Forum Suggestions
I was of thinking of having a faceclaim archive? Theres people that use 2-d characters and drawings, but theres also people that use real-life people as their 'faceclaims', I find it a bit funny when I see two completely different people have the same profile picture, this could be played out in funny scenarios but also, I could see how it may be awkward and make people think stuff like "pfft I was the original Kristina Pemanova, why are there like, 5 other kristinas???". But anyhow, I was thinking that it may be helpful for some people if they want to have a unique faceclaim? So that everything is in one place, I saw this on another roleplaying site since almost everyone there basically used a real life person as a face claim and thought it was helpful lol
I’m back. Jay or Deplorable ooc. Owls open for threads.
I’m back. Jay or Deplorable ooc. Owls open for threads.
Forum Suggestions
I'm not 100% sure if this is a thing, but I was joking about applying to be a Ghost iNPC--but on reflection, I thought I'd propose it as a possibility on-site and just soundboard the idea. 
I think if the ghosts see restricted to one part of Hogwarts and used to encourage roleplay in those areas and foster interactions. They could be used for events or stirring up trouble like Peeves.
In my mind they wouldn't contribute to points if they were students when they died or provide any unfair leverage to the system. I think the existing iNPC account set up is perfect and could be repurposed for this.
Maybe the applications for this open up once a year on Halloween to allow for a staggered and organic intergration onto the site.
I just think it'd be neat from an immersion perspective, but I understand if it's not viable because it needs additional moderation.
I think if the ghosts see restricted to one part of Hogwarts and used to encourage roleplay in those areas and foster interactions. They could be used for events or stirring up trouble like Peeves.
In my mind they wouldn't contribute to points if they were students when they died or provide any unfair leverage to the system. I think the existing iNPC account set up is perfect and could be repurposed for this.
Maybe the applications for this open up once a year on Halloween to allow for a staggered and organic intergration onto the site.
I just think it'd be neat from an immersion perspective, but I understand if it's not viable because it needs additional moderation.
Forum Suggestions
We deliberately decided to not have a list of face claims as it would be unfair to many of our players. We have thousands of active accounts on Hio. Such lists can work for smaller sites, but our large players base would mean that had we introduced, all popular face claims would have been taken 2 years ago. It would also take a substantial amount of work to keep such a list updated, remove inactive players and add new ones etc.Jane Victoria wrote: 2 Oct 2020, 16:25 I was of thinking of having a faceclaim archive? Theres people that use 2-d characters and drawings, but theres also people that use real-life people as their 'faceclaims', I find it a bit funny when I see two completely different people have the same profile picture, this could be played out in funny scenarios but also, I could see how it may be awkward and make people think stuff like "pfft I was the original Kristina Pemanova, why are there like, 5 other kristinas???". But anyhow, I was thinking that it may be helpful for some people if they want to have a unique faceclaim?
The implementation of ghost NPCs was considered by staff multiple times. One reason for this is that if we were to introduce the canon ghosts there would be an issue with them staying true to their original character. You might see ghosts in the future, but they will most likely not appear as playable NPCs. This is reserved for students from other schools as of now.Quinn Smith wrote: 15 Oct 2020, 16:46 I'm not 100% sure if this is a thing, but I was joking about applying to be a Ghost iNPC--but on reflection, I thought I'd propose it as a possibility on-site and just soundboard the idea.
Cu ochii deschiși.
Forum Suggestions
I'm curious why players are allowed to pick a state value of 0. It doesn't make much sense for a character have a 0 stat.
If someone is extremely weak, they'd have 1 strength. They still have to lift their arms, no?
If someone is extremely unintelligent, they'd have 1 wisdom or intelligence. One could not function with 0 mental compacity.
With 0 evasion, could they not even move to walk?
I'm just baffled why there isn't a "minimum" when there is a "maximum" on the stat caps/restrictions.
If someone is extremely weak, they'd have 1 strength. They still have to lift their arms, no?
If someone is extremely unintelligent, they'd have 1 wisdom or intelligence. One could not function with 0 mental compacity.
With 0 evasion, could they not even move to walk?
I'm just baffled why there isn't a "minimum" when there is a "maximum" on the stat caps/restrictions.
Sta: 7 | Eva: 2 | Str: 8 | Wis: 11 | Arc: 10 | Acc: 17
Prodigal Charms | Advanced Casting | Spell Spread
Prodigal Charms | Advanced Casting | Spell Spread
Forum Suggestions
Actually, continuing what @Zykeal Lane has just suggested about stats, I was considering suggesting something about them too.
I understand very much that it's for the sake of fairness towards all players; but would it be possible that in the future, players may pick the total number of their characters' stats in range instead of a determined (no more than, no less than) 30 for special race/talent and 35 for a human? The same goes for characters of higher years, and some may overlap.
For instance: first years' stats can range from 30 to 40, second years' from 35 to 45, etc.
I'm merely suggesting because IRL we do meet people with different levels of skills, talents, and intelligence; and it isn't impossible for someone younger to master a certain skill that someone older doesn't (such as because they train harder), or sometimes we meet someone younger who just happened to be born with higher IQ than we. In the same grade too, some students need more time to study the topic other classmates already understand in one study session.
I understand very much that it's for the sake of fairness towards all players; but would it be possible that in the future, players may pick the total number of their characters' stats in range instead of a determined (no more than, no less than) 30 for special race/talent and 35 for a human? The same goes for characters of higher years, and some may overlap.
For instance: first years' stats can range from 30 to 40, second years' from 35 to 45, etc.
I'm merely suggesting because IRL we do meet people with different levels of skills, talents, and intelligence; and it isn't impossible for someone younger to master a certain skill that someone older doesn't (such as because they train harder), or sometimes we meet someone younger who just happened to be born with higher IQ than we. In the same grade too, some students need more time to study the topic other classmates already understand in one study session.
Forum Suggestions
Consider that every person has some strength/agility or whatever. The stat here would be something to stand out. Like 0 strength means that there's no particular strength in the person, not extreme things like not being able to lift arms. The "no 0 in stamina" rule is simply dictated by the mechanics of health, because it's calculating the core of health, unlike the other stats, which are only the addition.Zykeal Lane wrote: 20 Oct 2020, 01:54 I'm curious why players are allowed to pick a state value of 0. It doesn't make much sense for a character have a 0 stat.
If someone is extremely weak, they'd have 1 strength. They still have to lift their arms, no?
If someone is extremely unintelligent, they'd have 1 wisdom or intelligence. One could not function with 0 mental compacity.
With 0 evasion, could they not even move to walk?
I'm just baffled why there isn't a "minimum" when there is a "maximum" on the stat caps/restrictions.
Having just a maximum is easier than 2 controlled edges. Also, the maximum is to not make OP builds. Putting 0 in a stat is not that big of an advantage, so no need to control that part of the build.
Meenauh Silmataurea | STA: 9 | EVA: 10 | STR: 2 | WIS: 25 | ARC: 13 | ACC: 13
Forum Suggestions
The difference in people is already controlled by the different builds when you put points in different stats. The range is for the fairness of the mechanics as on average the first years are weaker than second years and etc. Also, a change to this would mean a huge overhaul for the existing playerbase with no clear benefit.Elisabeth Erner wrote: 20 Oct 2020, 09:18Actually, continuing what @Zykeal Lane has just suggested about stats, I was considering suggesting something about them too.
I understand very much that it's for the sake of fairness towards all players; but would it be possible that in the future, players may pick the total number of their characters' stats in range instead of a determined (no more than, no less than) 30 for special race/talent and 35 for a human? The same goes for characters of higher years, and some may overlap.
For instance: first years' stats can range from 30 to 40, second years' from 35 to 45, etc.
I'm merely suggesting because IRL we do meet people with different levels of skills, talents, and intelligence; and it isn't impossible for someone younger to master a certain skill that someone older doesn't (such as because they train harder), or sometimes we meet someone younger who just happened to be born with higher IQ than we. In the same grade too, some students need more time to study the topic other classmates already understand in one study session.
Meenauh Silmataurea | STA: 9 | EVA: 10 | STR: 2 | WIS: 25 | ARC: 13 | ACC: 13
Forum Suggestions
I was just going through abilities and had a thought when reading through non-verbal magic. The debuff- yes, but wouldn't it also make sense to decrease the opponents evasion when attacked with a non-verbal spell? Like, in a duel? Non-verbal seems like a possible tool for surprise attacks to me.
Just as a suggestion, I like thinking about scenarios like that
Just as a suggestion, I like thinking about scenarios like that
Forum Suggestions
The major aspect is game balance here. Not having a wand is useful in a number of scenarios and makes being disarmed an ineffective tactic. Having an increased chance to hit would mean a significant increase in the DC more than likely if we were to go with that recommendation. That said, those that work on the system will likely notice this and take your idea under advisement. =D
There is something about ambition, how it not only propels you but also defines you.
There is something about ambition, how it not only propels you but also defines you.
Forum Suggestions
I'm back with another suggestion!
I already dmed Professor Jemari about it, asking if it was already working that way, but as it is not, I'm suggesting it now.
It's about the new spell, the slippery jinx, which only can be used on brooms so far, I think? I feel like it could also be an amazing tool for duelling, one could cast it at the opponents wands for example. I didn't think a lot about details tbh, I guess it would kinda lower the popularity of the Disarming Spell, so maybe it would make sense to give it a high DC?
Welp, it's just a thought XD
I already dmed Professor Jemari about it, asking if it was already working that way, but as it is not, I'm suggesting it now.
It's about the new spell, the slippery jinx, which only can be used on brooms so far, I think? I feel like it could also be an amazing tool for duelling, one could cast it at the opponents wands for example. I didn't think a lot about details tbh, I guess it would kinda lower the popularity of the Disarming Spell, so maybe it would make sense to give it a high DC?
Welp, it's just a thought XD