Aw, guess that means no level 69 Hedonist quirk for me ;-;
Oh, honey. That’s adorable.
In all seriousness, will there be any effort to lower those of us who happen to have Quirks well above 100?
Will there be storylets that would, say, reduce a Quirk by half so as to reduce long time player’s Quirks to more easily fit in line with those of newer players?
Oh, honey. That’s adorable.
In all seriousness, will there be any effort to lower those of us who happen to have Quirks well above 100?
Will there be storylets that would, say, reduce a Quirk by half so as to reduce long time player’s Quirks to more easily fit in line with those of newer players?[/quote]
But what would certain individuals have to be proud of, then?
Well Nigel, would you sacrifice 90% of your quirk, for a + quirk item or destiny or some such that latter got considered “fate locked”?
I’d let all mine be set to 0, for even a +1 heartless destiny.
I noticed earlier this week that the "I myself am my only true friend!" option on the Give a Gift opp card had changed a bit - the Hedonist requirement had increased to 8, but the option no longer required one to ‘spend’ five cp of the quirk. I’m guessing it’s related to this - whatever the case, I like it ^_^
[quote=Ben ]Well Nigel, would you sacrifice 90% of your quirk, for a + quirk item or destiny or some such that latter got considered "fate locked"?
I’d let all mine be set to 0, for even a +1 heartless destiny.[/quote]
I think I’m a rare case. I wouldn’t want to give up my stratospherical Hedonist stat for anything unless it was also a singular and unique item.
Presently, I have the highest Hedonist in the game. Narsci has the second highest by a LOT. The next highest is in the 40s.
To sacrifice that for an item anyone can get with Fate expenditure doesn’t seem worth it.
I would be more willing to sacrifice my Magnanimous of 41 or my Steadfast of 22.
That might be because I put not only a ridiculous amount of gameplay into my Hedonist score, but also a fair amount of roleplay as well.
Narsci and I started it with the "War of Hedonism" at the Feast of '90. The Romantic Egotist vs The Bohemian Epicene.
It was a lot of fun to use every action possible to gorge ourselves in the tents and wake up to see how much the other had caught up while we were sleeping.
We both kept the score on our mantelpieces because it was good sport and a friendly competition.
We also ran in the same RP circles on Lj and Twitter, so it was even more fun to roleplay the endless debauchery.
We kept the sport up far longer than we should have, finally coming to a gentleman’s agreement to stop around August.
To give up my high Hedonism score wouldn’t just be to give up a really high number in a videogame, it would deem all that inconsequential and this reminder I have of a fun rivalry with a brilliant friend would be erased.
I’d rather that not happen for all the goats in Overdom.
However, this game is not made just for me. I have to take into account the thousands of other players and, indeed, the future of the game if it isn’t receptive to new players; which I feel should be a top priority.
If having older players with crazy high stats greatly unbalances what is designed for upcoming Quirk content, then that’s just one of life’s inconveniences I have to accept.
I’d just like to know if such a thing is imminent.
[quote=Nigel Overstreet]
In all seriousness, will there be any effort to lower those of us who happen to have Quirks well above 100?
Will there be storylets that would, say, reduce a Quirk by half so as to reduce long time player’s Quirks to more easily fit in line with those of newer players?[/quote]
[quote=Chris Gardiner]
[color=#ff9900]We will not be resetting everyone’s quirks! If you’ve taken pride in increasing your Hedonist quality to Bacchanalian levels, fear not! Over time, high quirks are likely to trend downwards (although you’ll be able to maintain your preferred quirks with careful play) but we’re not going to snatch them away from you.[/color][color=#ff9900]
[/color]
[color=#ff9900] [/color][/quote]
You should be fine as long as you don’t do anything austere, and I’m guessing you have already been playing that way to avoid losing CP. I’m glad for this, it’s fun and interesting if people’s unique accomplishments are crazy goals they set for themselves rather than retired goodies that give massive benefits and are part of extensive sets of collectibles glares at Kingdom of Loathing
[quote=Chris Gardiner][color=#ff9900]Some responses![/color]
[color=#ff9900]<snipped>[/color][/quote]
This actually cleared up a lot. Cool.
Almost everything about this seems really promising and fun.
Although, now that it’s going to be hard to keep quirks up, it makes the constant quirk-decrease cards a bit of a bummer. And there are a buttload of quirk-decrease cards, effectively becoming trash cards if you want to keep even a reasonably high quirk (but your quirk-compatible cards are STILL trash cards because they won’t increase the quirk past 5).
Basically the card setup seem designed to encourage players to just avoid playing quite a wodge of them. Perhaps that’s intentional, though. I mean, it does have a certain amount of fictional justification; maybe a hedonist person should turn down an invite to a Church fete, and maybe an austere person would avoid the opportunity to buy drinks for Bohemian writers.
Would it be do-able to only trigger a quirk decrease if you actually get a commensurate quirk increase? I’m guessing probably not, but it can’t hurt to ask.
But it seems a little strange that it’s infinitely easier to decrease a quirk than to raise it. I mean, it doesn’t really map onto real life very well. I mean, to take the above example, if I’m the type of person who gets drunk with poets in bars, and also goes to Church events, …
…actually, hold that thought. Why not prevent quirks from decreasing on low-level cards if it’s higher than a certain level? Surely my hedonist threesomes aren’t up for fairly rapid emotional negation by simply attending Church events for profit reasons. (Actually, they’ve already been negated by going fishing, but, you know, IN THEORY.) Surely a sufficiently melancholic person isn’t going to magically become happy after a little bit of hanging out with urchins.
EDIT: Snipped overlong quote.
edited by thedeadlymoose on 10/26/2014
The thought of many cards becoming completely worthless, and downright dangerous to my heartlessness, is a touch worrysome, now that it’s been mentioned.
I see work ahead, quite a bit of it. I may have no idea how it’s going to end up, and it’s going to be painful while we’re halfway… I’m just going to have to … trust.
Pretend this is orange.
Nope! We know some people have made chasing particular quirks a point of pride. We don’t see a need to take those away. Hopefully the new structures will allow some fun competitions, too: first person to 5, 10, or 15. First person to get a combination of quirks to a certain level, etc.
Hedonist should be a straightforward one to maintain, too, because it’s so consistenly paired with Austere.
Expect those cards to see some changes. We will very rarely want players to spend quirks - it’s always been tricky to justify fictionally.
Exactly this. Austere and Hedonist are unusual in that they are antitheses. If you’re one, you’re not the other.
Would it be do-able to only trigger a quirk decrease if you actually get a commensurate quirk increase? I’m guessing probably not, but it can’t hurt to ask.
…then I’d say you ere neither notably austere nor hedonistic.
Most quirks don’t pair up like that, though. In one story you might be able to increase Ruthless at a cost of Steadfast; in another at a cost of Magnanimous. So there you’re spreading the reduction across multiple quirks, while focussing the increase in one. Another approach is to have one or more quirks you don’t care for. If a choice would increase Subtle and decrease Staedfast, and your Steadfast is at zero, your Subtle increase is effectively ‘free’.
We considered this, but it basically works as save points for each quirk, and would make it much, much easier to get multiple quirks into the top tier. If you want to be considered one of the most hedonistic people in London, now, you’re going to have to avoid dusty old church services. If you’ve got a quirk at 8-10, you are renowned for it. You’re considered an exemplar of it. It’s a big thing! And if you’re in that 11-15 bracket, people probably think you’re a bit crazy. That’s the Byron tier: mad, bad, and dangerous to know.
Absolutely! But they might after prolonged and consistent urchin-jollity, if they’re not taking other opportunities to write sad poems about daffodils. Each change to a quirk is fairly modest, now - the aim is to reflect the long-term trend of your behaviour.
[quote=Chris Gardiner][color=#ff9900]Hedonist should be a straightforward one to maintain, too, because it’s so consistenly paired with Austere.[/color][/quote]It certainly is: In order for the character to remain Hedonist, the player has to be Austere and eschew options that they otherwise would’ve enjoyed playing. And in the case where Scandal is involved it cuts both ways, because when options that remove Scandal gets tagged with Hedonist-reduction (like the recent change to Hide from those who would hound you) I’ll simply avoid the slightly Hedonist options that increase Scandal, thereby shrinking the gameplay to ‘safe’ options.
Though I guess my character shouldn’t really be such a Hedonist. It just happened to be one of the quirks that were easy to increase, and it’s also needed for that thing at the court, and I like keeping my options open. Possibilities are so much more fun that actualities.
Ah, that would resolve one of the issues I had with quirks, the way a major reduction tended to be paired with a slight increase with a low cap (Looking at you, Hunting Dangerous Beasts!) This was particularly annoying when I was new to the storyline, and wasn’t aware where each option would be relevant to a particular quirk, or how that option would be paired with another (see: Fishing). It’s usually obvious after the fact, but there are many paths that would be considered, say, Daring, that have little effect on that particular quirk.
So yeah, it did need re-adjustment, and I’m glad to see that you and everyone at FB care enough to bring it about. Cheers!
Perhaps what I’m really wondering about is the narrowing of options this means for players who enjoy the idea of quirks: it means more of the card deck gets dumped by necessity in the trash pile. (edit: though what actual percentage of the deck this is, I’m not sure; it may be smaller than it might seem.)
Perhaps that’s the point: to make choices more meaningful by decreasing the number you’ll want to take. Perhaps a person who does play too many cards should get a rather bland character, quirks-wise. Pick all the options, become a samey ambiguous person.
Although, I’d love to see more options like "You’re a complicated person. Let her have the cab. Pick her pocket on the way past" from one of my favorite early Fallen London cards.
Perhaps this might be how a clever player might get something like "Scarlet Saint" (high Hedonist/Austere) again in the future. (if that’s still a thing, maybe it’s not)
This! It’s honestly almost strange to me how much you care about your player base’s concerns, even the concerns of the tiny fraction who care enough to give feedback on the forums. Not what I expect to see, certainly. You all are pretty awesome. :D
[quote=Chris Gardiner]
We considered this, but it basically works as save points for each quirk, and would make it much, much easier to get multiple quirks into the top tier. If you want to be considered one of the most hedonistic people in London, now, you’re going to have to avoid dusty old church services. If you’ve got a quirk at 8-10, you are renowned for it. You’re considered an exemplar of it. It’s a big thing! And if you’re in that 11-15 bracket, people probably think you’re a bit crazy. That’s the Byron tier: mad, bad, and dangerous to know.[/quote]
Just want to say that I love this explanation and description.
[quote=Chris Gardiner]
Absolutely! But they might after prolonged and consistent urchin-jollity, if they’re not taking other opportunities to write sad poems about daffodils. Each change to a quirk is fairly modest, now - the aim is to reflect the long-term trend of your behaviour.[/quote]
Well, that’s the thing. Even if this sufficiently melancholic person takes other opportunities to write sad poems about daffodils, "melancholy hasn’t increased, because it’s higher than 4". Then again, perhaps those poems just can’t cut it anymore, and if they’re truly melancholic, they’ll have to go farther to counterbalance the effects of hanging out with the urchins. (Little fuckers. So jolly.) So I guess I’m answering my own question.
…Although, maybe you meant writing sad poems about daffodils is going to be the dangerous or resource-intensive way to get Melancholy to the 12+ range? Holy shit, that’s actually an amazing thought. THE MOST DANGEROUS POEMS. :D
EDITED: to replace an accidentally deleted quote, and to correct a possible misapprehension.
edited by thedeadlymoose on 10/27/2014
Quirks were indeed always a strange beast, with the potential of roleplaying but with the mechanisms of a standard characteristics to grind up.
Glad it’s going to change!
Agreed. They had to change somehow - their only real use before was people grinding them up for fun. Scrapping the existing system and implementing something consistent and fun, well, I’m all for that.
Awesome! Thanks, Flyte. :D
[quote=Flyte][color=#C2B280]If anyone comes across other branches that don’t seem to be behaving as they should, post here or send us an email and I’ll take a look.[/color][/quote]According to the wiki, Subtle methods on the card Bringing the revolution reduces Forceful by 5 CPs for a 1 CP increase in Subtle.
I think it’s a good change. I do have a concern that it could create an insensitive for people to always act on a certain quirk in fear of losing it. It’s mostly okay if there are repeatable options that take you back to the cap, but still. If it’s very hard to go up to 15 and very easy to go down, people would naturally avoid doing Forceful things when they have high Subtle.
Also last event we had actions that depended more on RNG than on our choice. You were in a boat fishing and if RNG gave you a Forceful way to catch fish you took it, because hey, RNG. You could maybe avoid draining one quirk, but there was no way to act consistently in character.
[quote=Fhoenix]I think it’s a good change. I do have a concern that it could create an insensitive for people to always act on a certain quirk in fear of losing it. It’s mostly okay if there are repeatable options that take you back to the cap, but still. If it’s very hard to go up to 15 and very easy to go down, people would naturally avoid doing Forceful things when they have high Subtle.
Also last event we had actions that depended more on RNG than on our choice. You were in a boat fishing and if RNG gave you a Forceful way to catch fish you took it, because hey, RNG. You could maybe avoid draining one quirk, but there was no way to act consistently in character.[/quote]
I feel like that’s the intent. Getting 15 in a quirk isn’t meant to be easy, and should be limiting. As Chris said, 11+ means your character is a little over the top in that regard. I expect most quirk-benefits will likely be in the 8-10 range at the highest, with the rare treat for 11+ as a reward for diligence. Players will have to decide what is more important to them, the quirk or the freedom, and that makes a lot of sense.
As for the fishing in the event, I think that was the dev’s way to "soft-reset" quirks in preparation for this change. I highly doubt we’ll see another situation like that in the future.