Spell Sharing - What is your honest opinion?

Hello everyone,

So it has come to my attention that a lot of people have been having differing opinions about Spell Sharing.  When I first founded this server as Knockturn, one of the key rules was that this would never be a Dictatorship, but rather a democracy.  I don't want to ignore your opinions, and it seems this has been an issue that has been coming up.  I realize the problem is diverse and what-not, so I want to offer up my opinion for what I think it should be and why, why we have the current rules, and then offer some solutions.  If there is a solution you don't see here, comment below and I will freely add it as a choice.

Why do we have the current system?

Under our previous system, we had harsh rules about what was 'first year' and what was 'second year'.  As a result, sometimes certain spells were unlocked in 2nd year that other people abused, and made it hard for first years to defend themselves.  For a lot of people, this was generally looked down upon.

As a result we came up with the following system:

Years are based on 'tiers' and these tiers give you a % of additional successrate to your already stable amount of spells.  So doing first year spells will reward you for doing higher spells, and make it easier to perform.

Now we don't assume this is perfect, and perhaps it does need to be changed.  If this is the case, I can of course come up with some alternatives to make people happier.

Suggestions

1: I can make it more difficult for you to be successful as a higher level spell.

(his does not negate the progress someone might have ALREADY made on a spell, but anyone learning the spell for the first time will have a much harder time learning it.  This would mean that spells that were previously low level tiers will possibly moved to higher tiers, and the tiers will also be harder to achieve.  I may also reduce how quickly someone would have successrate (which may lower the successrates on spells you level, not a loss of spell data, just a nerf of the spell).

2: I could make it so that you have to attain a certain level in a tier of spells before performing the next tier.

I could require that spells be locked until you have a certain number of casts in every tier lower than the spell you are casting at.  This means you would need say 1k casts in the first tier to reach tier two spells.  That means that if you did periculum, incendio, verdimillious etc (anything in the sbos) 100 times, you would be able to unlock the next level of spells.  Now that we have about 94 spells (77 if you could color spells as one spell instead of 17), this becomes more possible, since we now have some spells in each tier up to at least tier 7.  Most people who have cast spells and practiced enough already have about 100 casts of different spells already.

I am guessing a lot of those who are Pro-Spell-Lock will be voting for this option.

3: I can lock spells by year

I really hope you don't chose this option, because generally this is my least favorite idea.  I like that spells are not bound by year, and this will mean we will have to classify what is a 'year one spell' over a 'tier one spell' since transfiguration teachers both tier one and two.

These are the three options I have come up with, I am sure other people have other options they want. And of course, we can have a 'no change' option.

Your definitely not a dictatorship, but democracy would be hard to pull off. I think you guys make a good Elected Aristocracy though, which is the best we can ask for.

If spells locked by tier happens, would it be possible to get a list of spells from each tier so everyone knows what spell they need to move up a tier? As right now we're more or less guessing what tier a spell is.

We are already planning on making spells more public. Perhaps we will make it so you can only buy books that explain it based on your tier level currently or year.  I am going to try to write a plugin specifically for selling books for the server or something though, so we'll see what happens, but we'll definitely tell y'all. I will also ad messages when you unlock the next tier and also when you can't do the spell it will say 'failed because of tier."

I had the idea of restricting spells by year but also by a year or two above, so Y1 can cast up to Y3, Y2 can go up to Y4,etc., that way people have more incentive to go to classes and year up and the spell sharing would hopefully be reduced since there's not much point learning a spell you can't cast, but out of the options given I like option two best, with option one a close second.

Okay, after thinking about it, tier locking seems most appropriate in opinion. As much as I enjoy the freedom of no restrictions to spells (it's very immersive that way), it does become very difficult to keep players focusing on spells around their respective levels and that's just leading to all kinds of imbalances and unnecessary mishaps... Of course, if improving at spells far more difficult than your current level is more arduous, perhaps it'll encourage players to practise more appropriate spells for them and correct the imbalance. However, which much regret, I have to admit that the greatest chance to rebalance players is with tier locking spells: it would push them towards focusing on spells around their level and improving at a steady rate without preventing too much restriction. With enough practice, players will be able to advance with spellcasting as they do now, and probably in a more logical way (although maybe that's a wait and see), so it makes sense that, as I'm commenting this, that option 2 is the most popular. I just hope this all work out (please no year locking - that's so boring and ceases efforts to make it more flexible and enjoyable for more avid spell casters to explore their abilities and the extent of spells). 

Honestly, I get aggravated when I see first years trying to Apparate or cast advanced spells. It ruins the whole roleplaying aspect. However on the other hand, me being the Ravenclaw I am, I love learning higher and harder spells. Maybe some how the more you practice spells, the easier advanced ones come to you. That way if you really try and care, you can perform advanced spells, but the first years that like killing people with year 5 spells but don't do anything else, they can fail the spells. I think spell sharing honestly should be allowed in a way. Teaching year ones how to apparate etc. isn't funny. However, my whole spell document on Google docs was deleted, and I was kind of frustrated when people said they weren't allowed to tell me spells. I knew the spells before, I just lost them and had to start all over. It wasn't like I didn't take the effort to learn them, I definitely did. Here are my opinions on the matter, and I hope they help.

@Kwesi, I agree here. Think of any popular Multiplayer RPG, let's take Diablo for instance. You start off with a weak character, with different strengths and weaknesses from others, and low level abilities. The more powerful skills require you to get weaker skills first to keep the game balanced. Think of how gamebreaking it would be to have a Level 1 character using a top-tier skill, it'd be insane. In a sense, that's what the spell tier would do and why I like it. This forces players to actually level up your basic spells, instead of skipping Incendio in favor of Confringo like what seems to be the trend nowadays. Like Diablo, as you progress you will get better things and you will steadily gain more powerful spells, but if you allow low level players too powerful abilities it not only unbalances the game but it makes some aspects too easy, removing the fun of a challenge.

I think that the more you practice lower spells, the easier the higher ones should come to you. But it takes actual effort. That way, though it may be frustrating for some, the people who are persistent and care about moving up receive reward by being granted easier access to higher spells.

(Take the try-hard Blishwick brothers as an example)