PROPOSAL: Slight Change to Retiring Rules in Charter

CrimsonFlameWielder · Mar 13, 2012

Hey all,

I'd like to propose a slight change to the rules as the are currently shown in the Charter in regards to Retiring Characters.

As it currently stands, the reading of the charter rules states that if you retire a character, option A will allow you to create a new character at the same level as the retiring character.

However, as that is only allowing a new character of the same level, and not at the same XP, this leads to situations where either massive amounts of XP can and will be lost in the process, or, as is the strange case with my character, Vyrna, I would actually end up with MORE XP if I chose option B (which is to take half of the XP and store it) and then applied it to my new character. Vyrna currently has 2055 XP.

If I choose option A, then my new character would be shunted down to 1000 XP (the starting amount for a level 2 character). But if I choose option B, I would be able to store 1027 xp...which is actually more. Broken? I think so. If not broken, then certainly not the intention of these rules, I think.

My proposal is to allow XP to remain constant when using option A, since character character creation is highly moderated anyway, and chances of abuse are slim to none because of the approval system.

This proposal would not need to change option B, as it is still a viable option, should you want the XP to go somewhere else, and would still help to prevent multi-character XP caching.

What say you, oh Judges of color-worded power?

Luinnar · Mar 14, 2012

covaithe · Mar 14, 2012

I think YES. When we put that in originally, the idea was that there should be a (small) penalty for retiring, to prevent people from abusing it. But that just doesn't seem to be a problem here. If it turns into one, we can revisit this later, but for the moment I don't feel the need for a penalty.

Mewness · Mar 14, 2012

Actually, as someone who's been hit fairly severely by the retirement penalty several times, I think it should be kept. The fact that you end up with slightly more XP in a corner case isn't an example of brokenness. (If option B is actually better in this instance, go ahead and use it.) "Broken" would be somehow ending up with more than you started with.

covaithe · Mar 14, 2012

Mewness said:
Actually, as someone who's been hit fairly severely by the retirement penalty several times, I think it should be kept.

Can you expand on this, Mewness?

Dekana · Mar 14, 2012

I'm with Mewness. I like that there's at least some sort of penalty for retirement.

treex · Mar 15, 2012

Then apply a static deduction to exp. I don't mind a tiny penalty. Losing several thousand exp on the other hand is preposterous.

The problem that I can see is that the older members would be dissatisfied for what they've lost so far in the past. I can't think of any solution to refund lost exp that doesn't involve tons of backtracking, and might also spawn false reports.

EDIT: Oh, and I still prefer keeping the same XP amount. People can play around with new ideas easier.

Luinnar · Mar 15, 2012

If there is a penalty for retirement I think a set amount is a better idea, like 1 or 2 time months. With the current system the amount of xp you "lose" varies wildly depending on how close you are to the next level, so the amount it penalizes the player varies a lot as well.

Iron Sky · Mar 15, 2012

I prefer your new character having the same amount of XP as then there are no math edge cases to deal with. The annoyance of building a new template for your character on the wiki and trying to get it approved seems like enough of a penalty to me.

@Mewness , if I understand you correctly, your argument is "it sucked for me, so it wouldn't be fair if it didn't suck for everyone else?" I might be way off base on how I read that, but that seems like the best reason to change a rule rather than keep it.

And YES by the way.

Dekana · Mar 15, 2012

I like the penalty because I think it's better for the community to have some continuity in characters.

If we're going to get rid of the retirement penalty entirely, we might as well get rid of the death penalty also. There's no reason not to just make a new character if your PC dies.