View Full Version : Possible Changes to LoM pills (Poll included! :D)
Instead of suggesting one idea/whining/complaining/arguing/fighting, here's a few ideas I've had on LoM pills, which I'm suggesting. Please consider each before casting your vote.
1) Remove SI on LoMs only.
I can't really justify this on its own, but maybe someone can or would like to. But the SI is a pain.
2) Remove SI, double XP loss.
This is my preferred option. This replaces the down time of sitting on a bench, with down time hunting. Perhaps even longer hunting - swap 5 hours sitting on a bench for 10 hours or more spent out hunting to regain the XP. At least hunting is mentally stimulating.
3) Leave current LoMs, add a super LoM.
My suggestion for the super LoM would be 99% SI, loss of 3-5 levels, but every point in a skill removed. Not a main skill, just the chosen subskill.
4) Increase SI on LoMs.
I can't see a reason to do this, but I know some people out there would like to. Justify it here, and vote on it (but a vote with no justification to the argument is essentially trolling).
5) Leave LoMs as they are.
Some people are happy as they are.
6) Remove LoMs completely.
Again, please explain how you would justify this. I can't - the game changes too much, and imagine, monks being unable to level dex, nobody ever being able to keep their first char because the skills are always a mess, poison weapons being incredibly powerful because nobody can adjust their setups, a new tech rifle added for spies at TL 120 but none of them can use it because they haven't got enough tech combat...
7) Other idea...
Something I haven't thought of?
erm, i'm REALLY sorry - this is slightly off topic - but there's my post on the newbie forum concerning render hud invisible command - please someone help me with it...
NOW
i think loms should stay as they are... (just to go back on the topic)
Option 2, of course.
And anyone who votes remove should be forced to reroll all their capped chars.
JUST LEAVE THEM THE WAY THEY ARE.
They are not meant for lomming away a complete skill, they are there for TWEAKING.
Except for some monks, but i dont like hybrids anway, so they deserve to suffer. ;)
I just cant see the problem...
Mighty Max
04-03-04, 14:03
And anyone who votes remove should be forced to reroll all their capped chars.
Thats exactly what i do when i want to test a new char. But anyhow. I voted for leave it is at it is. I dont want to remove the toys you got, since i dont like mine to be removed. But i dont think you have to get this with no effort. (XP regain is joking easy)
- I voted Remove Sinaptic Imparement, double XP loss.
5 star thread.
Gulinborsti
04-03-04, 14:54
Remove SI, BUT remove a whole level and it's exp for each LOM
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
Remove SI, BUT remove a whole level and it's exp for each LOM
It takes much longer than 5 minuits to gain a level. The extra XP loss should be a replacement for the SI, nothing else.
Just automate them. As someone suggested in another thread, throw all you want to LOM in your process window and hit go.
Psyco Groupie
04-03-04, 15:09
Just remove the synap .. the exp loss is enough
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
Remove SI, BUT remove a whole level and it's exp for each LOM
i think your forum registration date is somewhat telling...
it seems to me that newer players will tend to be against such moves, whereas the old timers (myself included, i only registered recently for the forums cos i previously couldn't be arsed) tend to prefer either the status quo, or making things harder. that's all very well for the old timers, but you have to take newer players into consideration, i.e. those that do not want to spend all their time rerolling or starting from scratch again because they haven't actually played the game for years uncountable.
i voted to remove SI and leave XP loss the same. the upshot is the same - you lose levels no matter what. all you don't lose is massive amounts of time doing nothing - that's the only difference. double the price if we must, but don't make experimentation on the live servers (the place where it's meant to take place, NOT on the dang test server) be such a confounded timesink.
Psyco Groupie
04-03-04, 15:19
It gots nothing todo with how long you've been playing, If you play alot or have time ot play alot - your less against harsh LoM's but if you have less time to play or dont wanna spend your whole time loming if you feel like a change - you want less harsh LoM's
And before some 'brainport god' comes up with 'make it proporsional to the time you play, TIS PERFECT!!!111' .. no thats wouldn't work.
Just remove the synap so its not such a 'timesink' then tweak exp loss accordingly .. ir eally dont see why anyone would argue against that, unless they already have all characters / roles capped, in which case your opinion clearly isnt wnted because you have no use for LoM's
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
Remove SI, BUT remove a whole level and it's exp for each LOM
So what your saying is that if I have a fully capped droner with all dex in RCL if I want to make him pistol I should lose all my dex for the pleasure?
I dont care when you registered but your a nib.
If people couldnt lom they would get bored and leave and they dont want to have to start from scratch to try a new varient of a class.
Oh and I would vote for increasing lom cost and removing SI because we need money sinks not timesinks in this game.
Cruzbroker
04-03-04, 15:31
I think it should be around 20%.. (same xp loss)
The few levels you lose (when you are needed in something else and decide to change skill WOW) without SI doesn't effect that much on your new ability, so I think there should be some SI, like 20%, so you can't join right away..
Gulinborsti
04-03-04, 15:37
Originally posted by Mr_Snow
So what your saying is that if I have a fully capped droner with all dex in RCL if I want to make him pistol I should lose all my dex for the pleasure?
I dont care when you registered but your a nib.
If people couldnt lom they would get bored and leave and they dont want to have to start from scratch to try a new varient of a class.
Oh and I would vote for increasing lom cost and removing SI because we need money sinks not timesinks in this game.
You got it, that's exactly what I mean. I LOM(ed) a lot in the last 2 years ;) and I don't see a problem with it.
But I definitly don't see the point in allowing any characters to change their whole profession and skill setup each day. That's ridiculous and not the reason KK gave us the LOMs in the first !!!
LOMs need to have a trade off. Get this straight, nib ;)
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
You got it, that's exactly what I mean. I LOM(ed) a lot in the last 2 years ;) and I don't see a problem with it.
as i said - obviously you personally have time to burn, but i don't believe you speak for the majority of the community in this respect.
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
But I definitly don't see the point in allowing any characters to change their whole profession and skill setup each day.
a capped char would lose about half their total XP in a very few days if they tried to do this. what you suggest is just as impossible with or without SI, if we assume (which we do, did you read the thread?) that XP loss remains at least as before.
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
LOMs need to have a trade off. Get this straight, nib ;)
the tradeoff is XP loss. this is the tradeoff. you lose XP by lomming. lomming causes you to lose XP. is this now clear? have a care when using words like "nib".
Gulinborsti
04-03-04, 16:22
Originally posted by s0apy
as i said - obviously you personally have time to burn, but i don't believe you speak for the majority of the community in this respect.
No, it's all my opinion and I don't presume to talk for the NC community :rolleyes:. But I don't like people demanding changes of key features of the game only because they don't like it the way it is.
a capped char would lose about half their total XP in a very few days if they tried to do this. what you suggest is just as impossible with or without SI, if we assume (which we do, did you read the thread?) that XP loss remains at least as before.
Start from the scratch if you want to play a completely new char. But removing SI without introducing a major additional trade-off for LOMming will immediatley lead to heavy unbalancing exploits in the game.
the tradeoff is XP loss. this is the tradeoff. you lose XP by lomming. lomming causes you to lose XP.
see above
is this now clear? have a care when using words like "nib".
I didn't start this "nib" thingy. So keep this discussion on topic and don't start silly flame wars. Deal?
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
But removing SI without introducing a major additional trade-off for LOMming will immediatley lead to heavy unbalancing exploits in the game.
i fail to see how that's possible. XP is the only trade-off that currently exists with loms - the SI merely introduces a time-sink, it does not affect your ability to lom, or the consequences of lomming, in the slightest. the time-sink doesn't even need to affect the time it takes to lom, since someone with a scripting tool can sit back and do other things while he loms anyway. the time-sink is merely there to bore you to tears, it serves no balancing function that i can see other than testing folks' boredom threshold.
no - i cannot see any possible exploit that could result from making loms faster to use while keeping XP loss. losing XP is the only reason i don't lom more often, or use more than 2 or 3 loms at a time - that will be the case with or without SI. you're going to have to give an example in which loms could be exploited by merely being faster to use.
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
I didn't start this "nib" thingy. So keep this discussion on topic and don't start silly flame wars. Deal?
deal.
Promethius
04-03-04, 16:46
I Liked 2 of your ideas.
-Remove SI, double XP loss
Istead of spending 8 hours lomming you could spend it leveling.
-Super lom.
This just speeds up the proccess of lomming. And 99% SI is equivilent to about 2 loms. So if it took 3-5 lvls in the subskill its like taking 5 loms for the price (si/xp loss) of 2.
Not much of an improvement either way but still better than what we currently have.
-Prom
Gulinborsti
04-03-04, 16:50
The problem starts where people can give there chars a complete new skill setup within a very short time.
I agree with you that exp loss only would be enough, but by removing the SI only, for example a STR capped tank can easily take 15 or more LOMs without loosing a level. And without the "time sink" by the SI it would only take 1 minute to do a major change to your chars setup this way.
Imagine that:
A tanks armor is completely worn down. He buys some AGL LOMs, skills REP, repairs armor , LOMs away REP and builds AGL up again. At the moment he might loose 2, maybe 3 or 4 levels of DEX, which are gained fast enough under the circumstances that tanks do not neccessarily need their DEX capped.
I know this example doesn't really unbalance the game but you try this with HCK for spys or VHC or whatever skill.
I'm sure some smarta** will soon find a way to use this "featrue" to do something really annoying for some other players or the rest of the community.
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
Imagine that:
A tanks armor is completely worn down. He buys some AGL LOMs, skills REP, repairs armor , LOMs away REP and builds AGL up again. At the moment he might loose 2, maybe 3 or 4 levels of DEX, which are gained fast enough under the circumstances that tanks do not neccessarily need their DEX capped.
an interesting example, but i don't see it happening, and certainly wouldn't consider it an exploit. if it was armour less than a certain TL, it would be comparable in price to just buy brand new armour, as loms are still quite expensive. over a certain TL and he'd need to lom nearly all his DEX over to repair to ensure a good repair. if he was just going to spec repair equal to half the TL of the armour (the minimum necessary to do a repair), he'd get a shitty repair and again it wouldn't have been worth the bother.
finally, you can get most repairs done for the cost of a few loms by a decent tradeskiller anyway, so why bother with all that XP loss?
Originally posted by Gulinborsti
I know this example doesn't really unbalance the game but you try this with HCK for spys or VHC or whatever skill.
you can get enough VHC to drive some of the vehicles from just imps, so again no great imbalance. a DEX capped spy, PE or even tank would lose a significant amount of XP by lomming to a vehicle specced higher than that attainable from imps. again, not really a balance issue - you might do it once, but not whenever it suited you.
as for hack and INT capped (or near) spys, again i'd find it hard to believe a spy would be willing to lom out a huge amount of INT XP just to do a single hack of an OP - an OP that will be hacked back again long before he's had a chance to gain back that XP.
The whole point of adding SI was to make eating LOMs take a long time. Getting exp back does not take a long time. People can cap characters in less than a week which proves that exp is not hard to get by hunting, and its even easier to get by exploiting.
I believe that if you remove the SI on LOMs and increase the exp loss you will see an increase in exploiting (TH outdoor turrets for example) to gain exp quickly.
I also don't think that removing 1 level per LOM is a good solution either. This gives people the ability to drop their overall rank very quickly. This would allow them to reimplant an LE, get better drops/more cash from mobs, lower their rank to match someone elses for an epic kill, etc.
I vote for keeping LOMs as they are now.
All they need to do is half the Si and they will be perfect.
Remove Si, just have a bar that ticks down until next LoM can be taken.
Remove SI on loms? Nah....it will just be exploited like it was in the past.
Oh how soon everyone forgets WHY it was changed to 40% si in the first place....when LoM's gave no SI at all, there was 5 posts a day on these forums about it being cheap that players can go back and forth between const/barter/research/etc in less then 5 minutes.
Now you all want it back the way it was? Silly people....too late hte community already decided to put SI on them.
As for the no SI and double XP loss, that got my vote...I would rather spend a few hours after the fact getting my XP back then a few hours sitting around eating loms, bored off my sorry ass.
Either way, it should take some time and effort to LoM, but exping is generally more fun then sitting in a taylors biochem
Originally posted by g0rt
Remove SI on loms? Nah....it will just be exploited like it was in the past.
Oh how soon everyone forgets WHY it was changed to 40% si in the first place....when LoM's gave no SI at all, there was 5 posts a day on these forums about it being cheap that players can go back and forth between const/barter/research/etc in less then 5 minutes.
Now you all want it back the way it was? Silly people....too late hte community already decided to put SI on them.
As for the no SI and double XP loss, that got my vote...I would rather spend a few hours after the fact getting my XP back then a few hours sitting around eating loms, bored off my sorry ass.
Either way, it should take some time and effort to LoM, but exping is generally more fun then sitting in a taylors biochem
bad gort break my dreams. of not having SI :( i rather just hav the xp lost i just hate the waiting.
Originally posted by BombShell
bad gort break my dreams. of not having SI :( i rather just hav the xp lost i just hate the waiting.
Ya I agree with that. More fun in fighting mobs then sitting around in plaza eating a pill every 5 minutes :rolleyes:
But I would say theres a 1 in 5000 chance that KK will actually take it back to how it was, anyone that was around alot on the forums back then will tell you the same thing...we all demanded a form of lom-control, and we got it.
:p
option 7) remove SI and loss of skill points.
Zone the idea of removing SI only is just that, keeping the current XP loss the same. I didn't suggest removing SI and XP completely leaving LoMs like they used to be - that was as bad a situation as the current one. The problem is we've never had LoMs how they should be (IMO at least) - first there's no penalty and people LoM to hack OPs, LoM to go into graves with max poison resist, etc, then LoMs cause you to lose a level, as well as giving you 5 minutes of impairment, for each LoM. This caused outrage, not only because the loss of one level is very severe, but because we were told it wouldn't happen, and resulted in the name LoLs. Finally, that was fixed and replaced with an XP loss proportional to the current level of the main skill - the current LoM. This current incarnation is blessed with a wonderful timesink which does nothing to discourage anyone except those without much time available to play the game.
To those saying gaining XP back does not take a long time, please read my first post again. The idea is simply to exchange the long time you spend currently popping 50 LoM pills sat on a bench doing nothing else, with spending the same amount of time, if not more, out hunting and levelling.
Regarding LoMming on the spot to suit a situation, this is another reason why double XP loss will prevent it. Currently a player can manage roughly 10 LoMs when his main skill is capped. If a spy were to LoM enough points to hack an OP, he would require at least 10 LoMs, and likely several more. He then has to LoM that hack back out in order to return to his previous skill. If he does not, then he's keeping the HCK which is what the LoMs are for anyway. So he now loses another level to LoM back. Levelling back up from 98 to 100 in a main skill is a lot more work than it sounds, certainly a few of hours at a minimum. If he doesn't, then he'll soon find himself unable to use his PA, and unable to use heavy belts.
A Tank LoMming to rep would find himself moving slower and slower as the XP loss crept up on him. Considering the time needed to relevel that DEX, he is better off finding a repairer. If he leaves his DEX unleveled, then what does he do when his armor breaks again? Lose another 4 levels? Unlikely.
My idea.
each lom pill takes away one point in your skill
it causes no impairment but the xp reduction per lom pill is reduced by a half (so you would actually lose MORE xp overall but you can lom out almost instanly and sinks a good portion of money)
maybe increase pill cost.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.