halsort

Ok thanks Entropy. No further discussion needed. Topic should be closed now. (Unless of course someone wants to start a petition to have a mini reset)

[ No offense to those who agree with bkc56 or himself, but I think this is utter BS. The ONLY people who would be "hurt" are those who the cap actually effects. Do you think they chose to get over 48+ attribute for fun. Many of them have built there entire character based getting some high number 60, 80, 100+ of some attribute, often taking negative perks to do so. I DARE someone to say that some "all rounder" who wont have to change the build that THEY WANTED, is more affected that some 130+ OA player with neg perks to max out an attribute will be affected. It is THEIR build that will be changed, THEIR character that will be affected. I think there are very few who are dancing around in glee that they are getting some pps back, in most cases it is NOT an advantage to them. Luckily, many of these players understand that this will improve the game so they aren't complaining. I cant believe that someone who this cap wont even affect is complaining, which almost strikes me as bordering on selfish. I do not agree at all with you. Every player will be affected by the changes as the attributes that were previously fairly useless are now going to become more important.Otherwise the caps and magic changes wouldn't need to be discussed. Some players will be affected more than others but all will be affected. Can I ask you why you chose to put over 48 points into say coordination and not put them into vitality or one of the other attributes. Because it was YOUR choice to do that. The so called all rounders didnt influence you to put the points there .It was your considered opinion that you would do better with the points there.So an all rounder chose to spread out their pps they still would not have used most of the useless attributes.Why then do you think you should have any advantage at all in getting pps back to use on the newer important attributes and an all rounder shouldnt.Thats bordering on being selfish. Only solution - everyone gets pps back so that if they want to they can then use all the attributes if they want to.

Without doubt the "goalposts" are going to be changing so significantly that a reset of the of pps is the only fair way forward. The high level/long time players will still benefit(as they should) by having more pps to use. And yes all perks should be removed as many players chose negative perks simply to get more P and C which they probably wouldnt do now as other attributes will be needed so they may decide not to now take the negative perks.

At the moment most rpgs that i know have pure mage classes and I am pleased that Ent is trying to make this possible in EL. However all these rpgs enable a beginner to the game to be able to kill some monsters with magic in order to progress. EL does not, in fact you have to be level 12 in the game before you get your first attack spell. So even with the changes that are proposed this isnt going to change. But if lower level easier spells are introduced I feel they need to be some way of restricting them to just mage classes.The introduction of an arcane nexus as mentioned earlier may be the way forward, with a new player having to choose between fighter or mage and if they chose mage they get an initial arcane nexus and attack spell.The arcane nexus can then all be tied up to future magic levels and restore spell etc. We have to look after new players as well as existing players.

So I am confused by what determines being further ahead for people to deserve an advantage.If you had put 8 points into phys so your coord is 92 and not 100 you only get 36pps to redistribute instead of 44 but you are not further ahead in the game.See my extreme example previously where the split is a lot higher. With the new builds that are now going to be needed not everyone might automatically want to immediately max physique before they get 10 or 20 perception. Just because someone has gone over 48 in coordination does not make them further ahead in the game.In my example with Player A and Player B both players were at the same stage,it just happens that there builds were different! There can be no definitive guide to someone being further ahead in the game unless everyone was building their characters identically.Admittedly a lot of players have gone down the line of topping out coordination but surely not all.

This was an extreme senario Jumpy and i know 16 physique was low. but even if the figures were upped to 48/48 and 38/58 then the player getting the 10pps back would use them in perception like Ent has advised. Edited by Entropy: STOP QUOTTING THE WHOLE GOD DAMN THREAD AND ONLY QUOTE THE RELEVANT SECTIONS!!!

So all people are not going to get pps back when this happens so they can be redistributed. So we have 2 identical players who have played and levelled together and are the same level, and have both worked equally as hard for the levels they are at. Player A has 48 physique and 48 coordination Player B has 16 physique and 80 coordination Player A gets no pickpoints returned and player B gets 32 pickpoints back. How the hell can that be fair on Player A when both would need to be putting pps into perception. Both are fighters and are fairly high level.Both pk and therefore both will need perception. Just because one has distributed his pps differently from the other shouldnt mean he benefits over the other one. I realise that this is an extreme senario but I think there will be builds out there that would fit the senario to a lesser extent.

"Well, since most of the people are in favour for this idea, there is no point in having a vote on it. I guess the restoration will be magic*1.5+rationality*5, which means magic is even more important, but rationality is a good attribute to have. The formula for the other spells is satisfactory I hope?" Does this mean that the discussion on your idea is now over and approved without the "few days to discuss it" and a poll?- Less than 24 hours of the entry going on to the forum! If I am not mistaken the end result of this idea and the cap will be that the high level players will get pps back to be able to cover for perception etc and the new players will be able to decide what to do with their newly gained pps as they level. This therefore leaves the rest of the players who are say level 80 - 100 (or even a wider range) to have to get to say level 100-120 to get 20 pps just to put into perception or reset.Thats not even allowing for pps that are going to be needed for the other attributes. Unless I am totally misunderstanding the changes I can only see an awful lot of resets. Might be interesting to see how many active players in just the lvl 80 - 100 range this will affect. With such a drastic change in the character building that will now be required in the game maybe a reset of all pps to be redistributed again should be made. I am all in favour of the changes to use the other previously useless attributes (as it can only benefit the game) but all characters will need a redistribution of their pps to function properly and effectively.

Just spent 2 hours reading through 21 pages of forum entries on the poll. Only at page 18 (or something like that, I find that a harvest mule pet would ease any harvesters worries) Even later it appears that Ent has "taken his bat home" and will just concentrate on his new baby the PK server.. Surely wouldnt it have been far better to first use this forum entry to discuss the yeas and nays of the idea and then have the poll. At least then, as Ent is definitely for the amendment he could have put forward his ideas to counter any arguement against the change. People would then have known:- 1.That level 48 was the max limit and there is no way it will be exceeded. 2. A mule pet would be available to counter the emu loss (but also need to know whether this will have to be paid for or not) 3. People will be getting their negative perks back as people took them to increase phys (for harvest) or coord (for fighters). 4. More spawns will be made available as fighters who cannot find a group will have to go back to monsters further down the chain so they can solo. This also links in with the fact that fights will take longer therefore people who are already waiting for free spawns would have to wait even longer. If all these objections could have been addressed before the vote then I feel sure that the 80%(of the people who read the forum on a regular basis) Ent was looking for would have been easily reached. It appears to me that the single most sensible suggestion put forward on the subject was to see how the PK server goes with the cap and then assess the situation in line with any objections. I am in favour of the cap as it will mean that other attributes become more useful and the stardard p/c/w will change from being normal.It still will not stop someone working out the best way forward and everyone copying it,but at least it will be spread over more attributes I would expect. Remember this is a free beta game and changes can only be expected as the game develops. The fact that Entropy asks for our opinion is a credit to him.