Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 18:04:19 GMT
Once every 30 days, for 1500 canopics, or whatever amount deemed appropriate players can go to Ixion and purchase one specific item. Flat out. The specific book, item base, or whatever. Pick you price, pick your duration between uses. But, I think this would be a fantastic option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Methes on May 20, 2020 5:11:12 GMT
To me the whole loot system on HG feels like a slot machine.
You invest time and effort and in return get a chance to get an item you want. This is even more prominent with randomization, over which the player has zero control, and in plain sight with XR loot system, where you earn ingame currency that you gamble for loot. You also have to roll high enough in a party in order to get the item that dropped. More slot machine.
There are some mechanics toning down this randomness, for instance XR refunds, crafting and to some extent set loot.
You can rig the system slightly by multiboxing, increasing your chance in a partyroll (eventually increasing your chances ten times!).
Take a look at stuff like artifacts though. You have to repeat the run over and over and over in order for it to drop and to roll high enough to get it. There have been ideas of earning 'tokens' for each run arti run and when you get certain amount of them with no arti drop, next one will be guaranteed. That wasn't implemented and is very similar in your idea, so don't get your hopes up, as it goes against the HG loot nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowdash on May 20, 2020 14:56:00 GMT
I second the proposal. I also think that every 2nd full moon people should be able to buy db runes for half an our in the thieves hideout for corn, this request is toally not self servering and i think the genaral population would benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lil' Mikey (Msowby2) on May 20, 2020 17:13:23 GMT
I like and personally appreciate the randomness factor, esp in XR items.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2020 17:17:11 GMT
This feature doesn't negate that for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by woqued on May 20, 2020 20:35:43 GMT
This feature doesn't negate that for you. Indirectly it kinda does, if there's less random crap in the player trades going around cuz some are saving for just that book in 1.5k canos or whatever price. I'm not saying they would, I think the deal is bad for everything except a few very specific xr subraces or those who HATE any form of randomness or those who have all but won the game in terms of canopic sub grind - but the only thing this implementation would do is reduce the amount of XRs in circulation and appease the very few very patient/multiboxing rich ones out there. I don't see many people saving up to 1.5k canos, but I could be wrong here. Since theres already a limited random 100 canos for items / 200 limited random for weapons, 1.5k for specific item makes (almost) no sense for any of the item pools thanks to refunding existing except for the 1. weapons 2. books So they could already limit the option strictly to weapons and books. Random was already restricted by a small amount due to allowing us to choose within specific weapon types. In that vein it was also suggested that players should be able to roll for books within specific base race - but since the amount of subs in different base races are so vastly different, it would make a few of the books disproportionately easy to get - I assume that was the reason it never went forward. Or just some reason to keep the randomness more random, dunno. I would argue that having more things in the trading distribution among players to keep at least in-house trading alive outweighs the benefit of having the option to pick 1 straight away for the random-hating people or those who just play vastly more / multibox solo/lowman canopic dropping runs so they have access to more. But I do empathize with the irritation of not getting the things you want, and being in the dark with the notion "I may never ever get this, despite insane time investment". The 1.5k deal would be for the completionists, or for people who are seeking only one thing otherwise and nobody seems to get it. From dev pov, you might argue that you want to keep it that way to keep chase items in the game - even if that is not ideal for those players in particular. Problem arises if people start leaving because of the overwhelming insurmountable wall that is between players and their goals - but for a lot of players, 1.5k canopics is already that anyway, and this would only benefit the very few. Consider for a non-multiboxing player it might take something like 25?30? pt2hard runs to get there, for ONE item... I know I'm repeating myself, but imho it is vastly more beneficial (for the server, imo) to have those people roll 5-6 subs and incentivize people trade them among eachother, even at the risk of someone not getting what they want. Otherwise soloing/duoing multiboxers will have no incentive to play nice anymore, you'll just solo p2 and get what you want overtime regardless of social interaction with others. |
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on May 20, 2020 21:35:21 GMT
I second the proposal. I also think that every 2nd full moon people should be able to buy db runes for half an our in the thieves hideout for corn, this request is toally not self servering and i think the genaral population would benefit from it. To be clear, I expect player suggestions to be self-serving. They don't rise or fall on that criterion. Probably not worth mentioning, as it drags a personal dimension into things unnecessarily. Funky |
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on May 20, 2020 21:42:03 GMT
This feature doesn't negate that for you. I know I'm repeating myself, but imho it is vastly more beneficial (for the server, imo) to have those people roll 5-6 subs and incentivize people trade them among eachother, even at the risk of someone not getting what they want. Otherwise soloing/duoing multiboxers will have no incentive to play nice anymore, you'll just solo p2 and get what you want overtime regardless of social interaction with others. I tend to agree with this, and it's one reason I don't particularly like the suggestion. That said, there's already in theory some number X of canos out there that allows this. So setting the cost higher would have no effect, as players would instead opt to simply keep farming as they would on net get the book plus everything else. At bottom, then, this is a request to reduce the cost of getting specific loot, and thereby increase player power. Couched in the terms of the OP, we've already done what he's asked. The amount 'deemed appropriate' is that number X, whatever it is. If the OP wants to argue for this, they're going to have to go at it directly. That said, I'm disinclined to do anything like this before Mechanus. Funky |
|
|
|
Post by woqued on May 20, 2020 22:31:58 GMT
I second the proposal. I also think that every 2nd full moon people should be able to buy db runes for half an our in the thieves hideout for corn, this request is toally not self servering and i think the genaral population would benefit from it. To be clear, I expect player suggestions to be self-serving. They don't rise or fall on that criterion. Probably not worth mentioning, as it drags a personal dimension into things unnecessarily. Funky There are differences between self-serving suggestions though, such as A) "this helps me, specifically, and allows me to ignore everyone and just play singleplayer while getting it all, faster than those other guys grouping together" B) "this helps me and my friends, but kinda not anyone else" C) "this helps me, that guy nobody likes (Otis), and everyone else presumably, whether they know it or not". .. The last one is "positively self-serving". The first one is detrimental for the server. The second one is arguable. But it can be a point worth contending at times, or? I presume dash had a disagreement with this one being anything positively self-serving when considering the general populace that he mentioned, but can't speak for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Pulpo on May 20, 2020 22:55:24 GMT
Wow so Idea forums now Judge not only the Idea itself but also the "True" Motivations behind ideas. Any guides for a new player on how to correctly submit ideas of HG by chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by woqued on May 20, 2020 23:09:05 GMT
Wow so Idea forums now Judge not only the Idea itself but also the "True" Motivations behind ideas. Any guides for a new player on how to correctly submit ideas of HG by chance? I suppose you make a pretty solid point there, the motivation behind it isn't even remotely as important as the substance matter of the suggestion. I think often it is a good idea to question why someone wants a change or not, and that has to do with the motivation behind the suggestion. You are free to defend your stance, and it is ok to disagree on the matter at hand - that's just basic discussion isn't it? He did not mention -why- he thought this would be a good idea. Just that he said it is a fantastic idea to him, so we are left guessing why. No guide, sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on May 20, 2020 23:51:06 GMT
To be clear, I expect player suggestions to be self-serving. They don't rise or fall on that criterion. Probably not worth mentioning, as it drags a personal dimension into things unnecessarily. Funky There are differences between self-serving suggestions though, such as A) "this helps me, specifically, and allows me to ignore everyone and just play singleplayer while getting it all, faster than those other guys grouping together" B) "this helps me and my friends, but kinda not anyone else" C) "this helps me, that guy nobody likes (Otis), and everyone else presumably, whether they know it or not". .. The last one is "positively self-serving". The first one is detrimental for the server. The second one is arguable. But it can be a point worth contending at times, or? I presume dash had a disagreement with this one being anything positively self-serving when considering the general populace that he mentioned, but can't speak for him. Assuming all that's true - and I'm sure there is a spectrum of selfishness in this as with anything - I don't think it advances the conversation to focus on it, when you can simply point out the detriment that would result to some segment of the population, as you did initially. That way we don't have to try to visit people's intentions. You can also point out that the proposed use of zots would have very little application beyond a very select group, which is also a very valid point. Funky |
|
|
|
Post by woqued on May 20, 2020 23:54:13 GMT
Assuming all that's true - and I'm sure there is a spectrum of selfishness in this as with anything - I don't think it advances the conversation to focus on it, when you can simply point out the detriment that would result to some segment of the population, as you did initially. That way we don't have to try to visit people's intentions. You can also point out that the proposed use of zots would have very little application beyond a very select group, which is also a very valid point. Funky Yeah, that's valid. Pulpos post already made me re-think and see the error in that thought process of mine. |
|
|
|
Post by dopplegang on May 21, 2020 7:43:15 GMT
I know I'm repeating myself, but imho it is vastly more beneficial (for the server, imo) to have those people roll 5-6 subs and incentivize people trade them among each other, even at the risk of someone not getting what they want. Otherwise soloing/duoing multiboxers will have no incentive to play nice anymore, you'll just solo p2 and get what you want overtime regardless of social interaction with others. It is for this reason that I am against the cano sellback option, and also believe that getting what you want without interacting with others hurts the community no matter how expensive you make it. This is the very reason we see so very few xr up for auction and so few to trade, one mans trash is usually a new players treasure, but instead they are sold back to Ixiom, or possibly just bought outright and never see junk you would have to use for tradebait again. I would love this option, but if it were implemented we would see fewer xr trades without a doubt. There are so very few already with the sellback option in place as it is that beginning players or those without as much time on peek hours have no chance to gain even a broken xr item that's better than the bur stuff they have access to without the huge time investment of grinding limbo. Maybe the intent was to keep xr out of auction chests and as minimal trade options as possible? That just seems contrary to a community growth to me. Am I alone in this perspective? |
|
|
|
Post by woqued on May 21, 2020 8:25:09 GMT
I know I'm repeating myself, but imho it is vastly more beneficial (for the server, imo) to have those people roll 5-6 subs and incentivize people trade them among each other, even at the risk of someone not getting what they want. Otherwise soloing/duoing multiboxers will have no incentive to play nice anymore, you'll just solo p2 and get what you want overtime regardless of social interaction with others. It is for this reason that I am against the cano sellback option, and also believe that getting what you want without interacting with others hurts the community no matter how expensive you make it. This is the very reason we see so very few xr up for auction and so few to trade, one mans trash is usually a new players treasure, but instead they are sold back to Ixiom, or possibly just bought outright and never see junk you would have to use for tradebait again. I would love this option, but if it were implemented we would see fewer xr trades without a doubt. There are so very few already with the sellback option in place as it is that beginning players or those without as much time on peek hours have no chance to gain even a broken xr item that's better than the bur stuff they have access to without the huge time investment of grinding limbo. Maybe the intent was to keep xr out of auction chests and as minimal trade options as possible? That just seems contrary to a community growth to me. Am I alone in this perspective? It was a pretty great intermediate option to making XR items more readily available without introducing a massive amount of XRs into the community by lowering costs *significantly*, especially when at the beginning there were many XRs that had no purpose and many still don't, and might not have a purpose for years to come - giving us the oppourtunity to use those to at least progress somehow is good, and it was even better when canopics were harder to attain - which seemed to be a key point in Deving canopic/xr acquisition rates. The intent was that not everyone (or anyone at all, for that matter) gets to complete the XR grind with just Limbo, or at least not any time soon. Another note is that since quite a few XRs are really hard to make use of, including most heavy plates and tower shields due class balance in game atm (which could also potentially wait years, and it has), the cloaks with 0% phys imm and esoterics to types that don't exist yet, just plain outdated items that may have not been thoroughly vetted in the first place - or have unworking scripts - or woulda made sense if XRs dropped as often as burs. With that out of the way, what you're saying makes sense. XRs have a very different feel to it than BURs do when it comes to what people have stashed away - as you said, one man's trash, another man's treasure - or we just might get smarter over the years, game might change and make us appreciate different things overtime - and there are simply less overall xr for xr trading in terms of regular items. Mostly subs/weapons being traded for subs/weapons/canos, and keeping the select special XRs we get, majority of 50s goin to scrapper. Then again, with changes to the game and shifts in player appreciation in terms of gearing/weapons, we will have more goals in the future if those items don't exist in existing player pool thanks to refunds. Silver linings? At this point, with all the changes to canopic drop amounts and difficulty in Limbo and increase in powercreep, maybe no refund and smaller cost would be better, but constant fiddling with the system while it does still work and have it's upsides is not ideal. |
|
