Surprised me in bad way. Repair of netherium rapier drop (14.7 DPS, 45 lvl or so?) costed me 54 gold from 96% condition, lvl 40 plate torso 10g 97s for 1%. It is too high I think and should be lowered.
Frigzy wrote: ↑Thu 3 Oct 2019 8:56 AM"Player crafter can no longer repair equipable items, a blacksmith NPC must be used"
*sigh* Really?
The only good part is no more duration loss; but now RvR has suddenly turned into a money sink instead of a slight gain.
Overall terrible change. Going the wrong direction, in the lines of "that other server" ...
Roto23 wrote: ↑Thu 3 Oct 2019 5:08 PMDoes it cost the same to repair from 99 % to 100% as it costs to repair from 90% to 100%?
chryso wrote: ↑Fri 4 Oct 2019 12:21 PMI don't understand where people get all of this money. I have 3 50s on alb and about 5p and I felt like I was doing pretty well. Now I am not so sure. I have a merc who just dinged 50, got his epic gear and is using the neck quest sword. The only thing I have done at 50 after getting the epic gear is one Sidi run. At the end of the run my sword was at 99%. I went to check and see how much repair would be and it is 30g. That is not a lot but I got zero gold on the Sidi run and rolled about 100 so I also got no loot. I only checked one weapon on repair. If my other items are also degraded it could be expensive. I am not sure how long I will be able to afford to keep playing.
Sorry, dont have time for spent on gold farming, have only a few hours for RvR, sometimes raid, and all it (except feathers which im dont have enough still) is money sink like charges, buffs and now huge repairs.Keelia wrote: ↑Fri 4 Oct 2019 4:43 PMThey farm, I could farm a decent amount of plat bore hour on my necro solo. Usually knock out an hour or so before/after my 8 man would run. After 2 months on alb I had about 45 plat.
Do the same thing on hib, at 15p but just made a new temp and leveled a alch so a decent chunk right there
Sepplord wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 6:03 AMmy biggest gripe with the system is that it unfairly applies to different playstyles/classes
When their suggestions came out, it sounded as if they wanted to do something against the caster meta....but this system benefits casters over anyone else making casters the cheapest to maintain. Casters are already BY FAR the cheapest to template. I have templated everycaster within one or two hours for a handful of plat, while i can't even get a skald-temp finished because the equipment needed isn't even available and when items pop up a single accessory costs more than a full-template of a caster.
And then this system comes around, and burdens non caster players with additional costs that are higher than their caster counterparts.
And while writing this i am afraid that caster-repaircosts will get increased instead of the other way around
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 6:44 AMAllso, the repair cost is the same for everyone as only the item level is relevant and no longer the sell price (in which case cloth would have been cheaper).
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 6:44 AMSepplord wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 6:03 AMmy biggest gripe with the system is that it unfairly applies to different playstyles/classes
When their suggestions came out, it sounded as if they wanted to do something against the caster meta....but this system benefits casters over anyone else making casters the cheapest to maintain. Casters are already BY FAR the cheapest to template. I have templated everycaster within one or two hours for a handful of plat, while i can't even get a skald-temp finished because the equipment needed isn't even available and when items pop up a single accessory costs more than a full-template of a caster.
And then this system comes around, and burdens non caster players with additional costs that are higher than their caster counterparts.
And while writing this i am afraid that caster-repaircosts will get increased instead of the other way around
While this was in the same thread, it's unrelated to the caster meta stuff. Also, the repair cost is the same for everyone as only the item level is relevant and no longer the sell price (in which case cloth would have been cheaper).
REVOLTE wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 6:57 AMdont get me wrong, im not a schafhater...but do you actually play this game?
melees just naturally have higher equipment decay by...well...getting hit often. so naturally, an overall increase in gear maintenance cost will affect melees more than casters.
Sepplord wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 7:46 AMWhile casters pay the same for already damaged equipment, their equipment often takes much less damage. It gets most obvious when you look at PvE, where the tank gets pummeled by mobs and has his armor damaged while a caster will most often only be using his staff.
Does a 2Hand degrade twice as fast as compared to someone dualwielding when they attack the same amount of times (or better, attack for the same amount of time)?
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 8:46 AMSame rate for now but I'm currently testing / was testing over the weekend a couple things locally:
Weapon decay modified by weapon speed, as almost everything like procs normalized to 3.5, additional modifier on offhand (something like 50 - 75%)
For Armor 100-item absorb chance to apply condition decay (90% for leather, 81 for studded, 73 for chain, 66 for plate), weapon speed / offhand modifier would apply here as well.
REVOLTE wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 9:26 AM...which implies that even from your point of view the implemented system is flawed. you are a smart guy. you cant tell me you havent thought about this before.
which brings up the question: why dont you guys start implementing stuff AFTER thinking things through? to me, this kind of feels like reverse uthgard (where they only implemented additions after testing them for at least 2 years and making sure they work 100% in any possible scenario). maybe, just maybe a middle ground would be a tad smarter? the server has suffered big time already by what feels like shots from the hip.
justmy2groschn.
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 9:31 AMWhen it was initially implemented spells caused twice the accessory condition decay making it about equal, that was however reversed 2 days later leaving this difference which will be changed in the next day or two.
REVOLTE wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 9:26 AMgruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 8:46 AMSame rate for now but I'm currently testing / was testing over the weekend a couple things locally:
Weapon decay modified by weapon speed, as almost everything like procs normalized to 3.5, additional modifier on offhand (something like 50 - 75%)
For Armor 100-item absorb chance to apply condition decay (90% for leather, 81 for studded, 73 for chain, 66 for plate), weapon speed / offhand modifier would apply here as well.
...which implies that even from your point of view the implemented system is flawed. you are a smart guy. you cant tell me you havent thought about this before.
which brings up the question: why dont you guys start implementing stuff AFTER thinking things through? to me, this kind of feels like reverse uthgard (where they only implemented additions after testing them for at least 2 years and making sure they work 100% in any possible scenario). maybe, just maybe a middle ground would be a tad smarter? the server has suffered big time already by what feels like shots from the hip.
justmy2groschn.
iamsaitam wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 11:27 AMPlease don't start wasting 2 years to implement anything. Terrible advice. Do things incrementally and make sure to pay attention to the feedback loop.
Because they clearly pay attention to the feed back loop. How’s that worked out so far.iamsaitam wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 11:27 AMREVOLTE wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 9:26 AMgruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 8:46 AMSame rate for now but I'm currently testing / was testing over the weekend a couple things locally:
Weapon decay modified by weapon speed, as almost everything like procs normalized to 3.5, additional modifier on offhand (something like 50 - 75%)
For Armor 100-item absorb chance to apply condition decay (90% for leather, 81 for studded, 73 for chain, 66 for plate), weapon speed / offhand modifier would apply here as well.
...which implies that even from your point of view the implemented system is flawed. you are a smart guy. you cant tell me you havent thought about this before.
which brings up the question: why dont you guys start implementing stuff AFTER thinking things through? to me, this kind of feels like reverse uthgard (where they only implemented additions after testing them for at least 2 years and making sure they work 100% in any possible scenario). maybe, just maybe a middle ground would be a tad smarter? the server has suffered big time already by what feels like shots from the hip.
justmy2groschn.
Please don't start wasting 2 years to implement anything. Terrible advice. Do things incrementally and make sure to pay attention to the feedback loop.
Keelia wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 4:43 PMBecause they clearly pay attention to the feed back loop. How’s that worked out so far.
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 6:42 PMKeelia wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 4:43 PMBecause they clearly pay attention to the feed back loop. How’s that worked out so far.
Because anything but completely removing a new gold sink is ofc not paying attention. The entire need for some new gold sink is btw because we actually listened to the feedback on the salvage loot bug fix. We should just have stuck to the change and not increased the task reward to compensate.
Keelia wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 8:45 PMBecause the community asked for you to create a gold sink? I must have missed that post.
Jafeeio wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 1:49 AMI might have written this somewhere before but DAoC just isn't as influenced by "the general population accumulating more gold" than other MMOs. Markets cannot be cornered and resources are infinite. Arcanium costs the same as it did 10 months ago at the vendor, spellcraft gems cost the same, alchemy ingredients cost the same and nobody can change that except the developers, so there will always be an anchor if things get out of hand. It is also not as feasible to go around the housing zone, buy up all the items and relist them as it is in other MMOs with margin trading like EVE or WoW. So what bad thing would happen if everybody suddenly got a free 20p in their pocket today? Maybe people would finally buy some epic procs
You miss the point that few people have the mounds of gold hoards some have.gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 9:36 AMJafeeio wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 1:49 AMI might have written this somewhere before but DAoC just isn't as influenced by "the general population accumulating more gold" than other MMOs. Markets cannot be cornered and resources are infinite. Arcanium costs the same as it did 10 months ago at the vendor, spellcraft gems cost the same, alchemy ingredients cost the same and nobody can change that except the developers, so there will always be an anchor if things get out of hand. It is also not as feasible to go around the housing zone, buy up all the items and relist them as it is in other MMOs with margin trading like EVE or WoW. So what bad thing would happen if everybody suddenly got a free 20p in their pocket today? Maybe people would finally buy some epic procs
While that is largely true, as soon as something exists that players need and hence want to trade for (feathers, rogs, bps here or the actual drop items / alchemy drop ingredients without a feather / token system) something has to be used to trade with and the ingame currency should be the logical choice. If no sink exists at all, you will end up with gold having no value as nobody needs it and hence prices ever increasing or some alternative currency being used as it happened in lots of games.
Given that you will make a somewhat static amount of gold if you level from 1 - 50 on your first char that's not really being influenced by any of the current gold sinks or the inflation, the spending power of new people is heavily affected the actual gold value / inflation, for that reason alone it's worth it to fight inflation, even before it reaches stupid heights where the limits of the used number system are reached (e. g. 2147483647 aka the reason for the 200p cap per char on live)
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 10:20 PMKeelia wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 8:45 PMBecause the community asked for you to create a gold sink? I must have missed that post.
I don't think the player base would ever ask for a gold sink in any game and yet every game has them, almost as if it were a good thing that the ingame currency has some value.
Keelia wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 10:58 AMgruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 10:20 PMKeelia wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 8:45 PMBecause the community asked for you to create a gold sink? I must have missed that post.
I don't think the player base would ever ask for a gold sink in any game and yet every game has them, almost as if it were a good thing that the ingame currency has some value.
It’s a dying free shard and you’re concerned about the economy now? That’s like trying to bail out a already sunk ship.
florin wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 11:47 AMKeelia wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 10:58 AMgruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 7 Oct 2019 10:20 PMI don't think the player base would ever ask for a gold sink in any game and yet every game has them, almost as if it were a good thing that the ingame currency has some value.
It’s a dying free shard and you’re concerned about the economy now? That’s like trying to bail out a already sunk ship.
For Every single addition or change, staff should ask - will this attract new players or bring back old players? Simple as that.
Keelia wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 11:51 AMflorin wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 11:47 AMKeelia wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 10:58 AMIt’s a dying free shard and you’re concerned about the economy now? That’s like trying to bail out a already sunk ship.
For Every single addition or change, staff should ask - will this attract new players or bring back old players? Simple as that.
So did they ask that when they created a needless gold sink? How does that even come close to retaining players or bringing players back?
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Tue 8 Oct 2019 9:36 AMWhile that is largely true, as soon as something exists that players need and hence want to trade for (feathers, rogs, bps here or the actual drop items / alchemy drop ingredients without a feather / token system) something has to be used to trade with and the ingame currency should be the logical choice. If no sink exists at all, you will end up with gold having no value as nobody needs it and hence prices ever increasing or some alternative currency being used as it happened in lots of games.
Given that you will make a somewhat static amount of gold if you level from 1 - 50 on your first char that's not really being influenced by any of the current gold sinks or the inflation, the spending power of new people is heavily affected the actual gold value / inflation, for that reason alone it's worth it to fight inflation, even before it reaches stupid heights where the limits of the used number system are reached (e. g. 2147483647 aka the reason for the 200p cap per char on live)
chewchew wrote: ↑Wed 9 Oct 2019 9:47 AMMhmm I dont see if gold-sink is really so much needed.
Templating to get ready for rvr seems still pretty easy here.
Recently moved over from alb to hib and it didnt look like buying stuff for my template (crafted armor/weapons and a few rogs) has gotten more expensive (for the rogs it even felt cheaper). Only the price for feathers was a little bit more expensive, but I think its because of less epic raids or instance runs maybe!? not sure if a gold sink would help there.
Imho if the costs for getting a basic template for starting rvring and maintaining rvring doesnt increase, there is no problem with some players having too much money.
On the other hand if the new gold-sink methods cause troubles keeping up rvring w/o pve its a bad thing for old and new players alike.
Tyrlaan wrote: ↑Tue 15 Oct 2019 11:31 PMThis change kills all crafting except alchemy. Where people had to replace/SC armor at some point (weapons less since most people would run weaponless templates anyway and use ROG MPs for the LT proc) - and it even gave reason to mingle with other players - they now go bulk repair the only set of gear they´ll ever wear in a game thats unlikely to attract new players and saturated with fully templated alts already. Where other games add stuff to keep their players busy, Phoenix strips the game down to a skeleton. Weird concept.
stewbeedoo wrote: ↑Tue 22 Oct 2019 12:23 AMI understand the need to manage inflation in the ingame economy.
From my perspective this was already achieved through a "stealth-nerf" in that rather than each char being able to hold 200P the entire account can now only hold 200P. This effectively reduces the possible account wealth by a factor of 10.
I appreciate the elimination of dur loss on items, but I played a zillion hours on live on 1 bow and it is still not worn out (ok it is 3% after RR11).
My goal is to RvR and cover my expenses through kills. I do not want to PvE to fund my RvR.
Return to Tavern or the latest topics