Difference between revisions of "Proposals"

Revision as of 11:17, 3 November 2013

Created this page for players to leave suggestions to the staff for possible rule changes/additions, and anything else that could be added/removed/changed to the setting/wiki/etc

Durability Skill

Suggested by Dashizer

Much of what the room is based on is techs that have to do with character PL, and skill. I think a good way to reflect martial skill, and techniques better would be to create a system in which durability has an effectiveness against speed of attacks. Durability is great, and everyone hates character death, or losing fights, but I think creating a system to balance durability out, and make fights more interesting would be to reduce durabilities effectiveness against either attacks faster than the attackers character can dodge, or against the character can see; this could be done by reducing overall durability vs damage by 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 depending on the speed of attack. Another idea is to increase the effective damage dealt to the target (unmodified by abilities) by x amount if attack speed is greater than either the targets eyesight, or speed. Just an idea.

When it comes to durability and speed, if either needed balancing, it would be speed. Speed definitely doesn't need to be more powerful, especially at the cost of durability. Most characters only have between 200%PL and 300%PL, barring a few outliers. And generally in those cases the durability is a major part of their character. I don't see what effect this would have other than making fights end quicker, and I don't see how that would make them more interesting. Now, structure this around breaking the effectiveness of Damage Reduction, and I think it could make for a pretty good tech. I do like the idea of a suggestion page like this. --Ff0ecaf 11:53, 7 June 2013 (PDT)

It was honestly just a quick idea to get the ball rolling so people could see the kind of stuff that should get posted. I don't really have any problem with speed, or durability. Does Durability have a hard cap? --Dashizer 07, 2013

Change Notes

Suggested by Icebreed.

Up until now, aside from host messages in room, the only notice that things have changed has been Recent Changes, and it can be a little inconvenient trying to figure out what exactly was changed. You have to use the diff function to sort it out for each individual one.

I suggest instead that each time a rule change is made, it be made an entry in a Rule Change Notes page, which would be similar to a patch notes for any online-patchable computer game, and would likely have a layout resembling our Current Events page. That way, not only can regular players keep quickly apprised of changes, but players who have left Alt for a long time can have every rule change made since they left summed up in a readable digest.

Hello new page I hadn't seen until now. I actually like this idea, of course. At the moment I can only remember the WP and Charge Rate changes that have recently been made. If you recall any others, please let me know. In the meantime I have no problem with creating said page. --Marcus

If you really want to take this on aggressively, you can use the following steps to get a fairly thorough history of edits, thanks to the fact that both the main rules and the CTs share the "Rules" prefix:

1. Go to Recent Changes.
2. Change the "namespace" dropdown to "Rules" and then hit Go.
3. Change the "show last # changes" and "in last # days" to the maximum.
4. You can then go up to the URL and edit it so it goes even farther back, if you want, changing 30 days to 365 for a whole year, for instance.

I certainly don't expect you to go back and document every rules change that ever happened, but that's how you'd go about getting rule changes backlogs, wiki style. Then you can use the "prev" link to compare the changed document to the one before it (to see what was changed). --Ice 23:10, 2 July 2013 (PDT)

Legislative Organization

Suggested by Icebreed.

I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, and it would probably be rather troublesome to change, but I find myself annoyed by how the specific rules for technique concepts, wording, and limits are all but absent from the main rules body (aside from a list of taboos that are sometimes controversially ignored anyway). I don't have any specific examples, but I believe there may even be some rulings for techniques that aren't written anywhere, at all, but instead are simply occasionally brought up in room or in application handling (I imagine they are ostensibly documented somewhere on the staff side of the OSB). These rules should not be strewn about the various common technique pages. It makes it difficult for technique authors, especially those who may not be as familiar with the common technique library, to understand how their techniques may be required to be limited, or phrased.

I believe the Technique section of the rules should be expanded to include any technique rules that do not specifically apply to a given common technique. This includes limitations to statistic upgrades. Though it would likely be a significant undertaking, I believe this is one of the major hurdles in making this room more accessible to roleplayers.

This would definitely be a significant undertaking. In the past we had a lot of rules hidden away in the OSB only, but little by little the changes that've been made have mostly been thrown unto the CT pages, for example. I think part of the slow movement of this process comes from the fact that most, if not all, of AltDBZ's rules were typed up by staff members that mostly are absent from the room today, with the exception of Ice and Al. I know the rules. We discuss them on AIM, or in the OSB whenever needed. But they're not my rules, typed in my style, or any of the current staff members'. So, by my own fault, I usually find myself focusing more on CTs, or if we find that some of the original rules need some basic changes. At other times we had rules typed up only on the OSB, such as transformation techniques and how they would be priced. Recently those were slapped onto the Wiki to alleviate confusion and establish a baseline for the community to use. Of course, that's just a small stepping stone, when compared to what you mentioned.

It's going to take a while. Being married and work obviously takes up a lot of my time. But if it'll help the community as a whole, then it's worth looking into. --Marcus

No hurry. This is something I actually was trying to tackle in my last months as host, which I failed at miserably (the so-called "limitations on enhancements" project). Of course, you guys seem much more organized than the way I had things. --Ice 23:10, 2 July 2013 (PDT)

Individual PL Tech Actions

Though there are successful Multi-PL characters in the room, I feel that this character choice is burdened by limited effectiveness, especially if you choose more than two PLs to split power between. The source of this handicap is the fact that no matter how many PLs you have, you only get one tech action (or two, if you use Extra Actions). While each PL has its own faculties, technically, characters' power is leveraged around techniques, which means that in order to succeed, you almost HAVE to have all of your techs be a hybrid of all involved PL sources. While this is certainly possible, it's restrictive to playing style. I would suggest, therefore, that every PL a character owns get its own technique action. This would not be overpowering, since all techs still have to be somehow grounded in the technique's power level. In the case of multi-PL techniques, all of those tech actions would be required to activate them. It also makes fluff sense, since in most cases, all three sources of power draw and act independently from one another.

I believe you'll find that if you do this multiPL characters will become the best self buffers in the game. Getting the best buffs out two - three at a time, and get the benifits of up to three posts worth of buffs in one post.NicholasDeLeone 20:19, 19 September 2013 (PDT)

Another idea would be to create a second type of Extra Actions tech, styling it specifically to assist multi-powered characters in utilizing their powers more fully. There could be diminished effectiveness with this as well, such as increased stamina drain for additional PL tech actions in a post, or limit it to fewer ranks or uses per scene/day/week than the current Extra Actions tech.Kamin 22:01, 21 September 2013 (PDT)

If a tech with the same mechanic can be just as powerful coming from half of your PL as it can with all of your PL, there's something wrong with that and it should be changed. If such a tech would only be half as effective, then good, let them do twice the buffs. Also, consider that most multi-PL characters need to invest twice as much tech days into common techs as a normal character would, because in most situations you have to buy separate ones for each PL. Consider stamina, durability, gains, charge parameters (natural, rate, cap, etc). --Ice 13:59, 27 September 2013 (PDT)

Because it's very simple and fairly cheap to get a technique/item that allows you to activate a technique off of TotalPL instead of one of the lower splits. So if split PL characters got a Tech Action for each PL, you'd be able to do a build that basically had Passive Extra Actions: Scene. An Extra Actions variant that allowed this would be cheaper than the CT, though. --Ff0ecaf 06:43, 15 October 2013 (PDT)

Backlog Updating

Suggested by Dashizer

With LOA's and tons of characters sometimes you burn out your PT redemption and lose tons of days which reduce your competitive play with current characters. I suggest an effort based system in which you can with solos update a character as far back as needed through solos, or RP with characters within a 7 day range. Solos for every up to 14 day period between your last PT date and to current date that allows you to keep your days as long as you put in effort to do so. Obviously there are problems with plot and current events which through my suggestion unless you want to burn your days you would be ineligible for these events until you were updated within the current plot, or event time. This is not a suggestion that allows a character to go months without redemption to post one solo and gain tons of days from; 2 months of backlog updating would require at-least 4 to 5 solos to catch your character up. These solos should also be relevant to your characters downtime.

Item Costs & Crafting

Suggested by Dashizer

The current system for pricing items uses a characters bias when purchasing items either at creation, or during regular play. I think items however need to be restructured because some items that characters have aren't even an item they made meaning applying any sort of bias to such an item makes no sense. I suggest that items taken at creation, or made during play always be made as though the character had a neutral bias. While my suggestion means that character will spend more for items which they should this also opens up a system of crafting options and player economy. The second part of my suggestion is adding a CT specifically for crafting items that increases a character's bias for creating items by 1 step, and further allows items taken at creation to be purchased with this modified bias. Ideally the CT would allow characters to increase the bias they have in creating items, or taking items in creation by up to excellent. Because the skills needed to create items can be covered in miniskills I suggest that the EU system be accommodated for characters wishing to specialize in item creation to be able to invest EU towards the items they create creation (ex: Item costs character base days to create modified by any craft item bias steps; item can be created with saved EU's). The crafting system could then be extended for specialization of items and require characters to have crafting techniques to create items of powered nature such as robots, androids, cyborgs or whatever. I think this system would be amazing and would create an actual economy and would open up an actual system of creation, and crafting.

Actually having your bias based off of the creation of an item tech makes a ton of sense. If I learn things easier then you, or understand things better then you do, it's going to take me less time to make something of the same quality then someone whom will struggle with it. I understand your thought process, especially on things "not made by the player" but what you're suggesting is a heck of a nerf, and there is some logic to bias being included in the creation of items. NicholasDeLeone 10:17, 3 November 2013 (PST)