Ancient Rite of Passage Requirements

[rooth]

No, 365 was chosen because that was the number used by David Bowman even before his interview. After the interview it meant 230+. Why isn't it 300 or 700? Because THAT would be an arbitrary number. Instead it's a year.

Why do we agree with David Bowman's number of 365, but we disagree with his number of 90 levels? It seems awfully convenient to use his words as "justification" sometimes, and as "lies" others.

How does it have any bearing on the concepts of commitment and dedication? Time is the very method used to judge commitment much of the time. The length of a relationship, the length of your career, how long you have lived at an address...

I didn't say "why are we using time", I said "why are we using 365", versus some other number of days. Again, "because David Bowman used it" is not relevant to the game, or to what you or I think Ancient means. If we want to define Ancient by whatever David Bowman says, then why is there a thread on this? Let's just listen to David Bowman, and do whatever he says.

No one has made any meaningful justification for that value? I have....about 6 times now. (There, an arbitrary number. Have a field day!)

Ah, I see. So "because David Bowman said so" is meaningful justification. Okay, I see where we disagree now. There's no getting around that.

Fine. Give me your answers. I'm not going to whip out excel to try to determine what "Average" actually is based on how many worms are currently being eaten by trout on July 23rd 1987...

I don't have the answers. The devs do. But I can define what the answers would look like if I did have the data. I can define the answers in terms of game mechanics and concepts of Ancient. Which I did.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word arbitrary. The numbers have meaning. Wether you agree with the meaning is irrelavant.

Merriam Webster defines arbitrary as "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something". There's nothing intrinsic or necessary about 365 (versus 300 or 700) that has anything to do with the nature of Ancient in the context of the game. It's simply a number David Bowman once said.

With the 3 points, a sleeper dragon is defeated by the in game time. An afk dragon is defeated by creation time. A powerlevelled dragon is defeated by time since adult.

I don't deny that all those points taken together help throttle the things we want to see filtered. I think they're a good idea. I think if you came up with them, you should be applauded. That's why my model stuck with those points -- levels, hoard, and age. Age-since-adult should have been in there, too, as it was originally, but at 3am, I left it out accidentally. All I'm trying to debate with you and everyone else is the rationale behind the number choices, but all I keep getting back are slights and beratements.

It's not an insult when it's true. David Bowman has outright lied on several occasions.

It's not slander when it's true. However, it's an insult when it's done in an rude tone. There are more diplomatic ways of saying the same thing, and since the previous thread was closed on account of insult slinging, I should think we would be more sensitive to that.

How is it a valid number? You have me convinced. It should be 180. Half of your life should be spent as an adult.

Okay, that's fine, but why 180 now instead of 90? Simply because it's a greater deterrent for power-levelers, or is there some other meaning behind it? If you have a justification, please voice it, so it can be agreed with or disagreed with.

You know. The way you "Argue" would have me slap you in the head if we were face to face. Nothing has been arbitrary. They were simply not what you would like to see.

Au contraire. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- I don't care what the final requirements end up being, as long as there's reason and logic behind their selection. The reasoning for choosing 60 days, or 365 days, or 90 days, is fairly weak so far, as it doesn't seem to correlate to anything other than DB statements and player feelings. Show me correlations for those numbers, and I (and others who have simply been reading) might be persuaded.

Even better. Lets call it 120/120 right now. That way it's another thing that "Qualifies" David's interview. No dragon currently meets the requirement because noone has 120 levels. Glad we agree!

Is 120 going to be the new max once ARoP comes out or something? I've heard rumor of that, but haven't seen it verified yet.

Anyway, 12.5mil is mostly non-arbitrary, as it's based on game mechanics. The 'half' still sounds like it was chosen because of its roundness and ease. As it happens, 12.5 corresponds to about level 85 .. which is awfully close to the 90 number DB first put out. If we're going to use previously stated values as valid, justifyable numbers to work from (though I personally think that's not the best thing), then perhaps "16 million" would be good, as it's above what you need for 90th level. 15 and a third million is more clumsy to say -- it would probably be even smoother to just say "optimal hoard for 90th level". That way, if the hoard mechanism changes later on, you don't have to redefine the ARoP hoard requirements, since the definition is flexible enough to allow for such changes.

16 million is arbitrary! Just because it's easier to say?????!!!!OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. It was finally my turn.

Relax. According to the definition of 'arbitrary', 16 million is not. It is a round number based on the optimal hoard to achieve level 90 in the game. Level 90 was selected because it's "what David Bowman said", which, with the premise of being non-arbitrary, is sufficient justification. I personally don't think a quote from DB some months or years ago is valid justification for anything, but for the sake of argument, I went with it. It's possible DB used non-arbitrary means to come up with the number, but I haven't seen his reasoning behind 365 yet.

We already agreed that it should be max/max, so that changes the hoard requirement to 25.5million (Oh wait, can't be arbitrary!) 25,333,333 hoard.

Non-arbitrary does not mean non-precise. It means related to the intrinsic nature of something. In this case, related to the intrinsic nature of the game, of the pairing between hoard and character level. Related to. Related. And as I said, perhaps it's just easier to say "optimal hoard for level 90" -- precise, without being clumsy as with 25,333,333, and capable of being changed.

In about half the cases, I found the reasoning to be insubstantial, as I described above.To you, however they have reasoning wether you like it or not. I didn't pull numbers out of my ******, they all have meaning.

They may have a source. But that's not the same as 'meaning' in terms of Ancient or the game. If you consider "it's because David Bowman said so" to be sufficiently substantial, then we have nothing more to discuss.

I already have, but since you kindly reposted, I will as well, and take the opportunity to clarify and expound in the process. Since I don't have actuals from the database, I'll use placeholders and define them:ARBITRARY! - defining placeholders is no different than me saying 60 days.

Untrue. Defining the requirements in terms of game mechanics and something tangible and repeatable and related to the intrinsic nature of the game is the definition of non-arbitrary. As opposed to "because it's about half".

I'm sorry, your "Math" option is simply confusing to those that don't have the desire to decode it.

All I used were percents and averages. I believe that requires about a 6th-8th grade level of math understanding. Yes, there are some people in Horizons who won't be expected to understand percents and averages, but then again, there are many people in Horizons that don't know how to make a 3D model, but they use them all the time. Certainly the crafting system in the game is more complex, as it employs not only averages and percents but ratios and resource management.

If you personally don't understand it, that's fine, but I'm pretty sure the devs would figure it out, as would the majority of the Horizons population. Had I used standard deviations, predictive algorithms, or population models, then I'd agree with you.

Is there something I can elaborate on that would help you to understand the model? Anything in particular you're confused about?

I can already see you trying to tax an already unstable database with queries to determine the requirements.

The queries can be made on a copy of the database, on a test server. And they don't even need to be made very often. Like I said, "whatever is practical." Taxing an already unstable database constantly would not qualify as "practical." The game is offline once a week for maintenance -- just add the query to that if it ends up being a taxing process and there's no test server available (a notion I find laughable).

Beyond that I see a convoluted evolving system that is just asking to be riddled with new bugs everytime something changes. I see a system that will cause confusion and frustration.

If it's a rolling requirement, yes, it would be evolving and changing and perhaps confusing. That's why I said it (the dynamic requirement mechanism) might be too unwieldy to implement. However, that doesn't denounce the core requirements -- if they're calculated once instead of evolving over time, they're still valid.

How the hell do you explain those sets of rules to someone that is not good at math? "You can do the Ancient RoP after 60 days, but don't quote me on that cause it can change next month."

Simple. I would say "You can do the ARoP after at most 60 days, but possibly sooner."

Is that too complicated?

But this is probably too unwieldy, so perhaps it's best left as academic.And then you go and say the same thing...

I was specifically referring to the mechanism of dynamic / changing requirements, not the initial determination.

Sure, why wouldn't you? I don't think anyone's trying to come up with requirements specifically to prevent you from getting Ancient, but somehow allow them to. Least of all me. More power to you, I say -- you've put in more effort than most, after all (though Pharcellus has you beat, claws down, in terms of time [img]/Web/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]).Why wouldn't I? Because I am able to step out of my own desires. If I could get away with double the numbers I provided, I'd be happy to do so. Even though I would no longer myself qualify.

Huh? I said "Why wouldn't you" in terms of "Why wouldn't you achieve the requirements", in response to your statement about "I'll qualify for nearly everything you throw out there." Stepping out of your own desires won't change the fact that you'll accomplish Ancient, before I do even. I never refuted that, but you've suggested on a number of occasions that I somehow have a personal agenda here to ensure that I can get there at the same time or even before you do, or before other super-dragons do. That's simply not the case.

However, people like you who don't have extensive amounts of free time would simply be denied access. Great for me, but my goal isn't to kill the game for more casual players. My goal is to strike a balance between casual and manic, and to somehow have the people that don't actually PLAY their dragon to somehow simply be deleted from the database.

Then we have the same goal. We just have different ways of expressing it. The slights, the veiled insults, and apparent myopia are wearing me thin, however, so I will bow out of this discussion until it looks more like a debate and less like a fight. Which might be never.

[rooth]

Then we're even now, because I corrected that misstatement [as well as a few others] in later posts, which you appaerently also misread, or else didn't read. [img]/Web/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]

Or it was further down the list, and I hadn't gotten that far yet and already responded.

Which qualifies as "didn't read".

I read it just fine....after I responded.

S'okay, happens to all of us.

[rooth]

--addendum-- I know said I was dropping out of the discussion, but this response was up in another window from before my response to Kumu, and I apparently never hit 'post'. It would be an injustice to just delete it, so I'm posting it.

"Low" would be anything less than what Kumu has posted. I could live with those as bare minimums.

Okay, that's all I was asking. Kumu's numbers = lowest considerable by Pharcellus. Clear. Thanks.

After all, why be considered "Ancient" in less than a tenth of the time it takes for a human child to get out of diapers in the "Real World"? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, in Horizons, the days pass much faster. I think it's like 4 days an hour or something. If you want to take that approach, and assuming 4 days an hour is right, then it would take about 247 real days to reach the equivalent of 65 years of age. That's not exactly 'ancient' even in the real world, but it's a number to start with. Since time in the game passes even while you're not connected, this '247' number would correspond to your character age required to be considered.. well, at least 'old'. Doesn't really address the in-game requirement, but that's another story (addressed later).

It's called a vote, and it happens at least once a year, usually more often.OK, so let's turn this into a vote. Where's my ballot? [img]/Web//emoticons/emotion-43.gif[/img]

A fine idea! :D AE? Could you please provide us with a voting mechanism? These forums have one already (see bottom-right of this page), or you could put something in the game lobby on the website. If nothing else, it would be interesting to see the results, even if they're ultimately not used by the devs.

*shrug* Some people breeze through college in 3 years and get their Bachelor's Degree. Others take 6-8 years. Do you think that someone should have to wait out the extra 3-5 years to have their "dedication" acknowledged?

Of course not. But suppose I meet the conditions of graduation in 3 years, but the policy says I have to wait at least 6. That makes me wait 3 more years to have my dedication acknowledged. Since "60 days in-game" is not being correlated to anything a dragon can or can't accomplish in that amount of time, the use of such a requirement could feasibly impose that same problem on a dragon character, if that character accomplishes all the other requirements in less time than that without cheating. That's why I think the 60-day in-game requirement should be correlated to what a legit dragon character can accomplish (and thus shape the other requirements), or vice verse. Using the college example, if someone taking max credit load at a college can be expected to complete the degree in 2 years, then a fair corresponding policy for that college would be "at least 2 years enrollment" (which is effectively what they do when they restrict the number of credits you can take in a semester while simultaneously requiring a minimum number of credits to graduate--transferred credits notwithstanding).

[Jaraiden]

There has to be some aspect of dragon maturity. It is that simple. The Gifted may be immortal, but before that time, dragons did age and grow and were recognized as adults amid their community then as Ancients. This is true in most "primitive" societies - thus the rite of passage to the next level.

Certainly, the dragons of Istaria won't forgo such centuries of traditions due toa heroic human's actions 10 years ago.

Now, what is the best way to get that into Istaria?

Not adventure levels - to easy to be powerleved with a group of bipeds.

Not age since creation - what, a sleeping hatchling/adult "grows" while slumbering?

So in game playing time - really the only effective measure despite how players can get around that.

So how much? Well hopefully AE looks at their database of dragons and their playing time (and of bipeds and theirs), then looks at typical multiclassed character combinations. Ensures Ancient dragons are comparable. Thus, the time it takes for a biped to get to that multiclassed state whould be the time needed by a dragon in adventuring and crafting. Now, estimate the time needed for a dragon to properly get his/her hoard to the required levels and there is your time (certainly dragons don't want much of their hoard from biped powerhoarding). Simple.

Adult dragon's time in game = multiclassed biped's time in game (Ancient dragon ~ that MCed biped) + time in game for reasonable hoard building.

[Pharcellus]

Only one question and a comment:

How many Cabbage Days are there? I'm having a hard time making that calculation without the value of that variable. I tried using e (6.022E-23 + µ0), but that is only an arbitrary approximation, and it seemed a little low.

From dictionary.com:

ar·bi·trar·y [img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/********.jpg[/img] (P)Pronunciation Key(ärb-trr)
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

[Middle English arbitrarie, from Latin arbitrrius, from arbiter, arbitr-, arbiter.] arbi·trari·ly (-trâr-l) adv.
arbi·trari·ness n. Synonyms: arbitrary, capricious, whimsical
These adjectives mean determined by or arising from whim or caprice rather than judgment or reason: an arbitrary decision; a capricious refusal; a whimsical remark. Rooth,

I think you bring a lot of reason to the table, and I appreciate your candor, however, I want to suggest you choose a different word for describing your issues with the requirements that people are posting WITH rationale. If they have rationale, then they are NOT "arbitrary".

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that hword; I dinna think it means hwhat you think it means".

The requirements as Kumu posted are NOT "arbitrary". They may not have the reasons you would like to consider valid enough, but they are bona fide reasons.

*shrug* just a suggestion.

[Varangaard]

Since the last thread got locked, I'll just pop in over here to say my opinions in the previous thread are still unchanged. I won't bother reading through the too-long posts here, as it won't do anything to change my mind. Quickly scanning through the last few posts though, it seems likely that this thread is heading towards a lock as well...[:S]

[Goriax]

Interesting how many people try to slant things so they qualify but as few others as possible also qualify.

I don't really see why some people are so concerned about avoiding a flood of ancients. A flood of adults going to ancient will be far less disruptive then a flood of hatchlings was going to adult. To most players the disruption will be fairly minimal. True, the dragons will be even bigger, but they're already so much larger then bipeds the addtional size isn't going to have much impact. The size ratio between ancient and adult is not nearly as big as the size ratio between adult and hatchling. Since ancients probably don't get any class defining abilities, such as adults getting flight, it looks to me like the number of ancients really isn't a big deal to the game as a whole.

I agree that ancient really should be geared towards end game, but once a dragon has reached the end game I think they should have a real shot at becoming ancient. If someone doesn't want to level bothcrafting or adventuring to 100 (although I think at least one should be 100) then I don't see what the problem is. Maybe they just prefer adventuring or crafting. There's no need to force players to spend huge amounts of time working on something they don't want to work on. That's a prescription for burn out. Burn out is a bad thing in a game which is supposed to be fun.

I think there should be no in-game time requirement. 60 in game days played can be faked VERY easily just by never logging off. Find a safe spot and just stand there AFK for days on end. We don't need to push people into staying logged on and AFK for days at a time when not playing and thus creating more lag. (btw I would qualify for Kumu's in-game time requirement, I just don't think it should be a requirement).

Likewise, there have been so many loopholes and exploits regarding hoard I think it best if it not figure prominantly if at all. A nominal hoard requirement of a million or two is fine, but that's nominal only.

If people really are sincere about this lets add one more just to keep things honest for a change. In doing the AROP you have to defeat SOLO and with only your own buffs a mob designed to be very difficult (but not quite impossible) for a level 100. (There would be some other comparable requirement for crafters but I'm talking about adventuring now.) The idea is that if you know when and how to use each of your skills then you can probably do it. If you never learned then you're toast. Such a requirement will seperate the people who really know how to play their dragon from those who never learned because they leveled up on yard trash 30 levels below them. Stop measuring people by how much time they put in at the keyboard and start measuring them by what they can DO.

You want it to be difficult? Fine. But make it DIFFICULT and not time consuming and tedious. A huge in-game time requirement does not make it difficult. A huge hoard requirement does not make it diffucult. High level requirements in both adventuring and crafting do not make it difficult. Those kinds of requirements can make it time consuming and tedious but they don't make it difficult.

I do agree with other sentiments here that the reward should be big enough to be meaningful and the requirements should reflect the reward. However, those requirements can be reflected in the AROP itself and not it's prerequisites.

[Vahrokh]

Well, if ancient was not meant to be for ancient dragons, why not calling it "enhanced"?

I don't qualify for ancient with the proposed dates (I had to remake the dragon that was deadly bugged and GN did not move a finger to fix it) but I feel that I'd have to be an.. "ancient" to qualify for something called "ancient".

About the "hard to do quest":

first of all it will be articulated and complex. Hence exploitable in some way, so it has not that much meaning.

On the contrary, who will smartly exploit it, will have faster reward than those that will do it regularly.

Last but not least (I'd say first), you cannot make an hard ARoP quest.

Why?

Because of two reasons:

- to really, deeply test a dragon, you'd place mobs that i.e. hit him and let him go to i.e. 10% of his health (I think combat is the only test, as riddles and crafting guides will be rapidly posted everywhere). The test would be very "near the limits" to be a true trial.

- with the enormously different dragons setup, you'd have poorer dragons with tier IV scales, others with all points in health and health teched V scales. Others with all spent in str t&c... Others will have 200k hoard and others 25M. So it will not be possible to calibrate mobs so they test every dragon "to the limits". Getting 100 dragons with same skill, some will die but others will end the battles at 30% of their health just because of these differences. In the end the turmoil will make the devlopers lower the mobs difficulty so they are doable by every sheep.

So, in the end, I am favorable to some "boring" requisites. I think that "effort" in a MMO at the moment cannot be represented in another way.

Having a set of minimum requisites will let developers trim ARoP foes better, knowing that in any case a dragon won't be lesser than these limits (i.e. hoard) so his stats won't be worse than a minimum).

[Ebel]

i compleatly agree, i have worked my ****** of to get ebel where he is and would be very upset if a dragon of 1 month passed me by

[Fireclaw]

There is one other thing we perhaps should consider when talking about ARoP requirements:

One goal of having extremely high ARoP requirements is so that the benefits of completing ARoP and becoming ancient are extremely significant - perhaps equivalent to a biped with multiple 100s in different adventuring classes. Essentially, the higher the reqs to begin ARoP the higher the justification to having extreme combat power added as a reward for completing ARoP.

This is because ARoP is seen as the endgame for dragons - beyond which there is no possible advancement (at least until the level cap is raised). This leaves the fundamental problem of dragons hitting a ceiling beyond which no further improvement is possible.

Right now, myself and many old-timer dragons are hanging around for ARoP. It is the single thing that we have our hopes pinned on. But what happens when we complete ARoP? Will capped ancient dragons have any motivation to continue to play the game if we cannot improve and have nothing to look forward to?

I think it is critical that some form of dragon advancement exist beyond ARoP so that ancient dragons can continue improving indefinititely like bipeds can. It need not be multiclassing - there are other ways to do it, but there should be a mechanism for dragons to continue to gain combat capability at the cost of a ratings increase.

If ARoP is not the endgame for dragons - and it shouldn't be - then ancient dragons need not have all the combat ability of a multiple 100 biped adventurer as a quest reward from becoming ancient. If a lesser reward is given, then correspondingly lower requirements might be appropriate.

Note that this is only one factor in determining what ARoP requirements should be. There are many other factors, some of which include:
1. Ancients should be rare and awe-inspiring - which can only happen if there aren't very many of them. To make them rare means high requirements.
2. Player expectations - Playerbase wants high requirements and high benefits - will turn off many players to have wimpy ancients dragons.

Of course, given that it appears that no system is currently contemplated by AE to allow dragons to improve beyond hitting ancienthood, then completing ARoP really is the endgame for dragons. Consequently ancient dragons should be extremely powerful - matching the capability of a multi-100 adventurer biped. Unfortunately, this still means that many of those same dragons will likely lose interest and leave shortly after completing ARoP (or possibly after the level cap raise) with nothing further to look forward to.

[Vesuvius]

1. Ancients should be rare and awe-inspiring - which can only happen if there aren't very many of them. To make them rare means high requirements.
2. Player expectations - Playerbase wants high requirements and high benefits - will turn off many players to have wimpy ancients dragons.

This is all I care about. If Tulga messes this up WISH may be taking myself and the rest of my guild with it.

[Spellbound]

Hm, let's see, how many adult dragons are there on Chaos? 30, 40, maybe 50 if were lucky. Most of which are probably alts.

This flood of Ancients you all seem scared of, well, with so few players now, I don't see much to get scared about!

Like I stated earlier in this post, lack of new content and fixes is still driving players away from this game to other games.

Let's get the new content, whatever it may be, and enjoy it while we can!

[Cobal]

for your viewing pleasure, the quote from AE, what they had planned for dragons.

Some races will be much harder to play than others. Dragons, for example, will be one of the toughest races to play. Many players will flock to this race because it's so 'cool' but once they read up on the Dragon and what they can and cannot do, many will change their mind and move to other races.

See? AE wanted the casual player to give up on playing dragons. Meaning that ancient status should be extremely difficult to achieve, otherwise everyone will do it because it's "cool"

Of course a dragon does not gain their breath ability, or the ability to fly until their 8th or 9th year, until then they must rely on their bite, claws, tail, and magic for defense. After that, their hide begins to thicken, and they become much more capable, which includes the ability to grab their enemies in their claws, and carry them high into the sky, only to be dropped. With all of its abilities mature, it is said that an ancient dragon can kill any creature on the face of Istaria in a one on one battle with no magic involved

And that is why we expect an ancient dragon to be an extremely powerfull character.
For such a big reward there should be a big effort, henceelder dragons desire to have anextremely difficult quest to end all quests as Arop.

[Marco]

Just for the record any promise AE makes is void to me untill they actually get around to do it. Too many promises,too few fullfilled.

[Goriax]

for your viewing pleasure, the quote from AE, what they had planned for dragons.
Some races will be much harder to play than others. Dragons, for example, will be one of the toughest races to play. Many players will flock to this race because it's so 'cool' but once they read up on the Dragon and what they can and cannot do, many will change their mind and move to other races.

See? AE wanted the casual player to give up on playing dragons. Meaning that ancient status should be extremely difficult to achieve, otherwise everyone will do it because it's "cool"


Of course a dragon does not gain their breath ability, or the ability to fly until their 8th or 9th year, until then they must rely on their bite, claws, tail, and magic for defense. After that, their hide begins to thicken, and they become much more capable, which includes the ability to grab their enemies in their claws, and carry them high into the sky, only to be dropped. With all of its abilities mature, it is said that an ancient dragon can kill any creature on the face of Istaria in a one on one battle with no magic involved


[/b]And that is why we expect an ancient dragon to be an extremely powerfull character.
For such a big reward there should be a big effort, henceelder dragons desire to have anextremely difficult quest to end all quests as Arop.

Cobol: I recognise those quotes. They are from the OLD OLD OLD Horizons. LONG before they even ENTERED blackout!!!

After they had left blackout and announced the complete redesign of the gamethey said that dragons would not be much more difficult then any other race. That is indeed the situation. They aren't.

If you are still expecting an old style HZ dragon you really should expect some other things -- like being PKed 50 times before you get to level 10 by people 20 levels higher then you. For example. Because one of the things you left out in your AE quotes from the bad old daysis that dragons would be hunted by EVERYONE. Lucky for dragons this game is now PvE.

Unless the AROP is the quest from Hell, (and nothing else done in HZ remotely qualifies as such) then dragons simply haven't EARNED the right to be as uber as was in the OLD Horizons design doc and as you apparently want to be.

[Cobal]

After they had left blackout and announced the complete redesign of the game they said that dragons would not be much more difficult then any other race. That is indeed the situation. They aren't.

Mhhh, never saw any statement by AE that dragons wouldn?t be more difficult and that is indeed the situation.
Dragons ARE harder to play than a biped, unless ofcourse the dragon is being powered through its life.
Have you got a quote of this statement?

If you are still expecting an old style HZ dragon you really should expect some other things -- like being PKed 50 times before you get to level 10 by people 20 levels higher then you.

No, I would not have left the dragon Island until I was lvl 10 and dragon hunters would not have been able to get past the guards to get to the hatchlings.
Besides, in this old horizons the dragon hunters would need a group of slayers to take down a dragon.

one of the things you left out in your AE quotes from the bad old days is that dragons would be hunted by EVERYONE. Lucky for dragons this game is now PvE.

No, Dwarfs would be to busy hunting kulak, demons versus angels etc. Dragons were in fact neutral in the old design.
If I remember right if you wanted to hunt dragons you needed a group (a solo biped could not have taken a dragon in the old horizons, so Lucky for bipeds the game is now PvE) the group even had to flag itself as dragon slayers by joining a school of sorts.
So not everyone would be hunting us.
But yes, hunted we would have been. Hell, they had even planned for dragon organs to function as reagents for techs
Personally I feel this point is mute, as dragon I expect to defend my hoard and lair from adventurers from time to time

Unless the AROP is the quest from Hell, (and nothing else done in HZ remotely qualifies as such) then dragons simply haven't EARNED the right to be as uber as was in the OLD Horizons design doc and as you apparently want to be.

Oh yes we have earned that, we earned that three times over.
We earned that because we cant multiclass, because AE has been lying to us, because we constantly being nerfed (ok, haven?t been nerfed a few months now but still) because they are in fact much harder to play then a biped and lastly because AE very simply promised us that Ancients will be the strongest class, they never ever retracted that statement. And yes, I fully expect to be ?as uber as was in the OLD Horizons design doc and as you apparently want to be?
After all, all that design doc says is:

it is said that an ancient dragon can kill any creature on the face of Istaria in a one on one battle with no magic involved

Is it really to much for me to expect to be able to solo any mob (except boss mobs, they are boss mobs after all)in the game in a fair one on one battle, just like all bipeds can?
Well?

Btw, you have no place in this discussion unless you play a dragon.

[edit]
I found this in the OLD faq:

CAN OTHER PLAYERS KILL MY CHARACTER?
Only computer-controlled opponents will be able to kill your character. The player vs. player version of Horizons is being developed separately in order to create a better experience for players.

Meaning that no form of pvp would have existed in Horizons anyway, it was going to be a seperate product.

and back on the subject of Arop:

and regardless of how intense a player tries they will not be able to create an Ancient Dragon in 3 months.

[/edit]

[LaughingOtter]

Btw, you have no place in this discussion unless you play a dragon, and I dont mean having a pet dragon alt.

I have a dragon alt, but he is no 'pet'. *Tail thwap*

Everyone who plays a dragon - even casually, even alts - will be impacted by the ARoP in time. Excluding any portion of the dragon community from this discussionis not appropriate.

[Marco]

Btw, you have no place in this discussion unless you play a dragon, and I dont mean having a pet dragon alt.

Why is that? I can't see the harm in allowing him in to this discussion, whatever brings more folks into the dragon forum.

[Cobal]

Everyone who plays a dragon - even casually, even alts - will be impacted by the ARoP in time. Excluding any portion of the dragon community from this discussionis not appropriate.

mmmh, your right.
Ill change my comment accordingly.

I was just refering to this specific discussion about ancients Marco, theres no way in the world that someone who does not play a dragon can provide well informed input. Just like I can't provide well informed input about what should change to the monk class, simply because I lack knowledge about monks.

[Vlisson]

ok some infos are old but are they because of this not true any more

have AE stated something else?

Dragons will be for all Player, and every casual player will enjoy beeing a dragon and will be real powerfull?

no! AE stated nothing so the old info is the newest at the same moment =)