What should we do about solo TT Cap?

[Atlantis]

You're STILL missing my point. LOL please take a close look at what I'm saying and realize that you're undermining your own argument rather than mine. And look at the polls again, it's flipping to my side rather than yours.

I completely understand your point i have read 4 pages of it. And there is not really a mine and your side. As i said i voted for you guys because it makes me no difference. But you need to take in what other people think and you will see both sides have a good point. I know you want freedom and so forth but maybe some people like that restriction.

Edit: btw your not winning in the polls FYI

[Silencer]

You're STILL missing my point. LOL please take a close look at what I'm saying and realize that you're undermining your own argument rather than mine. And look at the polls again, it's flipping to my side rather than yours.

I completely understand your point i have read 4 pages of it. And there is not really a mine and your side. As i said i voted for you guys because it makes me no difference. But you need to take in what other people think and you will see both sides have a good point. I know you want freedom and so forth but maybe some people like that restriction.

Edit: btw your not winning in the polls FYI

When I said that, it was neck to neck. Now the first option is up by 2. And even then, I still say my viewpoint is gaining traction. Read what I said about what is exclusive and inclusive and look at the polls. Here's the essential part. Tactic caps will piss off those who want to stay at 105 or lower. Removing tactic caps will have no impact on those who want to level and gain good tactics later on. If anything, they get to kill people who opted to stay low.

Oh, and you're going to have to read my edit on my previous post.

[Atlantis]

You're STILL missing my point. LOL please take a close look at what I'm saying and realize that you're undermining your own argument rather than mine. And look at the polls again, it's flipping to my side rather than yours.

I completely understand your point i have read 4 pages of it. And there is not really a mine and your side. As i said i voted for you guys because it makes me no difference. But you need to take in what other people think and you will see both sides have a good point. I know you want freedom and so forth but maybe some people like that restriction.

Edit: btw your not winning in the polls FYI

When I said that, it was neck to neck. Now the first option is up by 2. And even then, I still say my viewpoint is gaining traction. Read what I said about what is exclusive and inclusive and look at the polls. Here's the essential part. Tactic caps will piss off those who want to stay at 105 or lower. Removing tactic caps will have no impact on those who want to level and gain good tactics later on. If anything, they get to kill people who opted to stay low.

Oh, and you're going to have to read my edit on my previous post.

Man i hope after all this typing when the time comes your going to stay at 105. Witch you most likely wont do but heres your reply. I might i might not but atleast i'll have a choice.

Well the other side that is voting for the cap isnt just doing that because we want to lvl. they are doing that because they want you to lvl aswell. They dont want you to stay at 105 they want you to have to lvl so they can get a party a bit easier. Thats the entire point of this discussion. If there was 1,000 people who played this no one would care if you wanted to stand in a corner of a map and write in the dirt. But seeing as theres not and we need parties to lvl at a decent pace this is the option we have.

And i'll say it again thats THE ONLY reason a GM even made the cap in the first place. It wasnt to take away your freedom it was to make end game more fun and a bit easier to find parties.

Edit: I'm done with this converstaion i have no idea why i'm even debating this with you as i dont care either way.

[balzak]

not deffending any side but all the changes arent about to make ppl lvl up with tt cap or without it? so why should someone choose to stay at lvl 105? isnt that what gms are trying to avoid?

as far as i understood even if they take tt cap away lvling tt in higher lvl monsters and with party will be better then staying at lvl 105 and killing DBs and VD1 so if you choose to stay at lvl 105 it would be the same as choosing to be lvl 50 to wait get 100 tt right?

dont see why all the mimimi about wanting to stay at lvl 105... i can understand you wanting to keep lvling tt after tt cap (party) reach while you play solo but dont understand the argument about wanting to stay at lvl 105..

[Tensu]

Man i hope after all this typing when the time comes your going to stay at 105. Witch you most likely wont do but heres your reply. I might i might not but atleast i'll have a choice.

Well the other side that is voting for the cap isnt just doing that because we want to lvl. they are doing that because they want you to lvl aswell. They dont want you to stay at 105 they want you to have to lvl so they can get a party a bit easier. Thats the entire point of this discussion. If there was 1,000 people who played this no one would care if you wanted to stand in a corner of a map and write in the dirt. But seeing as theres not and we need parties to lvl at a decent pace this is the option we have.

And i'll say it again thats THE ONLY reason a GM even made the cap in the first place. It wasnt to take away your freedom it was to make end game more fun and a bit easier to find parties.

putting a tt cap doesn forces ppl to move on --> ppl dont get a choise of staying the same lvl anymore (even tho with the new system it would still be better to just lvl up while getting tt

and finding parties at high levels would be a bad argument seeing that there's low lvl's aswell and maybe new players who join in later but cant seem to find anyone to lvl with anymore

@balzak : there's reasons enough for ppl wanting to stay the same lvl for a little longer even when they reached maximum leechable tt for their... (some example of this are when u're hunting skins u might wanne be able to get tt while doing this OR ur friend is still much lower lvl then u so u wait for him to get around the same lvl so u can continiou lvling with him from then o, ...)

[balzak]

Man i hope after all this typing when the time comes your going to stay at 105. Witch you most likely wont do but heres your reply. I might i might not but atleast i'll have a choice.

Well the other side that is voting for the cap isnt just doing that because we want to lvl. they are doing that because they want you to lvl aswell. They dont want you to stay at 105 they want you to have to lvl so they can get a party a bit easier. Thats the entire point of this discussion. If there was 1,000 people who played this no one would care if you wanted to stand in a corner of a map and write in the dirt. But seeing as theres not and we need parties to lvl at a decent pace this is the option we have.

And i'll say it again thats THE ONLY reason a GM even made the cap in the first place. It wasnt to take away your freedom it was to make end game more fun and a bit easier to find parties.

putting a tt cap doesn forces ppl to move on --> ppl dont get a choise of staying the same lvl anymore (even tho with the new system it would still be better to just lvl up while getting tt
and finding parties at high levels would be a bad argument seeing that there's low lvl's aswell and maybe new players who join in later but cant seem to find anyone to lvl with anymore

new players will aways have this problem unless we get a good amount of new players constatly.. i think thats why they are doing a lot of quests for lvl up and get tts so even you dont find a party there will be a way to lvl up

[Atlantis]

Man i hope after all this typing when the time comes your going to stay at 105. Witch you most likely wont do but heres your reply. I might i might not but atleast i'll have a choice.

Well the other side that is voting for the cap isnt just doing that because we want to lvl. they are doing that because they want you to lvl aswell. They dont want you to stay at 105 they want you to have to lvl so they can get a party a bit easier. Thats the entire point of this discussion. If there was 1,000 people who played this no one would care if you wanted to stand in a corner of a map and write in the dirt. But seeing as theres not and we need parties to lvl at a decent pace this is the option we have.

And i'll say it again thats THE ONLY reason a GM even made the cap in the first place. It wasnt to take away your freedom it was to make end game more fun and a bit easier to find parties.

putting a tt cap doesn forces ppl to move on --> ppl dont get a choise of staying the same lvl anymore (even tho with the new system it would still be better to just lvl up while getting tt

and finding parties at high levels would be a bad argument seeing that there's low lvl's aswell and maybe new players who join in later but cant seem to find anyone to lvl with anymore

@balzak : there's reasons enough for ppl wanting to stay the same lvl for a little longer even when they reached maximum leechable tt for their... (some example of this are when u're hunting skins u might wanne be able to get tt while doing this OR ur friend is still much lower lvl then u so u wait for him to get around the same lvl so u can continiou lvling with him from then o, ...)

I understand man but its alot harder to find someone thats 120 then it is to find someone that is 80-105. Alot of people start new classes and what not all the time.

[Silencer]

And why must I be punished because other people want to have a party? Keep in mind, I'm not going to be staying at 105. It's illogical to stay at that level when I can get the same amount of tactics at higher levels. I'm arguing against tactic caps because it's illogical to have one. At best, it's a policy that is moot because most people will be leveling anyway, hence the tactic cap makes no sense. At worst, there will be people who wish to stay at a lower level for various reasons and they can't because of the tactic cap. As someone who is studying policymaking, it makes no sense to have such a policy (yes, tactic caps are a form of policy in the game).

If I was in the GM's position at this point, I would only implement a tactic cap if the VAST majority of the people WANT it. Heck, if I was the GM arguing against the tactic cap even before it was implemented, I would've flat out said no because it's unnecessary work when you're already giving incentives to level. It's like giving a really good tax break for hiring new workers, AND fining businesses for not hiring new workers. It's like offering financial aid to go to college AND putting everyone to jail if they don't go to college. If the incentive is good enough, then leave it at that instead of putting more work and implementing tactic caps. When you're pursuing new policies, it must have a substantial benefit in order to offset potential costs and unforeseen effects. That's called cost benefit analysis. The same can be applied to tactic caps. What are the benefits and what are the costs? There's almost no benefits with implementing tactic caps because the benefit is already accrued in the incentive. The cost is probably minimum, but as you can see, there are still a sizable amount of people who do not wish to be slapped with a penalty for wanting to stay at a lower level. AND there will be unforeseen effects that is not calculated. So you're basically putting in more work for little to no benefit.

And I'm still going to say take the poll with a grain of salt because the GM STILL didn't put in both sides of the argument. Start the poll over and discuss it with the other GM's please, so those who are advocating for removing tactic caps can actually put their own input in the post of the poll.

[Atlantis]

If I was in the GM's position at this point, I would only implement a tactic cap if the VAST majority of the people WANT it.

Last poll twice as many were for it over those that were not, Thats a vast majority. I understand if your talking like 5 people difference but your talking what was it 50 for it 25 against?

It might be illogical but its also illogical to fight for something that will not matter. I hope you guys get what you want but this doesnt even matter in the scale of things. So many other issues we need done to be messing around with this pointless one.

[Silencer]

If I was in the GM's position at this point, I would only implement a tactic cap if the VAST majority of the people WANT it.

Last poll twice as many were for it over those that were not, Thats a vast majority. I understand if your talking like 5 people difference but your talking what was it 50 for it 25 against?

It might be illogical but its also illogical to fight for something that will not matter. I hope you guys get what you want but this doesnt even matter in the scale of things. So many other issues we need done to be messing around with this pointless one.

So that's 25 people who will be pissed because they're forced to level. Versus almost no one pissed if tactic caps are not. And for something that doesn't matter that much, you sure are still in this topic right Atlantis? And who said it won't matter? If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If it's fixed already, don't try to fix it more. And like I said, polls are flawed because the GM decided to be biased on one side over the other. So like I said, take it with a grain of salt.

Not that the GM will take it, but I can whip up a post that will list both sides of the argument without being viewed as biased on one side or the other.

Poll option

1. Implement cap on tactics
2. Do not implement a cap on tactics
3. Do not implement a cap on tactics, but take out -%

This poll is taken to gauge the public's opinion on whether or not we should have a cap on the amount of tactics you may gain at any given level over 100. Please keep in mind, leveling areas outside DB/VD1 have been given a substantial boost to the experience and accessibility. The reasoning behind the cap on tactics and boosting the experience and accessibility to leveling areas outside DB/VD1 is because we do not wish to see players having to stay at 100-105 to gain good tactics. While the boost to experience and accessibility to areas outside DB/VD1 is not debatable (unless people don't want that...?), the cap on tactics is something we will be considering with the utmost care.

[Put in reasons why GMSignPainter wants tactic caps on]

It is also argued that tactic caps are an unnecessary punishment for those who wish to stay at 100-105 despite the advantages of leveling up. The goal has been achieved by boosting the experience and accessibility to areas outside DB/VD1, so therefore adding a punishment to staying at 100-105 is an unnecessary and potentially debilitating policy. Their main argument is that tactic caps gives no choice to players on how they wish to play their characters, while no cap on tactics gives players a choice on how they want to play their character. The boost on experience and accessibility on areas outside DB/VD1 diversifies the choice when in the old system (without boost to experience and accessibility), the only choice was to stay at 100-105 to gain max tactics.