(Created page with "{{Forumheader|Administration}} <!-- Please put your content under this paragraph. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> This post is to address two things: 1) …") |
(a reply) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
So, there is my proposal. I'd like comments on this. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC) |
So, there is my proposal. I'd like comments on this. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :Leziad pointed out to me that a lot of different endless money loops exist, and not all of them require being a wizard. With this fact in mind, I think any such loop should be avoided in discussing the balance of anything. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 19:35, 6 August 2010
This post is to address two things: 1) SGT issues. 2) Balance point issues in general.
I'm going to talk about the second point first. It's clear to me that we cannot go on like this with balance points. It's become way too polarized and too many feelings are being hurt. When we're talking about people who are doing stuff for fun, that's bad. That's really bad. At this point, I really think it would be better if the author just set the balance point and that was it. Their opinion could be changed through a reasonable argument, but they'd be the ones who have to change the point itself. That's not great, but I think it's better than authors getting pissed off. Which is, quite honestly, the last thing I want. The wiki survives at all through a flow of new contributions, and if authors get pissed off then that flow of new contributions dries up. So whatever we do, authors not getting pissed off needs to be the #1 point.
I think we're small enough and have reasonable enough people that this can work. If in the future it becomes clear that it doesn't, policy can be changed.
Now let me talk about #1. It's become clear over the past year (this is approaching our one year anniversary) that the SGT is a bit too generic when it comes to items. For this matter I propose the following item rule additions to the SGT:
- You get the Big Six, plus two sets of three spell potions each (as in, if you choose a spell you get three such potions).
- You can give up some element of the Big Six for an equivalent-cost item (lesser than or equal to).
This should deal with a lot of nagging item issues in the SGT.
So, there is my proposal. I'd like comments on this. Surgo 19:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Leziad pointed out to me that a lot of different endless money loops exist, and not all of them require being a wizard. With this fact in mind, I think any such loop should be avoided in discussing the balance of anything. Surgo 19:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)