Epiquin

Alternatively, pretend you are a girl.

If its custom, it has to be easy and intuitive to understand. Nothing should have some cliche name that only inspires thoughts about how it could have 6digit patk/matk and equippable by players. Making boss threshold depend on player count just means nobody will do them... If you have 500 players on server, your whole pop needs to go and kill that raid. How do you think that will happen, when majority of people make their own 2-3 man clans? Bosses need to stop being about how many feet you bring on the ground and start being about how clever the players are... This is not balanced... A big clan has more people, what do you think the probability of a newbro getting the item is, in comparison to a big clan? Then you also have to consider the clan policy regarding drops - does the clan get the drop regardless who picked it up, or does the person who picked it up get to keep it. Not critical at all...

No.

Majority of advertising is probabilistic anyway, attempting to gather attention by sheer volume and no quality. Check TV/YouTube ads - most adverts are so trash they don't even relate to product/service they are meant to endorse. However, 800 skype contacts is silly. And who trusts shady kids on Skype telling them about some awesome L2 server lol... its like drug dealer in a farm out in nowhere. P.S. The fake neg feedback attempt is hilariously obvious - 1 feedback in total? XD

Depends on skill powers as well. Unless you know what the skill powers are on both servers, comparing matk/patk is dumb. It's like looking for a difference in 10 and 20. Difference is 2x but if they have coefficients 1 and 0.5 you get 10 and 10 in both cases.

Those are nice but all they show is individual success rates. I think the real concern is how many weapons, or how many attempts, will get 5 enchants in a row with 60% success rate per enchant. Out of large samples (1000 or so) you will get your typical 60% trend per enchant, sure. But if you count how many succeeded 5 times in a row, its a lot less than 60%. Based on Tessa's code, this counts how many weapons will get to +5, no left over enchants are used. Not in Java. success = 0; noLuck = 0; enchants = 5; % Enchants per lap. chance = 0.60; % 0.50 = 50% chance, 1 = 100% chance. for c = 1:100; for a = 1:enchants; if(rand(1) > chance) % count failures instead of successes noLuck = noLuck+1; break % if it fails before reaching 5, no point in counting - start new lap elseif(a==enchants); success = success +1; %if it reaches 5 in a row count as success. end end %fprintf('Lap: %1.0f ; There were %1.0f successful attempts of %1.0f in a row enchants! \n',c,success,enchants); end fprintf('Lap: %g ; There were %g successful attempts of %g in a row enchants! \n',c,success,enchants); This counts how many in a row for enchants only (assumes you buy weapons on demand, and you use a limited amount of enchants) for c = 1:100; if (rand < chance) x(c) = 1; success = success + 1; else x(c) = 0; end end fprintf('%g out of %g successes \n',success,c); success = 0; counter = 0; while c > 0 if (x(c) == 1) counter = counter + 1; if (counter == enchants) success = success + 1; counter = 0; end else counter = 0; end c = c-1; end fprintf('Total %g 5 in a row successes \n', success)

Final lap output from MATLAB >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 301.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 199 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 295.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 205 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 308.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 192 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 295.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 205 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 299.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 201 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 305.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 195 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 297.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 203 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 285.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 215 total fails! >> L2script Lap: 100.000000 ; There was 291.000000 successful of 5.000000 enchants!There was 209 total fails! Statistically, its close to 60%, lowest was 57% and highest 62%. 500 is still a rather small sample. What this doesn't show is the distribution (median) and the mode (occurrence of value) which I think is what the player perceives, because its unlikely that someone will take 500 attempts in a row in a short amount of time. P.S. Tessa, it seems your code is adding +1 to success variable on every success, and not when there is 5 success in a row. Can you confirm?

Its a sandbox, nobody is obliged to hold someone elses hand and make strong groups for them. The issue is not so much that some clan gets a lot of players. it's the lack of tools that let you fight with few vs many.

Depends on if server has random or pseudo random. Pseudo random has a pattern, I think its a function of time. Establishing the pattern is difficult because it depends entirely on how large the range is. Typically random is taken over 1000 subjects. The reason why +3 -> +4 breaks at high enchants is simply probability. 500 success and 500 fails is 50% chance over 1000 attempts. But the distribution is 500 success and 500 fails back to back. Take it over the first 500 attempts, success is 100%. Take it over the second 500 attempts - 0% success. Move it to 500 subjects from 250 to 750 attempts is still 50%. TL;DR bad luck. Establishing pattern is bad way to go. Getting good enchant levels is just a matter of going through a large volume of items and enchants. P.S. What math are you talking about? What you are calculating is probability. Chance is always the same. 60% to succeed on +4, +5, +6. The cummilitive chance to get from 0 to +6 might be lower.

Well, atleast you took the time to format the features nicely. Most just copy paste into some unreadable text.

Don't see the point. Ok, maybe nostalgia kicks in. It will prolly last for like a week though. From a strategic POV IMO newer clients, even when downgraded in players access (to mimic older chronicles), simply offer more assets (models, animations, new packets, etc) to work with. I think it's not worth to dwell on how well the past was. If it was THAT good it would have been present, but it isn't. Hence any opinion of it "being" good is just personal bias.

0.1x rates with S80 starting gear and +7 skills and -13 gear must do gremlin quest to do be able to lvl up

Agree. Some randomness could be permitted in rewards through farming. But think a more thorough investigation could reveal how to reduce it. If we start thinking about economy and reducing to finite resources, time taken to farm etc, we can start building models, or at least pictures of resource gain. I think this is what's trivialised and why there is a bad economy in a lot of servers. Randomness in combat should be avoided. Desired effects should be achieved through deterministic methods and decisions. Typically majority of low chance debuffs are thrown in because there is a hole in the skill rotation. If the skill rotation is perfect (like in Glads/duelists), then there is no time to cast low priority skills. But this has to be balanced with costs and durations. Currently the meta is to balance based on some average. But the average is not quantified, and everyone has their own opinion where the average is. Which is why there is a huge disagreement when it comes to balance.

Out of curiousity, what do you think is a toxic player? Because a players that goes out and PvP people spontaneously even with the result ending in PK is just game mechanics that everyone should be prepared for. Whether the defendant is capable of fighting for himself or not is a flaw of gameplay design, not player toxicity. Agree completely. I don't think it's a matter of whether big dev group/small dev group/company. At the end of the day, considering how old this game is we are all very quick to identify how much bullshit there is when examining a private server in previews or adverts. If no care was taken to reduce the fkn features list and its just a copy paste like some shit curriculum vitae from an intern applying to McDonalds its easy to see that no real work has been done. And again agree on modernisation. L2 is still salvageable. But not without taking risks and doing something outlandishly different. Random() needs to die.

Crowfall. I don't think their argument is entirely accurate. Persistent isn't bad. Persistent without loss is. EVE Online is a good example to it. Its up for more than a decade and there are no Uncle Bob Tyrants in EVE. Its because the whole game is heavily based on economy and loss. And hence victory conditions are not stipulated by entire removal of one force from the conflict. You might lose 100 ships, but if you kill a titan, thats something like 40bill loss and equates to many many more smaller ships. Crowfall devs sound enthusiastic but I think they will fall into the same trap as other MMOs, because even with their world wipes, a pattern/trend will become apparent which will follow exactly what they describe they want to avoid, but on a much more frequent basis.

Fair enough, looking forward to it.

I was referring to the type judgement and decision making, not the server. As Fortuna mentioned, L2Luna (played on it too) was based on DOTA. Saying it was successful is overly generous.

So it's a choice of the lesser of two evils? Proactive judgement is not bad if its based on previous faults. It's done everyday in the industry...

To be critical: 1) Its LoL in L2 skin? So, you have only SOME of the LoL community interested, maybe. And only SOME of L2 community interested. They don't necessarily amount to a good count. 2) Its 1 same game at the end of the day, but with a smaller community. 3) Seems like its a blatant copy. Its ok for now, as a proof of concept. But eventually, you don't think people will start wondering why they should play on your server and not just play LoL/DOTA/whatever works these days? Why it can work: 1) If it plays like LoL, and as I understand LoL play almost like CS with rooms and matches, then it will be easy for everyone to join and have fun. 2) If its like 1), then fights are almost pre arranged, which fits the style of conflict of the modern L2 community. Now that I think back further, pandora-project, which was meant to be a faction server, did this. Rather than open world it had multiple match instances running. A lot of people didn't like, but thats prollly because people expected it to be a faction server instead. Dunno, you are just taking a probabilistic approach (trial and error) rather than a deterministic approach (do whats needed). Hence it might work or it might not.

It was about 3 years ago. And the server was on C++. Can't remember server name. Wasn't based on LoL but DOTA.

Aren't there fundamental game mechanic differences in LoL? Like magic auto attacks. Movement etc? Someone tried to do this before already. It was very awkward and it died because in the small community that it had, some people could do well because they played LoL and had the advantage; they banded together and essentially everyone who didn't play LoL before just ragequit.

Saw your thread in the morning. Then it was gone.

Forceable war for an adena fee. The aggressing clan must then hunt down the forced war targets to kill them in hopes of getting enough drops/rewards/whatever in order to financially break even with the war cost or maybe even profit. Or just force war for luls. Lose some adena, bu no safety for carebears. Good adena sink as well...

Lack of realised goals. Whatever they are. If I had a set of goals I wanted to achieve through the medium of a server and I couldn't achieve them, I'd close it too.

I think if its done intelligently it has potential to be digestible. I recall (again) on EVE online http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/opportunities-abound-the-new-player-experience Previously EVE:O had a very very shit new player experience - the game itself is huge and its difficult to get around. The previous NPE focused on tutorials and missions. But the game is a Sandbox. The consequence was that the tutorial never left new players ready to play the sandbox. Instead, players focused on missions (quests) because that was how the tutorial was set up. So out of all new players who finished the tutorials ~50% ended up doing quests for the majority of their time during the game. ~10% quit the game. And only about 40% played the game the way it was meant to be played. You are right - some people will never go out and explore the limits of the game or the features you set up - not unless in the first 5 minutes they are told what they can do. More importantly the link describes a more abstract way to introduce game concepts to players. In the case of L2 i think the problem is more psychological and largely due to cowardice and lack of willingness to risk and compete. With the advent of private servers players understood how close they can get to the development team. Devs figured if they follow what players tell them then half the job is done. From this, players had influence on how the game is shaped. Because of this they could project power ingame - if they know how the game is setup they have an advantage. Obviously introducing new ways to play removes this advantage. Basically, the tantrum people throw when you go full custom is just a machination to force you (the dev) to give players advantage and a foothold in the ingame power struggle. I think the real development challenge is to 1) encourage players go out of towns and fight on non prearranged fights and conflicts 2) encourage players to risk EVERYTHING The understanding of game mechanics should flow naturally from those and no explanation that needs to be digestible should be needed.