. Do you really believe that I haven't asked everyone in my allegiance more than once to take over the website? Yes I DO have to maintain it, I add pics daily, change info, etc. No I am NOT the only tinkerer/cook/etc, I am the one whose on most of the time. I spend the majority of my on game time doing things for the allegiance. Even the rare hunting time I get to loot is for them. /m do you have some MMDs I can borrow? /m oooh theres a neat bow in MP do you got some MMDs? Sings? /m I need a cottage do you have a writ? oh ya and a bronze army spine? Yes, I even regularly go out to hunt for house items so we have them on hand. Do I spoil my allegiance? Probably, but they spoil me back in their own way. I love each and every one of them. I have a personal relationship with EVERY SINGLE member of my allegiance. AND a lot of people in other allegiances. All of them turn to me throughout the day for various IG and RL issues. Hard to believe I know but its true. So pick on me all you like, I cordially invite you to swear a mule into dah Family for a week or so and come check us out. Holler at me on Merryjuanita any time!
MJ
Edit: Oh and when you get here you will see that every one of these people pitch in to help and do things for every other one. We all spend some time helping others in AND out of the alleg, just I spend MOST of my time doing it. I am currently helping two other allegs keep it together in times of trouble as well. This is how I choose to Monarch. I never complained about it and still am not. Just stated how it is for me. Anyway, we look forward to having you visit for a while!
MJ

Tasmania

09-09-2004, 02:47 PM

"3. Monarchs are claiming they need to do everything and have no time to hunt. I'll pick on hippiechick for a moment here. You do NOT need to "run" your website. People can help with that, in fact, in every instance where someone is sought out to do such a thing, people willingly jump at the chance to take them over. The monarch is NOT the only tinkerer, cook, alchemist, fletcher - especially in a large allegiance. Note that I'm not stating that in anyone's particular situation that you AREN'T kept very busy. But claiming you're rearranging the clan and such for a huge portion of the time every day simply is either a lie, or you have poor time management skills, or your clan doesn't help others internally, or you've cultured a large set of very needy individuals. Any or all of these may be true in anyones particular situation."

Well, see.. you forget about one thing... we arn't divulgeing all of our entire day to the allegiance... some of us work... some of us deal with school... and yet some of us have jobs that require us to do things outside of the "normal" work hours...

As well, some of us don't feel secure in giveing someone else access to our web host, and I myself don't feel comfortable in shoveing the financial burden off on someone else when they are just a "member."

So in essence, yes, I need to do the website... it's just one of those things.

magusofatlan

09-09-2004, 03:05 PM

Aye, Taz (& HippieChick) - I agree that there are some things that we choose to control ourselves. But those really are choices, and it doesn't make an issue like this a monarch issue. It also doesn't mean that the monarch must be the highest level character in the monarchy. All you need is 1+ existing powerlevelers to be available in case there is a very rare ultra-high level toon that wants to join.

You've got to admit, this situation will be very rare. Breaks where the character loses their tie to their patron are by far the exception, not the norm. It doesn't minimize the pain when it will occur though - and it surely will at least a few times.

I'm just saying that if you take a cloud-level view of things, if you as the monarch are doing that much, then you've chosen to shoulder it rather than create the infrastructure that will lessen the time you need to spend on those tasks. It's a choice, and as HC says, she willingly places that burden on herself. It's a boon to her allegiance, and it likely does tie the group together tighter. (Though I'd disagree that everyone needs or takes your help, statistically it's just not likely, though there is the slim possibility.)

Think of it another way - it's like those of us who have Item-only meleers, and any time one of us brings up that it would be nice for those characters to be more self-sufficient in high-level playgrounds, others attack us about the fact that we've made the choice to play that way, and it's our option to change it. With allegiances, it's why so many make a "council" that aid people - to spread the work out.