Make toming safe after a prayer

[Cut-Me-Own-Throat-Dibbler]

In this one post alone there was evidence that:

1. From the last 10 patches, there was no time that there were stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance; so you can't attribute higher population to just stat or map changes
   
2. People chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility
   
3. People do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing
   

Or this post showing the cause of tripling the number of die rolls less than triples the chance of hitting the number you want on any of those die rolls unless the chance of a single die roll does not also increase.

And you still don't address any point that posting any of this is not a personal issue with someone!

Let's make this simple and reverse the burden of proof: if I said "even map change updates without any loot changes are beneficial to the player numbers" (a claim I never made, but let's say I did for argument's sake), then I want you to prove (as in statistics and not just personal observation) that this is not the case. Because if you can't, your point of view is also just opinion and thus subjective rather than objective.

[Malong]

In this one post alone there was evidence that:

1. From the last 10 patches, there was no time that there were stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance; so you can't attribute higher population to just stat or map changes
   
2. People chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility
   
3. People do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing
   

Or this post showing the cause of tripling the number of die rolls less than triples the chance of hitting the number you want on any of those die rolls unless the chance of a single die roll does not also increase.

And you still don't address any point that posting any of this is not a personal issue with someone!

Let's make this simple and reverse the burden of proof: if I said "even map change updates without any loot changes are beneficial to the player numbers" (a claim I never made, but let's say I did for argument's sake), then I want you to prove (as in statistics and not just personal observation) that this is not the case. Because if you can't, your point of view is also just opinion and thus subjective rather than objective.

READ!!!! It was never about you. Here is the direct snippet (which is a paraphrasing of "even map change updates without any loot changes are beneficial to the player numbers") that I am and have already replied to with a reasonable replacement of what you wanted, as we can't get complete statistics without being developers aggregating data from server logs:

Whenever an update is put out that affects maps alongside no other difference to any mechanics such as drop rate, the player activity increases.

And yet again, you conveniently gloss over the fact that:

What? Do you read?

In this one post alone there was evidence that:

1. From the last 10 patches, there was no time that there were stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance; so you can't attribute higher population to just stat or map changes
   
2. People chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility
   
3. People do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing
   

Or this post showing the cause of tripling the number of die rolls less than triples the chance of hitting the number you want on any of those die rolls unless the chance of a single die roll does not also increase.

And you still don't address any point that posting any of this is not a personal issue with someone!

[Cut-Me-Own-Throat-Dibbler]

READ!!!! It was never about you.

Yes? My reading is just fine, thank you, but even though you are complaining about the lost art of reading comprehension, you also might want to do some self-reflection in that regard as well. Anyway, let's go back to the roots of this sad affair and forget about the ensuing nastiness for a moment:

And while my personal experience is hardly empirical evidence, Woody is right in one regard, though: while we grind for the ever elusive legendary loot,  map changes and events can offset boredom to a certain degree. I just wish there would be more and new maps.

Unless you can demonstrate a link between map changes and overall population increases, this is just an isolated incident. You recently rejoined without any new maps being added.

So you want me to prove to you that map changes increase player population, no? And I want you to prove to me that they don't. But you can't, because as you correctly said:

as we can't get complete statistics without being developers aggregating data from server logs

So you use this:

[*]From the last 10 patches, there was no time that there were stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance; so you can't attribute higher population to just stat or map changes
[*]People chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility
[*]People do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing

Or this post showing the cause of tripling the number of die rolls less than triples the chance of hitting the number you want on any of those die rolls unless the chance of a single die roll does not also increase.

as some kind of supposed proof, even though it is mostly personal observation and circumstantial evidence.

How about you just admit that what you wrote in this matter is what everybody else wrote: an opinion. Maybe informed, maybe uninformed, but an opinion nevertheless.

Having said that, I'll head to bed now. Should you choose to write a reply tonight, you will have to wait until tomorrow for an answer. Or, if you think like I do that our tit-for-that might be somewhat annoying for the rest of the readership, we can move this to PMs or chat. Your choice.

P.S.: Does this whole thing mean my chances to join Tricksters are now non-existent? Ah, just kidding.

[Malong]

READ!!!! It was never about you.

Yes? My reading is just fine, thank you, but even though you are complaining about the lost art of reading comprehension, you also might want to do some self-reflection in that regard as well. Anyway, let's go back to the roots of this sad affair and forget about the ensuing nastiness for a moment:

You pretend that nobody made the claim when it in fact was made, then want to tell us that it was never replied to either. Yet I'm the one that needs to read.

And while my personal experience is hardly empirical evidence, Woody is right in one regard, though: while we grind for the ever elusive legendary loot,  map changes and events can offset boredom to a certain degree. I just wish there would be more and new maps.

Unless you can demonstrate a link between map changes and overall population increases, this is just an isolated incident. You recently rejoined without any new maps being added.

So you want me to prove to you that map changes increase player population, no? And I want you to prove to me that they don't. But you can't, because as you correctly said:

What? No, but you use yourself as a single isolated incident and want to project it to the entire community.

So you use this:

[*]From the last 10 patches, there was no time that there were stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance; so you can't attribute higher population to just stat or map changes
[*]People chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility
[*]People do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing

Or this post showing the cause of tripling the number of die rolls less than triples the chance of hitting the number you want on any of those die rolls unless the chance of a single die roll does not also increase.

as some kind of supposed proof, even though it is mostly personal observation and circumstantial evidence.

How about you just admit that what you wrote in this matter is what everybody else wrote: an opinion. Maybe informed, maybe uninformed, but an opinion nevertheless.

What? Those are exact instances that show their respective events. It's not my opinion that:

1. the last 10 patches included no stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance
   
2. people chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility
   
3. people do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing
   
4. rolling a fair die three times does not triple your chance of rolling any given number on that die
   

The first three literally a matter of record on these forums, and the fourth is high school level math for most reasonable people.

Having said that, I'll head to bed now. Should you choose to write a reply tonight, you will have to wait until tomorrow for an answer. Or, if you think like I do that our tit-for-that might be somewhat annoying for the rest of the readership, we can move this to PMs or chat. Your choice.

P.S.: Does this whole thing mean my chances to join Tricksters are now non-existent? Ah, just kidding.

Why would you suddenly bring either of these up?

[DR.]

For me, it's because it's the same gameplay without better rewards.

So his the question then would you make rag harder knowing as an outcome you can give it better rewards.

I have not said anything about rewards when making rag harder as it would be a messy subject. If rag got harder by 5% even tho that can't really be measured easily I don't expect the buff in reward to be big. Something like this for example. Like 1.25x gold and XP then no change to drop rate.

Idk my point is If we up the skill cap of rag we can make it have better rewards than atm. Before people say is that just making the rich richer well yea... but as I said I'm up for a system like this.

If it was possible to quantify, the ratio of "reward increase" to "difficulty increase" is more than one, then yes. So yes to your example. This will never happen though.

Why so sceptical about posable change to a system that's been the same for years at this point. Yes, it has been the same for years so maybe in a way, it's still fine but its the community that's constantly changing variable. We have outgrown the rag.   

You cant say it will never happen... You could say you find it unlikely it will happen any time soon and I agree with that... I'm sure we are in for 1 update before the end of the year but like how we play Ni itself I'm in for the long game.  

Don't you question why you are commenting on a subject to this degree when you think it has no chance to happen?  Do you think me and you are in the minority or the majority for wanting rag to be harder given as a side effect it can have a better reward? Do you think I'm in the minority or the majority for wanting rag to get harder not just for the reward but the rush of actually needing to think for once rather than rag events being on autopilot just about? 

We have 4 modes... If rag gets harder to the point public teams cant complete it from a lack of communication before and in the run, they still have the 3 other modes... All modes could just get harder to the point beginner is normal and hard is rag and rag is fucked. That's the extreme side of things that could maybe make me happy but I think that's going too far. My aim is to find the middle ground. 

I think beginner servers are a waste for how its set up atm. I would still have it focused around low levels but I think the question ill ask is tr3 or even tr4 not a low level in today's age? It can also be said I would be in favour of making tr1-tr4 better than they currently are but that a different subject altogether. 

I think I would make beginner harder to the point the new beginner is in between the old beginner and normal in terms of difficulty. As a side effect of getting harder the level cap goes to maybe 39 or so. This also means the xp and gold can be better than it was. [risk/reward].  

The other 3 modes I would make harder sure but from the player's aspect by nerfing heroes or items or a mix of both. Then.

Give us a way to get some or all stats back using a system that anyone can use. Not a gold/mats sink but a posable time or planning sink.

Here is the one I suggested but I'm sure we could find others that use the same method. If you plan the run beforehand you have a lot better chance to win. 

https://forum.nordinvasion.com/showthread.php?tid=73131

We already have the item dev Terath that wants to do so much to this mod and rebalancing stuff is on the table or already in queue. 

Changing stats is not hard work when you understand it's just tedious. Finding what stats are the right stats is the hard part even more so when you are dealing with 2 different types of things such as daggers vs throwing spears.

For me, it's not a matter of ye I want this and I want this now... If I did think this way I would be poor buying anything that I want in the market at any price. I have the patience to wait not days... not weeks... years for stuff in the game and its no different with requests. 

i just scroll down my mouse wheel

Hello traveller.

[Malong]

For me, it's because it's the same gameplay without better rewards.

So his the question then would you make rag harder knowing as an outcome you can give it better rewards.

I have not said anything about rewards when making rag harder as it would be a messy subject. If rag got harder by 5% even tho that can't really be measured easily I don't expect the buff in reward to be big. Something like this for example. Like 1.25x gold and XP then no change to drop rate.

Idk my point is If we up the skill cap of rag we can make it have better rewards than atm. Before people say is that just making the rich richer well yea... but as I said I'm up for a system like this.

If it was possible to quantify, the ratio of "reward increase" to "difficulty increase" is more than one, then yes. So yes to your example. This will never happen though.

Why so sceptical about posable change to a system that's been the same for years at this point. Yes, it has been the same for years so maybe in a way, it's still fine but its the community that's constantly changing variable. We have outgrown the rag.

No, the part that I think will never happen is Ragnarok getting "harder by 5%" culminating in "1.25x gold and XP." He gave me permission to show chat:

[1:04 AM]
darkpck:
I have not said anything about rewards when making rag harder as it would be a messy subject. If rag got harder by 5% even tho that can't really be measured easily I don't expect the buff in reward to be big. Something like this for example. Like 1.25x gold and XP then no change to drop rate.
that's his quote

[1:04 AM]
Terath:
that's a fucking lot, woody.
rewards can be content if they lead to actual substantial goals or achievements, but all this would do is reward people more for doing the same thing but marginally harder.
no thanks lol

Don't you question why you are commenting on a subject to this degree when you think it has no chance to happen?  Do you think me and you are in the minority or the majority for wanting rag to be harder given as a side effect it can have a better reward? Do you think I'm in the minority or the majority for wanting rag to get harder not just for the reward but the rush of actually needing to think for once rather than rag events being on autopilot just about? 

1. No, why would discussing feasibility be bad?
   
2. I don't know. Personally, it depends what the difficulty change would be and what the rewards increase would be.
   
3. Probably majority. Stale gameplay with bad rewards has led to players leaving.
   

We have 4 modes... If rag gets harder to the point public teams cant complete it from a lack of communication before and in the run, they still have the 3 other modes... All modes could just get harder to the point beginner is normal and hard is rag and rag is fucked. That's the extreme side of things that could maybe make me happy but I think that's going too far. My aim is to find the middle ground. 

I think beginner servers are a waste for how its set up atm. I would still have it focused around low levels but I think the question ill ask is tr3 or even tr4 not a low level in today's age? It can also be said I would be in favour of making tr1-tr4 better than they currently are but that a different subject altogether. 

I think I would make beginner harder to the point the new beginner is in between the old beginner and normal in terms of difficulty. As a side effect of getting harder the level cap goes to maybe 39 or so. This also means the xp and gold can be better than it was. [risk/reward].

Not happening:

[1:01 AM]
Terath:
he calls you sceptical about a new mode and then unintentionally proceeds to explain how that would be a bad idea to implement
...
[1:03 AM]
Terath:
the takeaway is that difficulty is not content

We already have the item dev Terath that wants to do so much to this mod and rebalancing stuff is on the table or already in queue. 

[1:10 AM]
Terath:
okay i read it again. what does "rebalancing stuff" mean to him? what's with the vague references and then no explanation?
...
[1:41 AM]
darkpck:
so he says you're working on this rebalancing
which you don't know what he's talking about.

[1:41 AM]
Terath:
yeah pretty much

[Terath]

just in addition: this is all my personal opinion, not NordInvasion's. Just to be clear.

[DR.]

Why so sceptical about posable change to a system that's been the same for years at this point. Yes, it has been the same for years so maybe in a way, it's still fine but its the community that's constantly changing variable. We have outgrown the rag.

No, the part that I think will never happen is Ragnarok getting "harder by 5%" culminating in "1.25x gold and XP." He gave me permission to show chat:

I said it with words to convey my point and to make sure you understand where I'm going with it I gave an example. You are overthinking how much time I put in thinking about this multiplier.

I could have said 1.005x or whatever... It's an example of me saying if it got harder the reward can be more. [risk/reward]. 

I have not said anything about rewards when making rag harder as it would be a messy subject. If rag got harder by 5% even tho that can't really be measured easily I don't expect the buff in reward to be big. Something like this for example. Like 1.25x gold and XP then no change to drop rate.    

Idk my point is If we up the skill cap of rag we can make it have better rewards than atm. Before people say is that just making the rich richer well yea... but as I said I'm up for a system like this.

---

---

Don't you question why you are commenting on a subject to this degree when you think it has no chance to happen?  Do you think me and you are in the minority or the majority for wanting rag to be harder given as a side effect it can have a better reward? Do you think I'm in the minority or the majority for wanting rag to get harder not just for the reward but the rush of actually needing to think for once rather than rag events being on autopilot just about? 

1. No, why would discussing feasibility be bad?
   
2. I don't know. Personally, it depends what the difficulty change would be and what the rewards increase would be.
   
3. Probably majority. Stale gameplay with bad rewards has led to players leaving.
   

No discussing feasibility is something that I would talk about all day but that was not the point of the question. 

On one hand, you want rag or some mod or whatever to be harder for better reward [risk/reward]. I agree with you on the risk needs to be not over the top but it can be more than it is currently. On the other hand, you don't think it's feasible to make rag harder.

So you agree Probably the majority want rag to be harder... ok. Maybe you don't agree with my method of making rag harder [risk/reward]. Give me an example of how you would do it then.

---

---

We have 4 modes... If rag gets harder to the point public teams cant complete it from a lack of communication before and in the run, they still have the 3 other modes... All modes could just get harder to the point beginner is normal and hard is rag and rag is fucked. That's the extreme side of things that could maybe make me happy but I think that's going too far. My aim is to find the middle ground. 

I think beginner servers are a waste for how its set up atm. I would still have it focused around low levels but I think the question ill ask is tr3 or even tr4 not a low level in today's age? It can also be said I would be in favour of making tr1-tr4 better than they currently are but that a different subject altogether. 

I think I would make beginner harder to the point the new beginner is in between the old beginner and normal in terms of difficulty. As a side effect of getting harder the level cap goes to maybe 39 or so. This also means the xp and gold can be better than it was. [risk/reward].

Not happening:

Ni in 2019 has so many things people would say is not happening even in 2018. "Not happening," says nothing about the idea it self other than its hard to do and I agree with that.

For me, it's not a matter of ye I want this and I want this now... If I did think this way I would be poor buying anything that I want in the market at any price. I have the patience to wait not days... not weeks... years for stuff in the game and its no different with requests. 

---

---

We already have the item dev Terath that wants to do so much to this mod and rebalancing stuff is on the table or already in queue. 

[1:10 AM]
Terath:
okay i read it again. what does "rebalancing stuff" mean to him? what's with the vague references and then no explanation?
...
[1:41 AM]
darkpck:
so he says you're working on this rebalancing
which you don't know what he's talking about.

[1:41 AM]
Terath:
yeah pretty much

"Rebalancing stuff" it's vague because of how much stuff it covers. You said to me not too long ago you want to go over all the crafting stats and other things. It's obvious you have great intentions to change stuff in this mod. 


I would quote stuff you said to me like "I have plans for..." but not sure what you want public or not. Because people want evidence ill quote this from a pm Terath can find. 

I have talked about specialized weapons for every single class with some developers, and the general consensus is "eh". It makes weapons usable by all in one class, like Stag or Ullrs, have a little less prominence, and further splits up the market. It does, however, allow a class to specialize in something if they aren't currently. It's something that we would need a foolproof design idea for each class's new weapon for. It's a large undertaking considering the current state of items (which is not bad, but could use some work (mostly personal crafted shit).

[Cut-Me-Own-Throat-Dibbler]

What? Those are exact instances that show their respective events. It's not my opinion that:

1. the last 10 patches included no stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance
   
2. people chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility
   
3. people do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing
   
4. rolling a fair die three times does not triple your chance of rolling any given number on that die
   

You're still dodging my request to prove conclusively that Map Changes aren't beneficial to the player numbers. Because:

the last 10 patches included no stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance

Doesn't prove that.

people chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility

Doesn't prove it either.

people do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing

Sorry, no proof.

rolling a fair die three times does not triple your chance of rolling any given number on that die

OK? But nope, no proof.

...

Let's just stop there.

[Malong]

You're still dodging my request to prove conclusively that Map Changes aren't beneficial to the player numbers.

What? I never typed that any of those statements were proof that map changes increase the number of active players. Nor did I ever even intend to. And why do you even expect me to anyway?

Here are the respective statements to which I was replying. At this point, I doubt you could read and understand after three or four chances.

the last 10 patches included no stat nor map changes alongside no changes to loot chance

Doesn't prove that.

Whenever legendary loot chance increases through events, or items seem to be dropping more, alongside no other difference to any mechanics which affect difficulty (nor "fun"), the player activity increases. This mod is a solved game, people aren't playing for the difficulty.

Also note that "the fun is in the loot," "time is loot," and so on are repeated sayings amongst many players of the mod. Meanwhile, "the fun is in the challenge" is not.

Whenever an update is put out that affects stats alongside no other difference to any mechanics such as drop rate, the player activity increases.
Whenever an update is put out that affects maps alongside no other difference to any mechanics such as drop rate, the player activity increases.
Whenever an update to what upgrades are available alongside no other difference to any mechanics such as drop rate, the player activity increases.

Ignoring the fact that you haven't demonstrated that any of those changes increased player base, please show us whenever any update you cite changed only one of those mechanics. Because if you took the few minutes to look, it's not any the last ten which spans September 2, 2018 to now. And are you seriously trying to push your dumb narrative that stat and map changes bring a significant number of people back again? We didn't believe it the first time, and we don't believe it now.

1. 1.11.8: maps along with bug fixes
   
2. 1.11.7: stats along with maps
   
3. 1.11.6: no changes to stats, maps, nor upgrades
   
4. 1.11.5: stats along with maps
   
5. 1.11.4: stats along with maps
   
6. 1.11.3: stats along with maps
   
7. 1.11.2: stats along with maps
   
8. 1.11.1: maps along with bug fixes
   
9. 1.11.0: no changes to stats, maps, nor upgrades
   
10. 1.10.3: maps along with bug fixes
    

people chose not to play when challenge took precedent over loot eligibility

Doesn't prove it either.

To hit my point in harder let's say for example hard was the hardest mod we had available. I would argue the retention rate would be even worse given its no fun winning constantly. It can also be said studies show this in real life and ill find them if need be.

Citation needed. Meanwhile evidence of the opposite has happened where losing too much caused players to leave. People want loot before challenge. Here you go.

people do not "almost unanimously" want to return to having nothing

Sorry, no proof.

People almost unanimously agree Ni was more fun at the start when you had nothing. I would put this up to mutable factors but one of them being the game is just harder when you have lesser stats being you need to depend more on your team. For how big that factor is I can't say but I hope you can agree it's probably a bigger factor than people would be willing to admit.

Citation needed. Remember this poll and thread that proposed starting everyone off with nothing again? 64/124 is 51.6%; to me, that's quite far from "almost unanimously." Your mileage may vary though if you think 15 days is 4 weeks.

"Do you even think before you post stuff like this?" - Kaasovic to Woody, 2019

rolling a fair die three times does not triple your chance of rolling any given number on that die

OK? But nope, no proof.

What I suggest is updates spike player numbers in turn pushing the "luck" up. The luck is superficial its just a matter of how many people are rolling the dice unless the drop rate really did change.  

But as players increase linearly, loot chance does not increase linearly with it. If a chance to "win" a roll is 1/n, then taking two rolls and winning either of them one is not 2/n, but rather [1 - ((n-1)/n)^2]. The population definitely "push[ed] the 'luck' up" far more than it should have from population increase alone.

...

Let's just stop there.

This didn't even happen in this thread. Are you seriously incapable of understanding how to format a post?