I would like to see non-tradable auto released to tradable after like 3 or so expansions or whatever seems reasonable.
MyNegation said:Wudanar said:I would like to see no drops auto released to tradable after like 3 or so expansions or whatever seems reasonable.
what does that even mean?
please explain.
Much like the others above me, with just this text and no solid foundation as to why one would suggest this, i do not see a reason to have this happen. No drop items should stay no drop, just like lore items should stay lore. (Most no drop items i can remember were quest items, and i don't want to be allowed to grab quest items with my main, to powerlevel an alt later on)
My guess is the OP wants all No Drop items (if they even exist) to become normal items (I'd assume Lore (if that exists) so only one can be in inventory) after a few expansions.
Reason? Umm... No clue. The items will already be outclassed if level is not increased. Maybe to allow others to have useless gear?
My take is no. Flooding the market with dropped items would kill crafting for the level range those items come from.
I would like to trade old raid gear that no longer is top of the line gear to alts. I guess this would also be possible if they used what EQ1 currently calls Heirloom, making items tradable amongst a single account.
Not a good idea. Market would be full of that stuff, it would be way too easy to equip alts and new players.
Crafters would not be able to sell anything. Why craft when last year's top raid gear is on sale? And if all such items become tradeable, the prices would be rather low.
Also, one should NOT be able to wear items that he did not really earn. Top-end raid loot, even if from a year or two ago, should NEVER be accessible to someone who just buys some in-game cash from a gold farmer.
Yes, I know that some guilds will be selling loot rights on such items. But such cases are few and far between - if a guild has farmed a zone to the point they don't need those items any more, they will usually move on.
If you enable all old raid loot to be tradeable, it would be a huge number of items, with the negative impact far beyond what any guild selling loot rights will make.
Aethor said:Also, one should NOT be able to wear items that he did not really earn. Top-end raid loot, even if from a year or two ago, should NEVER be accessible to someone who just buys some in-game cash from a gold farmer.
Why is it ok for people to get group loot they did not earn, but not raid loot? Keep in mind, I dislike the player trade market entirely because of your very point, it allows players to obtain items they did not earn (earning money is not the same as earning the drop from where it came from).
Should not all items be of such a nature? I mean, if it is wrong that a "Top-end" raid loot is bought and sold by players who did not earn them, why is it also not wrong for the players who buy a rare and difficult group drop deep in a very difficult dungeon they did not earn from?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander right?
Honestly, I think the best solution to this issue is a compromise in the system.
All loot is dropable and tradeable (even though as I said I can't stand the player trade market and how it allows people to buy their upgrades over earning them directly), but... here is the deviation.
Let us say that an item is a +10 str ring. This item dropped directly from the mob it came from is +10 only to the group that killed it at the time (ie everyone is flagged in the group for a period of time). The moment that loot is traded outside of the group, it decays in its value (ie stats drop by certain amount). So, lets say someone loots the item and trades it to another. The player that gets the item now has a ring of str that is +8 or +6. If that player trades the item again, the stats then degrade even more by a steady amount. This item then could only be traded so many times before it becomes worthless. You could apply this to all kinds of bonuses an item may have, even removing key things if the item is traded (for instance an item has a proc that it no longer works or has on the initial trade).
What does this do? First, it still provides the player trade market with items to trade. Second, it protects the value of earning the item yourself. That is, the person who buys the item will NEVER be equal to those who obtain the item in person. You could explain the reasoning behind an item losing its power by a simple fantasy base concept (magic items use a binding process of the user to amplify its magic and for each process, this deminishes the power of the magic in the item, etc...).
The other thing it does is actually put in a decay mechanic into the game, that keeps from trading making the market overloaded. For every trade, every item will deminish. If you never trade your item, it stays full power forever.
There are some issues with this, as in what about people who would sell the loot rights, but this happens regardless if you use this system or a BoP system. At least in this system, those who buy their way up still are catered to (which is what the player trade market is all about), and those who believe being there, doing it yourself are catered to as well.
Personally, I think it is a win/win.
Tanix I agree with your basic point.
Better to keep it simple and just have the most significant items "no trade" to begin with.
If someone wants gear from a boss let them go to the effort of finding a group and killing the boss.
Freely tradable items means content monopolized by people that have done it already and have the gear just looking to make money - at the expense of people that have never done it and want their chance to do so.
Freely tradable items means lower level bosses one or two-shot by high levels looking to sell the drops or give them to alts - at the expense of people at the level of the encounter that would actually be doing it for fun as well as profit.
((Keep in mind, I dislike the player trade market entirely because of your very point, it allows players to obtain items they did not earn (earning money is not the same as earning the drop from where it came from). ))
This is very true - keep the faith brothers and sisters!!
((Personally, I think it is a win/win. ))
No its a complicated kludge of win/lose. No trade is far better.
Sure ... if the no trade flag means something. I am in the view , that if a no trade item is to be looted , the person had to be in the encounter and eligible for loot.
That means no selling loot rights , MQ's or alt looting otherwise its pointless.
dorotea said:((Personally, I think it is a win/win. ))
No its a complicated kludge of win/lose. No trade is far better.
I don't think no trade will sell (ie people will not accept the idea) though unfortunately.
Tanix said:Why is it ok for people to get group loot they did not earn, but not raid loot? Keep in mind, I dislike the player trade market entirely because of your very point, it allows players to obtain items they did not earn (earning money is not the same as earning the drop from where it came from).
They shouldn't. Raid loot was merely an example - and for examples I usually use the extreme ends because they're more obvious.
But people should not get top-end group loot if they haven't really earned it, either. A top-end group content should also result in "no drop" rewards. Same for top-end pain-in-the-rear-end quest rewards.
There can be a few droppable items that are actually very good, just to keep the market interesting - like EQ fungi tunic, CoF etc - but they should be few and far between. They would be there to add flavor, not to become the main ingredient.
The original poster's idea was to make all older items (as in, everything 2-3 expansions old) that originally were "no drop" droppable (tradeable).
Were that to come to pass, the quantity of such items would result in a quality (of the game) change (downwards) on its own.
Aethor said:Tanix said:Why is it ok for people to get group loot they did not earn, but not raid loot? Keep in mind, I dislike the player trade market entirely because of your very point, it allows players to obtain items they did not earn (earning money is not the same as earning the drop from where it came from).They shouldn't. Raid loot was merely an example - and for examples I usually use the extreme ends because they're more obvious.
But people should not get top-end group loot if they haven't really earned it, either. A top-end group content should also result in "no drop" rewards. Same for top-end pain-in-the-rear-end quest rewards.
There can be a few droppable items that are actually very good, just to keep the market interesting - like EQ fungi tunic, CoF etc - but they should be few and far between. They would be there to add flavor, not to become the main ingredient.
The original poster's idea was to make all older items (as in, everything 2-3 expansions old) that originally were "no drop" droppable (tradeable).
Were that to come to pass, the quantity of such items would result in a quality (of the game) change (downwards) on its own.
The Fungi Tunic and the CoF were not normal items, in fact at their time they were the best in slot for some classes. The problem is that either we allow all as droppable or none due to the princpal of it. Either it is ok to buy ones progression, or it is not.
I don't agree with the OPs solution at all, my issue was more with raid drops being no drop and group drops not as this is a more commonly accepted position by many in the past that I have seen.
My idea was to give everyone the abilty to have what they want, but making it where the best items always had to be earned, not bought. The item attribute/ability decay provides that solution.
@Tanix
I like where your head is at. I am of the school of thought that twinking should be allowed, and people should be allowed to buy items that they didn't actually get themselves. My thought is that players will have to put in a ton of work to buy that stuff anyways so if they aren't skilled enough to kill a boss, then they can spend countless hours getting the money together to buy the loot instead. Definitely not time efficient. It also gives the seller some extra coin instead of having a pretty worthless item. If we nerf the stats on the trade, then it is the best of both worlds. Excellent idea. I would add the caveat that you should be able to transfer the item directly to one of your alts without the nerf though.
I think you also have to take into account crafting gear. They have stated that they want crafting gear to be as good, or fairly close to, dungeon quality type of gear. So I would assume some very good pieces, like in EQ, will be solid pieces at end game. So I think regardless people will buy their progression unless you want to take crafting out of the picture somehow.
((I don't think no trade will sell (ie people will not accept the idea) though unfortunately. ))
You may be right but since I *do* agree I might as well say so. VR does listen and we both may be wrong about what people mostly want.
Also an open issue is types of servers. If they go for almost all items being tradable as we both expect - it is far from impossible that they will at least consider having boss items being no trade as an alternative ruleset on one server.
After all this should be trivially easy to program unlike a pvp server that will take a lot of work or a roleplaying server that will take GM time to enforce naming rules. The only reason *not* to have a no trade server is the risk of fragmenting the community too much which is a real concern.
Watemper what you say is one of the main reasons I heartily agree with having most or all boss drops being no-trade. If you cannot buy boss items it will make buying crafted items more appealing to the benefit of the crafting community.
dorotea said:((I don't think no trade will sell (ie people will not accept the idea) though unfortunately. ))
You may be right but since I *do* agree I might as well say so. VR does listen and we both may be wrong about what people mostly want.
Also an open issue is types of servers. If they go for almost all items being tradable as we both expect - it is far from impossible that they will at least consider having boss items being no trade as an alternative ruleset on one server.
After all this should be trivially easy to program unlike a pvp server that will take a lot of work or a roleplaying server that will take GM time to enforce naming rules. The only reason *not* to have a no trade server is the risk of fragmenting the community too much which is a real concern.
Watemper what you say is one of the main reasons I heartily agree with having most or all boss drops being no-trade. If you cannot buy boss items it will make buying crafted items more appealing to the benefit of the crafting community.
Let me be clear though, I do not like BoE, BoP systems. I am merely pointing out that the system you are advocating for is something that does not fit well with the games Pantheon is founded on. The concept of all these "on rails" limitations to curb player behavior, to force them to achieve as the designer wants, etc.. these are modern MMO designs and they do have a negative effect on game play.
My suggestion was one that achieves a practical play solution, yet still preserves the initial design ideal of the games of the time. Items are fully tradeable, they just have negative effects when they are traded which makes them less valuable the more they are traded.
Making things BoP is a solution akin to "invisible walls", it is just a blatant game mechanic to enforce behavior.
You are ok with that, I am not, and what I am saying is that if Pantheon seeks this sort of solution, they will end up with yet another mainstream MMO. What makes mainstream is not if it is difficult (many games are mainstream and have difficult content), or that it takes a long time to level (many Asian MMOs have massively long grinds, but also are modern mainstream).
What made EQ unique was the subtle elements of play, those things you are wanting them to remove (ie emergent play, forced resolution, etc...) and this is why it concerns me when people who played EQ 2 or FFXI which are different styles, different approaches, and in many of their solutions, mainstream design (EQ 2 killed itself to original EQ players because of its various "forced" mechanics on groups, pulling, etc...).
If had to choose between no system, or BoP, I choose system. The goal is not to tell other people how to play( ie who use the trade market to advance), but to make it so that that isn't the most effective form of advancement, there by apply more proper risk/reward in play.
Watemper said:I think you also have to take into account crafting gear. They have stated that they want crafting gear to be as good, or fairly close to, dungeon quality type of gear. So I would assume some very good pieces, like in EQ, will be solid pieces at end game. So I think regardless people will buy their progression unless you want to take crafting out of the picture somehow.
True, but usually crafted gear of such a nature is created using dropped components from rare dungeons and mobs. So, the same concept of item degredatrion in quality of component can still be achieved to some extent through the trade system. Also, you can still make items that drop be slightly better than the crafted as well.
The idea isn't to punish the player who tries to advance through trade, rather to make it where it is not the most effective means to achieve such.
I will say that every game where the best items can all be crafted, well.. I found to be bland and boring very quickly.
I just thought you guys might actually want to know what VR has already said on this subject.
It has already been mentioned many times by VR that almost all items are going to be Tradeable. If I remember correctly Brad McQuaid said something to the effect that only Epic items from long questlines (like the class specific Epic weapons from EQ) will be bound to the character that completes the quest line.
In the MMORPG Interview with Chris Perkins and Brad McQuaid at timestamp 31:55 Chris talks about an idea they have discussed about players being able to 'enchant' or 'augment' items after they obtain them such as adding extra stats or a Proc. He explains that if an item is altered like this, it will become 'non-tradable' or bound to the player who altered it. (it should be noted that Chris says this is only an idea they discussed and may not be implemented in any way, or not until down the road in an expansion). At 33:06 Brad chimes in and says "It should be noted for people who might not know, that the vast majority of items are tradeable."
As for Twinking, VR has talked about this several times. I will refer you to a post I already made in response to this topic that gives video links to how VR wants to deal with Twinking.
Tanix, sorry I misunderstood.
I thought I was agreeing with you. I thought agreement would be a pleasant change of pace. Just pretend I never posted that.
GoofyWarriorGuy I know what VR has said. One of the things I like about these development forums is that they welcome opposite opinions as long as they are accompanied by rational arguments in support that VR can consider. Who knows - they might even change their minds on some issues because of discussion here although I don't think that will happen on this issue. Nor would I list bind-on-pickup versus freely tradable as one of the 10 issues I care most about. Not even close.
I think there is a balance here between setting up items (whether looted or crafted) so that supply/demand remain relatively consistent over time, and so that rare items remain relatively rare.... and between allowing players to freely trade and sell items, whether new or used. I personally believe very strongly that the game needs to support the thrill of discovery for new adventurers, as well as the thrill of creation for new crafters - and that means placing controls on items and the economy so that those two aspects do not get trivialized over time.
There are lots of different options that can be considered, and they all have pros and cons. None of them are perfect, even in combination. My hope is that VR is thinking very carefully about how to set things up in the most balanced way possible, and that they're also open to making changes if they find at any point that things are headed off the rails. We can argue philosophy all day long here on these forums, but none of that matters 5 years after launch when a new player joins the game only to find a broken economy.