Time Devaluation, Grinding, Multiboxing, And Subrace Tags

[chirality]

It might be a good time for the broader discussion emerging from this thread about a subrace book exploit* to be spun off into a separate thread.

(*linked for future reference, when our HG-playing great-grandchildren read the stories of old )

Before entering the massive wall which you already know will follow, I'll start with a post in the afore-mentioned thread which prompted this.

It deserves (demands? ) a full conversation, rather than derailing the specific topic of the exploit:

Jul 23, 2022 4:15:10 GMT desocupado said:

Jul 22, 2022 13:17:19 GMT rainbowdash said:

Exploits like this affect the ingame economy and devalue other peoples time (also devs time since they are the ones have to clean up that mess). Abusing stuff like this instead of reporting it shows a poor sense for community. Its the same like the canopic exploit manuka/prep and co. used a while back. Its an unfair advantage and should be punished accordingly.

I'd say the rule devalues people time.

I won't find specific quotes to reference here, but I believe you have also said that many other rules devalue people's time, as well.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but to sum up a few of  previous thoughts you've shared on this subject)

I think in the past you have also suggested that several other aspects of HG's progression and time investment : reward ratio are either broken or in need of modification.

You're not alone, by far, in this regard. I am not singling you out, rather just using your post and your vocal opinions from the past to address this.

I believe you have also said that the demi cycle devalues people's time. As well, abyss/prince tagging system. Furthermore, grinding and levelling in general, and I believe both in regards to 1-40 content, as well as LLs.

If it's true that the subrace level requirement rule devalues people's time, isn't it also true that the requirement to re-do the same tag content on new accounts also devalues people's time?

---

This may be a logical fallacy, but it's hard for me to detect a concrete difference between subrace tags and accomplishment tags when both are measured per account rather than per player.

Yes, a subrace tag is linked to loot and derived from a physical item, whereas an accomplishment tag is intangible and exists only as data in a character's record.

However, both are tags and neither are items; both are aspects of character progression that track grind independently of tangible loot.

Although tags linked to books could be given as tangible loot, the level requirement which ties it to XP makes it function more like XP itself: an intangible, non-transferrable token representing how much of a "vet" a given account is.

Some may argue that this system is flawed for that very reason--that it checks only for how much grind an account is worth, rather than how much grind a player is worth.

However, I'm not sure that this argument is valid from Funky's perspective, and I'm not sure that this fact of the way the system operates is unintended.

Assuming that it is a "bug" rather than a "feature," though, I still don't think there's a clear-cut way of fixing these problems without opening the door to the same revolving door of players being gifted the resources to bypass content.

Maybe that's not the end of the world. However, one does wonder at what point HG stops being a grind-intensive RPG and more of...something else entirely.

In any case, I think it's interesting that we don't have a consensus on how much, exactly, grind devalues people's time.

---

Back to the idea of grind devaluing people's time: others share these thoughts to some degree. I, for example, would like to see an option to allow vets to bypass 1-40 content if desired (assuming a proper mechanism and cost system could be devised and agreed upon). I also wouldn't be opposed to seeing the same concept applied to LL content as well--perhaps just "LL runs"/41-60; perhaps even hell and abyss cycles. These latter things would likely be something finely-tuned to a metric of determining "veteran status."

Unfortunately, this is difficult to determine, in part due to multiboxing--in fact, this difficulty is integral to the subrace level requirement rule that spawned these discussions in the first place.

It's hard enough to analyze how much grinding a player has to do before they earn the right to skip content (if desired), or even what sort of grinding qualifies for what sort of entitlement (for example, grinding to L80 in LL runs with zero or one demi/princes, does not equal grinding to 75 and completing full hells and prince cycles multiple times each).

Then, factoring in multiboxing which makes an automated means of detecting which account belongs to which player difficult or impossible, there's a significant issue. With a full-time staff of customer service and dedicated DMs, it could be easy enough to manually flag people's accounts upon request (and upon receipt of proof/etc). However, this is obviously unrealistic.

One possibility that quickly comes to mind is that we can ascertain the metric of vet status by assigning a simple gate or purchase. If you're tall enough to enter, you can go in, and we have already checked your height by accessing your character vault; or, if you can pay enough to enter, you can go in, and we don't check your vault to see if you can pay, but you either pay or don't.

By making the gate check for accrued wealth (loot, hell/prince wins, limbo tags, XP, etc), we could hope to create a system that works.

In other words, if you have earned A B C amounts of X Y Z items, then you are either allowed to toggle a bypass for desired content, or you pay some resources to do so. In either case, the result is effectively the same: only people who have invested the required time in the game can bypass the grind of certain aspects.

If you have to pay, then by definition, only those rich enough to afford the cost can do so, and we therefore assure that they have invested enough time even without checking what their character vaults contain.

---

For automatic checking...well, this seems impossible, so let's just scratch it off the list as an option.

For manual verification...well, again, this seems technically possible but unfeasible, so let's cross this off as well.

Perhaps I'm being hasty or negative by saying neither of these is realistic, but unless/until Funky says otherwise, I don't think anyone can argue that either of these options can ever be implemented.

So...why not a payment option? An automated system that doesn't require staff activation or involvement, but still allows players to prove that they have grinded enough to earn a free pass to content they're entitled to skip.

The first problem to be solved is agreeing upon a valuation for the payment: What type of resources should be paid, and what is the cost of each?

I think that this problem is actually reasonable to solve. Unfortunately, the types of resources to be considered--as well as the costs--would most likely need to shift over time, in response to power creep. Nonetheless, it could be figured out...probably?

The second problem brings us right back to multiboxing and the problems that arose from new players being gifted subrace books and using them at level 1:

How do we control for a vet player's bot accounts, versus a true newbie (and, nowadays...their alt accounts... )?

If there's a payment system in place, what's to prevent a vet from simply gifting the resources to a newbie and accomplishing the same "skip" that resulted in the burnout and spoliation of newbie players that got BURs for their first immos?

---

We have the level requirement on reading books (and, even despite maze immo requirement for entry removed, minimum level for secret races as well) as a sort of automated system that checks whether a "player" has earned the right to upgrade their subrace on future toons by reading a subrace book. This system generates problems because multiboxing exists, and the distinction between player and account is permeable and impossible to detect automatically. (Again, in a perfect world, we could have manual verification of every account, but it's not going to happen)

So...what is to be done about this?

I see a lot of players having issues with this system, but are there any solutions?

Is the only answer to remove the subrace level requirement entirely?

If so, does that mean that the same logic should hold true for the implementation of mechanisms for bypassing content?

In other words, if we enable players to reduce grind and skip things they've done a hundred times, should we allow a cost to be paid, and ignore whether the player or account can pay this cost?

---

Back to this being an attempt to navigate a derail from the exploit thread: There's a discussion that this exploit prompts us to examine.

This discussion regards:

---

(a) player time investment [in general]

(b) the usefulness and desirability of HG's grind->reward functions [in general]

(c) requiring new accounts to achieve a minimum level to read a subrace book [in particular]

(d) multiboxing enabling players to radically bypass and re-write the conceptual intent and effective rules of (a) and (b) [in general]

---

None of these topics are new, and all have been debated many times over HG's lifecycle.

These subjects concern some of the touchiest and most polarizing issues in the game.

Some of the most energetic (and/or vehement) arguments to be found on these forums have taken place over these concerns, and rightfully so.

What is new:

---

(e) an exploit providing a mechanism to bypass (c) and multiply the impact of (d) by allowing players to favorably impact (a) and (b) to increase their enjoyment and return on investment [in particular]

---

So...

--Where do we stand on these issues?

--Where do we go from here?

--How did we get here in the first place?

--Why are any, all, or none of our concerns valid?

---

(a) player time investment

Some feel that it is time (or: long-past, even) to re-evaluate the level of time invested by players. Others may feel that this process has been underway for a long time, and no additional push is required.

Some may feel that too little investment is bad, and it's relatively easy to identify what is too little and what is too much. If so, perhaps a more forgiving time : reward ratio is called for. Perhaps this is critical: overdue, called for quickly.

Others may feel that identifying too little vs too much is difficult, but that we should err on the side of going easy and lessen investment requirements, loosen up restrictions, and provide more reward for less time. Perhaps this isn't 

Some may feel that a more demanding investment : reward ratio is important for HG, while others may not feel particularly attached to the system as initially designed.

Some may feel that an intense ratio was once important, but less so over time; and, in these days, should have lower priority than ever--perhaps even taking a backseat to pleasing most players, most of the time (rather than pleasing enough players, enough of the time--which I believe pretty much sums up the historical precedent).

Perhaps the playerbase is at a size such that enough players and most players are synonymous terms; or, perhaps the distinction no longer exists (or is no longer noticeable, or is no longer relevant).

What is your opinion?

---

(b) the usefulness and desirability of HG's grind->reward functions

Some may feel that this usefulness and desirability has declined over time--perhaps even immensely, or even catastrophically.

Others may feel that the "spirit"(?) and concept of the game is built on these functions mapping a high level of grind to a low level of reward, and that changing these relationships too much would erode the fabric of what makes HG special and what has, historically, attracted and/or retained players.

Some may feel that these functions should be re-written, and the sooner the better. Others may feel that these functions are less important than new content, bugifxes, balance issues, or other dev concerns.

What is your opinion?

---

(c) requiring new accounts to achieve a minimum level to read a subrace book

Some feel that this requirement is bad. Some may feel that it was once understandable, but less so over time, and hopelessly-outdated now.

Others may feel that this requirement is good. Some may feel that it was always positive, and remains so?

Some may feel that the requirement as a concept is positive, but should be modified in some way (tweaking numbers, adjusting the way this requirement interacts with reincarnation, etc).

Some may feel that the concept is okay, and don't feel strongly one way or the other about it existing, but the numbers are off (particularly in regards to XR subraces, which I think is a popular sentiment).

Others may dislike the concept or feel it is negative, but would be okay with it remaining, if some numbers (again, specifically XR) were tweaked to be less restrictive and more appealing to them.

What is your opinion?

---

(d) multiboxing enabling players to radically bypass and re-write the conceptual intent and effective rules of (a) and (b)

Regardless of where you stand on multiboxing, it's been here for a long time now. It's not only here to stay, but some may feel that it's become so ingrained that it's essentially a requirement to progress or largely "enjoy" the game.

Some may feel that multiboxing introduces issues that largely negate or radically modify the concept and intent behind the game's investment : reward functions. Some may feel that these problems were never properly addressed, leaving the system broken. Perhaps the issues are no longer relevant and being concerned about them is a waste of time?

Some may feel like rather than worry about the impact of multiboxing on HG's core concepts in a detrimental way, we should instead embrace multiboxing and cater more to it, by re-writing old rules, re-drawing old lines in the sand, and streamlining features that accommodate multiboxing even more.

What is your opinion?

---

(e) an exploit providing a mechanism to bypass (c) and multiply the impact of (d) by allowing players to favorably impact (a) and (b) to increase their enjoyment and return on investment

This has largely been addressed by several people in the parent thread.

However, there are several questions and details that the poll didn't explicitly ask for opinions on, and many more people voted than posted. Therefore, I would like to ask for more comments and input on how people feel about this exploit.

In particular, I would be interested to know whether people feel like the exploit solves a flaw in the system that shouldn't be there, whether abusing the exploit is forgivable or not, and how big of a deal this exploit is, in your opinion.

[desocupado]

Neverwinter nights, as an action game based on 3rd edition D&D and have very little skill in terms of reflexes and interesting decisions mid combat. At least for the most part. surely you can swap gear, but that isn't particularly exciting. (Which is why I liked shifter so much, and sorcerer due spontaneous casting)

When you take funky design phylosophy on encounter and see that its really about multiple characters having roles, complementary abilities and so forth.

Then you add these somewhat complex characters builds with lot of variety. A system invites you to experiment with lots of new features.

Taking those things into account, and disregarding any interface difficulties/challenges on multiboxing. Only by having multiple characters can you make meaningful choices on party composition.

For instance my most fun abo runs were 4man with 2 shifters and 2 sorcerers. I'd love to see a party where multiple threaders obliterate everything with high DC. Or even tailor build a party composition for another specific run. One particularly strong memory was a 3 man stygia with my immortal theurge and another person doing playing two characters.

[desocupado]

My point was if someone uses an exploit to not have to waste more time upgrading subraces on their multibox accounts, that person isn't really hurting anyone. That person is actually still wasting time before playing the content it actually wants to try.

In fact I think that a newer player that tried his own fighter monk tank build and cannot change to a more effective or fun bane knight or a dragon disciple build due reincarnation restriction, XP penalty or lacking a decent subrace unlocked is more harmed by the rules. That person is frustrated. The multiboxer would be even more frustrated because it's just a time waste barrier.

I don't understand the point of unlocking more power for people that played more time, since they have more experience and needs less power to be effective(due assumed higher player experience). The power as a grind reward logic is the core issue with roguelites games. The more you play and get "earned power unlocks" the easier the game becomes and the less skill you need to play it.

[yune]

If I ran HG here's what I'd do re: books:

Change XR books to 70 to read, like all other XR items.

Add the following to the subrace upgrade system:

Becoming immo makes your toon count as Secret tier.
Level 60 makes your toon count as UR tier.
Demi x1 makes your toon count as BUR tier.
Ssendam tag makes your toon count as XR tier.

You could still double book to upgrade, but wouldn't have to if the toon has progressed far enough.

Subs are the opposite of the normal tag to use gear - say if I want my bard to use Azz armor, the bard has to do Azz. All well and good. But if I want my bard to be Shard, some other random toon with nothing to do with the bard has to hit 60 to read the book. But if being demi made you count as BUR tier, the bard could earn the right to be Shard by getting demi, without needing a totally unrelated toon to read it or a second book.

[chirality]

Thanks for the responses.

I like the specific suggestions, yune. I was looking for both this as well as general musings (like deso's posts) but I think concrete, detailed proposals are often what is most important. It's what funky (and common sense, from any engineering/design standpoint) demands anyway, if anything is to ever be taken seriously). We can only debate and refute the specifics when they are suggested--broad requests that leave out the precise details are just a quick trip to the recycle bin (at worst) or perma-"remind me to look at this later" sticky status (at best), instead of the implementation phase.

I think those gates make sense; at least, as far as: I can see where you arrive at those breakpoints.

At the same time, as an old noob who knows what it's like to spend years grinding away without much endgame content completed, I wonder if mapping subraces too closely to accomplishments that require a specific set of circumstances and "resources" (as a human player) might be actually be a step backwards (conceptually). I mean this in terms of allowing "variety" of progression and/or the sense (or illusion, perhaps) that subrace upgrades are a powerup path that is linked to accessing increasingly-difficult/increasingly-endgame zones, but not necessarily linked to successfully completing a run or cycle.

(On that note, maybe it's just the L60 point thrown in with the bag of all accomplishment tags that stands out to me as the piece that doesn't fit. I mean, it makes perfect sense, and it's not that it's aesthetically displeasing--it's just that I think I would rather see either all breakpoints based on level, or all based on tags, but as I address below, if we view this as by level, it suddenly looks a lot more like just a reskin of the system we already have, with a free upgrade thrown in.)

By this, what I mean is:

a) Subraces offer a more loosely-bounded option for advancement and reward (aka, upgrading power as a return on grind investment), than do endgame run cycles. This is likely the least of most players' worries, and immediately it must be acknowledged that even despite lower playercount, the significant advantages of multiboxing and reduced tagging difficulty (loosened restrictions like out-of-order hell completion) go a long way toward ameliorating this "fear." Nonetheless, even though I generally dislike the subrace system for several reasons, I admit that one of the upsides is that it provides HG with a sense of multiple "flavors" of grind/reward, and preserving that (by not tying a loosened subrace auto-upgrade system to tags at all) is something I would like to see done when possible.

To be clear, what I mean by "flavors" is that we can advance by level, by gear (slotmachine, rare setloot, etc), by accomplishment (I'd split "accomplishment" into two subsets; one included in loot category, by unlocking better setloot; and the other purely statistical, ie hell/abyss and lowbie tags [and now elemental lordz, huehue]). Of course, your proposal doesn't erode any of that, but I would prefer to see tags either not considered for the gatekeeping bypass mechanism, or perhaps a double-sided milestone at each breakpoint (level or tag). Regardless, however, I wonder if even this would "do enough" to help our issues (see below) ...

b) Historically, the mechanism of rarity tier being restricted to certain zones was the factor that determined what "flavor" of grind one had to achieve to unlock better subraces. However, one could get BUR subs without ever completing a single demi cycle, and even today, we can reinc and burn x2 books to achieve this. From comments in the other thread, I think the biggest issue to be simply the idea of having to do it at all, regardless of the account status.

(And if we aren't really fixing that "flawed feature" then why not just remove the double book cost, lower or remove the level requirements, and be done with the whole shebang?)

In other words, this scheme seems to ultimately be pretty much just the same exact system in new clothing. If we are frustrated by having to grind xp to L60 (or 80) on a new account, having already done it before X number of times, then where is the actual improvement in having to once again grind out arbitrary goals on a new account as well? Your proposal provides a path to bypass the double book reinc cost, but it simply substitutes a new grind goal that seems just as frustrating and nonsensical for a vet to repeat, as are the existing level requirements.

I see this system as a positive change for alleviating double book sacrifice (and a tacit admission that it actually is a problem, not just the level requirement), but at the same time it just drops the existing template into a new mechanic. We are still left with the problem of being vets, grinding away and repeating the same content, to earn the right to do something on a new account, that we have already unlocked on previous account(s).

To make this feedback more clear, if the proposal was exactly as stated, except that each of your breakpoints is player-wide rather than toon-specific, I could see it as a serious champion argument for reducing grind. As mentioned in OP, however, there's no feasible way to implement the tracking of accounts and players. Then, I'd suggest imagining your system except instead of toon-specific, it's account-specific. In other words, once you have an immo on the account, all your toons count as UR tier, and so forth. This sounds appealing to reduce grind and repetition--except, once again, we run headlong into the wall of having to even still repeat this content and achieve these milestones on each new account.

Thus, again, this ends up feeling much like the system we already have, with the difference of providing a way to dodge the double book penalty and provide a free "levelup" upgrade tier by earning it through a milestone accomplishment, rather than a consumable piece of loot.

All that said, I don't mean to pick apart or criticize the suggestion just for the sake of tearing it down, arguing, or being contrarian. I think if that system were to be implemented tomorrow, it would probably be received warmly, and I can't see anyone complaining. I just wonder if an approach like this is ?radical? enough to really address the issues I saw vocalized as roots of the problem/frustration surrounding this exploit.

As long as we are mapping arbitrary grind investment amounts to arbitrary rewards on a per-character basis, it seems like the same system we already have, just rehashed and maybe a bit more forgiving. At the least, I think a system similar to your suggestion, but focused on account-wide milestones is kind of a minimum starting point--and even then, we're still back to square "repeat for each account," which was supposedly the biggest issue anyway.

Also, regarding your point about the differences between subrace tags and accomplishment tags: I wonder if that difference isn't kind of the point of the system? After all, it was baked in by design. They are different, as you say, but it seems clear that this is exactly what it does. I think the idea of viewing a toon as a vessel for upgrading your player/account power level and then retiring it and re-playing the game with a better subrace is not something we nowadays generally consider as an intuitive or desirable concept or pathway. However, much like repeating hell or abyss cycles over and over again to upgrade a toon's power, repeating toons over and over again to upgrade an account's power seems to me as basically the "NG+" system of HG.

As I pointed out in the other thread, before reinc allowed subbie upgrades at all, the concept was precisely that of earning and unlocking the power boost on one toon and then using it on a future toon. Obviously, that thought process seems alien now, and outside of -HC- mode, certainly hasn't existed for most players' entire careers. This indicates some serious dissonance surrounding the subrace system itself, and what we as players perceive as the value of it or the design principles behind it.

[desocupado]

I think one way to incentive creativity is to remove all restrictions from reincarnation.
No time gate, XP loss, class restriction or subrace restriction or tag accomplishment/progression loss. (Including hell/abyss cycles)

The cost of reincarnation is basically the time planning and executing it. (Artifacts and bound items would need to be dealt with separately but I'd simply return them unbound after completing the process)

Making better builds and swapping a build when you find a relevant loot is the core of power gaming - optimization. One could still have multiple characters for convenience.

Now back on subrace unlocking, I personally dislike the current randomly unlock subraces with loot system as a whole. Although with no restrictions on remaking characters with a new subrace it probably would work much better
- " Cool I got a shard on loot - time to play a bard. But then I'll also need a charisma artifact, I need to run Elysium."

Now back on subraces books,
I'd add them as fixed random drops on most runs. Like 50%-150% drop of UR a random subrace on most LL runs. 25-300% but subrace for level 55+ areas instead. And a generous drop rate for the XR subraces on higher level areas since they are so numerous and those areas (seem to) require a big party. This could be a cheap trade rate for random subrace with canopies.

Now to deal with multiboxers (help them), I'd make a consumable that grant all pre-LL tags and even immortal to new character. And would also make sapphires of experience easier to come by and use to get to level 60.

[Yojimbo]

I will add a comment to the time investment even if I wasn't a vet of sorts I would like to see less time required for much of the content. My reason is simple and somewhat selfish. I now have a wife and family and work full time so the amount of time I have for games, tv, movies, etc is much less than it was. I see estimates now on completing things like Nessus are down significantly but usually that time is for the run itself and usually figures a more classic and complete party. Time spent trying to complete a party, classic rolls filled or not, is not factored and then if you fail to get the classic rolls filled this may negatively impact the run time. If actually completing various runs was less time intensive or had better continuation point options this might improve the experience. To me everything else has a degree of importance which hinges on (A) my only other issue is the 1-40 pre-ll acc I like them to a point but getting them all is a pain and some particularly those for all have a value making them very worthwhile but drags out the 1-40 content which I am not sure is still relevant for the server.


FYI I only read OP so far and as a side note I admit to being gone and not exactly back yet so maybe changes were made that fix some or all my points.

[jelricle]

Is there a middle ground? Perhaps have more consumable bookmark/shortcut items, so that you can do/schedule time consuming runs in chunks, a la the grodkt in Rona.

eg.
Allow saved keys in PoM to work after reset and give some consumable non droppable item that can let you jump to a later map.
Ditto for the hive.
Can you use portals in Pazunia if there are mobs? If not, change this so that you can use portals you are tagged to, even if mobs are around (allowing quick GS to where you left off).
Remove the server lock for the dock quest items.
Add middle locations that you can portal to in the lower . . . higher? . . . tougher hells via a consumed, non-droppable key.

Just some possibilities.

[chirality]

Personally, I don't mind the repetitive grind as much as the long-chunk grind.

By this, I mean that I'd prefer to prioritize the inclusion of mechanics that allow runs to be broken down into smaller intervals.

I've mentioned this before in other threads (maybe I'll go find some quotes to drop here). From conversations with others, I think I'm not alone in this desire, although I do understand that others have different priorities.

For example, not everyone has a difficulty engaging in long runs, and they would prefer to see changes made in reducing the amount of repetition across the various progression cycles. For players that don't find lengthy unbroken stretches of playtime to be an issue, it's rather inconvenient for them to have to repeat "un-challenging" and unfun content over and over, simply to unlock the long runs that they can commit to.

I, on the other hand, encounter a stumbling block to progression in the form of runs that require a significant (well, not by the standards of something like wow raids, but by my standards, anyway) time investment all in one sitting. I don't have nearly as much of a problem repeating the same boring/unchallenging/unfun content where the grind-y/slogg-y factor comes in shorter packets. Of course, the grind and repetition and slog is certainly an issue in general for me as for everyone else, so I don't mean to veer off course here. In any case, when it comes to grind and slog, there's bite-size chunks that quickly add up to become unbearable after many iterations of the same, and then there's long-duration runs that not only build up attrition quickly but also require the ability to commit to such a run in a single sitting.

I really enjoy the (few) mechanics HG offers that break up runs into subsections, and I wish there were more of them. "Back in the day" runs tended to take far longer than even in the early 2010s, and as a general rule the kind of sloggy grind that we tended to associate with early limbo p2 was once common even in shallow hell runs that "nowadays" are expected to take hardly more than 30 minutes. With that said, I don't like to whine too much about having difficulty committing to a run that might last an hour or more.

Nonetheless, I don't mind stuff like farming progressive cycles of keys to unlock later runs, or having to clear pazunia just to "get back" into a run, nearly as much as feeling like if I can't complete a run in the time window I have allotted for myself, I will not only fail to complete the run but also generally waste the key that was farmed to open it, fail to achieve the tag, and fail to even have a chance at obtaining whatever %-based setloot I was after. Some runs don't have all or any of these problems, and some have a few of them.

The risk of wasting time in this way is an issue I have had magnify in my brain, after many unforeseen real life situations and after many ingame scenarios that dramatically increase the length of a run (inviting people that unintentionally slow the run down, for example, or just bad luck with randoms--which of course is a factor that is already under consideration before starting such a run; perhaps abo is a perfect example of this, with the minibosses having a very tangible impact on run length).

Anyway, enough of that derail rant. On the topic of middle grounds, "bookmark" devices, and time scheduling/time consumption, though, thanks for bringing that up, and there's my thoughts on that subject.

[jelricle]

Jul 28, 2022 13:49:48 GMT chirality said:

. . .
By this, I mean that I'd prefer to prioritize the inclusion of mechanics that allow runs to be broken down into smaller intervals.
. . .

Big plus 1!!!!