This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 9:48 PM by kaZaam.

Thinking of implementation, it would be a lot simpler to have the discounts only valid for X amount of time, rather than having the discount decay by X amount per day.

but if it goes up for every use, how would that work exactly? think we'd have to make the buff just a static perk and not progressive if we go that way

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 9:58 PM by rtsmarty.

Thinking of implementation, it would be a lot simpler to have the discounts only valid for X amount of time, rather than having the discount decay by X amount per day.

but if it goes up for every use, how would that work exactly? think we'd have to make the buff just a static perk and not progressive for that to work

when calculating the cost of the spell you could just look back x amount of time and see "this person has used this spell x amount of times in that time, therefore it should cost (regular_cost * e^-x/100)"

(with rounding of course)

How about you just have a cap for the discount? No more than -30% or so.

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM by kaZaam.

when calculating the cost of the spell you could just look back x amount of time and see "this person has used this spell x amount of times in that time, therefore it should cost (regular_cost * e^-x/100)"

(with rounding of course)

ohhhh i get it. think i just read ur post wrong. idk i think the perk just disappearing entirely is a little rough. maybe after like a week or someth but idk i think i'd prefer something more incremental. makes it more consistent with how it works inversely.

How about you just have a cap for the discount? No more than -30% or so.

think thats a given eitherway

This post was last modified: Feb 10, 2017 at 10:41 AM by Mario. Edit Reason: deleted

[deleted]

oh fuck yeah thats a good idea

if the global discount the playerbase has accrued is ever to the point where it noticeably affects the metagame (it won't)

spells are very, very marginally more expensive for them.

I dunno according to this it only takes about 69 uses of a spell for it to be 50% of the cost. I don't think that's "very very marginal" and I don't think that 69 uses is a particularly unreachable number either. As well, as time goes on the discounts of experienced members will only get better, giving them more chance to use the spell and bring the cost down even more, i.e. after 69 uses it costs 50%, so you can use it twice as often. If you then use the same amount of EXP again, the cost is just 1/8th of what it should be.

Whether this is offset in any other way (I don't think it is) is beside the point I think. It's just not a fair system.

50% off most of the spells isn't a massive discount, and spending 13 XP instead of 25 XP for a spell that doesn't actually make it harder for new members to post really doesn't change the metagame and all, and if it does, there's no evidence to suggest that this meta would give advantage to old money players. it would only give advantage to skilled players because they'd receive more positive spells, which is what the metagame needs.

if you can manage to cast Frame That Sh*t 69 times then you're at the stage where 150 XP less to cast it isn't a significant difference. not to mention you're probably not going to have reduced the cost of a lot of other bread and butters if you main in Frame That Sh*t, which doesn't bode well for the majority of matchups.

old money players who actually stimulate the economy and spend their XP deserve to affect the metagame more. that's how capitalism works.

i think i'd like a system that increases the spell the more you use it but decreases the cost of spells you don't use to make them more tempting. this would encourage variety and make it more tempting for people who refuse to use salty spells to turn to the salt side

this is an interesting take on the idea. i'm not sure it would encourage variety too much though. would the incentive be so great that people would really want to spend their money on a spell that they didn't want to cast in the first place?

50% off most of the spells isn't a massive discount,

i'd say anything above 25% is quite a massive discount to be honest

there's no evidence to suggest that this meta would give advantage to old money players.

how are you defining advantage? using spells is part of the fun. being able to use more spells is an advantage in my book.

it would only give advantage to skilled players because they'd receive more positive spells, which is what the metagame needs.

why not just remove the cost altogether?

if you can manage to cast Frame That Sh*t 69 times then you're at the stage where 150 XP less to cast it isn't a significant difference.

or you've just been here a long time

This post was last modified: Sep 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM by kaZaam.

i think i'd like a system that increases the spell the more you use it but decreases the cost of spells you don't use to make them more tempting. this would encourage variety and make it more tempting for people who refuse to use salty spells to turn to the salt side

this is an interesting take on the idea. i'm not sure it would encourage variety too much though. would the incentive be so great that people would really want to spend their money on a spell that they didn't want to cast in the first place?

it prob wouldnt make a huge diff to them but itd atl give xtra incentive

This post was last modified: Sep 5, 2016 at 10:27 AM by God.

50% off most of the spells isn't a massive discount,

i'd say anything above 25% is quite a massive discount to be honest

if you think 6 XP is a big discount then i'm not really sure what to say. tier 1 players can easily get 50 XP with a click of their fingers.

there's no evidence to suggest that this meta would give advantage to old money players.

how are you defining advantage? using spells is part of the fun. being able to use more spells is an advantage in my book.

maybe for casual play or solo queuers the fun is in casting the spells. but for the more competitive posters, receiving spells is where the fun is. tier 1 players know that casting spells merely gives them a strategic advantage that forms co-operative bonds with players which they can then exploit at a later point. and like i said, if more players are casting spells, the playerbase's Gini coefficient increases (economic disparity decreases), so even if you define advantage as being able to use more spells, a 1% discount per spell cast would give that advantage to everyone, even if they have yet to accrue a significant discount.

it would only give advantage to skilled players because they'd receive more positive spells, which is what the metagame needs.

why not just remove the cost altogether?

this would accelerate the market too fast and negatively affect the metagame. there's a fine line between healthy consumerism and senseless hedonism, this idea of yours crosses that boundary.

if you can manage to cast Frame That Sh*t 69 times then you're at the stage where 150 XP less to cast it isn't a significant difference.

or you've just been here a long time

what's your point?

50% off most of the spells isn't a massive discount,

i'd say anything above 25% is quite a massive discount to be honest

if you think 6 XP is a big discount then i'm not really sure what to say. tier 1 players can easily get 50 XP with a click of their fingers.

6EXP is a big discount relative to 25EXP

there's no evidence to suggest that this meta would give advantage to old money players.

how are you defining advantage? using spells is part of the fun. being able to use more spells is an advantage in my book.

maybe for casual play or solo queuers the fun is in casting the spells. but for the more competitive posters, receiving spells is where the fun is. tier 1 players know that casting spells merely gives them a strategic advantage that forms co-operative bonds with players which they can then exploit at a later point. and like i said, if more players are casting spells, the playerbase's Gini coefficient increases (economic disparity decreases), so even if you define advantage as being able to use more spells, a 1% discount per spell cast would give that advantage to everyone, even if they have yet to accrue a significant discount.

you play your game your way and others will play in their way, i don't think that "more competitive posters" will necessarily play the game your way but time will tell

a 1% discount would give the advantage to everyone but again, it's a significant disadvantage to new players and a significant barrier to entry

it would only give advantage to skilled players because they'd receive more positive spells, which is what the metagame needs.

why not just remove the cost altogether?

this would accelerate the market too fast and negatively affect the metagame. there's a fine line between healthy consumerism and senseless hedonism, this idea of yours crosses that boundary.

i agree, it wasn't a serious idea. we seem to just disagree on the barrier. i think the barrier was crossed with the idea that allowed people to cast spells for < 50% of their initial cost

if you can manage to cast Frame That Sh*t 69 times then you're at the stage where 150 XP less to cast it isn't a significant difference.

or you've just been here a long time

what's your point?

the same it's been the whole time: it's a disadvantage to new players

well i think we're just going round in circles here. i don't really see how having a more stimulated economy can be seen as a disadvantage for new players. with my idea, spells cost X but they have more money to spend on X and X becomes cheaper over time. as it is, spells cost X and that's that, members with old money stay at the top and it's harder for new players to accrue XP.

you play your game your way and others will play in their way, i don't think that "more competitive posters" will necessarily play the game your way but time will tell

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little casual? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Shadow Administration, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on the old administration, and I have over 250 confirmed Good Sh*ts given to me. I am trained in thread warfare and I’m the top baiter in the entire Minus World Heel Roster. You are nothing to me but just another target for Word Siphon. I will wipe you the fuck out with experimental posting styles the likes of which has never been seen before on this forum, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Meta Forum? Think again, poster. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of Shadow Administrators across the world and your XP is being drained right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your XP Meter. You’re fucking on tilt, kid. I can post from anywhere, anytime, and I can set up a combo in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just without using my Blood meter. Not only am I extensively trained in skirting the Minus World Rules and Guidelines, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Spellbook and I will use it to its full extent to use Whoops! to wipe your anti-meta content off the face of the forum, you little casual. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking mouse. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn poster. I will post good content all over your screen and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Also, if the "Wizard" skill tree (Heavy spell user, penalized for not spellcasting all the time) is going to be a thing, I think this feature would sit nicely with them. If it's specific to a class, you could even make the feature more powerful.

This way, if you're playing a Magic Wielder (MWer), you're playing the slightly-long game, but you are still a positive force for the meta.

I like the idea of giving Wizards a discount for repeated Spells

well i think we're just going round in circles here. i don't really see how having a more stimulated economy can be seen as a disadvantage for new players. with my idea, spells cost X but they have more money to spend on X and X becomes cheaper over time. as it is, spells cost X and that's that, members with old money stay at the top and it's harder for new players to accrue XP.

I don't think old money is an issue. Everyone gains the same EXP for the same actions, and if a new player is unfairly bombarded by spells, they'll accrue a ton of knockback exp

well i think we're just going round in circles here. i don't really see how having a more stimulated economy can be seen as a disadvantage for new players. with my idea, spells cost X but they have more money to spend on X and X becomes cheaper over time. as it is, spells cost X and that's that, members with old money stay at the top and it's harder for new players to accrue XP.

I don't think old money is an issue. Everyone gains the same EXP for the same actions, and if a new player is unfairly bombarded by spells, they'll accrue a ton of knockback exp

i don't really get the relevance of this post. i never said that old money was an issue.

> as it is, spells cost X and that's that, members with old money stay at the top and it's harder for new players to accrue XP.

This is what I was referring to. I don't think the current system is flawed; EXP is just for Spells, and using Spells will grant the receiver an EXP bounty giving them more of an opportunity to strike back. So new users who attract a lot of attention will rise through the ranks quite easily, yknow?