Library of Treasures Poll

As some of you already know, adad created a new Library of Treasures format, and I've taken the liberty of filling it out manually. As I'm doing so, I'm fixing a few typos, clarifying this and that, and revamping the fields, among other changes. Ultimately, the final version will be laid at the mercy of the court before it's shoved in and made official. Once a final version of that has hammered out, the current intention is to introduce the new and final LoT, Dreamtwiser, the Marketplace (tentative), the Bank (tentative), and Racial Perks simultaneously in one big ol' update.

In the meantime, however, I'd like to know the community's opinion on several things:

#1: Should we keep UMTs (Unique Major Treasures) separate from normal Major Treasures, or not?
If we keep them separate, than players have the novelty of being able to earn specialized and powerful treasures they create that no one else can gain. The potential problem with this is that in a sense, it's "copyrighting" a treasure so no one else could use it. The problem with eliminating it is then no one could have a treasure they could forever claim as their own unique thing, which would be annoying if character (a) spent their entire life trying to master a spell, and character (b) just happened to learn it from some spell book.

#2: Should we revamp the mounts, or not?
This has already been touched on in another topic, part of which... I'd much rather forget ever happened... but nonetheless, it would help make mount pricing more fair and balanced between players, and compared to other treasures, once the system had its numerous kinks worked out.

#3: Should PWC costs be listed in ascending order, or descending order?
The current library lists PWC costs in descending order: that is, the highest (P5) is first, and it escalates to the lowest (P1). For whatever reason, adad has programmed them from the lowest (P1) escalating to the highest (P5). He seems to prefer that ascending method, and I seem to prefer the descending method... so... I'd like to know what others think, even if it's a rather minor thing.

If there's any other related matters which need discussion, those can of course be posted here as well.

Just a thought, but since not all of the "mounts" that can be made are actual mounts meaning that you can ride them around, could a different term be used that helps illustrate this? Perhaps, companions, or something? Though, that does insinuate like... Hylians and Gorons and such, idk, maybe non humanoid companions or "pets" or something.

I've thought on that before, but couldn't come up with a better title. If a suitable term can be found, I'm all for it. As you already said, though, Companions implies something else (especially considering core race Companions were a thing on HS), and one powerless, non-ride-able Pet is already free for a character. A mount is essentially intended to be a more capable pet, or an additional pet.

I figured it would be best to elaborate on my votes, so here goes. I'm relatively new to the site, so I apologize if my inexperience with the mechanics leads me to speak more of how things would work in theory than in actual practice.

1) (I voted for keeping UMTs and MTs separate): While I think it would be nice for all treasures to be available to everyone in the community, I think character-specific treasures can lead to more poignant moments of development. Also, there is some recourse in keeping UMTs separate, in that they can be obtained with permission from the original owner. Merging them all into one homogenous group, however, means that a person can indeed obtain what should be a life-changing treasure just by reading a book. I can't see a way to merge them AND retain a permission-obtaining process, since then those treasures would just be UMTs by another name.

2) (I voted for changing mounts, but with a different system): My vote here is a bit misleading. I'm mostly fine with Guy's system when it comes to extraordinary creatures, so long as it adds more modifiers, but I just think that "mundane" mounts (horses, camels, mules, whatever, so long as they are average for their species) should have a fixed price, maybe even independent of PWC. I remember one of the modifiers on Guy's suggestion increasing the cost for anything that wasn't a regular horse, and I thought that might be a bit silly for a desert dweller, for instance. Of course, the problem then becomes differentiating between mundane and extraordinary, but I hope that could be handled on an case-by-case basis.

3) (I voted for Descending): I find descending order more aesthetically pleasing, plus, people are more likely to look for treasures that compliment their PWC scores, so having high values at the top seems more practical.

-Descending Order, it looks nice.

-Guy's new Mount System, it's nice and once it's fully hammered out will be a handy system to have.

-Keep them seperate mainly because of certain abilities made Unique for the reason of fitting into the character's backstory, though the "copyright" issue does pose a problem that will need to be worked out. My best idea to deal with it is both a more stricter approval process for UMT along with perhaps an understanding that while the certain treasure may be unique, similiar treasures can still be made. Idk, it'll just have to be watched more closely to avoid dramatic issues that are sure to spring up (I can think of one such example).

Thanks to everyone for voting, and even more thanks to those who posted and gave their input. This gives me a very nice view of what everyone as a whole thinks is best for HC, especially considering each vote had practically a landslide victory. Needless to say, I'll make sure the winning votes have the say.

Hm, I think you're right. Vampirism would never have been so controversial, I imagine, if I wasn't the only one determining whether or not it passed... With the new library, I'll make sure at least two staffers are required to approve UMTs. (Other staffers I've talked with seem to agree with this.) Of course, a similar-but-different treasure is always an option--and I think even under current rules, the creator of a UMT can allow someone else to use it with permission.

Hm. I could get behind that. Maybe there could be a generic standard "Riding Mount" treasure, which could include a horse, camel, pony, mule, riding dog, or other mammilian creature sized for carrying one being of the user's size.

Aside from that, there could also be a generic "Combat Mount," which includes the likes of wolves and octoroks, which are mainly used for combat but likely wouldn't be able to consistently defeat a Moblin in 1v1.

The rest could then just use a revamped Versatile Mount major treasure, perhaps?

I've been thinking about this a bit more at work... "pets" doesn't work, "companions" doesn't work, "mounts" doesn't (really) work, "animals" doesn't work, "monsters" doesn't work... but what about "creatures"? Riding Creature? Combat Creature? Versatile Creature?

...Actually, that sounds kind of silly.

What about "Beast"? It's far from perfect, but I think works better than "monster", "creature", or "animal". "Steed" isn't altogether horrible either. But really, what's the problem with calling the treasure "Mount" anyway and just letting the players/characters call them whatever they want based on their role. That way we can take step back and say "It's good, go do your thing" and leave the title up to them (After all, sometimes "companion " is an appropriate title for a wolf or something).

I've made a second LoT poll, asking the userbase what would work best. Hopefully that will provide some answers. Sure, members are of course more than allowed to make treasures their own with something as superficial as name... but... there still needs to be a unified term to refer to them that everyone can understand. It seems all the more apparent how odd "Mount" seems, though, now that I know it even applies to a Kokiri's Fairy Companion.

Seems legit.

Hmm, yes, I believe you're right. Considering that, the most apparent plan would be to simply add a "Unique" field for the treasure, and add a little note about what being "unique" entails for a treasure in its description. Should be simple enough.