Library of Treasures suggestions, anyone?

Both of which I am rather against, BP, and have tried to find workable solutions to change them into zelda-esque things. Doing something just because other things have been allowed is the sort of thing that will quickly delude the integrity of HC lore. Not saying I'd reject your phoenix but I'd have to see that it really does fit with Zelda.

On another note, coming out and saying "I HATE THIS SYSTEM" and throwing fire at Guy's face without any constructive criticism is the sort of thing we talked about before, it doesn't really help move things forward or fix the problems at hand. Suggestions on how to make it better is a better idea, with maybe your own well thought out tweaks to the system.

So... a freaking DRAGON would work but a slightly modified version of a CANON ENEMY wouldn't? ._.

I'm with Tsu about it being too expensive. However, I do like this system. My suggestion is keep it, but greatly reduce the prices. I do feel revamping mounts, vehicles and the likes is a good idea, but the prices need to be adjusted, and preferably lowered by quite a bit.

I never said Dragons would work, I said that I am trying to find a way to please those that want them while still making it fit. And I never said that your's wouldn't fit, I just said that it has to fit with Zelda, and if it does, then there isn't a question about it, is there?

In that case, Toko, *bows* I rest my case. I misread your post as saying there was by definition something wrong with my bird. My mistake.

To be entirely honest, nothing should be as expensive as like... 400 rupees, especially not a pet. NOBODY on HC has finished 8 main RP threads, I don't think. Thus people who have the intention to make a cool, unique mount are slapped across the face for it and told "Screw you. I hope you don't want it soon. You'd better RP fast because it'll take you 8 RPs with no other rewards to get it. And then you have to get the treasures for it separately." From how it looks, it more seems like an attempt to keep mounts moderately bland, attempting to dissuade people from making unique things. I already said how I think it should be gone about, but of you really insist on keeping it, make sure to lower the prices a LOT and clarify everything.

I'm on a 10-minute break at work and typing on a cell phone, so for now all I can say is: please stop demonizing me for trying to improve the system I made and we all use. I'll have to address other issues later tonight.

For now: The system, as I hope as everyone realizes, is an idea and not a law. I will seek to amend the problems it presently has, but at the same time, realize the sheer potency of some of the mounts mentioned in this thread... and compare them to the costs of other treasures at 3/3/3 PWC.

...Really, though, why do much hate every damn time?

If I may, I just want to point out that Guy toils endlessly at times to keep HC running, balanced, and innovative, and when he introduces a new idea in the SUGGESTION FORUM, instead of going, "Hmm, well, I've spotted a few problems here but may this change could work" (as Raz did and which I applaud) unread it is immediate "ZOMG YOU ARE RUNING EVERYTHING/TRYING TO MAKE IT PURPOSEFULLY BLAN/NOT UNIQUE/NO FUN." Guy has no obligation to do any of this. He does it so we can have the best damn Zelda RP site out there. So please, think about that next time you go on a witchhunt. I know its starting to tick of lots of people, my self included.

Lets not escalate things further, Jarin. We just need to remember to treat everyone with respect and give constructive criticism, not unhelpful criticism.

Now that everyone appears to have worked out their anger and stopped pointlessly raging and bashing on one another I would like to quietly and respectfully point out that my earlier post was entirely ignored.

That said my position is something like raz's. The system I could work with, but it's also rather easy to mess with and/or unclear, and as previously stated means that a mount must essentially adhere to the same rules a PC would use, which may clash with members' ideas, and force a mount to be inordinately, well, ordinary, when a mount itself is a treasure and should naturally be something above or at least different than normal.

Also, in case anyone, at all, is interested, the tl;dr version of my earlier post is that I was concerned about how rupee-related treasures would fit into a system that broke away from rupees to use XP. I suggested allowing a character to obtain 50 of any currency per rp, such as 20 Rupees and 30 XP. I further asked how the Dreamtwister and Marketplace, assuming they become reality, would incorporate this change, and if the two currencies (XP and Rupees) could be exchanged.

At any rate though, I would appreciate it if everyone at least attempted to keep their cool and acted like adults. Come on, guys, it really seems to be getting out of hand lately.

UND, I'm going to be writing a tutorial on the xp and currency Rupees and it actually works out pretty well. Yes, xp can be swapped into currency. The short of it is, when you complete a quest, you get 50 or whatever XP rupees that you can then spend, along with what currency rupees you have, on ONE treasure. (You would add the currency rupees if the treasure costed greater than your quest reward.) Then whatever rupees you have left go into your currency rupee stack and can be used in the marketplace, buying things form other members (professions) etc... But I'll write more in depth on it later.

Professions would still earn rupees (or profession points), not XP. Rupee-related treasures are to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but I can safely say most of them will still affect rupees as they always have. Rupees will still be usable on Marketplace, Dreamtwiser, and can be used for exceedingly expensive treasures.

For example, say a W3 character wants to earn Life--which would cost them a whopping 150 XP. A normal one-character, one-player quest earns them 50 XP. They could fill the remaining gap with 100 rupees. They could not, however, pay 150 rupees and use the XP for something else. Likewise, they could not earn three 50 XP treasures in this manner--rupees can only substitute for exceedingly expensive single treasures.

This is how the quest/rupee system has always worked, the only difference is that "quest rupees" are now called XP, whereas "currency rupees" are now simply rupees. In effect, nothing is changing in the rules as they are written--any perceived changes are due to miscommunications and misunderstandings. Those mistakes in of themselves are the main reason I am now attempting to make the distinction between XP and rupees.

Yes, he could do that.

The major distinction between the two is that XP are only temporary, and rupees can be permanent. You "earn" XP by completing a quest, dungeon, etc.--and immediately spend it on treasures, professions, or rupees as a result of that quest. In effect, XP is only an arbitrary measurement of what you can gain from a quest. Rupees, by contrast, can be saved, and expended at a later time.

When a character completes a quest, he can expend any XP not spent on treasures on PP (profession points) or rupees. This is done at a 1:1 ratio, so 20 unused XP could become 20 rupees (or 20 PP; or 10 PP and 10 rupees; etc.)

Rupees can only become XP for exceedingly expensive treasures, as stated previously.

At that last statement, I have often received "Why?" as a response. That is, why can rupees only be exchanged in that instance. The reasons are several fold:
1. It gives the illusion of more expensive treasures being more satisfying to earn, despite the fact that the system actually favors cheaper treasures.
2. It prevents saving to acquire many treasures in one quest thread. (This is easily exploitable with PWC changes and the Specialty treasure.)
3. It prevents saving up indefinitely until PWC changes make treasure acquisition more favorable--such as would result from PWC increases due to Regular promotion or especially Veteran promotion. Or, in the future, until the Dreamtwiser gives you a more favorable PWC change.
4. It encourages the acquisition of smaller treasures over larger treasures, as the prior is immediate whereas the latter requires patience. Because smaller treasures will presumably be more often chosen because of this, their prevalence again gives the illusion of larger treasures being more prestigious than they are.
5. Despite not appearing so, it makes XP intrinsically more valuable than rupees. Earning or giving away rupees (with Rupee Riches, contest rewards, Rupoors, etc.) is by more easily done than giving away XP (such as from Valiance, Magic Proficiency, and Martial Training).

...Thanks for reminding me that residences need to be touched on in the new LoT as well. (No, I would still assume the majority of residences are free.)

Even so, I'm not sure I'm following you. Players will invariably give rupee costs to treasures based on their XP (whereas NPCs might think of paying that many rupees for certain treasures and laugh at the idea). Are you suggesting certain treasures can only be literally purchased with rupees, and not with XP? Because... that actually seems like a rather novel idea. I would very much appreciate it if you could expand on that.

Thank you. You're usually very polite yet intelligent with your suggestions, and I appreciate that.

If a treasure gave you a loyal golem twice your size which carried you around and fly you through the air, breathed ice, was immune to ice damage, and was highly intelligent--enough to cast magic... how much would you expect to pay for that treasure? It does the job of at least half a dozen decent treasures in one package. I don't know why everyone seems to be assuming because simply because a treasure is a mount, it should be automatically so much cheaper.

On that note...

It's hard for me to respond to that without knowing the exact description of Luna. That said, the reason many staffers have been giving such low prices for extraordinary mounts is part of the reason I made this system--so it would be more uniform.

Still, let me break down the many jobs an "Intelligent, Speaking Ice Kagorok" could do--and no, I'm not implying this is exactly what your mount. It does the job of a communication treasure, a flight treasure, an ice breath treasure, among many others considering how versatile a creature can be, and--if it can take down a Moblin--must nearly double your combat strength constantly. This is all on top of the fact that it gives you effectively two characters, as each is capable of thinking and acting independently, although, presumably, one is always loyal to the other.

...Gaining all those abilities with a 3/3/3 PWC would take much longer than earning a single 300 XP treasure, wouldn't it? You seem to be suggesting that an exception be made for a mount treasure... because...?

I should say this in response to all of your posts here, as that could begin to represent a fraction of the sensation your "suggestion bin" posts tend to give me.

What I find most uncool is that you automatically assume no exceptions would be made. Despite you being the bitchiest, cruelest, least-deserving, most spiteful, and most dramatic member of HC in my eyes, I was still planning to allow you to have Luna at whatever cost another staffer agreed to give you even if this system passed as-is--so long as I could verify it with that staffer, and you agreed for it to occupy a major treasure slot.

The Mount system as I proposed it was a rough idea. And, again, this disagreement on a mount's cost is part of the reason I want to make the system more definitive. Once more, I don't know Masaro's full specifications, so I can't say. It all largely depends, but 45 rupees for a floating intelligent rock which casts magic independently of its owner and is still loyal to that owner seems absolutely ridiculous to me. But again, my hands are bound, and I wouldn't force you to pay more than what another staffer already agreed to without your consent. Depending upon its mount score, though, I would ask that you allow it to occupy a major treasure slot.

The system provides a static cost for standard mounts--but of course it varies if it's going to be a pony compared to a draft horse, or a barely-mobile N64 Dodongo compared to a boss-tier and nearly invincible LoZ Dodongo. To make it even more definitive, I could include them in the description for Mount.

That said, no matter how this system works out, I will not allow mount rupee costs to continue being determined solely by one staffer's arbitration. The complexity and uniqueness of one mount to another, and the unfairness that could result from an under-priced great moth and an overpriced talking squirrel demand a more robust and even-keeled system--whether that falls in line with my original suggestion or not.

All of my sigmas cannot sufficiently explain how -worthy this is. Just saying.

...Consider what would happen if Will gave you Masaro's price, and I gave you Masaro's price. Now consider you and Blondie both made nearly-identical Masaro mounts, where Will priced yours, and I priced hers. How would that be remotely fair?

Perhaps the prices truly should be cheaper if I am truly the only one who thinks otherwise, but surely you realize that is only a smaller facet of the larger system. Simply reducing the rate of cost increase compared to mount scores (which I'm beginning to think should be done) would fix all you've ever complained about.

Well, I might be able to get behind that. It shouldn't be too difficult to discern the means by which XP cost increases with Mount Score. Increasing exponentially functions very well (or so I like to believe), but perhaps it should nonetheless increase at a slower rate. What might you (or someone else) suggest?

Seems legit.

A major oversight on your part, and a major error on my part seems to have caused some confusion. All modifiers are cumulative. In effect, that +2 gives it flight, while further +2s increase its flight capabilities. And, indeed, Masaro would have a higher score than you estimate presumably due to that miscalculation.

(Coincidentally, "bumbling flight" is only +2 to counteract "flies with wings" -1. At the time, it perhaps erroneously seemed better than a +1 for "flies with means other than wings." I'll have to change that in the revision.)

Articulate speech was intended to mean being able to speak as you or I do. Something lesser than that should be taken on a case-by-case basis, with one-way-telepathy or only-understanding being arguably +0. Language of Fauna on behalf of the character wouldn't affect the mount's cost, but a mount with Language of Fauna would of course affect its cost.

...True, I hadn't consider that. Assuming this isn't entirely dead in the water, I'll be sure to fix that.

All modifiers stack. Considering a +4 in this nearly if not practically doubles an character's combat capabilities, that seems almost lenient--especially if prices are going to be reduced.

Mounts are more expensive intentionally, considering how they've been (mis)used since the original Library's creation. Even so, making them cheaper seems like it's going to happen regardless--it's just by a question of how much.

...I'll have to keep that in mind for the revision, I suppose. Of course, I'd like you to breakdown that one as well if you wouldn't mind.

...I'm sorry, were we in official business? Was this an announcement of a new goddamn law? No, wait, that's right, we're in the suggestion bin. You can't veto a suggestion.

I would appreciate it if others could remember that when I post here, I am a member making a suggestion. In that regard, I am no different from UnnamedDude. The only significant difference between us here, in this forum, is that I have the potential to make my own suggestions into rules. As far as I can remember of HC's history, I have aimed to avoid abusing that privilege. The constant insinuation and suggestion that those I consider my peers legitimately believe otherwise continues to be of great insult to me...

...and while it might be easy to bring me to anger, it is goddamn hard to insult me to this point.

... THANK YOU.

Indeed. I am forced to deal with spoiled brats all day at the theme park which will not be named. The last thing I desire, need, or am obligated to do, is come home and deal with even more of them on HC.

...That said, I will no longer acknowledge immature posts in the suggestion bin. This response was the final exception. Those who have been warned about being overly immature here only continue to be as they always have been with little or no change, even after hints, warnings, and whining from myself and others. It is no longer something I tolerate. I won't respond to anything with utterly lacks the respect I intend give it in return.

Call me selfish; see if I care.

Hmmm. I think the prices for 2, 3, 4, and 5 are fine. 6 is starting to get a little pricey, but still manageable. 7 and beyond is where I feel it goes wrong. Looking closely, I see how you got the later numbers, and understand what you were aiming for. My suggestion would be, rather than what you did, starting with 6 points, increase it by a set number (maybe 20?) for each extra point. Major ones will still be quite pricey, but at the same time it should hopefully still allow creativity in mounts. Plus, it will keep it realistic, so that nobody gets a ridiculously overpowered mount. Everything before, and including 6 points though, I see nothing wrong.

If I replace "maybe 20" with 30, that would look something like this...

(Modified) Mount Score Costs
2 or less: 20 XP
3: 30 XP
4: 50 XP
5: 80 XP
6: 110 XP
7: 140 XP
8: 170 XP
9: 200 XP ~ considered a major treasure from this point onwards.
10: 230 XP
11: 260 XP
12: 290 XP
13: 320 XP
14: 350 XP
15+: Consult a staffer.

...It admittedly feels a bit low in my opinion, especially considering a P5 character could afford a "motherfucking dragon" at 245 XP. That said, I'd like to see what others would think of this change.

EDIT: For comparison...

(Original) Mount Score Costs
2 or less: 20 XP
3: 30 XP
4: 50 XP
5: 80 XP
6: 120 XP
7: 170 XP
8: 230 XP
9: 300 XP ~ considered a major treasure from this point onwards.
10: 380 XP
11: 470 XP
12: 570 XP
13: 680 XP
14: 800 XP
15+: Consult a staffer.

This. I think there must be confusion or something, or perhaps because we've posted some things before here that later became part of HC everything things this is the staff posting "Oh hey, this is going to be law soon so start studying up on it." Its not, its all as Guy said, as staff we are also bringing our ideas to the table to get input back on. I find it funny that we get such negative remarks back, we don't do that to other members who post suggestions here. Its not like someone suggests something that the staff doesn't like and we come in and say "NO YOU ARE TRYING TO RUIN EVERYTHING STOP."

What we, as the staff ask, is that you treat us as you would yourselves when we post stuff here, and give actual helpful criticism instead of doing one of two things:

1- Saying something like "I hate this." And giving nothing else.

2- Flat out insulting ideas and their creators. Saying something like "this is ruining what I had planned to do for my character, not cool."

Perhaps you guys are not meaning to come across this way, but if thats the case then you really need to read through your posts before you post them and ask yourself if this is giving any constructive criticism, or is it more on the side of telling the person who brought the idea forward that they are stupid for even considering the thing.

First off, Guy: That's the best you can do? That's what I've been telling myself for the past five or six years. The only thing you've reached is that my friends are angry with you or even threatening to leave HC.

Anyway, to the point of this post, Imma go against Will's expectations and apologize publicly. I admit that my post was mostly whining and that I shouldn't have put it up; I should really think before I let my indignation get the better of me. I was in the wrong to do that, but I do agree with Tsu. No one should have to quest for ten RPs with a single character for a single treasure.

Regardless, I fully admit I was wrong. Sorry for the drama it caused.

Whatever I did, it seems to be effective. You could even say it was... super-effective.

If you mean your words, then I appreciate that.

I would normally agree, but, I feel that when a single treasure becomes capable of doubling (or "more than doubling" according to others), in addition to doing more than numerous other good treasures combined into one--that ceases to be by most definitions a standard, single treasure.

A mount as powerful as Luna (which for most purposes is an avian ice variant of a motherfucking dragon) is a swiss army knife of powerful treasures, especially if she has as much combat strength as I assume. Even the wyvern-rider among us is now admitting his mount was incredibly powerful (and Luna is several steps above that, even). 500 XP could arguably turn into "ten quests for one character," if that character has P3 and uses no means to reduce the XP cost.

...That said, SM and others in the cbox have agreed that my original system made mounts too expensive, while both my revamp and his make the upper limit of power a bit too inexpensive. 500 XP (or 350 XP for a P5 character) is beginning to seem like a good base cost for top-tier mounts.

Towards that end, I'd like to know what everyone thinks of this...

(Modified Again) Mount Score Costs
2 or less: 20 XP
3: 30 XP
4: 50 XP
5: 80 XP
6: 110 XP
7: 140 XP
8: 180 XP
9: 220 XP ~ considered a major treasure from this point onwards.
10: 260 XP
11: 300 XP
12: 350 XP
13: 400 XP
14: 450 XP
15+: Consult a staffer.

As I've said outside of this thread, 15+ is ridiculously powerful for a single treasure. In theory, it would begin to occupy two major treasure slots, and gain +60 XP with every score increment. That said, player mounts should only reach such heights in extreme cases (and yes, many player mounts currently borderline on such extreme cases).

Also: As I should have perhaps emphasized more in the original Mount posting, the system as I suggested it is intended to be a guideline. Certain mounts, like floating intelligent rocks, could prove to be legitimate exceptions to the normal mount scoring system, and should be taken up with a staffer as unique cases.

Thank you, Will, for your continuing support, your concern, your advice, and your continuing stance as the most level-headed among us... but I'm not going to continue forever fighting fire with water when it only leads to us getting burned yet again. I've tried fire, now, and that has been effective for the moment. In the future, as I've promised, I will add no more heat to any flames which sprout up. No, I won't walk away from my computer, but at the same time, I won't again wade headlong into flames when there is no need to do so.

Hurp.

A problem I seem to have is always having my ideas come off as overly complex or easily misunderstood. The complaints we occasionally get about quests/rupees/PWC evident this the most. Somewhat ironically, part of my intention with XP is to make things easier to understand. I mean, even regular members seem to be thinking they can just "buy" treasures if they have enough rupees, acquire multiple expensive treasures in one thread, or are assuming the library's current "prices" represent what one would spend on an open in-character market for an item.

...While it might make things slightly more convoluted in this moment, I hope in the long run it reduces the widespread confusion which already seems to exist. Is there anything you'd suggest to make it less convoluted?

1). I don't care if you think I'm a cruel, undeserving, dramatic bitch. I care that you've pissed my friends off and drove your most active member to possibly quitting HC. I hope you're happy with yourself. Not only that but it's not behavior fitting of a mod to personally attack someone whose response to your ideas is anything else than 'proceed with the plans, master'.

2). Luna is not the name of the Mount. It's the name of the character that is supposed to cough up the 200-300+ rupees for it.

3). Allow me to break down what the ice phoenix (Or Furnice or Ice Furnix, or however you want to call it) actually IS and CAN.

- It's a bird, similar to the Skyward Sword Furnix.
- It's big enough to carry Luna (the character) and Horus (her partner character) comfortably but no other people.
- Its talons aren't strong enough to do combat with, and using its beak puts its eyes in harm's way.
- It is resilient to cold.
- It can breathe ice, like a furnix can breathe fire.
- Without use of its wings, it's ground movement is abysmal.
- It is extremely weak to fire.
- it is extremely weak to mundane missiles, such as arrows.
- With that ice but not without it, its combat capability lies somewhere between Octorocs and Moblins.

Explain to me how, with weaknesses and limitations, it is the ice equivalent of a dragon. Besides, I see no accounting for such weaknesses in the system. You may want to consider adding that so people know they have the option of weakening their unique mounts so they become less overpowered and expensive.

EDIT: Other mods are free to appraise it.