Ultimately, yes, because the only difference is time put in. You can still get to 200 on Grims, it just takes longer. It's not like it isn't possible or there is something hindering your ability at Grims which isn't in place at Ulu. Something doesn't become no longer viable or feasible because it is less efficient than another option. Do you understand now?
It sounds to me like you've never been to grims. First of all, the map is large and vertical so you have to climb all the way up to kill spawns at the top of the map. Second of all, and maybe even more importantly, this map is god awful for mages because you can only ever hit one platform at a time. Lastly, the spawn is atrocious compared to any of the Ulu maps. Are you telling me none of those three things hinders your ability to train there? And yes, that is the exact definition of something becoming no longer viable or feasible. In the main post I used the word "obsolete", which is just as valid. I still don't understand your ramblings, no. You're missing the entire point of the topic. Back in the day, it was efficient for people to grind in a party and you could choose basically any map around your level range. There were a lot of options. This would be a healthy change for the game because it would open up content for more players and also weaken the leeching meta, which no one is a huge fan of. I'm not saying that leeching should be removed, so don't exaggerate my words. What's wrong with doing something that would benefit a large number of players without doing any damage to the game or its economy? It's nothing but an improvement.
You are going to have to start replying to my posts entirely going forward. You've picked and chosen random portions of each of my posts to reply to while ignoring almost all of the other content. When you go through and refute everything, let me know. Until then I am not going to keep responding only for you to cherry pick one sentence and respond to that with the same nonsense you've been spewing from the beginning. You don't even know the meaning of the words you are using and you keep trying to push me to misinterpret them the way you do. I refuse to do so. Further, no, none of that matters, and I was 15x before fourth job was even released on gMS. My experience in these maps far surpasses that of your own. Not that it has any significance here since the map/mob hasn't changed, and if it were once viable, it still is since no alterations have taken place and there are no added obstacles which were not in place when Grims was a hot spot. If the map had changes made which altered it from the prior state where it was once viable, I would absolutely agree, but you can't argue that something is no longer viable just because a more efficient option is available. Think about how many things in life that would apply to where it would simply be untrue. Cars, homes, clothes, shoes, food (omg flank steak isn't viable, only tenderloin!), you name it. Grims had that same layout back in the day, nothing has changed about the map structure or mobs. Those same 'hindrances' and the 'map being vertical' still existed back then. Your supporting reasoning only implies that it was never a viable training location since it always had those features. You can't say the map is no longer viable when it hasn't changed from the time it was once viable and it can still produce the intended results identically to how it did prior (it can still be trained on, farmed on, or used for quest(s)). Just like you had to skew the 1990s civic explanation with 'explosions' and 'causing accidents' to make it appear as if it had newly added negatives, you'll have to find something to actually show how the map/mobs are not a viable option beyond "ULU IZ BETTUR" -- that does not change viability, and if you think that it does, you do not understand viability. This is not a matter of opinion. A 1990s civic is still a viable car despite better 2019 civics being out A house built in 1990 is still a viable home despite better houses built in 2019 being available An old training map/mob is still a viable training, farming, or questing option despite better training, farming, and questing maps/mobs being available These things don't lose their viability because time has passed and better options have surfaced. That is not how viability works. Go ask one of your professors (or find a professor in the field and ask him/her during their down time) if you have trouble understanding this, and tell them how you think that a 1990 civic is no longer a viable car, and how you think that an old house is no longer a viable home. They will laugh you into outer space and shut that foolishness down REAL quick. If you do not value my words, go ask somebody with credibility (a degree in the field) who you do value the opinion of. Return to apologize once you have done so. Nobody with an ounce of knowledge on this topic will agree with you that a 1990s civic is no longer a viable car because newer, better models are out. Nobody. -16 year old is given 1990 civic for his first car -16 year old says no, sorry, not a viable car. Must have 2019 model, that is only viable option since it is the best. ^You are the 16 year old in this equation (claiming that good ole Grims isn't viable because of the newer, better Ulu). Utter foolishness on every level. People can still party at Grims just like before. They choose not to. There is nothing in the map that has changed from when people would party there. It is just inefficient and people choose to no longer utilize it because of that. It is still fully viable as a training map, and in parties too, just, people don't want to use it for that. You can make the argument that you want people to use it more, and I won't disagree with you (see my first post ITT, I like the idea of clock tower being a hot spot), but to say that it is not viable currently is flat out incorrect. The issue is your choice of wording, you're misusing certain terms and in turn it discredits your entire argument. Replace viable with inefficient and you'll get a lot further, and we'll see eye-to-eye much better. Additionally, posting broad assumptions such as "nobody likes the leeching meta" further discredits you. Assuming things about everybody is not going to get you anywhere. Next time say "some people don't like the leeching meta" instead and your argument will retain credibility. Again, I LIKE the intent of this suggestion. What I don't like is your misuse of words and poor supporting reasoning alongside inconsistency in upholding that supporting reasoning in other areas. Remain consistent, use the correct wording, and provide valid reasoning without making assumptions. You'll get a lot further if you do. Here is my initial response since you clearly overlooked it:
The whole quoting thing is a waste of time. If that's what you want, keep your posts short and to the point like I do. But fine, I'll humor you this last time. I've got nothing to say about that. You're claiming that I don't understand the meaning of words even after I proved you wrong and posted a link showing that you are a wrong. What doesn't matter? You ask me to reply to everything you say but you make general statements that don't mean anything to me. I don't think anyone cares what level you were. I was also a high level. You might not see other grinding locations as "added obstacles" but I do and I know that plenty of players also feel this way. As long as these locations exist, there is absolutely no reason for me to feel good about going to grims. Again, this is the exact definition of "no longer viable". Refer to my post above. Feasible and viable are synonyms. I think I understand my own language. This is a silly argument. In a video game, time is the only currency. If something in a game costs more time than something else and produces poorer results, it is not feasible. If someone had unlimited money and resources in real life, would they be driving that 1990s civic you were talking about earlier? Would they be wearing rags and living in mud huts and eating rotting potatoes? I really don't think so. That doesn't mean it's not possible for a person to do that, but it is definitely not feasible. Have you read the title of this topic? "Make grims great again". That does not implies the exact opposite of what you are saying. Of course it was a viable training spot. It was the best training spot. That's literally in my first post. You're acting as if you were the only person on the planet to ever play GMS. Do you really think I'd be here if I didn't know that? Again, this is bullshit. How can one of the worst maps in the game "produce the intended results identically to how it did prior"? Before it was the best map in the game. Now it's one of the worst maps in the entire game. I'm not sure if you understand the words you are spewing out at me. Sure, it can still be used, but you most definitely can not say that it can produce the same results it did before. If we're talking about percentage exp per hour, for example, grims went from the best exp gain per hour, to one of the worst. This is drastically different. This is the most terrible sentence I've ever had to read. It's a well known fact that older cars do not have the same safety features as modern cars. So obviously you're more likely to get into an accident driving one. I mean, that's common sense. When I mentioned explosions, I was simply responding to your analogy of the car with an analogy of my own. I will repeat myself, since you didn't seem to understand the first time: If the car has a defect that can cause it to explode, this is all theoretical, would you still claim that it's a viable option? Of course you can still drive it, but would you be willing to? The whole point of this question is illustrate the fact that at a certain point, it's simply foolishness to use one thing over another. There must be a point where you draw the line. If grims gave 1 exp each, for example, they are still viable by your definition of viable. I'm pointing out why your argument is completely flawed. You still seem to be confused about the word "viable". Here is an example of viable being used in a sentence (from google): vi·a·ble /ˈvīəb(ə)l/ adjective capable of working successfully; feasible. "the proposed investment was economically viable" Search it yourself. Is the investment of spending your time at grims "economically viable"? I'll give you a hint. The answer is no. I used an online dictionary. I've shown you twice now that you don't understand the use of the word. You don't need to repeat youself. This is all just rambling nonsense. Are you going to continue arguing about the use of one single word, which I've used correctly, instead of contributing anything useful? Again, a waste of my time. Again, it's not viable. That's exactly what it means for something to not be viable. You're still going on about my use of one word, which I happened to use correctly. Don't make me repeat myself again. Okay bud. I said exactly this: I said don't exaggerate my words. Instead, you've gone and twisted them completely. I did not say that "nobody likes the leeching meta". I said that no one is a huge fan of it. I'm not stupid and I can see that this is the general opinion on the forum and on private servers in general. People accept it, but I haven't seen a single person that wants to strengthen the leeching meta. I really highly doubt that you have either. If there is a single person you know that wants to strengthen the leeching meta and make it better than it is now, please, by all means, show them this topic and ask that they post here. I would love to communicate with such a rare specimen. I don't see how stating facts can discredit me. If you can prove that my facts are wrong, I am encouraging you to do so. Instead you're just having a seizure on your keyboard. I have nothing to say about this. You're accusing me of using words incorrectly even though I haven't and then attacking me for it. I have been consistent with all my arguments and points. All my reasoning is valid, and most of the people that have posted here have agreed with what I've said. On the other hand, no one has yet sided with your opinion on the matter. I wonder why. And your original post: The word you're trying to spell is "aforementioned", since you're being so picky about the usage of proper English. I don't think party exp bonuses are ever a good idea because you're penalizing players for playing solo. There is absolutely no reason for this. All that would need to be done is to make the map more viable. You've pretty much just quoted exactly what I originally said there. Which is why I proposed an EXP and/or spawn buff in addition to warps. I don't know how your reading comprehension can be so terrible. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to let me know without attacking me.
holy fuck lol someone just block each other so nobody wastes their time. you can get in Harvard University with this amount of writings.
Cause GMs might lock the thread if personal attacks are involved Even if I disagree with you on other stuff, I don't bring it here or other threads - I reply only on that thread. This concept is probably too hard for the guy.
@Kaeru Okay, as per your request I'll keep it short and settle this fairly and without any fluff. Google isn't the dictionary to be using and we can both agree that there are far more credible options out there (OED-Oxford English Dictonary), correct? If so, let's go to the most credible option available for free to the public (Oxford free, ad supported) and go from there. First, you earlier stated that "viable means feasible" (quote post #11: "The definition of viable means "feasible".") so we will go off of the definition of the word feasible as per your request. Feasible is defined as (screenshot so you know I'm not making it up): Possible to do easily or conveniently, do you agree with this definition? If so, my earlier statement from post #15 would apply: "You would have to be arguing that these deep tower maps were never viable" Because the map and mobs have not changed. The ease and convenience is just as great as before (actually even more convenient thanks to the VIP Taxi which wasn't around back then). There is nothing more challenging about training there now versus before. All variables remain the same, it is of the same exact difficulty as it was prior. Some classes actually get better EXP/hr. nowadays thanks to the skill adjustments this server has made. Who woulda thunk it, it's actually easier and more convenient than ever to train at Grims, and you'd even possibly get to 200 faster now too! Only one thing, it's now less optimal (optimal defined via Oxford: Best or most favorable) because there are better options out there. Sucks, but it's still viable! Just not optimal from an EXP/hr. standpoint. That should settle it. I'm not claiming to be the most credible, so that's why I recommended that you ask a professor or somebody with a degree in the field to verify this for you (neither of us have one, and you have no greater credibility than I or vice versa). All I can do is provide you the most credible resource available to us and hope that you understand it does not align with what you have been claiming. You have not provided such, only some random definition from "Google" (your words, post #25). Google or Oxford? If you feel Google is the more credible option, hey, you do you and I can't convince you otherwise. If not, well, I hope you learned something and we can move on. Toodles
Whatever you say, man. I don't see how leveling at grims is "easily to do conveniently" when it's utter garbage. It was easy back in the day when you could have a good mindset about it but now there's absolutely no reason to go there. If it makes you happy, I'll say "more viable" from now on. PS: I've done my own research and I know how the word can be used. If you look at examples, you'll find people using it in the exact same context. So maybe they are wrong too but regardless, it's obvious what the word means in this context.
LOL@these pointless exchanges on the definition of feasible. Bruh, just go spend 1 hour inside MDT/grim map and you will see how miserable it is. Grinding there without teleportation warp is like taking boat ride from Ellinia to Orbis; it can be done but it's a huge bloody waste of time.
How ironic it would be if someone misunderstands you and think of you as the same people you try to immitate At least add your genuine opinion after the meme to actually add to the conversation :/
That'd make the joke even better, ngl. As for my thoughts on this suggestion though, why Grims specifically? Why not every monster on similar maps? Honestly I think a more interesting way to buff these training spots would be to tremendously lower their avoidability so that low levels (around 50) can feasibly kill them, giving them an actual niche in terms of training, high risk high reward training for low levels. What's important when buffing a thing to viability is for it to fill a niche, otherwise it ends up closing a gap but not actually mattering. Like, if Wyverns exp was buffed marginally, while they would be better than before, they wouldn't match up to other similar maps in Ulu, and so nobody would train at them, because they don't fill any niche, whereas if you buffed them so that they're better than ulu, everyone would flock to them.
That's an interesting suggestion, if we assume wizet gave a fair exp to hp ratio to most mobs in accordance to their lvl and difficulty, then training efficiency is determined by how much of your time do you spend on unleashing your ideal dps vs time you aren't fighting or fighting really unefficiently (for example, hitting 1 target when your main dps can hit a lot of targets, or overkilling a mob by a lot, leading to wasted damage). The reason players in the correct lvl find training there inefficient is because, even if the exp was buffed, wasting time not attacking when climbing latters matters a lot. But if a low lvl player that deals bad damage tried to fight it (without missing) most of his playtime would be on attacking the mobs instead of the climbing. Its like a map full of minibosses. While it isn't in the spirit of the OP, its worthy as its own seperate suggestion. Edit: worth noting that it might cause some balancing issues as you are giving access of really high exp to low lvl players. It would need to be tested
Isn't the map like really trash o.o Like I went there to do that pap quest thing and you have to climb for ages just to kill 3 mobs in a platform and stuff In ulu 2 you can gene 10 mobs and just tp then gene again with no climbing
OP doesn't want to make another mage map, smh. The suggestion is to buff normal grinding through mobility in said map.
Not grims specifically. I think I said in my original post that I chose that map as a starting point because it's a well-known one. I think the clock tower is a great place to start because it has many issues: difficult to get around, low spawn, monsters too far apart, and so on. Grims actually does fill a niche already, which is another reason I chose to talk about it and also mentioned in the original post. Grims are the only monster in the game that drop the Blood Larceny, which is the best thief glove in the game. It's only best in slot if godly and scrolled very well, of course, but perfectly scrolled thief gloves will even outshine a perfectly scrolled BWG (33 attack). This is true for other thief gloves as well, but this one is the best one available as it rolls with an extra LUK. I don't think this is enough of a reason for people to flock to grims but the whole point of "fixing" these maps isn't to shift the meta. That's another topic entirely. The point is to make them less bad so that people actually have a reason to visit them. I believe that, since thief is such a popular class, simply boosting the godly rate of these gloves in particular would be enough incentive for people to train there occasionally. In fact, you could boost the godly rates of specific items from monsters in other unpopular locations as well. Take the Black Kentaurus, for example. They drop Red Cravens, but you'd be silly to go there instead of Ulu 2. What if you increased the godly rate of Red Cravens from Black Kentaurus, though? Then you could still obtain a perfect craven at Ulu 2, but for those interested only in finding godly Red Cravens (that don't care as much about leech, mage ultimates, EXP gain, etc) they have a reason to go somewhere else. I believe this would be a great way to give unpopular training spots a purpose other than just being another dot on the map. There's other ways to incentivize training spots without hurting the balance of the game, though. For example: - Daily quests (kill X grims, X vikings, etc) repeatable once a day so that people have a reason to party up at less popular spots. - Card exp buffs. In addition to providing an EXP buff the first time a set of cards is collected, provide a random hour-long buff per the next set collected. Once a buff is recieved, it cannot be replaced until the buff expires. This would give players the option of hunting different monsters until they get lucky and receive an EXP buff. This is just one idea involving cards, I'm sure there's many other things you could do as well. For example, you could have every monster drop a "trophy" or something of the like, which is much rarer than a card, but allows players to show off the ones they have collected. Maybe even have a quest that gives you a special title or chair once you've collected them all. I strongly believe that with some of these ideas implemented, even if these maps stay below the meta (Ulu, Skele, ToT, etc) people will have a reason to visit them and can feel good about trying other maps out. I think the game would become a lot more fun for everyone and less leech-oriented because a lot of players would actually feel like its worth their time to train solo or in a party again. The reason the leech meta is so strong is because of the fact that maps like these are so far below the meta. You would have to play for countless hours just to level a single time and it would not be fun. Besides, most people don't have that kind of time. It's so much more efficient to just buy leech that no one really wants to experiment with the alternatives.
Sorry, but them dropping blood larency is not a niche that matters. There will never be a time that a player is so funded they're chaos scrolling a blood larency to out do a 33atk glove while still being at a level where Grims give them good exp. At best you can say people farm it there at those levels to sell, but we both know that's inefficient compared to a lot of other items.
It isn't, but it would be if the godly rates were buffed. That's what I tried to say my post. If the godly rates on the Blood Larceny were buffed, it would close the gap between low-end attack gloves and cheaply scrolled thief gloves. This would allow less funded players to hunt these gloves to scroll and sell to other players. I was just trying to say that a perfect one would beat any other glove, so that's another plus. Obviously the chances of making one is incredibly slim, but that doesn't matter. The only reason it's so hard to scroll a good one is because getting a godly one to drop in the first place is nearly impossible. You should read my example with the Black Kentaurus. If you don't believe increasingly godly rates on cravens from Black Kentaurus would make the map viable, what suggestions do you have? I think this could be a perfect solution to the problem. Craven prices would likely not fall, because most people would still farm at Ulu for the much better EXP rate.
