ROT fixes for SP...

[Chardonnay]

Any word or just wait two years like the PBD issue?

 

[AEowynSP]

I for one never found RoT to be a problem but then again I like training skills and rot beats GGS hands down. Oh also I can have fun with an all 70s char.

 

[ColterDC]

What did you say?

Sorry I was to busy looking at your avatar

 

[Bardie]

i second that (the busy lookn at avatar)

 

[archite666]

Yes good, weve drawn them in! Without your support we may loose valuble siege players like her!

 

[Eh-Tah-Chi]

I agree

 

[KinG DaviD]

AGREED

 

[Nystul]

I would play siege if it was not for ROT.

I don't like competing with my 80-90 skill characters for months versus the established 110+ characters. :x

So all I do is log on at random for a gain. So its not like I even really "play" there like I would if it wasent for that fact ;/

I used to enjoy siege though.

 

[kelmo]

What did you say?

Sorry I was to busy looking at your avatar

I would get a jiggly avatar if I thought it would help. *chuckles*

Instead, I watch on the forums as more and more Siege vets leave. They may or may not sell accounts off, but that does nothing to increase population.

I will state for the record that I like RoT and do not want to see it removed. I just want to see it changed to reflect the skill levels brought with power scrolls.

Trust me, you don't want to see me jiggle. *nods*

 

[Masumatek]

Devs, please change ROT, BUT please do it right. We need a BIG change in order to see the big population boost, which is what we so desperately need. A minor change to ROT, as some suggest, will not suffice. Please spend a lot of time thinking about the change. We need the skill gain cap per day greatly increased and the time delay between gains greatly decreased. But if instead you decide to make minor tweaks, well then that will be condemning Siege to death.

 

[kelmo]

*nods* You don't want to see Masumatek jiggle either. I wish you folks would not start threads like this on a Friday. Oh, well. Must make the best of it, I suppose.

I appeal to all Siege posters to keep it civil and on topic. I ask others that don't care, or think they will never play Siege to bear with us. Who knows? If we get a few changes here and there and keep the integrity and spirit of the shard intact, you might change your mind one day. Many have.

*borrows a great Texas slogan*

Keep Siege weird!

 

[Bennos Morales]

What would change if RoT was?

Faster time in reaching 120, sure sounds great....but in all honesty create characters who grow so fast that boredom sets in and would effect the turnover rate Siege has a problem with already? (can you say, "McDonalds"?)

I have been here, on Siege for humm....3 almost 4 years now...and its not the RoT that has kept me lackluster in my PvP/PvM performance it is me....


I know I'll probably get flamed from the Siege eilte, but thats my 2 cents....

 

[kelmo]

*winks* Just kidding my old friend.

Any good question that pertains to subject at hand is a good question. At 98 skill the RoT jumps to 15 minutes. There is a long stretch between 98 and 120.

 

[Memnoch]

I honestly must say, Ive played Siege on and off for 5 years, (mostly on) and my number one disappointment and lackluster for Siege, is ROT...

It is painstakingly slow, characters take months and months to be competitive with already established characters, and if you wish to change your template? Have fun!

 

[Pickles]

I want one but more to have skill in day not slow and bore it go.

 

[kelmo]

I honestly must say, Ive played Siege on and off for 5 years, (mostly on) and my number one disappointment and lackluster for Siege, is ROT...

It is painstakingly slow, characters take months and months to be competitive with already established characters, and if you wish to change your template? Have fun!

Yeah, I hit my 5 year anniversary too. There is no other EA/Mythic shard I will play. Don't PM me with player run shard ads. When Siege dies, I die with it.

 

[Masumatek]

What would change if RoT was?

Faster time in reaching 120, sure sounds great....but in all honesty create characters who grow so fast that boredom sets in and would effect the turnover rate Siege has a problem with already? (can you say, "McDonalds"?)

I have been here, on Siege for humm....3 almost 4 years now...and its not the RoT that has kept me lackluster in my PvP/PvM performance it is me....


I know I'll probably get flamed from the Siege eilte, but thats my 2 cents....

1) What are you suggesting? That ROT keeps us from being bored? Are you kidding me? It is the definition of boring for most people. You get to 70 and then you stop playing the game for awhile...or for a long long time if you're a casual player. Many if not most people when they train log in, get their gain, then log back out to wait for the next gain. Then when they've reached their cap for the day, assuming they do, they log back out for the day. That's not playing the game.

If constantly training characters keeps you entertained, then I say you have a very unique hobby. I won't even say the majority of people. I'll say almost everyone. That's how confident I am. Almost everyone hates long, boring training. If you like long, boring training because for some reason it keeps you playing the game, then I suggest you keep doing your long, boring training. A ROT change will not stop you from doing this if you wish. Get your gains, just don't get them all, and you can do the same thing you've been doing for years...Why hold Siege back because you enjoy long training?


2) To answer your question...What would change if ROT was changed? Population. Siege is dying. It's population is crap. Population is KEY in an MMO game. We desperately need more people. ROT is something that can be changed without a cost (changing ROT won't hurt Siege as would changing some other things such as only one character allowed per account). And a ROT change will probably bring in more people than any other change. A big change to ROT will mean a big population boost for us. I can't predict the future. I don't know if a big ROT change will bring our population to a fully healthy state. But there is certainly that chance. And I am positive that it will bring enough people in for Siege to be much more lively and fun.

 

[ColterDC]

I would get a jiggly avatar if I thought it would help. *chuckles*

Waits patiently

I will state for the record that I like RoT and do not want to see it removed. I just want to see it changed to reflect the skill levels brought with power scrolls.

Personally RoT had nothing to do with my decision to stop playing on Siege. I think Siege's problems extend far beyond having to take an extra month or 2 to train a char.

Take this as constructive criticism and as usual it only reflects my opinion.


1. Right from the start Siege should be an option on the shard menu with a small disclaimer letting people know it is a different type of shard. Many people get settled on their home shard, which is usually the shard they started on and do not feel like leaving friends, houses, etc to move permanently to Siege.

2. Suit building; It's boring, once you have your own crafter dying means nothing more than going to your bank or house and putting on your next set of GM armor. Some people may hate item properties, but I for one spend hours tweaking my suit and looking for a better weapon. No point in doing this on Siege.

3. The pvm on Siege; Other than to train skills and collect gold, what is the point? Collecting a bunch of items to take up house storage? I dunno, I'm not really into pvm anyways but it's even more boring and pointless on Siege.

4. The pvp on Siege; I mentioned this in another post. To many damn stealthers on that shard. The entire pvp scene remains me of yew/brit gate on production shards. 20 people fighting, but you can only see 5 of them. Also due to the way things are set up it is completely imbalanced. I'm over there in GM armor and I got some guy shooting me with an ML bow hitting me for 40 points a pop. The best thing they could do for that shard would be to remove every property from every item.

5. No one plays there; This is of course a catch 22, How do you get more people to play and stay there when they come there and are lucky to see 4 people all day. Also people talk about the great community on Siege, I have yet to see it. The majority of the die-hards playing on Siege have 2+ accounts so they don't rely on anyone else, just like production shards, they just have to eat the extra cost of having multiple accounts. And of course for that honor of paying more than the average production shard player, their shard is completely ignored by the Dev team.


I still hold onto my house at the top of Destard mountain and my 2 chars just in case I feel like returning.

 

[UncleSham]

ok ill post . recently iv been trying to train some guys up on siege.
my first challenge was aquiring the needed scolls. that has been managable . the biggest problem ive had is dealing with a gain system that , in reality , was never designed for 120s . this DOES need to be adjusted . as it works ROT really isnt all that bad its just it runs out too fast . the dayly caps need to be increased dramaticly . personnaly im willing to put in the time . its just after so long i dont gain AT ALL .

some folks simply arent willing to put that much time into building . but even if they do , the dayly limits wont let them. the time between gains should be decreased . the average player isnt going to come here with gains that infrequent . but i think the main thing should be to increase the dayly totals or remove that total cap completely so that if someone IS willing to put in the time , they can get results .

the main thing i enjoy about siege is the challenge . higher proces . no recall no trammel . its all good . but revamping the rot system isnt going to hurt the overall challenge that much and i think it would help the population problem greatly.

i see folks come in freequently. they join NEW get their characters going well , start talkin to us about joining the alliance, and then ROT kicks in in force and they go @$%! this , and we never see them again.

its kinda sad where poeple can live thru the chalenges that are siege on a dayly basis . only to have a game mechanic kill them off when they start hittin the upper restrictions of rot.

i think it was a bad idea to split the world in the first place . here on siege there is no trammel / fel split . good or bad we must all live together . this i believe is how it should be . we need more poeple here to enjoy this. ROT is the main restriction to this . how about a little love?

 

[Blind Otto]

*dusts off old suggestion*

I may sound like a stuck record, but I still think this is a good idea:

Mentors.

Allow someone who has attained GM or higher in a skill to take on an apprentice.

If that apprentice trains a given skill within line-of-sight of his mentor, it has the same effect as an alacrity scroll for the apprentice, and allows the mentor to gain in one of the unused virtues. (or some other reward, whatever folks feel is appropriate)

The benefits are simple enough. A trainee benefits from interaction with a more experienced player. The experienced player gains
a reward from training the apprentice. RoT ceases to be so much of an issue.

 

[Masumatek]

I would get a jiggly avatar if I thought it would help. *chuckles*

Waits patiently

I will state for the record that I like RoT and do not want to see it removed. I just want to see it changed to reflect the skill levels brought with power scrolls.

Personally RoT had nothing to do with my decision to stop playing on Siege. I think Siege's problems extend far beyond having to take an extra month or 2 to train a char.

Take this as constructive criticism and as usual it only reflects my opinion.


1. Right from the start Siege should be an option on the shard menu with a small disclaimer letting people know it is a different type of shard. Many people get settled on their home shard, which is usually the shard they started on and do not feel like leaving friends, houses, etc to move permanently to Siege.

2. Suit building; It's boring, once you have your own crafter dying means nothing more than going to your bank or house and putting on your next set of GM armor. Some people may hate item properties, but I for one spend hours tweaking my suit and looking for a better weapon. No point in doing this on Siege.

3. The pvm on Siege; Other than to train skills and collect gold, what is the point? Collecting a bunch of items to take up house storage? I dunno, I'm not really into pvm anyways but it's even more boring and pointless on Siege.

4. The pvp on Siege; I mentioned this in another post. To many damn stealthers on that shard. The entire pvp scene remains me of yew/brit gate on production shards. 20 people fighting, but you can only see 5 of them. Also due to the way things are set up it is completely imbalanced. I'm over there in GM armor and I got some guy shooting me with an ML bow hitting me for 40 points a pop. The best thing they could do for that shard would be to remove every property from every item.

5. No one plays there; This is of course a catch 22, How do you get more people to play and stay there when they come there and are lucky to see 4 people all day. Also people talk about the great community on Siege, I have yet to see it. The majority of the die-hards playing on Siege have 2+ accounts so they don't rely on anyone else, just like production shards, they just have to eat the extra cost of having multiple accounts. And of course for that honor of paying more than the average production shard player, their shard is completely ignored by the Dev team.


I still hold onto my house at the top of Destard mountain and my 2 chars just in case I feel like returning.

You are mistaken about much of Siege, Colter.

"1": Yes, I agree it would help if Siege was made obvious to everyone right from the start with a description of what it is. I think plenty of people who are new to UO would go there because they prefer the tougher life. This is certainly something we need. However, a ROT change is far more important at this time.

"2": I disagree. First: I think it's a shame this game is item-based and I don't understand the people who find fun in building some suit of items. But I guess you disagree. Second, just to point something out: Siege only has one character per account, so no one has their own crafter...which is good for Siege. Third, and something I find very unfortunate but you will probably take great interest in: Siege is heavily item-based. It's no longer about throwing on gm armor some crap jewls and rushing back out to fight. Sure, certainly plenty of people still do this. But they are at a great disadvantage. items have taken over Siege. Increasingly buffed loot systems, events, runic changes, and other crap has infiltrated Siege just like every other shard. And just because Siege does not have insurance (actually it does: a one item insurance), does not mean people don't use the item crap. Throwaway runic gear and arties are used by many as well as good loot obtained through PvM or questing. So there's your item-building fun. I hate it. It doesn't belong on Siege. But if the thought that Siege isn't item-based is keeping you way, I suggest you come on over, because you are unfortunately mistaken.

"3": See my answer to 2. If you really want to compete you have to PvM/quest/craft. Or be better than most others and loot all their stuff. But monster loot isn't just house storage. It's used in this item-based game, even on Siege.

"4": Yes I agree...too many stealthers. I disagree with the very idea of stealthing but that's for another thread. And yes, the best thing to do would be to remove all item properties/cap them severely/whatever The whole item system needs a complete revamp. And yes, this item-based system makes PvP imbalanced. But that's how it is on every shard, not just on Siege.

"5": A ROT change would provide a major population boost. And certainly people leaving because of low population isn't going to help the population any, so stop leaving. And yes, many people have more than one account. And yes, this decreases player interaction and reliance on other members of the community. As do soulstones. However, player interaction, our economy, the community is still superior to other shards. Plenty of people only have one character. And while some have multiple characters, they don't have what other shard players have. As to our community, yes, I'll concur...it's a shadow of its former self and not what is promised. But it's still superior to that of other shards. We might have problems, but we don't have near the community-destroying problems other shards do.

 

[Petra Fyde]

There was a question at the last Town Hall about RoC, I believe there was mention of maybe something in publish 54. I'm waiting patiently to see whether that actually happens or if it gets pushed back some more.

Some people have a lot of misconceptions about Siege. If what is believed by many were true I'd have no place there. I can't pvp and don't enjoy trying. I'm just a crafter with the ability to accept deaths philosphically and have a personal code which acknowledges 'right of conquest'.
I do have a place, and I do enjoy playing there. I enjoy the challenges playing there presents which have nothing to do with pvp.

 

[aarons6]

i think the only thing that would be nice with siege would be able to place a house there and not have it effect the house you have on a main shard.

not having a house makes this game very hard to play.

you can do it on tc, so its in the code.

you can make it so your char has to be master in a skill to place a house.. not just everyone. that would help make sure that people that have houses really play there.

 

[Petra Fyde]

an interesting idea. I quite like that.

 

[archite666]

Indeed, this thread is going well, we should keep it up, I don't suppose the DEVs have temperary accounts on here do they?

I enjoy seeing people talk constructively about my home shard, quite nice. They asked a question at the last town hall? I was listening to it on the radio but it kept screwing up.

 

[Calibretto]

Most of us agree. ROT needs a change. Not totally removed, but a change is needed to get us up to date with powerscrolls.





Siege needs help!

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

*pops in*

...la

 

[Azural Kane]

This issue NEEDS to be addressed developers. Please stop ignoring your customers and community.

 

[Masumatek]

i think the only thing that would be nice with siege would be able to place a house there and not have it effect the house you have on a main shard.

not having a house makes this game very hard to play.

you can do it on tc, so its in the code.

you can make it so your char has to be master in a skill to place a house.. not just everyone. that would help make sure that people that have houses really play there.

That would be horrible for Siege. Even with the requirement that they need to be a master in a skill, that's not going to stop him. If you want to come to Siege and make a house, you'll have to dump the house on your own shard. And that's how it should be. Also, there is no requirement to have a house to play...you can live out of your bank or rent/borrow some storage space in someone else's house. And while many do complain that the reason they don't come to Siege is because they can't have a second house on it, many more complain about ROT...and ROT is something that can be changed without hurting Siege, whereas giving everyone a second house on Siege would be disastrous.

 

[Elfstone]

Most of us agree. ROT needs a change. Not totally removed, but a change is needed to get us up to date with powerscrolls.





Siege needs help!

Yes I agree. ROT needs a change on Siege !!! PLEASE !:gun:

 

[Masumatek]

Most of us agree. ROT needs a change. Not totally removed, but a change is needed to get us up to date with powerscrolls.

Bah, I'm tired of seeing these lines, sorry... but many, not all but many, of the people suggesting ROT needs an update to reflect the addition of powerscrolls, are the same people suggesting ROT needs a minor change, not a big change. ROT would need changed whether powerscrolls existed or not. And a big change to ROT is the only change we should consider. If we don't make it a big change, then we lose our primary reason for even changing it at all, which is population.

 

[Petra Fyde]

My point of view on that is rather different, and probably totally selfish.

I have one character on Siege. A crafter. Yet sometimes I don't want to play a crafter, I want to be a tamer, or a warrior, so I play my chars on Europa. I spend at least part of every day on both shards.

I have the time and interest to give to both shards. My one regret is that the vendors I have for selling my goods on Siege are not totally under my control. I've had to move them 3 times, replace them 4 times when the various house owners changed and the new 'owner' forgot to renew their contracts. Each time it happens it involves me in a full day of shunting the goods home for safe keeping, setting up new vendors then restocking and repricing. I keep my vendors full, it's an awful lot of work.

I would absolutely love the chance to have a 2nd small house where I could have my vendors without having to worry about what the house's owner may or may not do.

However my husband and I have characters on Europa that we've had for 8 years. We play there daily too, they need a home.

Nor is my husband willing to forsake our home on Siege to allow me to have a shop. He doesn't want a small shack in a battle zone, and that's what most Siege shops are.

If there was a possibility to have a restricted size 2nd house on a designated shard as a 'power up' purchase I'd buy one like a shot.

 

[Gwendar-SP]

Rot is so superior to the GGS that I don't understand why folks compain about it.

 

[HaHa]

There are so many good points in this thread by both Siege players and non Siege players. Hoepfully the devs will pay some attention to this thread instead of overlooking it and putting their efforts on pushing out the next expansion.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Rot is so superior to the GGS that I don't understand why folks compain about it.

Because they want to get their character up to 120x6 in 2 or 3 weeks...that's the beauty of the RoT system. It does keep the majority of the kiddies off the shard. They don't have any patience, nor are they willing to start out on the bottom wrung of the food chain...la

 

[Masumatek]

I completely disagree with you Rico. I'll post the same post that I did in the thread on the Siege forums.



Here's an excerpt from my post on ROT last year:


"2) They think ROT keeps away the “undesirable trouble makers,” the arses that we don’t want on our shard.

This is a very easy one to argue against. All you have to do is look around.

Does it look like our shard is filled with angels? No. Rezkilling/dry looting/crap talking/griefing is at an all time high. Honor is practically gone. Player justice is almost completely dead. Scammers/cheaters/exploiters are unchallenged and accepted into the community. And there is a far greater percentage of such people than there has been in the past. Undesirables roam freely throughout the land. The good people leave, and the few who do replace them, are often poor quality players.


But does it even make any sense for ROT in its current form to keep away the trouble makers (if you don’t want to take the time to open your eyes and see just how many we actually have)?
NO….it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Let’s think about it. The only way to arrive at the conclusion that ROT keeps away undesirables is by making a number of assumptions. People who argue this assume the following: Gamers who sit through ROT for 3-6+ months are the patient gamers. Older gamers are more patient than younger gamers. Older gamers are more mature than younger gamers. Their conclusion is that ROT “weeds out” the immature, younger games and only allows for mature, older gamers, or at least a majority of mature, older gamers.

Wooha…that’s a lot of assumptions right there. There are very many older gamers that are very immature and/or impatient just as there are a lot of younger gamers who are very mature and/or patient. Furthermore, the assumption that people who sit through 3-6+ months of training means they are the patient ones isn’t necessarily true. As an example, I myself am rather impatient in many ways and yet I sat through over six months of training. You have to consider all this. You can’t make the assumptions people opposing a major change to ROT do. But, so long as we’re on the topic of assumptions, you might find the following paragraph interesting.

Since we’re making assumptions, we can assume the following: Mature, older gamers have families. Mature, older gamers work more. Mature, older gamers have less time on their hands. Younger, immature gamers don’t have wives and children. Younger, immature gamers don’t work as much or don’t work at all. Younger, immature gamers have more time on their hands. So it can be concluded that ROT is not discouraging younger, immature players from playing on Siege, and in fact is discouraging older, mature gamers from playing on Siege since older, mature gamers have less time on their hands and skill training on Siege takes a long time to complete. How do you like that for assumptions? It goes both ways. And personally, I think the assumptions in this paragraph have more truth to them than the assumptions people who oppose a change to ROT make.

So…not only can you eliminate the “long training keeps away undesirables” argument simply by opening your eyes and looking at just how many undesirables we have, but thinking about it you can also conclude that we might have perhaps even the opposite of “long training keeping away undesirables” and long training is keeping away the quality people we want while leaving Siege open to the people we don’t."

 

[aarons6]

My point of view on that is rather different, and probably totally selfish.

I have one character on Siege. A crafter. Yet sometimes I don't want to play a crafter, I want to be a tamer, or a warrior, so I play my chars on Europa. I spend at least part of every day on both shards.

I have the time and interest to give to both shards. My one regret is that the vendors I have for selling my goods on Siege are not totally under my control. I've had to move them 3 times, replace them 4 times when the various house owners changed and the new 'owner' forgot to renew their contracts. Each time it happens it involves me in a full day of shunting the goods home for safe keeping, setting up new vendors then restocking and repricing. I keep my vendors full, it's an awful lot of work.

I would absolutely love the chance to have a 2nd small house where I could have my vendors without having to worry about what the house's owner may or may not do.

However my husband and I have characters on Europa that we've had for 8 years. We play there daily too, they need a home.

Nor is my husband willing to forsake our home on Siege to allow me to have a shop. He doesn't want a small shack in a battle zone, and that's what most Siege shops are.

If there was a possibility to have a restricted size 2nd house on a designated shard as a 'power up' purchase I'd buy one like a shot.

im for it, a 19.99 upgrade code that allows 2 houses on 1 acount on any shard would be a huge profit for this game.

 

[GoodGuy]

YA come on devs god damn how hard is it really for just one dude to get in there and change those dang rates on ROT

We were asked a LONG time ago about the Rot change, and its pretty obvious the CAP NEEDS TO GO UP, and the timer between gains NEEDS TO GO DOWN.

How hard can it really be to make these adjustments in game? DONT MAKE THIS TAKE 3 YEARS, do it soon within the next week dammit

 

[Chardonnay]

YA come on devs god damn how hard is it really for just one dude to get in there and change those dang rates on ROT

We were asked a LONG time ago about the Rot change, and its pretty obvious the CAP NEEDS TO GO UP, and the timer between gains NEEDS TO GO DOWN.

How hard can it really be to make these adjustments in game? DONT MAKE THIS TAKE 3 YEARS, do it soon within the next week dammit

Ever talked to EA's support line?Ya...

 

[Kat]

Because they want to get their character up to 120x6 in 2 or 3 weeks...that's the beauty of the RoT system. It does keep the majority of the kiddies off the shard. They don't have any patience, nor are they willing to start out on the bottom wrung of the food chain...la

QFT, but I still agree with others that Rot needs a few changes. A tweak to the timers would suffice, IMO.

 

[Masumatek]

Comeon Kat. I mean, what the heck? How can you guys seriously still be making this argument. The opposition's arguments are so riddled errors, are so silly and illogical, it's not funny. And this argument is probably the most ridiculous of them all. You deny what is right in front of your face. I'm seriously going to start losing respect for anyone still making these arguments very soon.

HOW can you come here and say ROT keeps off the undesirables? Last I checked, there wasn't a lot of progress being made for the blind people in video games. So unless you are one of those rare few blind persons who have the skills to actually play video games, you have NO excuse for talking like this.

OPEN your eyes. How can it not be painfully obvious that the quality of Siege's population has decline greatly. How can it not be obvious that a much greater percentage of our population is trash than used to be? We have a greater percentage of scammers, cheaters, trash talkers, dry looters, griefers, and just plain ol' jerks on this shard. Our community is nothing compared to what it once was. Player justice is dead. And on and on and on.

There comes a time when people have to admit they're wrong, and you and everyone else still making this argument are long past that time. The evidence is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. ROT does NOT keep away the undesirables, trouble maker kids, or whatever else you want to call them.

And even if you want to refuse to believe what is right in front of your face, as I have pointed out in a post in this thread and in many other threads over the great time we've been discussing this, your argument that ROT keeps away the undesirables is based on a number of questionable assumptions. And we can just as easily, as I described, make an argument for the exact opposite-that ROT caters more to the "trouble maker kids" as rico calls them and is discouraging the "mature adults" from playing on Siege.

GEEZE. I haven't said this this in a long time since more and more people seem to agree with me on this issue now, but: WAKE THE HECK UP.


And to repeat what I've also said again and again and again: If you don't support a major change to ROT, then you might as well just not support any change to it at all. A "tweak" to the timers? Some people are willing to accept a "tweak to the skill cap per day" too, but you're not even willing to do that? This is not something you "tweak." The primarily reason for changing ROT is to increase our population. And if you think that small changes and "tweaks" are going to accomplish that, you're dead wrong, and all you'll be doing in asking for such a change is wasting what precious dev time Siege is given. And if the devs do follow your advice, ignore mine and others, and do little "tweaks" to ROT, well then screw Siege, I'm gone...because such a change will be condemning Siege to death. Little changes aren't going to get us anywhere. What they will do is waste our chance. I very much doubt the devs are going to change ROT and then change it again. We're going to be stuck with whatever change they give us so we need to be damn sure we're not going to get any lousy worthless tweak that isn't going to accomplish anything.


Yah I know, it's just a video game and that was a really angry post. But we've been discussing this for so freaking long, I've showed you all how your arguments are so ridiculous time and time again, and now, when there is a hope that the devs might actually change ROT, we still have people not only suggesting small worthless changes, but saying ROT doesn't need changed at all. "WTH" sums it up. WAKE UP GUYS.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

WAKE UP GUYS.

heh! forgot something there ... like ... your numbers for change ...
put up your list ...
full on golem bashing rates ? faster ? higher(institute) "buyable" skills?
stuff a full range of alacrity scrolls in every monster from mongbat up? triple the rate/time for them too?

I mean ... Viva la Revolucion ! sounds cool and all ... but ... just what do you want to change? (yeah yeah ROT ... how much ??)

They're just numbers ... no harm in tossing out a few ...

PS ... ?? ""WTH" sums it up. WAKE UP GUYS." .... errr shouldn't that be : WUG .... instead of WTH
?

 

[Masumatek]

Lol. I tried posting it but my post was too long apparently. I dislike these new forums. I guess I'll have to break it up into three posts. The third post will be the actual change I suggest but I recommend reading it all if you have time.

 

[Masumatek]

ROT (skill training) and SIEGE: the TRUTH and the CURE

As most if not all of you are aware, skill training on Siege takes a very long time, a completely unnecessary amount of time. The system of Rate Over Time (ROT) starts when you reach 70 in a skill. It imposes a ridiculous daily skill gain cap on you as well as a long delay between skill gains. It is an utterly worthless system in its current state and definitely one of the biggest problems on Siege.

In this thread we will examine why skill training (the ROT system) on the Siege Perilous shard in its current state needs a major change. Strong reasons will be given to support this change, something vital for the prosperous future of Siege. The reasons given by those who oppose a major change to skill training will be analyzed and eliminated as logical arguments, leaving the opposition with nothing to do but admit that ROT in its current state indeed is horrible for Siege and must be changed. Finally, a change to skill training on Siege (ROT), one with which it will take much less time to complete a character, will be suggested.

This is going to be a long post, so I will color code it to help make it less confusing. In blue will be my arguments against ROT in its current state and why we should change it. In red will be my counter arguments to those given by people opposed to a major change to ROT. In black bold will be the suggested change to ROT. Some of the post will remain in the standard grey text, but it is not any less important than the colored text. The entire post is important and all if it should be read.



First, let it be clear just how long it takes to complete a fully trained character on Siege. A 7xGM (grand master skill level) character on Siege takes around 3 months to complete, fully trained. A 6x120 character on Siege takes around 4.5 months. This is a long, long time. That much should be obvious. But in reality does it only take 3 months for a 7xGM character or 4.5 for a 6x120 character? The above amounts of time assume the player logs in each and every day. They assume the player gets their maximum allowable gains each and every day. This length of time is for the power gamer, someone who logs in every day and plays long enough every day to get their max gains. For a normal player, that long, long time of training to complete a character on Siege suddenly becomes even longer. For a casual player, much much longer. It can quite easily take 6 months and in many cases much longer for someone to complete a character on Siege.

This amount of time to finish training a character is ridiculous. It should be considered ridiculous if it were on any shard, but it is especially so on Siege Perilous. Let us consider a few things.

Siege Perilous is a vet (veteran) shard. This means that almost every player on Siege is not coming to Siege new to UO; they are already vets to UO. They have already trained a character. Very likely, they have already trained many characters.

What is the primary function of training? Its primary function is to acquaint players with the skills they will be using. One can argue that on a normal shard where most players start off new to UO, it makes sense for training to take a longer time (though still not as long as training on Siege can take). This is because it can be argued that if someone spends a longer time training, they will be better acquainted with the skills they will be using, and that they simply shouldn’t be thrown into the world with trained skills they have no idea how to use.

However, we are not talking about servers where most players start off. We are talking about Siege Perilous, where barely any new players start off. Siege Perilous is, as already mentioned, a veteran shard. Players of Siege have trained many characters before. They have played many characters before with many different skills. They know how to train the skills. They know what the skills, abilities, and spells do. They know how to use them. They do NOT need to be put through a ridiculous amount of training to be acquainted with the skills they will be using; they already have been.

Now, do not be fooled. It is true that we could allow people on Siege to have a character in one day, but that is NOT in any way what I am suggesting. In this post, at the end, I will suggest what I believe and is believed by many to be a good compromise between an overnight character and one that takes an incredibly unnecessary amount of time to train. I will provide the exact details near the end of this post. For now it is sufficient to say that the amount of time I will be suggesting for a person to be able to fully train a character on Siege is around 3-4 weeks.


Now that we’ve covered why we don’t “need” to suffer through long training on Siege, let’s move on to exactly why long training is hurting Siege and preventing it from prospering. Let’s discuss a current issue, perhaps the biggest issue on Siege, one that the ROT system has an affect in causing and/or preventing its cure.

Population: All one has to do is look around. Siege’s population is extremely low. Why is population important? Well, this isn’t a single-player game. And it isn’t just any multi-player game either. It is an MMORPG. MMOG. Massively multiplayer online game. A strong, healthy population is perhaps the most important thing in most if not all mmo games, and certainly in Ultima Online, and even more so on Siege/Mugen than other shards. A healthy population is important because player interaction is important. Without it, why not just make it a single-player game? A healthy population is KEY to the fun level of Siege. This is low currently because the population is low. A healthy population is also essential to a strong community, and things that come of a strong community, such as player justice. Our community, though weirdly the best in UO, is but a shadow of its former self right now. Player justice is practically dead. A healthy population is perhaps even more important on Siege than normal shards, because much of what Siege Perilous is based on is risk and danger from other players, which decreases as population decreases. We could go on, but the point has been made: Siege’s population is very low. A healthy population is key to having fun in an MMO game, and especially in games like Siege Perilous.


There are many reasons people avoid playing on Siege. We must look at these reasons and see if there’s anything we can do to get some of these people to play here and make sure that whatever we do would not be in violation of the spirit of Siege.

Now, many of the causes of people not playing on Siege must remain. Changing some things so that these people come to Siege will only hurt Siege, even if its population increases. To name an obvious one: insurance. Many people don’t come to Siege because there isn’t full insurance. To name another: no trammel. Many people don’t come to Siege because there is no trammel. This is of NO consequence. To change these things…to add insurance/trammel/etc….will only hurt Siege, no matter how many people we gain from the change. Some people suggest a 2nd character on Siege will get them to play here. That too will hurt Siege. We can go on and on, but suffice to say that some things we just can’t change on Siege because it would be in violation of the spirit of Siege and no matter how many players we gained, it would be a bad change.

However, there are some aspects of Siege holding people back that we can change without violating the spirit of Siege. There are some things that are no more an essential part of Siege than having red apples are instead of green apples. ROT is one of these things. The amount of time it takes to train a character CAN be changed without hurting Siege.


So we’ve determined we don’t “need” ROT. We’ve determined it’s something that can be changed without hurting Siege. But why else should we change it?

Is ROT actually keeping the population of Siege low?

The answer is undeniably yes; ROT in its current state is absolutely keeping our population low. We can determine this in a few different ways. For one, we can think about it logically. If we do, we can conclude that obviously it makes sense that people would prefer to finish a character in a shorter amount of time than have to suffer through 3-6+ months of boring, pointless training. So the longer a person has to train a character on Siege, the less likely they are to come play it.

However, we have something more than just thinking about it. Time and time again we are told by many people that slow training is a big (and for many the biggest) reason they do not come to Siege. These people ARE interested in Siege. They aren’t the people that say “oh no insurance=me not coming.” These people are the ones interested in playing Siege, the ones who like the idea of Siege, not the ones who don’t come because it’s not trammel. But yet, these people interested in playing Siege for the great, unique, dangerous, risky place it is supposed to be with a better economy, more importance of crafters, a better community, and much more, do NOT come to Siege because one aspect of Siege is such a worthless pain that it keeps them away. What is it? ROT: Slow, boring, pointless training.

Though of course there are some who do come to Siege despite ROT. They come thinking they’ll still have fun on Siege. And a few do. But many find out they are wrong. Two major reasons a lot of new players to Siege (players who did start a character) give for leaving are ROT and a low population. BOTH of these can be fixed with a major change to ROT. If there is such a change, we will see many people coming to Siege (and staying) who otherwise would not come and do not stay because of ROT. And when this happens….when we get a lot of these people coming to Siege because skill training is faster…..then we will also get many others; the ones who don’t come to Siege because of a low population right now will come since its population will have greatly increased.

Many people consider Siege the “last stop” shard. It is not just for people who love UO but want something better. But it is also for people fed up with UO and about to quit. Instead of quitting, they have the option to come to Siege, a whole different game from the one they know from playing on normal shards. And yet, so many of these players do not come to Siege for their last stop. They just quit. Fed up with UO, they see no point in waiting so much time through training to see if they might like Siege. The few that do come…many of them also quit because of slow training, never having actually experienced Siege since they were stuck in training the whole time. I know there’s many people interested in Siege who stay on their normal shard because of ROT. But I question how many people who have quit UO would be on Siege right now if it weren’t for ROT. Siege might have had the healthiest population of any UO shard right now if it weren’t for our slow, pointless training.


There are a few other reasons for changing ROT:
Purchasing accounts: A further reason for a major ROT change is that skill training can already be completely avoided by those who purchase accounts. This undermines any reason the opposition can give for keeping skill training the way it is, when it can be completely avoided by purchasing the account of someone who has already done it for you.

Soulstones: A possible future soulstone nerf is another reason for a ROT change. The only good argument against nerfing soulstones is that skill training on Siege right now takes far too long and soulstones allow us to keep skills instead of spending a long time dropping, retraining, and repeating whenever we want to move on to a new template. However, with skill training sped up, this reason will no longer exist…and we can look to a future soulstone nerf on Siege.


ROT in its current state is completely unnecessary on Siege, a veteran shard. This pointless, long, boring training keeps people who are interested in Siege from making a character. It makes many who do come quit over being stuck in training for so long, before ever having really experienced Siege. A major change to ROT will increase our population greatly, something we desperately need on this slowly dying shard. Without this change, we may not see Siege alive much longer. If ROT is changed however, we could very well see a prosperous Siege with the healthiest population of any shard in UO. A major change to skill training on Siege (the ROT system) is vital to the future of Siege Perilous.

 

[Masumatek]

Let us now look at the arguments in opposition to a major change to ROT. What seems to be the two most cited reasons given by people who oppose a major change to ROT are the following:
1) They think it is hard.
2) They think it keeps away the undesirables that hurt our shard.

Both reasons are flawed.

1) They think ROT is hard.

People who say such things, that ROT is hard/difficult…are not understanding what those words really mean. They think because training on Siege takes a long time to complete, that it is hard. They think this is good because Siege is supposed to be the “hard shard.” They think because people have to sit through and time their skill gains every day for 3-5 months or because a casual player may take over 6 months to finish training on Siege, that training is hard.

They are wrong. Training on Siege is not anymore hard than making a million bandaids by cutting wool, getting yarn, and turning it into cloth, or sitting through hours upon hours of turning in bolts and gm made bows at a fletcher quester. It is easy. Very easy. It just takes a long time and is boring.

I can sit in my house and make clothes all day to gain in tailoring. I can go to the graveyard and sit by the fence and shoot the weak bone guys to gain tactics. I can put an LRC suit on and cast on myself all day. To use some real life examples: It can take me two hours to do a stack of dirty dishes. It can take me who knows how long to watch the complete, boring series of Star Trek: DS9 (TNG is far superior). These are just a few examples. Is any of it hard? Absolutely not.

Do I have to complete some difficult quest, challenge some evil tough monsters, explore some underwater cave filled with water pixies or whatever and find some magical blah item….to train? NO. Might some of that be hard? Possibly, but I don’t have to do any such thing. I just sit down and repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again.

At 70 skill I have to get a timer and time my gains every 5 minutes day after day after day. Then the time delay increases the higher I gain. Is this hard? Is it a CHALLENGE? NO. Is it a pain in the arse? You betcha.

Boring. Grind. Tedious. Long. Pain in the arse. Pointless. Etc. These are words to describe training on Siege. Where does hard/difficult/challenging fit in? Nowhere. People are confusing these words with long and boring. They are the not the same. Not at all. Training is not hard. It is long and boring. People need to stop mixing the words up.

If you care so much about training being hard…if you honestly think people should have to be really challenged before finishing their character, then there are options. You can ask the devs for instance to allow people to more easily train by PvMing ACTUAL monsters, the more challenging ones. You can ask the devs to allow people to train through PvP. But this would require a whole rework of almost every skill…because in order for this to happen, people in training (people with low skill level) must be able to compete with people with fully trained skills.

You can ask the devs to add in quests and force people to explore for items and fight challenging monsters, etc…to train. Make it more challenging. Make it more interesting. Is this the right way to go? Maybe, maybe not…but it will add some degree of challenge and make training a bit interesting.

Those are options to make training “harder” if it’s that important to you.

LONG AND BORING THOUGH……THAT DOES NOT MAKE TRAINING HARD. I hope you finally understand that.


2) They think ROT keeps away the “undesirable trouble makers,” the arses that we don’t want on our shard.

This is a very easy one to argue against. All you have to do is look around.

Does it look like our shard is filled with angels? No. Rezkilling/dry looting/crap talking/griefing is at an all time high. Honor is practically gone. Player justice is almost completely dead. Scammers/cheaters/exploiters are unchallenged and accepted into the community. And there is a far greater percentage of such people than there has been in the past. Undesirables roam freely throughout the land. The good people leave, and the few who do replace them, are often poor quality players.


But does it even make any sense for ROT in its current form to keep away the trouble makers (if you don’t want to take the time to open your eyes and see just how many we actually have)?
NO….it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Let’s think about it. The only way to arrive at the conclusion that ROT keeps away undesirables is by making a number of assumptions. People who argue this assume the following: Gamers who sit through ROT for 3-6+ months are the patient gamers. Older gamers are more patient than younger gamers. Older gamers are more mature than younger gamers. Their conclusion is that ROT “weeds out” the immature, younger games and only allows for mature, older gamers, or at least a majority of mature, older gamers.

Wooha…that’s a lot of assumptions right there. There are very many older gamers that are very immature and/or impatient just as there are a lot of younger gamers who are very mature and/or patient. Furthermore, the assumption that people who sit through 3-6+ months of training means they are the patient ones isn’t necessarily true. As an example, I myself am rather impatient in many ways and yet I stayed through over six months of training. You have to consider all this. You can’t make the assumptions people opposing a major change to ROT do. But, so long as we’re on the topic of assumptions, you might find the following paragraph interesting.

Since we’re making assumptions, we can assume the following: Mature, older gamers have families. Mature, older gamers work more. Mature, older gamers have less time on their hands. Younger, immature gamers don’t have wives and children. Younger, immature gamers don’t work as much or don’t work at all. Younger, immature gamers have more time on their hands. So it can be concluded that ROT is not discouraging younger, immature players from playing on Siege, and in fact is discouraging older, mature gamers from playing on Siege since older, mature gamers have less time on their hands and skill training on Siege takes a long time to complete. How do you like that for assumptions? It goes both ways. And personally, I think the assumptions in this paragraph have more truth to them than the assumptions people who oppose a change to ROT make.

So…not only can you eliminate the “long training keeps away undesirables” argument simply by opening your eyes and looking at just how many undesirables we have, but thinking about it you can also conclude that we might have perhaps even the opposite of “long training keeping away undesirables” and long training is keeping away the quality people we want while leaving Siege open to the people we don’t.



There are also some other, less-cited reasons people give for opposing a major change to ROT. As one of my goals in this post is to eliminate all resistance the opposition gives, I will also argue against these less-cited reasons, even though many of them are so ridiculous they don’t need anyone to say much against them.


-----Some say ROT allows new players to Siege time to adjust to the new ruleset and various differences on Siege, etc…”time to adjust.” Ok….so 3-4 weeks isn’t enough time to adjust? 30 days? Most people don’t need that amount of time to adjust to new changes...in game or irl. The only thing I need over 30 days to adjust to is changes in the television schedule for Star Trek.

New players to Siege, almost all of them, have at least some idea of what they’re getting into. With the exception of a rare few people that may randomly click Siege in the list, every new player to Siege is going to be becoming here for a reason….because it IS different. They aren’t just suddenly thrown into a land without any idea. They know there’s not full insurance on Siege, fel ruleset, etc…And the few that don’t? Well again, why shouldn’t a month be enough time to adjust? And why 3-6 months (the current time to train)? Why not two years? Who decided 3-6 months was needed to “adjust” to the Siege ruleset? Furthermore, who are we to tell new players to Siege how much time they need to adjust? If someone feels they need 3 months to adjust (really…how many people feel that way?…), they can put artificial limits on their skill gaining themselves and make that decision for themselves only. We need not punish everyone coming to Siege because a rare few people may need a billion months to adjust to the change.

I’ve spoken with many NEW (a guild for new players on Siege) and just new players in general and they certainly don’t feel they need so many months to adjust. They want to play the game. Logging in just to get skill gains isn’t playing the game. Many people just do that. Being unable to compete for 3-6+ months…depending on how often/long you play…that’s not truly playing the game, since you can’t compete. Many of these new players get bored in training and leave, never having experienced what Siege really is because they spent all their time in training.

These players do NOT have to relearn how to use the skills again. Training…what is its primary purpose? To get you accustomed to the skills you are training, as mentioned earlier. The people coming to Siege are VETS to the game. They already know what skills do what. Many if not most are also PvPers. They want to get into the action and compete. They don’t want to have to wait months just to play the game. So they don’t come to Siege or don’t stay on Siege long because they don’t feel they should have to be put through 3-6+ months of training (which they’ve already done…likely many, many times) just to get into the game.


-----Some people oppose a major ROT change because they think ROT is good for the “casual player.” It may seem so on the surface….This is because people are comparing ROT to trammel shard training, where some of the skills take many resources and a long time to train, whereas ROT allows them to get guaranteed gains with few resources.

However, though ROT may seem to cater to the casual player on the surface, in reality the exact opposite is true. ROT hurts the casual player. A casual player may not have time to get their max gains a day. A casual player isn’t going to be logging in every day. The casual player can be stuck in training far longer than other players because they aren’t playing as much. It can take 6 months and in many cases much longer for the “casual player” to finish training.

No, ROT is for the power gamers. It is good (well not really good…just less bad) for the people that log on and time their gains through the delays, getting their max gains a day. It is for the people that log on every day. And for those that want to avoid it, they can purchase accounts, which is something most casual players do not do. ROT certainly does NOT cater to the casual player. And people are in error in thinking it does simply by comparing its simpler, less resources training to a few skills on trammel shards.

Furthermore, people who cite this reason as one against a ROT change aren’t being specific as they should. There is absolutely no reason for them to oppose for instance a shortening of gain delay and an increase in the allowed gains per day. Their argument would have to be for opposing such things as a removal of ROT and reintroduction of trammel shard skill training system…Certainly NOT opposing a change to ROT to make it faster. Yet they lump it all into one and say “a ROT change is not good for the casual player,” which is completely wrong.


-----Another reason people give for opposing a major ROT change is that it “allows people time to get out and meet people” and therefore “builds community.” This argument is also flawed. Just how many people are going to finish getting their max gains per day and then say “I think I’ll go out and meet people now.” No, they go back to play their home shard, or do something else. Many, many, if not most new players to Siege are not getting out and meeting people. They are logging in to get their delay-timed gains, and logging back out. And once they get their max gains for the day, they simply log out since they aren’t anywhere near being able to compete…they still have many months to go. If you don’t believe me, the GM of NEW, our guild for new players, will tell you just this. And sometime during that training, many of them will leave, bored out of their minds and unable to compete because of a useless training system. This certainly isn’t “building community.” Also, why on Sosaria would new players need 3-6+ months to “meet” people and become a part of the community? It’s kind of silly to suggest such a thing…..


-----A further reason given for suffering through ROT is “proving you are committed to Siege.” This is one of the most ridiculous reasons yet. Why should people have to prove anything to us? Is not coming here to try it out demonstrating their interest? And if they stay, chances are they’re going drop their house on their home shard to build one on Siege. Now THAT is a HUGE commitment. And again, who decided 3-6 months shows their “commitment.” Why not force them to train for two years? What’s your reasoning for the current amount of time? A few weeks in training, unable to compete and fully play the game, should be more than enough for you “commitment” freaks.


-----Some even go so far as to claim ROT in its current state is basically “a large part of the heart of Siege.” They make the claim that ROT is what separates us from normal, trammel shards. They say that without ROT, we are just one step closer to becoming a “carebear server” and will continue on that path. This argument is also bogus. The very idea that someone can make the claim that long, boring training is what separates Siege from trammel shards makes me sad for Siege, for the people who say such a thing, who despite playing on Siege, really have no idea what Siege is about. Siege was NEVER meant to be about pointless training. Training has nothing to do with what Siege is about. Added risk? Yes. Increased danger from other players? Yes. More required player interaction? Yes. More reliance on crafters (one character per account)? Yes. And MUCH more. But NEVER about training. Training is NOT in ANY way what makes Siege Siege. Changing ROT will NOT in ANY way be in violation of the spirit of Siege.


-----Really, it sounds to me like many are just making excuses for ROT because they had to go through it and feel others should have to too. Which brings us to the final reason people give for keeping ROT the way it is: Selfishness. Some people are even brave enough to say it out loud. They think that because they had to suffer through 3-6+ months of boredom training their skills, everyone else who comes to Siege should have to suffer as well. This reason is complete garbage. And I have a feeling many people citing other reasons really feel this way too, at least in part…because they had to suffer through it, so the next guy should too. Well they should be ignored, because such selfishness is hurting Siege.


-----One last thing: Some people suggest a “minor” change to ROT. Make it take a few weeks less they say. Tweak the timers down a little they suggest. I’d like to point out that this would be a futile change. People who leave Siege or don’t come to Siege because of such long training times are NOT going to be satisfied with “ok....we changed it a little, come on over.” It would be pointless for ROT to be changed only a little. Siege is beyond minor changes and tweaks. We need the big ones….the ones that count…..the ones that will help, will accomplish something. We could see a large increase in population with a major change to ROT. We will not see this with a little tweak.


That covers the arguments against a major change to skill training on Siege. The most cited reasons people give for opposing a major ROT change have been defeated. The less cited reasons people give for opposing a major ROT change have been defeated. Many of them are so ridiculously silly I don’t know why anyone bothers mentioning them in the first place. But there it is. They are complete nonsense or at the most, weak. As you can see, the opposition’s arguments don’t even come close to comparing to those for why ROT in its current state is worthless and why we should change it. Skill training on Siege needs a major change and there is no good reason why we shouldn’t do it.

 

[Masumatek]

There are multiple solutions to the problem of ROT in its current state. Switching to the normal shard system is not what I’m suggesting. We need something completely new or to keep the basic ROT system with big changes to it. Some solutions may be better than others. However, some also would require a lot of time and resources to pursue.

The change I will suggest here is keeping the basic ROT system, but increasing the max gains per day and decreasing the delay between gains. Though I’m not a dev, I feel this will be easy to do and consume little time, while still being a good solution.


Just like with the ROT system we have now, skill gains 0-70 will be normal skill gaining. At 70 in a skill, ROT kicks in. What I’m suggesting is this:

Gain Delay: Decrease the delay between gains to a delay of one minute for skill points 70-120. This is a universal delay, unlike now. It will not matter what amount of skill you have, so long as it is above 70. This delay though, like now, will remain per skill. So if I gained in swords, I would have to wait a minute to gain in swords again. But like now, I can still gain in multiple skills at once since the delay is per skill. Decreasing the delay to one minute will shorten the amount of time it takes to get your gains for the day and it will mean that while people are getting the gains they are actually playing instead of doing this: *get gain, play another shard for 10 minutes or do something else for 10 minutes, log back in and get gain*, which is what many people do right now. A two minute delay might be fine too, but it shouldn’t be more than that.


Gain Cap: Max gains allowed per day for skills 70-120 is 10 full points (or 100 .1 gains) in all skills 70+ combined. This is a universal cap, unlike now. It will not matter what amount of skill you have, so long as it is above 70.

What this change means is that a 7xGM character will take 21 days to complete. A 6x120 character will take 30 days to complete. This is a good compromise between overnight or “instant” characters and the slow snail training we have now that takes many and possibly many, many, many months, to complete. I personally feel the new system can be a bit faster than 21-30 days. But some people do have a point…we don’t want it “too fast.” This change should satisfy those people AND most importantly the people who do not come to Siege or leave Siege because training takes too long. 21-30 days is over 3x as fast as the 3-4.5 months (though still a good amount of time and definitely not “too fast”). Our population will increase greatly. Hopefully this will eventually lead to a stable, healthy population and a prosperous, much more fun Siege Perilous.


Gain Storage: However, with the above suggestion, people who don’t log in every day (or don’t get their max gains in a day) can still take much longer to finish training, just as they can with the current system.

Because of this, I suggest a skill gain “reservoir” addition. If you can’t log in every day or don’t get your max gains, you will have a storage of extra skill gaining points for when you are able to log in and play. Now, this should not stack indefinitely. I am NOT suggesting if someone logs out for ten days they all of a sudden can use 110 skill points to train on the eleventh day. What I am suggesting is a small storage capped at 5-10, 10 probably being better, additional skill points to use in training.

Some examples of the skill storage addition I am suggesting:
1) I log in today and get my gains, but don’t log in tomorrow. The day after tomorrow I will have 20 points (10 stored + a normal 10) with which to gain in my skills above 70.
2) I log in today and get my gains. But now I don’t log in for another four days. The fifth day, I will still have only 20 points with which to gain in my skills above 70, since the storage is capped at 10 points.
3) If I log in today and only gain 5 points in my skills above 70 and then have to log off, tomorrow I will have 15 points with which to gain (the 5 I didn’t finish gaining from today + the normal 10 for tomorrow).

This skill storage addition will help shorten the training gap between power, normal, and casual gamers. It will encourage more casual gamers to come play and be willing to start fresh on Siege, people who might otherwise still be discouraged despite the increase in gains cap and shortening of the delay.

Now, I think this would be a very, very good and addition to the increase in skill gain cap per day and the decrease in the delay between skill gains. However, it is not essential to the change. The main part of this suggested solution, the increase in the skill gain cap and the decrease in the delay, should still be implemented regardless of whether or not this storage addition can be. However if it can be done and the devs are willing, I think this “reservoir” system should be an addition to the new ROT skill gaining system on Siege.


That about covers it. This change to ROT to speed up skill training so that a player can make a complete character in 3-4 weeks will definitely add a lot of players to Siege’s population and may just be enough, eventually, for Siege to once again have a very healthy population.




ROT in its current state is completely unnecessary on Siege, a veteran shard. This pointless, long, boring training keeps people who are interested in Siege from making a character. It makes many who do come quit over being stuck in training for so long, before ever having really experienced Siege. All arguments against changing ROT have been defeated. A major change to ROT such as the one suggested will increase our population greatly, something we desperately need on this slowly dying shard. Without this change, we may not see Siege alive much longer. If ROT is changed however, we could very well see a prosperous Siege with the healthiest population of any shard in UO. A major change to skill training (the ROT system) is vital to the future of Siege Perilous.

 

[FrejaSP]

I to will ask for changes to RoT. I won't use as many words as Masu rolleyes:

In short, alot players do start on Siege each month and many of them are very excited about the shard. (The ones who can handle dying to other players)

They stay active until they hit RoT, then they start to drop like flies.

I do not agree in dropping the timer to 1 min between gain all the way to 120 and I like the gain to be faster before 100 than from 100 to 120

My idea is
Changes the timer between gains to something like 1/2/5 mins for gain after 70/85/100.

And changes the daily cap cross skills to
12.0 max a day if skills are between 70-100, max 4.0 in each skill
6.0 max a day if skills are between 100-120, max 2.0 in each skill

That will give this for training 6 skills from 70 to 120:

15 days to get from 70 to100
20 days to get 1from 100 to20
35 days to get to from 70 to 120

7,5 days for one skill to from 70 to 100
10 days for one skill to get from 100 to120
17.5 ays for one skill to get from 70 to120

Anyway, as long we get a tweak to RoT, it will be fine and we need it now.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Does it look like our shard is filled with angels? No. Rezkilling/dry looting/crap talking/griefing is at an all time high.

An all time high for Siege, maybe but that would be a different conversation. Compared to any of the production shards though, not even close. That is the level I don't want to see on Siege. Sure some bad apples will get past the patience aspect of the RoT gate, but ya know what, it's never been rampant on Siege (kiddie play).

The other aspect I don't think you are looking at. You are looking a whole scale changes, do you honestly think something like that has a chance to get the time and human resources allocated to it for it to be "properly" implemented? Or do you think maybe if whole scale chance are made to the system, there is a better chance that it's done half assed and then thrown onto the shard, thus destroying everything that maybe left that we actually enjoy about the shard? if I base a decision on previous developer calls? I'm going to say the second option is more likely.

The suggestion I and other have made, should be able to be completed in less than a couple of days. Modify the values of the max gain ability in the code, and be done with it. The toughest part would be to determine exactly what the new values should be...la

 

[Chardonnay]

bump...

 

[Bennos Morales]

1) What are you suggesting? That ROT keeps us from being bored? Are you kidding me? It is the definition of boring for most people. You get to 70 and then you stop playing the game for awhile...or for a long long time if you're a casual player. Many if not most people when they train log in, get their gain, then log back out to wait for the next gain. Then when they've reached their cap for the day, assuming they do, they log back out for the day. That's not playing the game.

If constantly training characters keeps you entertained, then I say you have a very unique hobby. I won't even say the majority of people. I'll say almost everyone. That's how confident I am. Almost everyone hates long, boring training. If you like long, boring training because for some reason it keeps you playing the game, then I suggest you keep doing your long, boring training. A ROT change will not stop you from doing this if you wish. Get your gains, just don't get them all, and you can do the same thing you've been doing for years...Why hold Siege back because you enjoy long training?


2) To answer your question...What would change if ROT was changed? Population. Siege is dying. It's population is crap. Population is KEY in an MMO game. We desperately need more people. ROT is something that can be changed without a cost (changing ROT won't hurt Siege as would changing some other things such as only one character allowed per account). And a ROT change will probably bring in more people than any other change. A big change to ROT will mean a big population boost for us. I can't predict the future. I don't know if a big ROT change will bring our population to a fully healthy state. But there is certainly that chance. And I am positive that it will bring enough people in for Siege to be much more lively and fun.

No Mas, I'm not kidding..its funny that RoT becomes an issue when changes in the game are added...for instance the Tamer...lol..now everyone wants a Super Dragon so RoT now stands in your way. RoT will be brought up again when Treasure Hunting *cough cough* gets a boost, when everyone and his brother are training Cartogrophy, and even then you won't hear me crying about RoT. Go play the game instead of writing such lenghty comments, hell, I'll even do a map for you so you can get a gain or two.

As far as population, heh, not to sound pesimistic, but Siege has been this way since I started. It's not RoT that keeps them away, it is insurance. Siege's numbers, IMO, will always remain low. Not because of RoT though.

But, as Chard has mentioned....