Items Decay solution [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

DeadSquirrel

29-04-2004, 12:07 AM

It's really nice to see such enthiousasm :).
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy! Pity I can't get a Patent on this idea lol.

I think it should only display what the stats will be. When you put it in the trade window, it's stats would change from 20 to 15, both players would see it. It would be less confusing that way. Perhaps, once you put an item on, from then on it shows the 15 in parentheses, so that you don't go around advertising a 20 strength item, forgetting about the decay.
I was thinking of having it this way actually. I was also scared of false advertisements.
But don't forget that people will be linking their items, so everyone will be able to see thanks to the (15), that the item will decay into a 15str.
The reason I'd like to keep the 20 strength, is for gloating puproses ^^.
It would be annoying to want to show to your friends your brand new item, but to have the friends only see a decayed on :p.

But I guess it would be a good idea to have it already decayed, once the item is placed in the trade window. But that's not really necessary thanks to item linking.

Also, I think that only the items damage / armor should change. After all, how do you lessen a "+1 Shadow Resistance" item? I don't particularly like having fractions or decimals :\ The problem with this idea is that when a wand or other caster item degrades, it might not matter because casters wouldn't use physical attacks at high levels(or do they?).
I was hesitating about having weapon damage decay. I guess it would be a good idea.
And decay will affect casters anyhow, since their wand/staff's stats will decay..

Also I think that uniques and/or really good items should decay. It would be so sad to see the unique "Fred's Sword" get traded around and have no stats and 1 damage.
That's where the tag "Stainless" comes in ;).
A "Stainless" item won't decay, yay ^^.

One problem that came to mind. This becomes a major problem for guilds as they often offer equipment for temporary use by a member. Before you know it the equipment would be useless. An exemption or extremely lowered penalty of some sort would need to be in place to address this issue.
I don't really see this as a problem. While guilds do tend to pass down items, they don't depend on it. Having items deteriorate through pass downs isn't going to cripple any guild.
What this is going to do though, is have the new guild members seen wearing brownish old items, which accentuates their "newbie" side, which is good ^^.
Another good side in this, is that guilds will maybe buy loots from lower level guilds or players, in order to equip their new members.
Making high end guilds have to take part in their community, instead of becoming an autarcie(sp?).
So money from the high end guilds will be going to blacksmiths, tailorers, or lucky adventurers, in order to gain Fresh High Quality items.

------

On an additional note:
The merchant prices will have to decay as well of course. Hopefully that's doable. ^^

Wickedly_Evil

29-04-2004, 12:28 AM

Item Decay has it's good sides, but so far MMORPGs I experienced have badly implemented them.
As much as it's wortwhile for Economy Issues, people hate losing their items, causing more grief then relief.

Well spoken. So much so that one could stop reading right here. No offense but I think this idea sucks. As for those benefits...

1) Rare items won't ever stay rare unless there is a highly limiting factor for their apperance. For example if an item only dropped during a full moon in game at midnight. Given enough time people accumulate rare items. It just happens, sorry to burst your bubble.

2) Some people are totally in love with the color brown; they might snatch up a full set of brown-ware to pimp around town in. It would be more rewarding for my uber_sword_01 to not decay in the first place. Your system would put a huge halt on in game economics in the way of trading. Are you sure that is a good idea?

3) Hey guess what? this idea annoys me and possibly lots of other people I imagine who haven't read this thread. Ever let a friend borrow an item in game while you were away for a week? A fungus tunic from EQ is a great example.

Just say no to item decay. Think for a moment that if your system was implemented it would delay the release of WoW. Now who wants that?

My origional reply was much better but the board ate it.

Johanass "Johan" Tassen

29-04-2004, 12:49 AM

Wicked, if your original reply was really going to be much better, it's a shame the forums ate it. You kinda came across as annoyed.

As for your reasonings...

1. Rare items aren't much of an issue. By your logic there are too many rares. Decay reduces the number of useful rare items, keeping useful ones rare. Problem solved.

2. As for wardrobe, people can already get pretty much any color clothing and items they want if they search hard enough. I think the browning was meant as if to make it look rattier, poorer quality, and symbolize that it has less stats. Thus newbies with hand-me downs look like newbies. As for halting the economy, there was an explanation on how it would, in fact, boost the economy. The post directly before yours mentions this towards the bottom and a few others give valid points as well.

3. Letting someone borrow an item is new to me. Albeit there must be people out there who do lend out items, it seems unusual to me in particular. This can be resolved by yet another previously mentioned idea, guild armories. If you aren't in a guild, perhaps a lend feature can be implemented where the other person has the item for a negotiated period of time and after that time, if not returned previously, the item returns to your inventory. Either way, not that big of a deal.

As for the release date, if it gets pushed back a week or two, despite the fact a release date hasn't been announced, that's alright with me as I'll be getting an even better game. You seemed a bit put off by something in your post and my advice is to wait a bit before responding to posts that bother you to some degree.

Until next time, Keep On Rockin'! :yep:

PhatAlbert

29-04-2004, 01:09 AM

Incredible, up until now I had thought that all methods of weapon decay were evil because of the annoyance of fighting/saving up for an item to only have it decay within months, but with this idea of trade decay I have been converted. I think this is a wonderful way to implement weapon/armor decay without annoying the casual gaming population, and this will also help stablilize gaming economies by making crafted items seem more appealing, thus the game becomes more diverse.
Why would crafting become more appealing? Well to answer that it is easier for a person to make a weapon for someone in paticular, and let's say that crafted items get one charge to not decay after the first trade to increase the want to sell crafted items without losing stats or making all crafted items "Stainless". People will buy items made by players faster than buying a decayed rare weapon, but with unique weapons still affloat throughout the economy crafted items will not dominate, and therefore trade skills will not take control of the economy by making the utmost best weapons, there's a balance created.

Riden

29-04-2004, 01:57 AM

I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude or anything, but this idea is horrible.
I bassicly agree with Wickedly_Evil's post above.
This kind of thing would kill the economy, and would bassicly have every odd character as a Leatherworker and every even character as a blacksmith.
Everyone would be out for themselves to get their own items, and you can't equip that uber looking sword (even though you don't need it, just for looks) for a while until you sell it, it must stay in your inventory.
Groups and Guilds would fall apart, incentives against sharing items and helping people would destory the community, mass kill stealing, loot stealing and greifing, MAJOR camping, scams upon scams to trick the slow of mind or the new player would pop up, anarchy would rise and people would cancel their accounts.

Item decay can never work well in a game because it's idea is always based upon diminishing returns, diminishing fun (unless the idea of the game is to be 100% realistic).

DeadSquirrel

29-04-2004, 02:03 AM

1) Rare items won't ever stay rare unless there is a highly limiting factor for their apperance. For example if an item only dropped during a full moon in game at midnight. Given enough time people accumulate rare items. It just happens, sorry to burst your bubble.
People that accumulate these rare items wear them... the moment they wear them, their worth will drop down a lot. No matter how much time you give, freshly dropped/crafted items will always be more worthwhile then items dropped/crafted months ago.
Item Decay does have an impact on the numbers of items available on the market (it's pretty logical). And this impact is the reason games are trying to implement it.

2) Some people are totally in love with the color brown; they might snatch up a full set of brown-ware to pimp around town in. It would be more rewarding for my uber_sword_01 to not decay in the first place. Your system would put a huge halt on in game economics in the way of trading. Are you sure that is a good idea?
Huh?... you hardly make any sense here.
If people want to wear browned-out worn-out items, the yay for them... but the gear wouldn't be that great to wear in battle...
I don't get where you think this would put a halt on the economy.... You think people will stop trading just because it makes the item decay?.. How would keeping an item you no longer need, in your bank, be rewarding!?!
For it to be rewarding, you need to trade it....

3) Hey guess what? this idea annoys me and possibly lots of other people I imagine who haven't read this thread. Ever let a friend borrow an item in game while you were away for a week? A fungus tunic from EQ is a great example.
Ever think of those "No Drop" items you have, doesn't it annoy you that you can't lend it to a friend during the weekend? No?! Why is that...?
Instead of lending your friend an item, how about helping him get his own? You know... make a group with him, go hunt or quest for that item he wants. In EQ that's what I usually did.

As for annoying people, so far I've only got very positive responses. You're the very first to be "annoyed". Congratulations :)

DeadSquirrel

29-04-2004, 02:37 AM

I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude or anything, but this idea is horrible.
Critics are welcomed ;)

This kind of thing would kill the economy, and would bassicly have every odd character as a Leatherworker and every even character as a blacksmith.
I really don't see why. Tailors, leatherworkers and smiths will have their work continuously appreciated overtime, ya, but that's Blizzard goal.
Without item decay, 2months after release it's not worthwhile to craft what once used to be worthwhile, because they litter the market. And crafted items would just become a way to get your skill up.... with no use in a saturated market.
However it doesnt add anything to tradeskilling in itself, it only preserves it.

Keep in mind that smiths, tailors and leatherworkers dont wear their own crafts before selling them... so they won't decay upon trade. The first buyer will get a brand new shiny Breastplate.

Everyone would be out for themselves to get their own items, and you can't equip that uber looking sword (even though you don't need it, just for looks) for a while until you sell it, it must stay in your inventory.
Groups and Guilds would fall apart, incentives against sharing items and helping people would destory the community, mass kill stealing, loot stealing and greifing, MAJOR camping, scams upon scams to trick the slow of mind or the new player would pop up, anarchy would rise and people would cancel their accounts.
You just listed a lot of "flaws" with no argument behind...
-Why would everyone be out to get their own item? When someone needs an item, he buys the items available to him. Getting an item yourself is free, yet people still buy items, why? It's less effort buying an item. With this system, people will still want to buy items, because it's less effort/time, and newbies will have a vast range of items to buy from: New low level item, Worn medium level items, Rotting high level items etc... Which ups variety in the low level area, without having to litter the world with lots of lots low level items.
- No, it won't be profitable to wear an item just for second before selling it. And? I don't see how this is a flaw. I don't know many people who are willing to trade a healthy economy in exchange of the ability to wear an item for giggles, without losing on it's worth.
-Groups, guilds falling a part?.. how? why?... you're overdramatising here... Groups and Guilds never depended on hand-me-downs.
-killstealing, griefing, MAJOR camping?... why? There's a lot more items available to a lower level player, then before.
If a player is encouraged to go get an item instead of buying it, HOW is that bad?? This game is about adventuring, not about buying.
Yet buying will always happen, as long as people have money.
While adventuring has been HORRIBLY soiled in games that have no decay, because it's a lot more worthwhile to buy your items then go out and fetch them yourself. And this is bad.
- Scams? How? When people start playing the game, they either already know what those red numbers on the item information are, or they will ask what they are.
By the time they have enough money to buy expensive items, they will undoubtly know how decay works.
-You're way overdramatising.... I could very well say that the Resting system will cause guilds to collapse, anarchy will rise and people will quit.
Same thing for PvP, same thing for questing etc...

Item decay can never work well in a game because it's idea is always based upon diminishing returns, diminishing fun (unless the idea of the game is to be 100% realistic).
It is meant to diminish returns, that how it keeps economy healthy. Take a look at EQ's current economy, it's horrible.
As for diminishing fun, again, you're making a statement with nothing backing it.
On the contrary. This system encourages getting your own item, and going out to fight deep down in a dungeon. Instead of spending 5copper and voila! you got yourself a neat Breastplate that you were once able to get only 10 levels later.

Another plus, is that this keeps zones interesting. If certain decent items drop in a zone, it makes the zone interesting. However if those items lose their interest, so does the zone.
Played EverQuest? Take a look at Sebilis. What onced used to be immensiley popular due to the many tasty items present, became a deserted land.
It wasn't worth finding a group to go there anymore, because you could easily get your item of choice for a few platinums in the bazaar.

If all those sebilis items were to slowly degrade after being traded numerous times, people would still be going in Sebilis to get a "Fresh" item. Or buying it at a constantly high price, from someone who was at Sebilis and got the item, but didn't wear it.

LordGex

29-04-2004, 03:06 AM

Hmmm....

Normally, im against item decay, but this seems like a pretty damn good idea. Especially if they decide to use the Armory for guilds as well. Because, while item hand-me-downs, are by no means a make or break feature of guilds, its nice to be able to do so. To help newer members of a guild and what not.

So, yea. Im in favor of this.

Wickedly_Evil

29-04-2004, 04:46 AM

Item decay favors those who make and sell items. Look at star wars galaxies, the market is overrun with vendors who want to charge an arm and a leg for everything.

Origionally the fungus covered scale tunic was tradable, so get your facts straight. I trusted the people that I played Everquest with, and about 15 of us are very very good friends even though most of us don't play anymore we do stay in touch. I would lend any of them my things. But I have no idea who you play mmorpgs with.

As for the browning effect, you seemed to say it was a punishment. When I pointed out it might not be a punishment to everyone you said so what?

Your system encourages item camping. People are reluctant to buy used worn out items. Full new items become more valuable. Hence people who can camp good items will get even more money. (The common practice of farming is to obtain items you cannot use to sell. In other words, they do not wear what they obtain.)
Blizzard wants drops to be good treasure that compares to player made goods. This by and large favors player made, so I doubt this will go through.

How is it logical that an item gets worn when it is traded? If you are going to implent wear and tear... make it be by use. But let me say again I just don't like item decay. It is almost as offensive to me as non-consentual pvp.

LordGex

29-04-2004, 05:20 AM

You do raise some good points W_E.

ill just adress the one about

How is it logical that an item gets worn when it is traded? If you are going to implent wear and tear... make it be by use. But let me say again I just don't like item decay. It is almost as offensive to me as non-consentual pvp.

Blizzard has stated numerous times that they value Fun over realism. While having items decay through use is 'realistic' this has been done in many MMORPG's, and its NOT fun. I would enjoy THIS system. it may not be realistic. but it does seem the most 'fun' decay system ive ever seen.

Riden

29-04-2004, 05:33 AM

I really don't see why. Tailors, leatherworkers and smiths will have their work continuously appreciated overtime, ya, but that's Blizzard goal.
Without item decay, 2months after release it's not worthwhile to craft what once used to be worthwhile, because they litter the market. And crafted items would just become a way to get your skill up.... with no use in a saturated market.
However it doesnt add anything to tradeskilling in itself, it only preserves it.

Keep in mind that smiths, tailors and leatherworkers dont wear their own crafts before selling them... so they won't decay upon trade. The first buyer will get a brand new shiny Breastplate.

Because Leatherworkers and Blacksmiths are the only armor/weapon crafters, they will be in high demand as noone wants to buy an item with diminished stats, its a waste of money and time, therefore the game will be saturated with these weapon and armor crafters, for themselves and for everyone else. The first few to take these tradeskill paths on servers will 'get-rich-quick' and soon after be followed by a flood of chars with these 'most useful/desired' tradeskills, which is something I hate in a game, and would be something Blizzard would want to avoid.

You just listed a lot of "flaws" with no argument behind...
-Why would everyone be out to get their own item? When someone needs an item, he buys the items available to him. Getting an item yourself is free, yet people still buy items, why? It's less effort buying an item. With this system, people will still want to buy items, because it's less effort/time, and newbies will have a vast range of items to buy from: New low level item, Worn medium level items, Rotting high level items etc... Which ups variety in the low level area, without having to litter the world with lots of lots low level items.

As stated, noone wants a worn item, it is a waste of money and time, once someone has gotten their items from quests/shops/crafters they would be out to find their own 'rare' items. This would cause needless and unfun soloing, or underhanded tactics in group situations (unless your with a group of well trusted friends who don't mind wasting their time camp an area for your benefit). As for the diversity of good low lvl items, worn mid lvl or rotting high lvl for low lvl characters, this is pointless diversity, I would rather Blizzard spent time creating different items than just having a market with alot of the same ones, just worn.

- No, it won't be profitable to wear an item just for second before selling it. And? I don't see how this is a flaw. I don't know many people who are willing to trade a healthy economy in exchange of the ability to wear an item for giggles, without losing on it's worth.

Uh.. this is a fun factor in games, espcially in MMORPG's.. we want to take away fun factors why now? OH right.. because we want decaying items, gotcha.

-Groups, guilds falling a part?.. how? why?... you're overdramatising here... Groups and Guilds never depended on hand-me-downs.

Maybe a bit over-dramatic, but the sharing of items (a big part of guilds or groups of firends, as it is a COMMUNITY) would be non-existant, and the adventuring to get new items will only benefit one person.. last time I checked humans were selfish, greedy and jealous creatures, and so this would cause conflicts of interest or just outright bad form. Constantly. GM's would have to be re-named as BS's as they would cease to be game masters and instead become baby siters.

-killstealing, griefing, MAJOR camping?... why? There's a lot more items available to a lower level player, then before.
If a player is encouraged to go get an item instead of buying it, HOW is that bad?? This game is about adventuring, not about buying.
Yet buying will always happen, as long as people have money.
While adventuring has been HORRIBLY soiled in games that have no decay, because it's a lot more worthwhile to buy your items then go out and fetch them yourself. And this is bad.

Same reason as above mostly. Every man (or woman) for himself and damn anyone else. A player is not encouraged to go and get an item instead of buying it, he is forced. That, my friend, is bad. It is alot more worthwhile to buy items than go out and get them yourself under normal circumstances, this does not 'soil' adventuring, people play how they wanna play, if you are able to buy something your after from someone instead of trying to get it yourself then theres nothing wrong with that, its what communities and economies are all about. This is why the economy will be destroyed under your system.

- Scams? How? When people start playing the game, they either already know what those red numbers on the item information are, or they will ask what they are.
By the time they have enough money to buy expensive items, they will undoubtly know how decay works.

I'm sorry, your seem to be overestimating the human race, ESPECIALLY in the case of MMORPG's. Trust me, you wouldn't believe the incompetience of many, many MMORPG players, and if there is even the slightest chance of a scam, someone is going to exploit it, and that exploit will spread like wild fire. To you and me, you couldn't believe how anyone could fall for a scam like that, but it will happen, and happen frequiently, new players will hate this and so it would tarnish Blizzards good name, and since there is nothing Blizzard could really do about it since its apart of the game mechanics and therefore just a case of 'he said, she said', this is a very bad idea.

-You're way overdramatising.... I could very well say that the Resting system will cause guilds to collapse, anarchy will rise and people will quit.
Same thing for PvP, same thing for questing etc...

Once again, I may have over-dramatized a bit, but all this will happen in the end, in some way or another. One tiny trickle of water in a valley can cause the whole valley to erode away over time.
There is nothing wrong with the rest system (besides a few oversights that needed, and are going to be fixed) as Blizzard implimented it perfectly, I was one that hated the idea of it when it first came out in the new push, but since I have gotten all the info about it, its no hazzard to gameplay at all, if anything it makes the game more interesting.
You could say all of what you said above, about it, but it would be incorrect and not based upon anything, if your going to give a contrasting example, make sure its a relevant one ;)

It is meant to diminish returns, that how it keeps economy healthy. Take a look at EQ's current economy, it's horrible.
As for diminishing fun, again, you're making a statement with nothing backing it.
On the contrary. This system encourages getting your own item, and going out to fight deep down in a dungeon. Instead of spending 5copper and voila! you got yourself a neat Breastplate that you were once able to get only 10 levels later.

WoW is not EQ, there is no need to compare it so. Dimishing returns in an ecomony will eventually bring the economy down, so uh.. what are you saying?
When you input into the economy its suposed to make the economy larger and stronger in the long run, not diminish it. The fact is that people will not put anything into the economy at all as buying/selling of worn items will be heavily undesired, there will also be a saturation of tradeskill items which will create a heavily imbalanced and failing economy.
This system does not encouage you to get your own item, it forces you to, like I said above and people will fight deep down into a dungeon anyway.. this is a game afterall, and no doubt Blizzard has tide a quest for you to go down deep into said dungeon anyway.
5 copper for a brand new Breastplate? Whos over-dramatising now :D

Another plus, is that this keeps zones interesting. If certain decent items drop in a zone, it makes the zone interesting. However if those items lose their interest, so does the zone.
Played EverQuest? Take a look at Sebilis. What onced used to be immensiley popular due to the many tasty items present, became a deserted land.
It wasn't worth finding a group to go there anymore, because you could easily get your item of choice for a few platinums in the bazaar.

Again you compare to EQ.. do not do this. If they only thing keeping a zone interesting a certain mob's item drop.. then the zone needs heavy reworking, and this is where MMO's can go wrong.
This won't be the case in WoW as we've all heard many reports how every inch of the game is interesting, not only that but there will always be an abundance of players in any given zone at any given time because of the great quest system Blizzard has implimented.

If all those sebilis items were to slowly degrade after being traded numerous times, people would still be going in Sebilis to get a "Fresh" item. Or buying it at a constantly high price, from someone who was at Sebilis and got the item, but didn't wear it.

Another comparision to EQ...... :\
WoW is not about item farming, it is about quests, immersion and well.. Warcraft, I cannot see what you stated above ever becoming a problem in WoW due to how Blizzard has implimented and executed everything.

Item decay in general is a bad idea, and if blizzard did impliment it (though I doubt this very much) I would much rather have a system similar to D2's than yours.
Sorry for not putting any arguments behind what I said in my last post, they were clear in my mind, just kinda left em out when it came to writing em down :drool:

stuyScale

29-04-2004, 06:38 AM

Good lord, I wasn't going to post anything because I haven't made up my mind yet about this proposed system. (Unlike some people, I prefer to think before posting)

However, this quote caught my eye
Dimishing returns in an ecomony will eventually bring the economy down, so uh.. what are you saying? When you input into the economy its suposed to make the economy larger and stronger in the long run, not diminish it.

As anyone who has taken Economics 101 can tell you, the Law of Diminishing Returns is very real. And as far as I know, our economy is not crumbling all around us.

I'm not going to belabor the point, because I know what you were trying to get at, even though you misused diminishing returns. However you are still incorrect.

It's true, obviously items that have degraded from trade are worth less than their 'fresh' counterparts. And in a way, you could call this diminishing returns (you'd be wrong). Of course no one would buy the degraded item if they could buy the 'fresh' item, all else being equal.

Of course, all else is NOT equal. Obviously the degraded item would be cheaper. Are you trying to imply there will be no market for imperfect goods?

Think about your answer to that. As a D2 player, I'm sure you know the right answer. Then re-evaluate your arguements against the proposed system.

As for me, I'm for any kind of mechanic that reduces mudflation. So far this system seems pretty decent, although I disagree with one point. The most powerful weapons should be the ones to decay the fastest. The whole point of item decay is to maintain scarcity. The items that need the greatest regulations are top end items. It follows that they should at the very least, decay proportionally to normal items. A percentage based system would be fine.

niteshade6

29-04-2004, 06:57 AM

I like the idea just because it can easily be tweaked to the right values. For example you could make it so that an item has a durability rating, but until the item breaks it has no effect on quality. Then an item would only be good for a certain number of trades, but it wouldn't deteriorate in functionality. If your worried about certain items being less useful then they should be because of this, you can give them a higher durability or even make them not erode. I'm not saying all of these changes should be made, just that they could be. So pretty much anyone's complaints about the system can be easily addressed.

If you think a system like this would make skills that create permanent items like weapons and armor too good, then you should realize that traditionaly these skills often become useless the most quickly in games without decay. If anything it might save these skills from becoming useless. Usualy only consumable items that get used up have a reliable market. Of course blizzard gets around this by making pretty much every trade skill be able to make tons of consumable items. So even when the market is flooded with copper swords and nobody wants to buy them anymore, there will still be a market for sharpening stones.

HisNameIsMunky

29-04-2004, 07:27 AM

First off, I'm not really adding anything to this thread. I have a lot of thoughts, they're just not organized and they would come off confusing or wrong.

I do think this is a good idea, however. I'd just like to see possible solutions to the problems that are being raised. This back in forth stuff, " 'this works' 'this doesnt work' 'this works and this is why' 'this doesnt work and this is why' ", needs to stop. For instance, when the problem with the guild 'hand me downs' was brough up, a very interesting solution of armories was mentioned. I thought that was great.

So, I guess I'm just trying to say, criticism's cool, but try and make it better instead of just denouncing the idea.

Like I said, my thoughts on this are very unorganized, even these ones.

Riden

29-04-2004, 11:51 AM

Good lord, I wasn't going to post anything because I haven't made up my mind yet about this proposed system. (Unlike some people, I prefer to think before posting)

However, this quote caught my eye

As anyone who has taken Economics 101 can tell you, the Law of Diminishing Returns is very real. And as far as I know, our economy is not crumbling all around us.

I'm not going to belabor the point, because I know what you were trying to get at, even though you misused diminishing returns. However you are still incorrect.

It's true, obviously items that have degraded from trade are worth less than their 'fresh' counterparts. And in a way, you could call this diminishing returns (you'd be wrong). Of course no one would buy the degraded item if they could buy the 'fresh' item, all else being equal.

Of course, all else is NOT equal. Obviously the degraded item would be cheaper. Are you trying to imply there will be no market for imperfect goods?

Think about your answer to that. As a D2 player, I'm sure you know the right answer. Then re-evaluate your arguements against the proposed system.

As for me, I'm for any kind of mechanic that reduces mudflation. So far this system seems pretty decent, although I disagree with one point. The most powerful weapons should be the ones to decay the fastest. The whole point of item decay is to maintain scarcity. The items that need the greatest regulations are top end items. It follows that they should at the very least, decay proportionally to normal items. A percentage based system would be fine.

Haha.
Wow, you really got me man.
I know most of what I said dosn't really apply to their actual economic deffinitions, but they weren't suposed to either, so most of what you said was irrelivant :\

And as a D2 play I do know that there is no market whatso ever for imperfect items (have you ever seen anyone trying to trade a cracked breastplate? No I didn't think so, besides D2's "imperfect" items are completly different to whats being said here so uh.. yea)

With that said, all of what I said before still holds up as it hasn't been challenged by what you said.

Also one thing to add which I left out before, the degredation of 'rare' items dosn't help to keep them even more rare, it would infact cause a flood of those items, as instead of the same ones being traded around the server, people are always going to be out for a new one.

The bound on equip or bound on pickup restrictions on items (this currently includes quest items now as well) that blizzard has implimented are all thats needed to keep those 'uber rare' items from being farmed for selling and reselling purposes.

Weather you like item decay systems, or don't (such as me), I don't think it should matter to much because I doubt such a system would ever be needed in WoW.

DeadSquirrel

29-04-2004, 02:08 PM

Origionally the fungus covered scale tunic was tradable, so get your facts straight.
I know, I wasn't talking about the fungus tunic when I said "No Drop".
What I was saying, was that there are many many items in the game that are "No Drop", yet I heard no one complaining about the fact that it stops them from lending those "No Drop" items to a friend.
If they have a friend that wants a "No Drop" item, they usually help them with the quest, or help them kill the mob.

But if you really really want to be able to lend at least one item to a friend.
Then it's simple.....
An item can decay upon trade only if the item has been worn by the trader through 10 Rest Status changes...
It allows people to wear an item just for looks/fun, it allows people to lend their items, it allows guilds to have Hand-me-downs.
Just as long as the wearer doesn't wear the item for around 40hours of /played grinding monsters.
Dont want to damage it? Don't go bashing too many monsters ;)

As for the browning effect, you seemed to say it was a punishment. When I pointed out it might not be a punishment to everyone you said so what?
I never said it was punishement.
The "punishement" comes from the stat/damage decay. Color doesn't punish anyone, it just makes you appear dirtier.
There will probably still be "Fresh" items that are already dirty... I can imagine many many undead quests wielding a Rotten robe or something.

How is it logical that an item gets worn when it is traded? If you are going to implent wear and tear... make it be by use. But let me say again I just don't like item decay. It is almost as offensive to me as non-consentual pvp.
How is it logical to get tired by gaining experience, but not by running hours upon hours? How is level restricted items logical?

This is not about being "logical", it's about enhancing the game.

But if you really want a "logical" explanation:
When you buy a shoe, and wear during 2months. This shoe will start wearing out and get deformed...
BUT, for you, the shoe is still very comfortable, it doesnt matter if it's soaking with your sweat, and molded to your foot's shape, it's still a great shoe for you.
But if you sell this shoe to someone, he's not going to appreciate bathign his feet in your sweat, and having a shoe that's a different shape then his feet.

An old shoe, will be nice and comfy to you.
But to a buyer, it'll be old and uncomfortable. Hence, an item still top quality to you, will "decay" upon trade.

----

Riden, I don't have much time right now to fully respond to your long reply, I'll do so later on ;).
But right now, I'd like to reply StuyScale and your last post.

StuyScale, I guess you're right about higher end items degrading faster. As well as keeping rarity constant, it would also avoid a huge flood of worn items at the lower levels.

Riden,
[/quote]Also one thing to add which I left out before, the degredation of 'rare' items dosn't help to keep them even more rare, it would infact cause a flood of those items, as instead of the same ones being traded around the server, people are always going to be out for a new one.[/quote]
People will always be going out killing mobs, or doing quests. People will always be trying to get these items for themselves or for selling.
Without decay however, these items that have been dropped/crafted YEARS ago, will still be on the market.

Here's an example:
(without decay)
day 1 - a very popular item is hunted down and dropped 5 times.
day 2 - drops 5 more times
day 3 - hop! 5 more times
day 100 - there will be 500 of these items on the market, making it extremely easy for anyone interested in it, to buy it.

(with decay)
day 1 - 5 drops
day 2 - 5 drops
day 3 - 5 drops (of the earlier dropped items rots)
day 4 - 5 drops (3 rots)
day 5 - 5 drops (4rots)
day 100 - it's hard to say exactly how many have rotted, so I won't state any number. But the number of these items in the market is MUCH less then 500. Keeping it's rarity present.

Anyhow, the impact of decay on an economy is a fact. There's no need discussing that. If you think item decay harms economy, you're wrong, it can only harm gameplay.
What is worth discussing however, is the manner of implementing it in the game, so that it avoids harming gameplay.
Like, how to allow players to continue lending their items etc...

stuyScale

29-04-2004, 04:05 PM

No market in Diablo II for imperfect items?
Please rethink your statement.

Now, I haven't played in the past year, so for all I know the entire economy is fubared. But last I checked, imperfect Windforces, imperfect ethereal Titans, and all (I'm sure the new uniques/sets also have variable statistics, and thus have perfect and imperfect versions) are all heavily traded. So obviously there is a market for imperfect items.

Now let me make up a random belt. Lets call it "stuyScale's genuine italian leather belt". Let's say you found it. It gives you +100 str, +100 dex, 75% life leach, 75% mana leach, +175% resist all, and +799% MF. Let's also give it a level requirement of 1, just for fun. Would you use it? Unless D2 items have been massively inflated in power, this belt is leagues beyond anything you probably use. So obviously if it existed, it'd be worth something.

Does it matter that the 'perfect' version of the belt has +800% MF? Would that make this imperfect belt worthless? Obviously, right? So there'd be no market for this item.

Clearly there are markets for imperfects. A 6% Windforce is (or maybe was, like I said, I don't know how much the market has inflated) worth a lot, a 7% is worth more, 8% is worth more. Just because the 8% is perfect, and the rest are necessarily imperfect doesn't mean they do not get traded.

PSUChemGuy

29-04-2004, 04:57 PM

Like several others, I think that this is an excellent idea for avoiding market saturation. If everyone can trade/save/farm items pretty much willy-nilly, then you'll have another Diablo II fiasco (1.08 Arkaine's Valour, anyone?). The craftspeople will be unemployed, since no one will want to wait (I'm assuming it takes time to make something) if they can just go kill something or buy it, even if it's more expensive.

Sure, even with a decay system, there will be those people that insist on having only perfect equipment, but the decay will serve to keep them in line (really, how ridiculous is it that more than just a handful of people have totally perfect gear?).

On a semi-related note, I also remembered reading something about truly unique uniques, like one-per-realm type items. If they adopted a similar type system for anything other than 'standard' items, that might choke the inflation a little (only X amount of magic axes per Y days, etc.). I know that that system, like any, has its flaws, such as people hoarding items, but just to throw an idea out there, I don't think it's all that bad. Maybe a combination of the two would work as well (apologies if this has already been discussed).

To sum up, to me, rare items should be just that - rare. That means that not everybody has one.

DeadSquirrel

29-04-2004, 04:59 PM

Because Leatherworkers and Blacksmiths are the only armor/weapon crafters, they will be in high demand as noone wants to buy an item with diminished stats, its a waste of money and time, therefore the game will be saturated with these weapon and armor crafters, for themselves and for everyone else. The first few to take these tradeskill paths on servers will 'get-rich-quick' and soon after be followed by a flood of chars with these 'most useful/desired' tradeskills, which is something I hate in a game, and would be something Blizzard would want to avoid.
An item with diminished stats, will be an item with stats none the less.
It's price will drop in order to appeal to a lower level range of people, who have less money.
Let's say there's a Helmet of Fortitude 40 Strength, it would cost around 3 gold.
Now what's stopping younger characters to buy a Decayed Helmet of Fortitude 10 Strength for 1 silver?
Doesn't matter wether it's diminished or not, it's still a 10str helmet.

If you're anewbie looking for a good strength helmet, and only have a couple silvers... you'de buy that helmet. Sure it may look a bit uglier then it did before... but that adds to the fun factor. You'll be overjoyed when you can finally wear a stylish shiny helmet, and get rid of your ugly rotting one.

As stated, noone wants a worn item, it is a waste of money and time, once someone has gotten their items from quests/shops/crafters they would be out to find their own 'rare' items. This would cause needless and unfun soloing, or underhanded tactics in group situations (unless your with a group of well trusted friends who don't mind wasting their time camp an area for your benefit).
The goal of MMORPGs is to get your own items....
You're saying it's bad for players to actually go out and get their own items?
I don't agree.
If people go out to hunt their own items, they will also get items useless to them. They will then sell these useless items....
On the other hand, if people stay in cities and buy their items, instead of going out to hunt for them, then the economy will belong to those that do go out and hunt items, and those people will be farmers/mules.

It's bad to have people going out to hunt strictly for money, in order to buy the item they want.
It's much more healthy for a MMORPG, if people go out to hunt for their item, and sell the items useless to them.

As for the diversity of good low lvl items, worn mid lvl or rotting high lvl for low lvl characters, this is pointless diversity, I would rather Blizzard spent time creating different items than just having a market with alot of the same ones, just worn.
It's not a choice, you don't choose to either have diversity from worn items, or diversity in items.... the worn diversity is a bonus.
No matter how many items Blizzard puts into the game (and there will be a lot), the worn items will exponentially add to the diversity.

Uh.. this is a fun factor in games, espcially in MMORPG's.. we want to take away fun factors why now? OH right.. because we want decaying items, gotcha.
Ya, getting rid of such a tiny fun factor is well worth a working item decay system.
You'de rather have low level tradeskill recepies becoming useless after a few months, rare items becoming common in the market after a few months...
just so you can wear an item and go "wooh, look at me!".

Anyhow, I already proposed a fix for such a problem earlier, by simply having to wear an item for a decently long period of time, before it decays upon a trade.

Maybe a bit over-dramatic, but the sharing of items (a big part of guilds or groups of firends, as it is a COMMUNITY) would be non-existant, and the adventuring to get new items will only benefit one person.. last time I checked humans were selfish, greedy and jealous creatures, and so this would cause conflicts of interest or just outright bad form. Constantly. GM's would have to be re-named as BS's as they would cease to be game masters and instead become baby siters.
Ok... so lets say a guild smith makes a couple of Silver BreastPlates for guild members. Since these couple of BreastPlates will never wear out, the guild won't ever need any other Silver BreastPlates to be made...
they'll just keep "lending" or "passing down" those couple BreastPlates.
Slowly rending the Silver BreastPlate, and the smith, completely useless. (until new recepies are put in, rince and repeat).

Now with the decay system.
The smith makes BPs for new members. After while, these BPs drop too low in stats, so the Smith has to make new BPs... and again... and again.
The smith never becomes useless, nor does the recepie.
Since the smith continuously needs ingredients to make his BPs, he will ask around for these.
The guild will have to buy ingredients from outside the guild, and you know... interact with the COMMUNITY.
Instead of becoming completely independent by relying solely on their old equipment, the guild will be dependent on the community around them.

This will also avoid high level guilds from messing with the economy.
Money, and high end items, will always be precious to a high end guild. When you look at current MMORPGs, high end guilds have more money then they can count, and give away high end gear to people, or sell them for cheap prices... which completely destroys the prices on items.

Same reason as above mostly. Every man (or woman) for himself and damn anyone else. A player is not encouraged to go and get an item instead of buying it, he is forced. That, my friend, is bad. It is alot more worthwhile to buy items than go out and get them yourself under normal circumstances, this does not 'soil' adventuring, people play how they wanna play, if you are able to buy something your after from someone instead of trying to get it yourself then theres nothing wrong with that, its what communities and economies are all about. This is why the economy will be destroyed under your system.
Under current circumstances, buying items is encouraged. People will rarely go out and get items themselves, since they can get items 20 levels higher then them, at a ridiculous price (thanks mudflation).

--> people prefer money then items
----> people go hunt in areas where you get more money faster, and ignore areas that offer little money to them.
-------> areas which offer a lot of money become overly camped and crowded.
----------> You'll have a lot more farmers, that come hunt items even if they can't use them. They just want the money.

Actually, all the bad things you stated earlier (farmers, camps, crowded zones), they're all consequences of a lack in item decay.

Trust me, you wouldn't believe the incompetience of many, many MMORPG players, and if there is even the slightest chance of a scam, someone is going to exploit it
You're saying that because there is a chance of scam, it shouldn't be implemented.
You're also saying that if there's the sliiiightest chance of a scam it will be exploited.

Well then, there's basically nothing that we should implement in a MMORPG is there?
The mere fact of being able to trade items, is subject to scam, and thus a bad idea.
Grouping will also get you scammed (ninja looting etc..).. so we shouldn't be able to group etc...

As long as you're informed about items decaying, you won't be scammed.
That's all that matters.
If you're not informed, you'll get scammed, but that happens with EVERYTHING.

There is nothing wrong with the rest system (besides a few oversights that needed, and are going to be fixed) as Blizzard implimented it perfectly, I was one that hated the idea of it when it first came out in the new push, but since I have gotten all the info about it, its no hazzard to gameplay at all, if anything it makes the game more interesting.
You could say all of what you said above, about it, but it would be incorrect and not based upon anything, if your going to give a contrasting example, make sure its a relevant one ;)
I love the rest system ;-),
if I gave it as an example it was to demonstrate how it easy to pick any feature, and say "it's going to cause anarchy and make people quit".
Yup it's incorrect, but so is your statement about the decay system ;).

WoW is not EQ, there is no need to compare it so. Dimishing returns in an ecomony will eventually bring the economy down, so uh.. what are you saying?
When you input into the economy its suposed to make the economy larger and stronger in the long run, not diminish it. The fact is that people will not put anything into the economy at all as buying/selling of worn items will be heavily undesired, there will also be a saturation of tradeskill items which will create a heavily imbalanced and failing economy.
You're wrong. Learn more about economy ;-). Inflation is bad, not good.

This system does not encouage you to get your own item, it forces you to, like I said above and people will fight deep down into a dungeon anyway.. this is a game afterall, and no doubt Blizzard has tide a quest for you to go down deep into said dungeon anyway.
It doesn't force you to get your own item.... why do you think it does?
As long as you have money, you have the possiblity to buy items and improve yourself in an easy, less time consuming way.

What this does do however, is encourage you to go get your own item, instead of farm money to buy your item.
As explained earlier, this is a good thing, it's pretty obvious.

5 copper for a brand new Breastplate? Whos over-dramatising now :D
In WoW, money is worth a lot more then in EQ ;-).
1 silver is a lot of money,
so 5 copper for a breastplate isn't really over-dramatising....

Again you compare to EQ.. do not do this.
EQ is a MMORPG,
WoW is a MMORPG.
EQ has an economy that's been going on for 5 years, and it shows how bad inflation can be. It's the perfect example when trying to illustrate MMORPG exonomy problems.

If they only thing keeping a zone interesting a certain mob's item drop.. then the zone needs heavy reworking, and this is where MMO's can go wrong.
This won't be the case in WoW as we've all heard many reports how every inch of the game is interesting, not only that but there will always be an abundance of players in any given zone at any given time because of the great quest system Blizzard has implimented.
I agree, levels definately need more interest then their items.
The problem however, isn't because the zone resides on item interest.
The problem, is that the community is interested in money. People won't go hunt for their own items, instead, they go hunt for money so that they can buy their own item.

Since sebilis didn't offer enough money compared to other zones, then it was abandonned by interest.
Doesn't matter how interestin you render it (It's one of the most ineresting zones in EQ to date.),
the mass will go to other zones that offer you a lot more money (Velketor's, Frenzy camp mean something to you? ;-) ).
Consequence: Interesting zone is left to farmers, while everyone go hunt for money so that they can buy the interesting items off the farmers.

WoW is not about item farming, it is about quests, immersion and well.. Warcraft, I cannot see what you stated above ever becoming a problem in WoW due to how Blizzard has implimented and executed everything.
MMORPG players are always after items, it's an integral part of the game.
It doesn't matter wether you quest for these items, or hunt for them.
If economy isnt taken care of by item decay,
then after time, it will be FAR more worth it to farm money to buy items,
instead of hunting for your own item.
And this hurts a game, a lot.

Item decay in general is a bad idea, and if blizzard did impliment it (though I doubt this very much) I would much rather have a system similar to D2's than yours.
Never played Diablo, could you tell me how their item decay works please?

--Uff! no more long posts from me hehe, we can discuss it further on MSN if you wish....
having to quote-answer-quote etc.. takes too much time :p.

Xinhuan

29-04-2004, 07:41 PM

The answer to Wicked and Riden's problem with decaying items is simple.

Only have the BEST and Rarest items decay. Crafted items and not-so-rare items don't hve to decay.

Bartleby

29-04-2004, 08:24 PM

"Only have the BEST and Rarest items decay. Crafted items and not-so-rare items don't hve to decay"

Just a question. How do you think that would affect low level trade skiller's and the economy of non super rare/unique items?

That's almost the same as not having a decay system, as such the effects on inflation within the economy would be very similar to an EQ economy.

niteshade6

29-04-2004, 09:53 PM

Actualy I think the opposite would almost be better. Trade skill items tend to flood the market as it is. If anything needs to decay it's them. Otherwise you very quickly get to a point where all trade skill items sell for less then the cost to make them. If they sell at all.

It is worth noting though that Blizzard's system of making alot of items "soulbind on equip" is actualy even more harsh then the proposed decay rules. It means once you wear an item once, it's essentialy worn out for anyone but you. Of course not all items are like this, but alot are.

Bartleby

29-04-2004, 10:04 PM

Would someone please post a link where I can get more information on "souldbound" and equipment that is treated as such?

Xinhuan

29-04-2004, 11:43 PM

Then make it the other way. Make general equipment decayable, and the BEST/RAREST equipment undecayable.

SoulBound equipment, etc, can be found on Blizzard's site: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/items.shtml

Not Bound - Items can be equipped, removed, or traded at any time and in any order.
Bind on Equip - You can trade this item if you haven't equipped it. Once you equip it, you can no longer trade it with other players
Bind on Use - Once you have used this item, you can no longer trade it.
Bind on Acquire - Once you pick up the item, you will no longer be able to trade it with other players. Be very careful not to loot this item if you're not supposed to have it permanently.
Quest Items - Quest Items are bound to your character. You cannot trade them.

Bartleby

30-04-2004, 02:01 AM

No mention of equipment types that would be treated as "bind on equip"
Guess we'll have to wait and see. Thanks for the link.

Riden

30-04-2004, 02:10 AM

What the... I had a long post here...
Uh, what happened?

Edit:

Apparently, my router disconnected itself so my post didn't go through..
Sigh

I'll try to get everything I said sumed up..

stuyScale:

Super Uniques/Uniques and Sets with a few varied stats have nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

DeadSquirrel:

I had too much written out to you so I'll try to get my main point accross.

Your system encourages item farming as everyone needs to go out and get new items, under your system apparently.
Fact is farming is very restricted in WoW due to many factors, mainly being that boss mobs which are the only ones that drop rares take a while to spawn.
Also since the main point of the game is questing, tradeskills and horde/alliance warfare, coupled with the fact of restricted farming and the soulbound system on rares, and also the idea under the new system in WoW that characters relly more on their stats than their weapons, your system is not needed in WoW.
A few of your other points were wrong or irrelivant, like the fact that 5 coppers are worth nothing, and 1 silver isnt actually worth that much (haven't you payed much attention to WoW?), but I don't really need to comment on those, so yea, I won't.

Wow, that was short, luckily >_< I hope I didn't leave anything out.

Oh yea, D2's item decay system:
Items have an item durability, say.. 50/50 for some sword.
Over time, as the sword gets used, its current amount of durability (the first number, the second is the total of the items durability) decreases.
It can be repaired, but if the items drops to 0 durability, it becomes useless until it is repaired.
Some items cannot be repaired (etherial, but these are generally more powerful), some items are indestructable (very rare) and some items have decaying effects like "looses 3 durabiltiy every 33 seconds" (also a very rare effect, though usually on cr@ppy items) or something, etc.

DeadSquirrel

30-04-2004, 02:32 AM

Umm.. getting an item for yourself is not item farming.
Getting items for money is item farming.

You've got it confused ^^.

Johanass "Johan" Tassen

30-04-2004, 05:37 AM

-This-

Farmer John: I love tending my golem garden. So relaxing to hear the money clink in my purse. Ah! Some are sprouting up right now!
(golems spawn, die, drop items)
Farmer John: Hey! Got some decent stuff. This should fetch me about 21 silver.
(golems spawn, die, drop items again)
Farmer John: My bags are full.... hmmm.
(Farmer John heads to town, sells his stuff, tallies the amount needed)
Farmer John: Aha! Only 3.3742 gold left to go and the Armor of Ancients will be mine!
(Farmer John returns to his staked out spawn to find someone of lower level killing for a quest. John runs over to some yetis and whacks a few to get them to chase him over to the intruder. Hides in distance then reclaims spot from cold corpse.)

- As opposed to this-

RandomOrc: Hmm. My sword isn't good enough for these higher level areas. I need a new one, but not really right away. I could go buy one, but I'm saving up for that cool armor....
(spies a troll villager with a quest)
Troll Villager: Oh thank goodness! You have to help me mahn! Mah gran'son wandered off into dah caves and dem centaur been seen 'round der! Please find him for me! Ahll even give ya a reward!
(accepts quest, journies, finds caves, slays centaur chieftain)
RandomOrc: Hey! He dropped something!
(picks up Broadaxe of Storms)
RandomOrc: Awesome! Now I don't have to buy that sword back in Thunder Bluff.
(finishes quest, gets a recipe for enchanting his axe, etc.)

Riden

30-04-2004, 06:42 AM

Umm.. getting an item for yourself is not item farming.
Getting items for money is item farming.

You've got it confused ^^.
....
You do know why its called ITEM FARMING right?
Because you FARM for ITEMS a.k.a. you camp an area that has certain mobs for its drops, your deffinition might only mean to camp a mob for money, but how is this different from camping for its rare drop, when both lead to the same outcome?
Buying an item isn't called anything except... buying an item :cheesy:
Camping a mob for a high lvl item drop == Farming

Wickedly_Evil

30-04-2004, 09:17 AM

Blizzard has already found their way of limiting super powerful items, as previously mentioned. Soulbound, Bind on whatever and the rest are a MUCH MUCH more acceptable method than yours Squirrel.

One thing that makes no sense is why would the best items decay? That just makes even less sense...... The ancient sword of the slayer king decays but that rusty standard issue orc dagger does not??? I think Blizzard agrees with me, as they made some of the better unique items from Diablo immune to decay. (even though that system was vastly different).

Blizzard wants dropped items and player made items to be on equal footing. One is better part of the time, but another the other is better. Both would have to decay to keep things equal.

flick556

30-04-2004, 11:03 AM

I like the suggested system allot but I think some things need to be done to avoid people viewing the system as a penalty.

I suggest as apposed of +20(15) listed items turn into their lesser counterparts using the common prefix suffix systems found in MMORPGs. Also their level caps should also reflect this.

i.e.

Shinny Metal Dagger ( lvl 30+ requirement)

Used Metal Dagger (lvl 20+)

Rusty Metal Dagger (lvl10+)

All three are dropped by appropriate monsters or they can be obtained by trading one higher. I.E I go to sell a shiny Metal Dagger and it sells as a used Metal dagger. Buyer only ever sees that it is a used Metal dagger they don't know whether I got it off a MOB or used it myself.

Crafted items would add a additional prefix like

Novice crafted Shinny Bronze Dagger (lvl 10+)

This would be equivalent to a Rusty Metal Dagger but the crafting prefixes would allow so many trades before it went away.

Novice = 1
Armature = 2
etc.

so

Armature Crafted Shinny Bronze dagger

/traded once after being worn

=

Armature(1) Crafted Shinny Bronze Dagger

/traded Again after worn

=

Shinny Bronze Dagger

/traded Again after worn

=

Used Bronze Dagger(lv7+)

etc.

No high lvl character will buy a item with a high lvl cap but little benefit,
high lvl people will have money proportional to their lvl. So these degraded items need to go to the lower lvl people. This will also make it easier for high lvl people to help lower lvls without giving them some uber items. They can trade back and forth to downgrade items until the lower level person can use it. This places more importance on the lvl requirements of items to be fair because more people will have items right at their lvl cap. To counter this their simply needs to be a large variety of items for any lvl cap. That is why I proposed that a rusty iron dagger would be the same as shiny bronze dagger, This way of reusing items avoids people from all racing to get that one super item. It also stretches the limited amount of art assets further. A color shading system could be used to differentiate the low quality from the higher as the original poster suggested, so we can tell who has the really good gear.
:winner:

DeadSquirrel

30-04-2004, 12:58 PM

Yup Flick, it would be a good idea to degrade the level requirement as well.

Though maybe only 5 stages of degradation, and after those 5 stages, level requirement stays the same, but the item stats continue decreasing.
Just to avoid a too huge flooding of the lower level item pool.

If all items in the game could end up being used by low levels, there would be much too many decayed items compared to fresh items, imo.

Riden,
You do know why its called ITEM FARMING right?
Farming means continuously collecting the same items from the same mobs over and over, in the purpose of gaining money.
Like a real farmer goes to fetch his eggs from his chickens everyday, and makes his living out of this.
That's why it's called being a farmer....

A person that goes camp his own item, and them leaves when he gets it, is merely playing the game, he's NOT a farmer.... you got your definitions mixed up.
Otherwise every player in the game is a farmer heh....

Riden

30-04-2004, 04:50 PM

It's called farming when you camp a specific mob or mobs for any paticular reason besides pure gaming purposes (quests).

But whatever way you want to look at it, dosn't make too much of a difference really, and its kinda off topic :scratch:

I guess were gonna have to agree to dissagree (I hate that phrase :\) cause you see it one way, I see it the other, but I don't think WoW will need it at all, which you have to agree is actually a good thing. :)

The Cheez

30-04-2004, 06:39 PM

That seems like a good plan for item decay, which I think is necessary for an MMORPG. The only flaw I can think of is I don't really like the idea of decay-upon-trade, simply because it's not realistic. Example:

Skuz kills a Burly Wild Boar who drops a Burly Wild Boar Tusk. He uses the dagger for a month without it degrading in quality. He trades the dagger to a lower level guildmate and the dagger decays and now does less damage, only because he traded it to someone.

Not very realistic for an item to decay only through trading in my opinion. I believe items should decay from use. This would work similar to Diablo's method, using durability, but I have a different idea on how it could work:

Skuz kills the Burly Wild Boar and gets the BWB Tusk. This Tusk has a durability of 25/25 (Current/Max). There would be two types of durability loss - temporary and permanent. Temporary durability loss would come from using the weapon. Skuz uses this dagger until it becomes useless - 0/25 durability. At this point he cannot use the dagger and it must be repaired (it is not broken and no stat-loss has occured on the item). Permanent duability loss comes from repairing the item - he gets it repaired and the Max durability drops by one point - 24/24. If it has magic stats or enchantments, then they will drop too, but only when permanent durability loss happens. Stat loss on items could occur when the item loses a % of max durability at several levels - such as losing stats each time the max durability drops 20% until it breaks when it's at 20% of the original maximum durability.

I created this system with the intention of having no items that will last forever, with perhaps a few exceptions. I think that the souldbound system is good for rares/uniques, but for normal, magic, or player crafted equipment I believe there should be some form of item decay.

With Diablo's system, you could keep your items forever, as long as you TP'd and repaired them when their durability got too low. Personally, I think this is bad implenetation of a good idea. I don't think you should be able to keep your super elite armor and weapons indefinitely.

On a similar side note, in Diablo and many of the later MMORPG's, items rule - all anyone cares about is getting the rarest most powerful elite weapon/armor/whatever since some items are so super freaking powerful all that really makes your character is the items you have. I think less emphasis should be put into items and more should be put into character customization through skills or stats.

DeadSquirrel

30-04-2004, 07:08 PM

Rulan

30-04-2004, 08:30 PM

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Asmiroth

30-04-2004, 08:57 PM

Item decay is implemented in games for one reason only.

Money sink. Plain and simple.

D2's implementation of item decay is great for a small world. You can just open up a TP to town to get it repaired and to max as well. That's a money sink. For that system to work in WoW, you'd need the decay to be much slower, and be balanced so that the casters' items would decay as well.

No game can have a "perfect" decay system. Too many views on the issue.

I would not be surprised if they included item decay on death (which is practically meaningless right now) and have every single weapon vendor be able to repair your items for a fee. Have the repair cost be factored by the level of the item as well. Would go well with their idea of having people stay in and around inns...

Bly

30-04-2004, 09:17 PM

I think this is a pretty good idea. Have you submitted it to the WoW suggestion boards on the blizzard site? Try that and you might even see it implemented as a test sometime in the future, although obviously I can't claim anything as I'm only another joe who didn't get into beta. Like I said before though, I do like the idea, but I don't think we can really say how it would work out without trying it.

Wickedly_Evil

30-04-2004, 09:24 PM

It sounds to me like there are enough money sinks in the game at present. Notice also you can sell quest items to vendors when you are done with them. I assume however that people can't buy that item off the vendor, it is just destroyed by the npc when it is given the quest item.

Just say no to item decay. As far as realism goes, why would items decay on death? You were dead 4 and a half minutes, but rust ate the blade of your axe??? If implemented I suspect it would be something similar to Diablo 2, because it worked fine and nobody really had a huge problem with it.

Forxr

30-04-2004, 09:37 PM

Warning! Long post folks not intrested in dynamics of mmorpg economy need not to read. (and for all those posters who not be named that only post and not read)

I believe what a perfect item system would be something like this:

On your adventures of slaying the wicked beast, saving the lost boy, and hunting down theives. You get Items on the way, some good, some bad, some you can use... a bunch you dont. But you didnt go do a certain quest because a boss has x percent chance to drop an item. At the end of the day, you got maybe 1 semi decent item that replaces something you used before, maybe if lucky 2 items... a bunch of worthless stuff that ya sell to vendor for some gold. And finnally 2-3 items that are worth selling...(that you didnt need) 2 kinda worthless one worth a good amount. This makes getting items a added "perk" do doing quest. And about once every 2-3 levels (beyond the quick noob lvls) they happen upon a "powerful" item.

And every charchter has an equipment setup something like this: A bunch of decent items for their level they eithir found, or bought from other charchters. And a few (maybe 10/15 percent of total items) really powerful items (for their level) they got lucky finding (BUT DID NOT CAMP FOR.) That they can show off to their friends? That few (if any) one else in the game has? And finnaly a few aging items (got them some levels ago) that need replacement.

CAN WE ALL AGREE this is an ideal way to play the game?

Now you need an economy to support this. FIrst off blizzard has to balance the gold drop/making rate so that a person can afford to buy (maybe 50 percent) of his equipment up to "decently strong equipment" from buying from blacksmiths trader economy and merchants. An IDEAL economy always has the player "broke" and trying to raise cash for next good item... (i suppose some of you could disagree on this point)

Next you need to SLOW (think its inpossible to stop) as much as possible inflation... thus you have items that for the MOST Part maintain an even price through out the entire games history... and those items prices are on par with what blizzard has setup (what i stated in last paragraph)

Now finnaly back on subject.

IN order to slow inflation,,, you need certain measures in place. If all items... stay in game forever... and can be traded to anyone...what happens? THe item value drops because more and more and more of those items are in game and in peoples inventory. Thus making them cheaper and cheaper... to the point their is far more supply.. then demand.. making them next to worthless.

We can all agree this is very bad.

ANd its bad in multiple ways. It makes blacksmiths, weaponsmiths etc (I call them trade-skillers) a mostly worthless profession, and it makes it so everyone has "that uber item of the gods that suppose to be unique, not so unique" And whats worse... IT raises players perception of "what i must have so my player is not gimp and wont get groups" to the point where everyone is required to camp stuff to eithir make money .. or camp the item (if they can usually its much harder to get as they suppose to get it at later level) ANd i think we can all agree camping IS NO FUN.

THe folks that make mmorpgs know this... they all saw EQ. Blizzard has stated many of their employees have played (maybe still do) EQ they seen the problem first hand... and while DIABLO 2 is a vastly differnt game.. they also had some taste of a poor economy (I think d2 economy is worse then eq in some ways in that currency in that game has zero value)

SO they have ways to combat this.They can make the item super hard to get.. off super hard mob,, and super low drop rate... But I think we can all agree taht for the most part.. that system SUCKS. (IE everyone farms and gets frustrated)

Another is making the item (in wow soul binded or quest) Which is an okay solution.. basicly makes that item not part of the economy.. and if its a good item.. camped for.. a bad item.. ignored.

Finnaly we have the topic at hand... loot decay.
It is mostly hated because that uber item you got so lucky finding../camping for to rot away after a while. I think its okay if the rot level is on par with item "use abilty lifespan" as in it wont really diminish in stats until AFTER you no longer have use for it, and since gotten a better item (and this is fine except for the best items in the game that top players will be using for a LONG time)

However then the real decay system at hand is for the items "hand me down/trade/sell factor" With a modest decay system.. after you are done with the item it has only very diminished stats loss.. and is still a good item.. but by the time that person is done with it... it's sign of age should really start showing... and not really worth much to sell at all.

As for the orignal posters idea.. I think its a good one...except this. TOP ENd game... THe top players will have near the best items they can get in the game.. and wont need replacment unless they get lucky and find upon an uber rare. They wont be buying from the economy anymore. Only selling what ever loot they get.. thus getting richer and richer... however an easy solution to that is for blizzard to put money drains on the top players as well... (maybe enchants for weapons that are temporay but cost big money etc.... or having their items decay... even tho they never traded it.. so they eventually hafta buy new equipment.

As for camping/farming item decay... in the end probaly only help a little..
I think for the best items... that people are going to camp for.. blizzard simply going to have to make them soul bound. I dont see any other way around this :( or face the problem of eveyone having and camping for the item. (thus hurting the econmy and forcing players to do the hated "camp/farm") Trust me.. farmers/campers dont like what they do for the most part eithir.

With all the systems in place.. I belive something close to my first paragraph would be possible.

Oh and the idea of guild armoury.. I hate to shoot this down... but kinda defeats the purpose of the orignal idea doesnt it? maybe tweak the idea a little.. I can understand the want to beable to do hand me downs.. but if the cost is a blown out market.. i dont think its worth it.

perhaps i should make a journal out of this eh?

btw... i found this whole post intresting.. if a bit amusing (usual forum antics)
I would like the thank the posters for their intresting ideas (espicaly the orignal poster)

I have a few other ideas to help the in game economy but this post is way to long as it is anyways....

Forxr

30-04-2004, 09:55 PM

or if you dont want to read my long post reading why...
in short..
Have loot decay on everything (slowish loot decay) AND the best items in the game are soul bound. (when i say best items.. best items you can get at your level)
this would help minimize camping and ... hopefully prevent eq economy situation.

EvilWarlock

30-04-2004, 10:40 PM

Just say no to item decay. As far as realism goes, why would items decay on death? You were dead 4 and a half minutes, but rust ate the blade of your axe??? If implemented I suspect it would be something similar to Diablo 2, because it worked fine and nobody really had a huge problem with it.
Rust Beetles. They eat metal, but people and monsters frighten them off. It's fantasy.

Would people use decayed items? Yes.Here's an example:

Bob: level 42
Tim: level 20
Paul: level 5
Bob finds a high level item on a quest, Leather Armor of the Dentist(+25 cavity resistance, lvl requirement 40) . He uses it for a while, then he gets a better item. He sells it to his friend, Tim. It is now Worn Leather Armor of the Dentist(+20 cavity resistance, lvl requirement 20). Then Tim gets something better and sells it to Paul, a new player who isn't doing very well. It is now Decaying Leather Armor of the Dentist(+5 cavity resistance)

It's called farming when you camp a specific mob or mobs for any paticular reason besides pure gaming purposes (quests).
Look, farming is when you camp a mob or group of mobs over and over again. If I wanted to get the Sunglasses of Coolness (+10 popularity), I would go look for whatever monster carried it, kill it, get the Sunglasses of Coolness, and leave. Maybe somebody else killed it already, so I will wait a bit and kill it when it spawns. If I did this 20 times in a row it would be farming, if I did it vonce it wouldn't.

wakiki

30-04-2004, 10:40 PM

Yay this thread got in the news! :)

Guys, you seem to hate the whole idea of item decay, but let's pretend there is no item decay in the game.

Firstly, after a few months, crafting would be useless. Everyone would be selling a Breastplate of Blah, but everyone would already have it, and it wouldn't be worth making that breastplate anymore. Then, as more and more people got to higher levels of crafting, this would happen with more and more recipes. Eventually the market would be so flooded with all of these crafted items that no one would bother crafting anymore -- it would take too long to find someone who is willing to buy the item, and the money you would receive would be worth the time you spent looking for the ingredients. So, people would stop crafting.

Want proof of how lack of item decay destroys the economy? Look at Diablo II. Everyone has everything, at least on softcore mode. You can get a Stone of Jordan, one of the best rings in the game, for chipped gems. Something is wrong there. The economy isn't so bad on Hardcore. Why? Because items are lost when characters die. So, items keep getting destroyed, and have to be replaced by others.

In World of Warcraft, you might be happy having the Breastplate of Blah, but then, so does everyone else. Everyone would eventually have all of the best items, which doesn't make sense. Once people have maxed their level, they won't have any trouble getting all perfect gear, and then they will leave(after all, they won't need to bother with crafting type trade skills).

Basically, with the decay, it might make it harder to get the item that you want, but you would get much more gratification out of getting it, once you do.

By the way I am tired / typing in a hurry so sorry if I seem disorganized and have typos etc.

Mallow

30-04-2004, 11:07 PM

Edit. Please, be civil to people or don't post. Thanks, Elly

Kisenger

30-04-2004, 11:35 PM

Okay I haven't read this entire thread because Im in a really lazy mood at the moment. i like the idea from what I've read but what would happen if I hire someone to make me some armor or a weapon. Would that item lose its glory after teh makers gives me the armor/weapon? I do like the use decay with what could happen with that is just let blacksmith fix teh weapon/armor if it was made by one or have a tailor/leather armor maker fix those items as well. That part to me just seems like it would keep blacksmiths and tailors in need and would give more purpose then just to make things.

BareFangsAtGod

30-04-2004, 11:48 PM

Just wondering, can you drop items in WoW? If you can, then the whole idea of the item degrading over each would be useless, in a way. Since the item would only degrade on a trade. Dropping the item for your friend to pick up wouldn't be considered a trade. What you would end up with is a bunch of middlemen who hold both items and money for players so they can "drop trade" with each other, so that the items don't degrade.

It makes more sense for the items to degrade as you use them, rather than just in the trade window. They should also have monsters that distroy your stuff, depending on the monster and what you are wearing there is the chance to have one of your items distroyed. Of course those monsters would give the best loot, but there would be the most risk involved.

SSH83

01-05-2004, 12:41 AM

Wickedly_Evil

01-05-2004, 12:55 AM

Being able to repair items defies the purpose of item decay. It just adds an additional chore in the game, without helping the economy.

The only reason I suggested this idea, was because it avoided any conflict with a player. The player will never have to do anything regarding his items...
If he decides to keep his item forever, he'll never have to worry losing it to decay.
Which avoids the biggest flaw in item decay.

If it's realism that bothers you, I did explain a bit earlier how this system could be considered realist. Using an old shoe as an example ^^.
Your old shoe will always be comfortable to you, but if you sold it, the buyer would find it ugly and uncomfortable.

Here you are dead wrong. As time goes by there is more money in the world. Because everyone has more wealth, money loses some of its value. Making items need repair (but not decaying) actively helps to reduce inflation, as do all money sinks.

Your system is quite flaky, which is part of what bothers me. Keep an item forever and it never degrades, but let a friend borrow it for a week while you take a vacation and it loses some of its magic. Right.... Brilliant! (insert Guiness cartoon guys here)

You also happen to be dead wrong about the shoe thing. During the 90's there was a fad for old, worn out expensive shoes in Japan. I believe Air Jordans that were dirty and smelly and all messed up sold for about two to two and a half times the price of the brand new shoe here. (Sadly I have no idea where I saw this on TV)

So if I have this right, then your whole purpose for this system is to r-e-t-a-r-d (not always a bad word...) trading in general, except for player made goods? I take it you have a problem for people who like fast and furious item trading for profit? A good number of people play mmorpgs just to be merchants. What is wrong with a shrewd trader making lots of money by buying low and selling high? Apparently you have a problem with this.

I have read over his idea objectively Mallow. I just don't like it. Maybe you should take your finger out of yours while you type. Funny to see that in those 3 pages that "support" your argument, many flat out say they do NOT like item decay. This happens to include the topic creator.

So in breif, you want items that stay on 1 character forever to never decay. At the same time you want items that pass hands back and forth to degrade with each trade. How is that a good idea, much less a balanced one?

Bartleby

01-05-2004, 01:36 AM

... yet. How will that be implimented? Will the decade only take place after the item switched hand? Or will it take place after the item was exchanged through the trade-interface?
Trade interface
Assuming all the obvious exploitable problems are taken cared of in the case of trading with the trade-interface, what happens to people who is just letting someone borrow an item for a short time? If that happens, 2 exchanges take place (borrow and return) and even if the exchanges are 1 hours apart, the item gets a double decade. That is not fair.
I have never seen this anywhere but between guild members. See armory suggestion for solution, although I believe now armory items also need to degrade somehow.

What about aborting trades? Buyer has second thought and want to return the item. That won't work as the decade will once again kick in as long as the buyer "tries it out."
Has this ever happened anywhere? Maybe between guild members, but again, that's b/c that comes down to an immense amount of trust in someone that can easily screw you over, but can't be held accountable.
Here are a few more ideas that won't work:

- none-decade exchange by dropping items on the ground: This should be obvious. Traders will exploit that for non-decading trades.
Equipment can be bound on soul, use and acquisition. The fix is exactly like bind on acquisition or bind on soul in that it's useless to anyone else if it's dropped. The trade process would allow it to be usable by others again, but the item's stats would be reduced. Problem solved.

- Keep track of how long an item has been worn. If worn only for a short time, no decade: Unless the system works in utmost secrecy. People will find out and exploit it so that the item never decades. Also the casual players that won't know about all the details of the decade system will be exploited.
I agree, IMO it's too difficult to prevent from being exploited.

There are more problems with item decades than meets the eye. You would be ignorant if you think you can solve it in an hour when all the MMORPG developers have not been able to. Nonetheless, keep thinking.
This is why open debates are a beautiful thing... eventually all the issues come out and we realize quickly whether or not the problem can be solved. This one I believe is solveable, because we've had plenty of bad examples from which to draw experience.

DeadSquirrel

01-05-2004, 01:46 AM

Kisenger,
Okay I haven't read this entire thread because Im in a really lazy mood at the moment. i like the idea from what I've read but what would happen if I hire someone to make me some armor or a weapon. Would that item lose its glory after teh makers gives me the armor/weapon? I do like the use decay with what could happen with that is just let blacksmith fix teh weapon/armor if it was made by one or have a tailor/leather armor maker fix those items as well. That part to me just seems like it would keep blacksmiths and tailors in need and would give more purpose then just to make things.
That's why players would need to wear items before the item would be prone to decay, so that people who do not wish to use the item, but only sell it, will be selling a brand new, non-decayed item ;).

BareFangs,
Just wondering, can you drop items in WoW?
I don't think you can, but if you can you're right ^^... it would defeat the purpose.
But it would be easily fixed by making an object drop would make it decay just as if it were traded ;).

SSH,

Keep track of how long an item has been worn. If worn only for a short time, no decade: Unless the system works in utmost secrecy. People will find out and exploit it so that the item never decades. Also the casual players that won't know about all the details of the decade system will be exploited.
Items could decay after a certain amount of that it's kept and worn by a player, which would fix "lending" problems, "try out" problems and buyers changing their mind...
But people wouldnt have any reason to exploit it.... how would you want them to exploit it? Switching items with a friend every X hours to avoid a decay? It's hardly worth the trouble.
As for Casual players.... they'll know about the decay feature, just as they'll know how PvP works, just how they'll know which items are worth a lot of money etc.... They're casual, not dumb ;)

Wicked,
Here you are dead wrong. As time goes by there is more money in the world. Because everyone has more wealth, money loses some of its value. Making items need repair (but not decaying) actively helps to reduce inflation, as do all money sinks.
Yes, repairement can be a money sink. But as it was stated earlier, there's already enough ways of introducing money sinks. (Horses, Houses, Tradeskills, Gambling, Spells etc...).
However, the only way of getting rid of items after they've been a long time in the market, is decay.
And if you allow repairing items, it will keep items in the market, even after 3 years.... which is what's hurting a lot of economies.

You also happen to be dead wrong about the shoe thing. During the 90's there was a fad for old, worn out expensive shoes in Japan. I believe Air Jordans that were dirty and smelly and all messed up sold for about two to two and a half times the price of the brand new shoe here. (Sadly I have no idea where I saw this on TV)
Err....
I was giving an example as to how the system could be considered as realistic..... I wasn't affirming anything....
Could you give me an example as to how Dungeons being instanced is realistic? I mean, 2 people entering the same cave are bound to see each other in the cave right?...
Realism didn't stop instancing, why? Because it enhances the game... this is a game, not a simulation.

So if I have this right, then your whole purpose for this system is to r-e-t-a-r-d (not always a bad word...) trading in general, except for player made goods?
Nope, you got it wrong.
The whole purpose is to have items disappear after they've been in the market for a long enough time.
But avoid having them disappear while a player is still in need of it.

A good number of people play mmorpgs just to be merchants. What is wrong with a shrewd trader making lots of money by buying low and selling high? Apparently you have a problem with this.

Apparently you have a problem in comprehension.
The item decays only if worn by the trader.
Since when do "shrewd traders" wear everything they buy before re-selling?
It's in respect of these traders and tradeskillers that I wanted items to have to be worn before decaying upon trade.

I have read over his idea objectively Mallow. I just don't like it. Maybe you should take your finger out of yours while you type. Funny to see that in those 3 pages that "support" your argument, many flat out say they do NOT like item decay. This happens to include the topic creator.
Wrong,
many say they didn't like Item Decay so far... meaning the ways it was implemented in most MMORPGs.
The reason I thought up this idea, was because I hated to see players losing a well-earned item to decay.

--------

One more thing, this is just an idea... I'm not in the beta and I don't have means of testing the idea fully, so obviously the idea isn't polished.
But instead of saying the whole concept is ridiculous because of a few details like "not being able to lend items", just point it out and maybe even suggest a solution....

And last but not least, can we keep the discussion civilised?

edit:
Woo, I made it on wowar.net frontpage! :yep:
hehe

Bartleby

01-05-2004, 01:47 AM

So in breif, you want items that stay on 1 character forever to never decay. At the same time you want items that pass hands back and forth to degrade with each trade. How is that a good idea, much less a balanced one?
I believe this to be a good summary of your argument. To that I offer this:

ONLY the absolute greatest of items will never/rarely be traded, and that's only because they have no equal. If your goal is to prevent people from keeping a super unique item forever without decay then that problem can be addressed with some other method of decay or money sink.

Also to help alleviating the farming issue, IMO quests should not provide super elites as drops. Maybe on completion of said quest you recieve a super elite from an NPC, but only once per character. A lot of people wont like that b/c that means they will have to grind it out in some odd forest killing more creeps than they care to think about hoping for that elite drop, but at least it keeps the quests relatively camper free.

Tremblay

01-05-2004, 02:51 AM

Mah two cents:

How about a sparkling new item that has 20/20 durability. So far so good... you use it, falls to 0/20, you repair it (blacksmith skill = you can repair your weapons yourself), and it's back to 20/20. As long as you keep it, Max Durability stays at 20.

Then, IF you trade it, Durability becomes 15/15. Stats stay the same.

The buyer trades it... 10/10... then item is traded again... 5/5... then it's untradeable because durability would be 0/0 if you sell it to someone. The item worn out.

Then maybe some NPC - Magical Blacksmith Guy can add 5 Max Durability (eg: 5/5 to 10/10 durability) for 1 million dollars!! *puts pinkie finger near mouth* if you really want to use that item... or something

T.

EL Pingu

01-05-2004, 03:25 AM

Ok.. To all the people that hated this idea.. URE OVER REACTING!
this idea is great.. it does benefit the economy and the versitility of the game.. if you haven't understood all the explanations given here... give it up.. u're just not business inclined..

Now.. the only flaw with this whole system.. AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, is the whole notion that your item will decay after been worn once...
An armor worn for 5 hours of play should not decay as much as an armor worn for 100 hours of play.. that just doesnt' make sence... simply wearing an armor and walking around town should not make it decay either...

In Diablo there was a durability stat that would degenarate as the character is hit or as he uses his weapon... I dont see why this can't be used in WoW...
ok.. so we dont wanna lose our items.. we don't have to...

Lets imagine a sword with 100/100 durability... and 20-30 dmg....
Everytime the sword loses 10 durability, 1-1 dmg could be reduced...
So lets say the sword now hit 90/100 durability.. it now does 19-29 dmg...
Once the durability hits 0/100, the sword would do 10-20 dmg....

the trading system would end up causing items to do 0 dmg.. and that doesn't make sence... If I hit u on the head with a rotten stick.. no matter how rotten.. I'm still gonna hurt u a little.. even if the stick breaks on ur head ;)

Finally... I don't know if anyone suggested this... but how about REPAIRING ITEMS (also coming from Diablo)... This would be another way to boost the economy.. It could be a skill in each (or most) trades... some items could be easy to repair... while others nearly impossible... how damaged the item is could also dictate that...

Anyways... great idea... hope you agree with me.. sorry to all the whinners... you have a right to an opinion.. but so do I.. and I happen to think y'all are wrong to think this is a bad idea... :)

Wickedly_Evil

01-05-2004, 04:01 AM

You are aware that quested items are no longer tradable at all (apparently)?
Under your system they would never decay, as they cant be traded.

Instanced dungeons is a good idea as it promotes unity instead of guilds fighting over the same mob. Sometimes the ideal is better than the real model. I personally don't like items decaying in general.

The only way of getting rid of items after they've been a long time in the market, is decay

That's not true. Many of the things I bought while playing everquest I had for the entire life of my character. I kept my very first robe for sentimental reasons. As a matter of fact I kept all of them. Once a very good item has been bought it has a tendency to be kept off the market. Look back at the fungi tunic for Everquest. The demand was always high for that item. The demand did not decrease when it became an ultra rare drop. Most people who had a tunic liked it and kept it for when they needed it. One of my friends used his during raids on bosses that used lots of DoT's where the clerics usually died shortly after the boss.

Personally I kind of think Everquest had a well working economy with no item decay. One factor that turned many of my friends from wanting to play everquest 2 is the very issue at hand; item decay. Wasted or lost effort makes people unhappy.

I'm not angry or upset. No Offense, but I just hate your idea.

I think your idea is unrealistic to implement as it would add additional server load for every item ever created. The system must run checks whenever an item is traded. Simple is usually better in cases like this.

Bartleby, one chance at an elite drop from a mob kind of sucks if you are in a group. If I could only get the uber_drop 1 time from a particular boss I would not fight him until I could kill him alone. As opposed to having a 1/5 chance of getting that item or never being able to get that item.

EL Pingu, I have my own opinion about this idea. I would like to note that though you say it is a great idea, you immediately find some flaw with it as do many of the posters in the thread....

ProtectorOfLife

01-05-2004, 04:20 AM

Hm. I don't think this is a bad idea, but I don't understand why others think it is so great either. I would probably rather have it than not don't get me wrong (as long as they implemented it well), but Blizzard already has a pretty good anti-twink system in place and it will only get better as they test and balance more.

If you are wondering what I'm talking about, its the close level requirements on items. You can't equip a character with godly items way past his level simply because it won't let you. A lot of items are recieved through other means than gold too (like doing the quest, tradeskills) so even giving a newbie a giant handfull of gold isn't going to make TOO much of a difference compared to another player who knows what he's doing and can get the gold he needs pretty easily anyway. Going out and doing the quests to get items to twink someone might be more trouble than its worth too. It will help the guy for sure but having that little bit of help that doesn't set people too far ahead can actually be good. If you are willing to work so hard to put someone else a little ahead I say its well earned, just as long as you put limits on it.

Its just super characters that are one man killing machines who ruin things really. Camping quest mobs, popular exp spots, rushing ahead of everyone, making giant trains and...you guys know the deal. Nothing wrong with giving a friend/guildy a little boost though if you ask me. A LITTLE one. In retrospect the only things I can see that could possibly go wrong is if there was no way to tell he used the item or not, the decay was too fast, or maybe somehow this would hurt crafters who needed to use the items before they were selling them and it would hurt their pockets or something, but honestly I don't see that happening so I think its a good idea.

-and forgive me if a lot of this was said, but I didn't read all the posts. There are so many long posts that I will be surprised if a lot of people even read to mine-

Bartleby

01-05-2004, 04:50 AM

Bartleby, one chance at an elite drop from a mob kind of sucks if you are in a group. If I could only get the uber_drop 1 time from a particular boss I would not fight him until I could kill him alone. As opposed to having a 1/5 chance of getting that item or never being able to get that item.If you look at it from the stand point that everyone should have the most elite items then I agree, the idea is harsh. But I don't think everyone should have the best of everything because it leads to this (http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=180573) (see 3rd post "Dementor") kind of situation.

You and I probably wont see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. We're both concerned about WoW's economy and the best way to ensure the game's survivability. Either way we'll both end up going along (maybe begrudgingly) with whatever Blizzard decides is best. Until then we'll all offer our input.

SilentEd

01-05-2004, 04:52 AM

Ok. This trade decay idea is brilliant. Unfortunately, like the rest system, if it is implemented power gamers will whine about it until they are red in the face. Why? Because it's another feature that will prevent them from being able to break our game.

I despise power gamers. As far as I'm concerned, the more features implimented in this game that make regular players happy while discouraging power gamers the better it will be. Why? When power gamers play, their only goal is to get the maximum level and the uber gear as fast as they possibly can at the expense of everyone around them. They only think these games are fun if they can say they're better at it than everyone else. So when Blizzard tries to implement features that give average players even the slightest sense of gratification it frightens them. "My God" they think, "Other people are having fun! Only I should be able to do that!"

From the get go Blizzard has said that WoW will be a MMOG for average players. It will be for people who don't play other games because power gamers have made their playing experience hell. Every time I hear a power gamer pouting about how they're going to quit playing because they can't lord over all the other players in WOW like they could in NeverQuest it's just Blizzard accomplishing exactly what they promised they would all along.

Bartleby

01-05-2004, 05:00 AM

I don't think Blizzard is interested in turning anyone away (except for griefers maybe)
They try to balance making a game that gives power gamers something they rarely have (a game that takes a while to max out at, something to do at the highest levels, and reasons to interact with the rest of the community) with what casual gamers rarely have (a game where they can achieve the highest level and have a sense of in game respect and accomplishment even though they can't piss 15 hours away every day).

llokii

01-05-2004, 05:22 AM

In the online games I've played that have item decay vs no item decay, I haven't really noticed much difference in the economies.

Mainly because if you put in decay, it has to be slow enough that the item has a reasonable lifespan, which allows the user to accumulate greater wealth than they needed to aquire the item. Slows the GNP of the server down a bit, but not as much as one would think.

Also, if they implement item decay, then the best equipment will need to be player made, which is fine, but it makes the best stuff relatively easy to come by for the right price.

I could care less whether or not they have item decay, I've never noticed a great deal of difference with or without it other than having to get new equipment every so often.

So ignore my post, it's fairly useless to this debate!

Xinhuan

01-05-2004, 05:26 AM

Just wondering, can you drop items in WoW? If you can, then the whole idea of the item degrading over each would be useless, in a way. Since the item would only degrade on a trade. Dropping the item for your friend to pick up wouldn't be considered a trade. What you would end up with is a bunch of middlemen who hold both items and money for players so they can "drop trade" with each other, so that the items don't degrade.

No, you cannot drop any items in WoW. If you attempt to do so, the game will just pop up a box asking you "Do you really wish to destroy this item?"

On the whole, I think Item decay of some form should be placed in, because it is the only way to solve item inflation. Now, this is about ITEM inflation, not about MONEY inflation. There are enough MONEY sinks in the game, but no ITEM sinks. How else do you end up with 10000000 SoJs and 100000 Charms of Annihilus in Diablo2? Because there is no ITEM sink

(Of course, Blizzard did try to make a SoJ sink, by introducing the Annihilus Charm with that weird "xxx SoJs sold" message.)

Money != Item
Money Sink is important.
So is Item Sink.

FenixStryk4

01-05-2004, 06:20 AM

I'm REALLY not liking this idea. The main problem I see is that the trading industry will be practically in ruins from this. But I won't just leave it at that. As always, I'll suggest an alternative.

First off, let's add an armor/weapon sturdiness stat. Since I'm not fond of the D2 style of things breaking, etc, I'll add a certain limit that's unique in many ways. A weapon will have a full potential of... 120% sturdiness. This weapon will slowly degrade to 100% from use, and, once reaching 100%, it will no longer degrade from use.

However, there's a catch. When you trade an item, it will lower its sturdiness by 20%. So, let's say someone finds a weapon. It will be at 120% sturdiness. So, this person is now at a fork in the trading road. If he is a devoted trader, he can take the 120% sturdy weapon and just go to an area and trade it. Thus, when it is traded, it will lower to 100% and still be at its full strength. However, this person will have another option. He can use it as he likes and it can weaken to 100%. So, if he were to trade this weapon after it has been used and weakened to 100%, it will still lower its strength by 20%, going down to 80% and losing strength. If it is traded multiple times, it will still degrade by 20%, stopping once this item is left with a horridly weak 1%

Once a weapon weakens, there are some rare things that can be done to restore it. I do not want to make this something... easy to do. So, we add a new little feature. Let's say that an individual has a weakened weapon taht is at 80% sturdiness. Well, an NPC will not be able to fix this... instead, a PC that has the trading skill similar to the item must repair it. So, only blacksmiths can repair metal armor, only tailorers can repair cloth items, and only leatherworkers can repair leather armor, etc.

As it is now, in my mind, the person repairing the item will not require any items to repair it, they will simply need the trade skill. When a repairer is asked to repair an item, it is likely that the person repairing will GET money from the person asking for it to be repaired.If items were required, they would cost money, which basically penalizes the repairer for doing somehthing with no benefit for that person. This is not something that makes sense to me.

In conclusion, this idea creates a very new dynamic to the industry. Constant switching and trading will not be as common, however, items will still have the uncommon potential of being great again, even if it is traded. So, organized guilds will still be good at switching items for newbies. Also, there will be no sort of money sink involved where money is simply lost down the drain. Also, those with the trade skills to repair can make money, adding a new form of trading.

Opinions?

Xinhuan

01-05-2004, 07:09 AM

FenixStryk4, my opinion on this suggestion is that you have not solved anything. By allowing repairs, the original idea of a ITEM sink is gone completely. Also, the 120% down to 100% isn't going to help, because either someone is going to use an item (which brings it down to 100%), or he doesn't use the item, trades it away, and it gets repaired back to 100%.

Sure, more MONEY will change hands, the MONEY would be more "circulative", due to repairs being needed. But that is all that is going to happen, MONEY changing hands to tradeskillers to repair. It does not even sink any money, nor sink any items back into the game.

Any suggestion that doesn't sink items is not a good suggestion, because it will not slow down or stop ITEM inflation.

Wickedly_Evil

01-05-2004, 08:25 AM

When power gamers play, their only goal is to get the maximum level and the uber gear as fast as they possibly can at the expense of everyone around them. They only think these games are fun if they can say they're better at it than everyone else.

Hate to break it to you, but not everyone who plays a game more than casually is a cut throat jerk.

If you implement decay then people would have to be able to do quests more than once to keep their items. Blizzard doesn't want that, as quests are supposed to be the main xp source.
What's the point of 10 part quests that end with an item that will rot to decay? You can never get another as quests are not repeatable. I really like doing quests truth be told. I did many of them in EQ just for fun, even when the reward was not at all worth it nor was the XP.

Item decay is just a really horrible situation from my point of view. It is another form of loss. I really don't like having to re-do things I already acomplished. How fun would it be to hae to re-do one level every month?

If you played muds you might remember that some of them had inns. Every day you had to pay a tax per item to keep your items. The more you have the more you pay. Better items also cost more money. Should we implent that too? Item taxes made you play every day just to break even.

No matter what you do, you cannot prevent inflation (unless there is a finite amount of wealth in the game....wouldnt that suck!). Item sinks and money sinks become synonomous in the long term scheme of things. People get upset about losing their items, but losing a little bit of cash every now and then is not that big a deal.

If you look at it from the stand point that everyone should have the most elite items then I agree, the idea is harsh. But I don't think everyone should have the best of everything...

I think everyone should have their fair shot at the best items. One of the things that ruined everquest was the top guilds could keep smaller guilds beneath them by taking all the best boss mobs to kill.

no item dropping huh.... well that sucks.

So what exactly are you hoping to accomplish by adding trading based item decay? (more or less that is the system being debated atm) In no way will it prevent too many items from being around. Most likely it will cause people to collect even more of an item to sell.

Morphina

01-05-2004, 11:53 AM

Its true...

Items really need to decay to give the ecconomy a chance. SO i suppose soulbound items would have no decay. that is good.

I especially like the decay system of DAoC, as long as the unique , non tradable soulbound items don't decay.

Thsi would give crafters that can repair items uptill a certain point another reasont to skill up their trade.

bobxii

01-05-2004, 11:52 PM

well, we obviously have not reached a consensus so far, so we need to examine the root of the problem. Note that this first part is simply an analyzation of the problem.

1) The biggest problem with MMORPG's (every one of them, including WoW) is that the wealth is infinite. This is implemented for obvious reasons; it makes the game fun to play, because, as Wicked_Evil stated above, finite wealth in a game would suck. I agree; it would. The problem, and basic economics makes this very clear, is that an economy will not work if there is infinite wealth.

What happens with infinite wealth is the same thing that is still happening today in Saudi Arabia (not getting into it, just an example): everyone is rich by world standards - filthy rich, in fact - but the problem is that everyone is rich; so who gets to do the work?? Someone has to fix the sewer pipe when it breaks! So they get the feeling that they are poor because they have to work, even though they are loaded. Then the radical Islam bit comes in, but I'll stop there.

Obviously, infinite wealth is a problem that needs to be dealt with if we are to have a working, useful economy (instead of the oft-mentioned disaster of D2).

One *possible* solution has been mentioned here with item decay, but realism and fun contradict each other on this; players don't want to have to replace their uber stuff, even though reality would dictate that things do wear out (as item decay would pan out to becoming).

Another solution to create a working economy is Item sinks (money sinks also, but they are implemented already). Item sinks create a realistic price for power, but they also degrade from the "fun" of the game, because you must cough up perfectly good things to do something else.

Since neither of these will work in their current forms, tweaking is needed; so here is my personal twist on it, taking into account what has been said.

Perhaps another twist on Item Decay would be "Increased Cost of Repair":
as an item is used (perhaps with the exception of super-powerful items, since they cannot be replaced), it's repair cost per durability(or whatever) point would increase by a small amount, gradually making the item less and less worth it to keeping using (but completely usable nonetheless). This would be a slight prompt for the player to buy new things with their money, keeping the economy afloat (somewhat). It would also prompt them to sell their item, holding down inflation (in the long run). This would, of course, be soft-capped, so that price increase slows down a lot after a while (catering to players with high-powered stuff).

Tiered Stat Degradation

Perhaps in addition to that, a "used" item (repaired over and over by the player using it) could possibly lose a small amount of it's power when another player gains it - key point - and it could only have full power when used by the original player (so you can let a buddy borrow and item, and get it back at full power).

EDIT: cut this part out; it was contradictory. Use the example.

---------------

So here's an example:

Player 1 finds an Orcrist of +20 Dmg (LOTR sword). Right now, he could trade the Orcrist at no penalty or stat degradation. In fact, he could even try it out in a few battles, to decide whether he wants to keep it.

Player 1 decides to keep the Orcrist. He plays with it for a good while (X kills, X days, or whatever the dev team would use), and he repairs it to keep using it; though the repair cost is going up a little each time, it's OK for him, since it's pretty powerful. Now, if he wanted to trade the Orcrist, it would lose some of it's stats for the next player.

Player 1 has to work away from home for a while, so he won't be online for a while. He decides to let his buddy, Player 2, use his Orcrist while he is gone. Since Player 1 used the Orcrist for a good while, the Orcrist's stats for Player 2 are only 90-95% of the original max; it's an Orcrist +19 for Player 2

Player 1 gets back from his week of work, and Player 2 gives Player 1 his Orcrist back. Player 1 uses the Orcrist at full power (+20), since Player 2 has not overused the Orcrist (enough to degrade it). Right now, the Orcrist is back at full power, with no penalties.

Player 1 gets a new sword for Christmas (a Frostmourne, by God!), and no longer needs his Orcrist, so he sells it to Player 2. Since the item keeps track of it, it knows that it only degrades 5-10% from original, since it has only been "used" by one player (Player 1). Right now, Player 2 can trade off the Orcrist, with it being at 90-95% power, as if he never had it.

Player 2 decides to keep the Orcrist, and plays with it a bunch, enough to "use" it. Now, since Player 2 has "used" the Orcrist, it's stats (90-95% of original) become permanent; even if Player 1 got it back, it would remain degraded.

The Orcrist's stats are now permanent, and it becomes Player 2's sword; if he loans it to a guy who doesn't "use" it, he can get it back at it's degraded-once power (all he ever knew it to be).

Now the process starts over, as if Player 2 had found an Orcrist +19 dmg.

------------------

Essentially, this is a mix between Item Decay and item-character binding. If a player uses an item long enough, the item isn't as good when used by anyone else. If the player doesn't use it much, then the item doesn't care, and doesn't degrade upon trade.

When the next player uses it, the item "rebinds" itself to the new player, finalizing it's degraded stats.

This allows for a player to keep their weapon indefinitely (that would be discouraged somewhat by the increased cost of repairs), it allows buddies and guilds to loan out equipment at little or no penalty, it slowly degrades items to keep them from flooding the market over with a surplus, and it attempts to adhere to realism so an economy will work, while still remaining fun.

To sum it up, this would treat item trading like a game of "Hot Potato": as long as the person with the hot item doesn't use much, he can "toss" the hot item around some more as if he never had it. Use it much, though, and the hot item cools a little bit.

Sorry for the long post; at least it's all legible! :)

~bobxii

Wickedly_Evil

02-05-2004, 01:48 AM

I trust in Blizzard not to implement item decay. why?

One of the fundamental philosophies we have had throughout the development of World of Warcraft is to avoid overly frustrating elements used in other MMORPGs and make the game FUN.

taken from their FAQ page....

I think I see why a casual player might want decay. Inflation hits a casual player much more than a hardcore gamer. As I said before, unless there is a finite supply of wealth inflation will occur. Item decay does not stop inflation, or even really slow it down. It is nothing more than a grave annoyance from my point of view.

malakye3d@yahoo.com

02-05-2004, 02:19 AM

Drec The Darkone

02-05-2004, 02:41 AM

I like your ideas, a couple things to add maybe would be a way to "renew" the item. Of corse this will have a charge depending on how far gone the item is, helping keep the economy in balance. And I think no drop items shouldn't decay because they can't be traded or sold anyways.

DeadSquirrel

02-05-2004, 03:52 AM

I like your ideas, a couple things to add maybe would be a way to "renew" the item.

Well it would be kind of pointless to renew an item.
The person keeping an item, won't have to renew it because it won't decay.
And the person buying the item, is paying for what he gets.
If he wanted an item with higher stats, he would of bought an item with higher stats... instead of buying a decayed item, and then spending money to repair it.

Wickedly_Evil

02-05-2004, 04:14 AM

The problem with your solution is that is raises too many problems. This is a good thing from my point of view.

SilentEd

02-05-2004, 05:56 AM

Hate to break it to you, but not everyone who plays a game more than casually is a cut throat jerk.

I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about people who play the game at the expense of everyone else. I'm talking about people who push everyone else out so they can hog the prime loot and experience gathering areas. I'm talking about power gamers.

When people power game all day to farm loot and experience it ruins the fun for everyone else because they're prevented from playing in those areas. That makes the game a drag for everyone else. It is UNFUN! That is exactly what item decay and rest states would prevent. So, item decay and rest states actually enhance the fun of the game for everyone, including for the power gamers if they'd just take their blinders off and stop power gaming.

Xinhuan

02-05-2004, 06:51 AM

I repeat, any system that allows items to be renewed/repaired to it's original condition, will completely remove ITEM sink.

And ITEM sink is a necessity to keep a economy with a INFINITE supply of ITEMs afloat. Remember 100000000 SoJs and 500000 Windforces floating around in Diablo2 anyone?

Permanent item decay is a form of Item sink, but it pisses people off. So the original idea of "trading item decay" works extremely well. For people who want to borrow items from your friends, well it's just a little sacrifice you have to make. It's not funny to see 100000 copies of the rarest equipment floating around 2 years down the road.

LinkN

02-05-2004, 09:40 AM

You know, this is probably the best way to implemenet item decay I've ever seen. However, I've thought about it a bit, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized how unneeded it is. Yes, I do know there needs to be an item sink, but it doesn't have to be item decay. I'm going to make a new topic and post the link here after I make it.

Mallow

02-05-2004, 01:04 PM

Item decay does not stop inflation, or even really slow it down. It is nothing more than a grave annoyance from my point of view.

If item decay doesn't stop inflation altogether, it will at least slow it down. It is the best solution we have to a grave problem in most MMORPG's, in my opinion.

EL Pingu

02-05-2004, 03:48 PM

What if to repair (either from 5/5 to 10/10 or from 3/5 to 5/5) you had to use materials to repair? And guess what these materials would be? MORE ITEMS! if you had an item of the same type you want to repair, perhaps more than one, you would then "strip the items for parts", the result being your original item in better quality, and the others, destroyed.
As long as there was some sort of pyramid or conversion rate to repairing, you would see the glut of items no one want disappearing or being held onto for future repairs.

Dude... Like your idea...
Everybody is so hypped on this trading decay system.. I like the decay idea but I think it's should be done like in D2...

You got a sword... you slam it against an orcs head.. u do loads of dmg.. but the blow was so hard.. it dmgs your sword too.... makes more sence to have durability go down that way don't u think?
This allows for repair to happen... which would be yet another reason for people to go hunt for the4 material needed to repair.. and to spend MORE MONEY, keeping the economy even more alive...

And liek I said b4.. durability can also affect stats in the following way..
Sword, 100/100 durability.. 20-30 dmg.... after it looses 10 durability.. it loses 1-1 dmg...
So at 90/100 durability... it does 19-29 dmg..... at 80/100 durability, 18-28 dmg.... eventually... 0/100 durability will reduce it fo 10-20 dmg... say u decide to repair.. u buy loads of iron.. maybe some glue :P take it to a blacksmith... pay lots of money.. CHARA! brand new 90/90 durability sword (with 19-29 dmg, meaning.. eventually this sword won't be as good as it's sister swords that haven't been de-virginated in the head of an orc yet)

Magic8BallX

02-05-2004, 06:33 PM

Dude... Like your idea...
Everybody is so hypped on this trading decay system.. I like the decay idea but I think it's should be done like in D2...

You got a sword... you slam it against an orcs head.. u do loads of dmg.. but the blow was so hard.. it dmgs your sword too.... makes more sence to have durability go down that way don't u think?
This allows for repair to happen... which would be yet another reason for people to go hunt for the4 material needed to repair.. and to spend MORE MONEY, keeping the economy even more alive...

And liek I said b4.. durability can also affect stats in the following way..
Sword, 100/100 durability.. 20-30 dmg.... after it looses 10 durability.. it loses 1-1 dmg...
So at 90/100 durability... it does 19-29 dmg..... at 80/100 durability, 18-28 dmg.... eventually... 0/100 durability will reduce it fo 10-20 dmg... say u decide to repair.. u buy loads of iron.. maybe some glue :P take it to a blacksmith... pay lots of money.. CHARA! brand new 90/90 durability sword (with 19-29 dmg, meaning.. eventually this sword won't be as good as it's sister swords that haven't been de-virginated in the head of an orc yet)

I see a problem with this: No one wants a weapon that they worked so hard to find/buy, to get weaker and weaker, and even after they repair it, it still isn't as good as when they first got it. Eventually the weapon that was great when they first found/bought it becomes a piece of junk. This is just annoying to the player and a bad way to solve the problem of too many of the same items and too much money in the game economy

I like the way that Tremblay put it. It is a way to get rid of excess money and items. As you use your weapon or armor it loses some durability. It gets too low and you can go and repair it. When you repair it, it will be as strong as when you first got it and will always be as strong as when you got it as long as it stays repaired. And when you no longer have a use for it and trade it, it loses some stats, durability, value, etc. If you don't use the item or only use it for a short period of time, then when you trade it, it stays brand new. ( see his post to find out what he said exactly.)

As for lending an item you could make a special lend feature. You put a timer on how long a person can use your weapon and they can use it without a decrease in value and you get it back after the timer runs out without a decrease in stats. To avoid abuse of this option you put a limit as to how long the weapon can be used and put in a cooldown timer so a person can't just keep lending the same weapon to the same person, just so they won't lose stats.

EL Pingu

02-05-2004, 11:37 PM

I see a problem with this: No one wants a weapon that they worked so hard to find/buy, to get weaker and weaker, and even after they repair it, it still isn't as good as when they first got it. Eventually the weapon that was great when they first found/bought it becomes a piece of junk. This is just annoying to the player and a bad way to solve the problem of too many of the same items and too much money in the game economy

Ok.. You might be right.. having the wappon become weaker and weaker as you repair does suck.. but that could maybe only be applied if u let it go to a really low durability.... another choice woudl be to totally forget the whole reduction of overall durabilit and the stats.. and just make the thing become brand new everytime you repair it..,

Having the ability to repair nonetheless would be a really good thing for the game economy. But yeah.. i dunno.. having the weapon lose it's stats when it's traded just seems kind of a weird system to me.. but hey.. whatever.. I think I'd rather have it that way than not have the decay system in place..
But I'm sure Blizzard will figure out the best way of makign this thing happaning... they did post a msg saying they were considering the idea... which is good... :D

PS. read T.'s post.. well.. i dunno.. maybe I dont get it.. but why would u care if the durability is goign down if that has no affect on the weapon or game play? It's gotta produce some sort of disadvantage to have a weapon with 2/100 durability for you to care to repair it... :S

Magic8BallX

03-05-2004, 12:59 AM

There is a disadvantage, the lower the durability, the lower the damage done or the stats or whatever

bobxii

03-05-2004, 03:46 AM

did anyone even read my post?

it addresses ALL of these problems!!

it's near the bottom of page 4.

Etra

03-05-2004, 05:07 AM

did anyone even read my post?

it addresses ALL of these problems!!

it's near the bottom of page 4.
I read it :) Kinda confused me...^^;

I'm going to have to side with Wicked on this one. Item Decay is just plain stupid. I seriously doubt Blizzard would put something like this in their game.

The only thing I could relatively stand would be durability. I could see Blizzard putting this into the game...but not Item Decay...

FenixStryk4

03-05-2004, 05:43 AM

The more you guys elaborate on how you want this and that to happen, the more this idea juut says to me, "Look at me, I'm really ugly and pointless in this world!". To be honest, I've never even gotten a SoJ in D2 and I was devoted to that game at the time, so I don't see why you keep bringing D2 up as your main support.

The only idea that I can see to be as a compromise is this:

If you trade an item, it degrades by 5%.

If you wish to repair an item, you must attain another item that is similar to it, then get someone that makes that type of item, then ask them to repair it by using the item you've given them.
_____

Example:

Player 1 gives Player 2 'Extremely Uber Sword + 20'.

The item degrades to 'Extremely Uber Sword + 19'.

Player 2 wants to repair 'Extremely Uber Sword + 19'.

Player 2 acquires 'Fairly Uber Sword + 10'

Player 2 asks Player 3, a Blacksmith (or whichever class that repairs swords and metal items) to repair 'Extremely Uber Sword + 19'.

Player 3 is given 'Fairly Uber Sword + 10' and 'Extremely Uber Sword + 19' and uses 'Fairly Uber Sword + 10' to repair 'Extremely Uber Sword + 19' to 'Extremely Uber Sword + 20'.
_____

So, basically, if you wanted to repair a degraded item, you'd get one weaker item of the same type to repair another stronger but currently degraded item, then ask a person that specializes in making that type of item to repair it for you.

Note that if you used an item that was insanely weaker than the other, than it wouldn't fully repair the item being repaired.

I'm still debating whether you should only repair rares with rares, etc., but I wouldn't be absurdly disappointed if you could only repair rares with rares, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was necessary to appease you guys.

Sound pretty good?

If not, then this idea is just heading in the wrong direction and really needs to sink or something, IMO. :rant: :grrr: :flip:

[Edit 1: Slight grammar errors, clearing up vagueness]

[Edit 2: Added idea, clearing up vagueness]

FlagshipAmadeus

03-05-2004, 06:40 AM

I don't think that items should decay simply because, as many many people already said, nobody wants to go through the following basic scenario:

Gluteus is a sad gnome.
He always dies because of his bad items, and nobody will group with him.
He wants to get some good items so that he will not die.
He heard about the Cave of Megadeth, a hard dungeon with good item drops.
He ventures into the cave and after a long battle reaces the boss.
The boss, Destructor X, kills Gluteus. Gluteus tries again. Gluteus dies again.
After many hours, Gluteus finally kills Destructor X.
Lo and behold! Destructor X drops the mighty Helm of Yeast.
Now Gluteus is almost invunerable, and everyone wants to group with him.
Gluteus is a happy gnome.
But oh no! Gluteus used his HYelm of Yeast for too long.
It just decayed into a pile of dust. What now?
Now Gluteus dies constantly again. Nobody will group any more.
Gluteus is a sad gnome, with many essentially wasted hours of playing.

That was a basic scenario. There are many variations. And with the idea that trading lowers the stats, that is the same thing. No fun because you hard-earned item is now not very good, and not worth the time it took to get it.
Having items decay liek in Diablo works well, I suppose, but i think that as they are damaged their stats should go down very slightly, not enough to make too much of a difference untill their durability is near zero. Then you have them repaired, acting as a money sink, and the item is at full strength.
Having the item permanently degrade each time it is repaired is bad, because what if you repair it when it is barely scrathed? Either it is hurt permanently the same as if it had been smashed, which is wrong, or it isn't hurt permanantly, and you could get around it by repairing it constant;y, or the item can only be repaired when it smashed, which is also wrong.

By the way, many of the 100000000 uber items in D2 were from hacks and dupes.... Not all, but many were....

And what is wrong with 1/10 of the max level characters having the same Sword of Sugary Goodness?

FenixStryk4

03-05-2004, 07:15 AM

Tremblay

03-05-2004, 08:59 AM

PS. read T.'s post.. well.. i dunno.. maybe I dont get it.. but why would u care if the durability is goign down if that has no affect on the weapon or game play? It's gotta produce some sort of disadvantage to have a weapon with 2/100 durability for you to care to repair it... :S

What I meant is that after a few times being traded by people, a weapon would become useless because durability would be 0/0. My idea was to leave the weapon stats (like damage, level reqs, etc) alone. The stats would stay the same between trades, but everytime the weapon is traded, the total durability decreases... 20/20 to 15/15 to 10/10 etc. When you use the weapon, the durability goes 20/20 to 19/20 to 18/20 ... to 0/20 then you need to repair it to put it back to 20/20 (or 15/15 if you bought it from someone).

Oof... that was my idea... second time I explain felt harder than the first time... ;)

T.

EL Pingu

03-05-2004, 10:12 AM

Well.... ok.. I get it now.. yeah.. it's not a bad idea.. but I still haven't made up my mind about it... I see the point of it... a weapon with 20/20 could only be traded 4 times.. and the more you trade it the more you gotta keep on going back and repairing it... And that would eventually cause the item to disapear from the would cuz when the 4ht player to use it (or even the 3rd) is done then they'll drop it and it's bye bye to item... hope it makes to item heaven....
I guess I'd have to sleep on it... i dunno.. I kindda like my system.. maybe cuz it's mine.. :D But I've said it before and I'll say it again... I trust that if Blizzard does decide to implement the idea, they will make sure they do it right.. so let us all smile :D

wakiki

03-05-2004, 06:50 PM

Guys, I don't get where you are getting the idea that this system will destroy trading...

The idea is, if you don't use the item, nothing bad will happen. So if a Warrior finds a Magical Staff of Cool Healiningness, he doesn't have to wear it, he can just trade it off to a Preist for full value.

Also, Bob's idea fixes most things. I had to read it through a few times heh :) I like his idea, and his avatar :thumbsup:

FlagshipAmadeus, you just showed an exact example of what this system is designed to fix. Then you say: "And with the idea that trading lowers the stats, that is the same thing." But you give no proof or any sort of arguement which explains how that is true...I don't understand. Does Gluteus decide to trade his helm back and forth over and over until it's decayed? What?

You also said: "By the way, many of the 100000000 uber items in D2 were from hacks and dupes.... Not all, but many were...." This is true. Most of the items were from duping/botting. However, this just speeds up the process. Since there is no decay, everyone would have ended up with perfect items anyway -- it just would have taken a few years longer.

As far as the repairing goes, it defeats the point of this system. If you sacrifice low level items to bring the high level items back up to full value, this simply keeps all of teh high level items in the market, which means it doesn't solve the problem.

regicide13

03-05-2004, 11:48 PM

This idea is good to an extent. However, of any other MMORPG I have never found a problem with having to get new equipment once mine is old n' rusty. TO me it has been just another part of the game. Outgrowing old items is a fact of life. Frankly I find that inconvenience less than that of not being able to help my guildies by giving to the poor.

bobxii

04-05-2004, 07:57 AM

Also, Bob's idea fixes most things. I had to read it through a few times heh :) I like his idea, and his avatar :thumbsup:

sorry if it was a bit disorganized. And yes, i like the avatar too :) a pic (http://bobxii.spymac.net/Stuff/P1010402.jpg).

The gist of my idea was that an item will "bind" itself to the player that uses it long enough (how that would be determined is not my job).

When it does "bind", it's stats are stuck, and can't go up any further.

Once an item "binds" to a player, other players can only use it at 90-95% effectiveness (damage, +mana, whatever). So if player 1 loans his "bound" item to player 2, who doesn't use it enough for it to "bind" to him, it can be returned to Player 1 at no penalty.

If player 2 uses it long enough for the item to "bind", it's stats for Player 2 (90-95% of max) become permanant; it cannot revert it's stats any longer.

Now, it is "bound" to Player 2, and the process starts over.

--Simpler?

It gets around that prickly overtrading issue, and it adds some reality to trade-based item decay (by giving the excuse that it "bound" itself to the player), and it still decays items while not pissing off players.

That, along with an increased-price-per-repair-point thing would make players want to use newer items, while not using use-based decay, and while allowing the item to retain playability indefinitely.

~bobxii

bobxii

04-05-2004, 07:59 AM

damn i am slick :P

The Cheez

04-05-2004, 10:20 AM

My idea was meant to create a system that prevents a situation where someone will find an item and never have to replace it. With this system, I think items should last a long time, just not forever. As items get stronger, they should last longer too, especially since it's usually harder to find a replacement item for a high level character.

Anyway, I thought of some flaws about the first draft after I wrote it, so let me revise the idea.

Let's change durability to quality. Weapons/armor have a starting quality, which would be displayed as Current/Max, ex. - 19/25 - the current quality is 19 and the maximum is 25.

Skuz kills the Burly Wild Boar while adventuring and it drops the Burly Wild Board Tusk (30/30 quality, 13-27 damage, +5 Agility).

When you use a sword it becomes dull, lowering the current quality of the blade, thus lowering the damage it would do. Although the current quality is lower than the max, having a dull blade has no effect on enchantments placed on the item.

Skuz goes out on a raid and when he comes back his BWB Tusk is at 13/30 quality and it does only 9-21 damage. It still adds +5 to his Agility, however.

After a pre-set amount of connected hits, the blade would shatter and need to be reconstructed. After reconstruction the blade will be permanently less effective than before it was shattered, and any enchantments will be weakened.

Skuz is out battling kobolds a few weeks later and his blade breaks into 12 pieces during a fight. He flees from the scene and heads back to town, where he takes his shattered BWB Tusk to the town smithy, who reconstructs it for him. The BWB Tusk's stats are now 29/29 quality and the damage is now 12-26, and it only adds +4 to his Agility.

Repairing would be necessary after hours of fighting, and a blade would shatter only after weeks of use. Perhaps if you keep the weapon at higher quality most of the time you'll have less chances of it shattering on you, but no matter what it will shatter eventually, and farther down the line will be completely destroyed.

Well, that's it. Let the firing comments...

P.S. - I think bobxii's idea is pretty good too, so good in fact that I took his message format...

DeadSquirrel

04-05-2004, 12:21 PM

Wizardx8

04-05-2004, 04:21 PM

DeadSquirrel, I just want to say I can only see the good in your idea. Decay over time is useless, and I think EVERYONE can agree with that. OK, are we over that one guys? It seems to me a lot of people just aren't reading this properly, or are not comprehending the intended implementation of the system.

The 'only' way that this effects you as a player is that items you have used yourself for any substantial amount of time are worth less to sell, and not quite as good for the next guy in line. But that is a good thing. The item sink is absolutely necessary, here is an example of why.

OK, say the Blacksmith can make the Sword of Smiting (+10str) as an early level recipe, say for players between level 6 and 8. This item is selling for say 2s (I have no idea on the currency in terms of what is worth what, so bare with me please). Let's say this Sword of Smiting is the best one handed sword a Lvl 7 can get. Everyone around lvl 7 is going to aim for this weapon, so they save their money and buy it from one of the many Blacksmith traders. OK, so what happens when 500 Lvl 7 players all have this Sword of Smiting and all progress to Lvl 9 or 10 and no longer have a use for it. The price of the item will drop, as now not only are there 100 Blacksmith traders selling them, there are 500 Players as well, and these 500 players just want to get rid of the item so the Sword of Smiting is suddenly worth 1s. Not it becomes much easier for our current Lvl 6 players to afford, and we suddenly see all 1000 Lvl 6 players with a Sword of Smiting, what when they reach Lvl 10? And so on and so forth. Soon there are 45,000 Sword's of Smiting floating around worth 30c because you just can't get rid of them. Blacksmith's can't make them any longer because the cost of materials needed is worth a lot more than the sword is worth, and bingo, we have a useless tradeskill recipe. This will only progress as the game lives on over time. Next it is Lvl 10 weapons that become worthless, then Lvl 20, etc.

What this system proposes is that When our 500 Lvl 7 players reach Lvl 10, they sell the Sword of Smiting, but they are actually only selling Rusty Sword of Smiting (+4str) for Lvl 3 - 5 players. This is on par with other current Lvl 3 - 5 player weapons, from blacksmiths and from drops, perhaps even a little bit better, but a hell of a lot uglier with it's tainted looking blade and chipped crossguard. But, the Lvl 3 - 5 players can choose to pay their 300c for a Rusty Sword of Smiting (+4str) or go buy a freshly crafted Sword of Uncomfortability (+3str) for 200c which is the highest level craftable item. Is it worth the extra 100c to get the +1str? That is the players decision. Do they 'want' to look like the lowly bum that they are accepting hand me down froms more experienced players? Again, choice. Eventually though, these items will filter out of existance as the more they are traded, the less they are worth, and eventually they will simply be destroyed/traded to an NPC as they just aren't worth aything to even Lvl 1 players who are quite happy with their Wooden Sword of Splintery Hands.

As for guilds, they can simply give their Sword of Smiting (+10str) away to a lower level guildmate for free, which gives him the Rusty Sword of Smiting (+4str) which is still pretty much a top level item for the players level, how is this a problem?

Lending can be gotten around as was suggester earlier, a timer, be it kills, exp or time with a cooldown period for certain players. Solved.

Now I fail to see a negative here honestly sorry guys, we simply do not want all of the top level stuff on every character. Sure it is nice to be the best, but think in terms of this. When you start out, you ARE just a crappy grunt. You do not have a Shining Sword of the Demi-Gods just to get easier kills, that aint right. You get the Stick, sorry, but the stick will have to do, you need to EARN those better weapons.

Farming will not be an issue, those that were going to farm will still do so, fine, that isn't the intention of the proosed system, if you want to collect 200 Axe of the Ugly Orc by camping one zone for 4 straight weeks, you can sell them to players new, with no penalty, but again over time they will still gradually dissapear, how is this a problem? Sell them to an NPC, they dissapear on the spot, again, items gone, worth retained.

Anyway I am reitterating other peoples posts already, but just trying to show some of you how there is no negativity involved, you are acting like it is going to harm your gameplay experience, and I have yet to see a valid reason that this will happen sorry.

~ Wiz

Orodreth Anwamane

04-05-2004, 04:41 PM

bobxii

04-05-2004, 06:06 PM

In reply to your statement Wizard8x: (just the first paragraph, the rest is exactly why I'm posting this)

Yes, the current implementations of item decay (while being used, etc) do suck. I also don't think that your item should get weaker as you use it; a trade-based decay system is good. SO, i have come up with a modified version of decay that is based upon usage, but never destroys the item (no matter how long you (ab)use it.

So, permanent usage-based weakness is BAD, but usage-based fully repairable durability is fine. Here's a possible solution to the infinite repairability problem:

I posted this twice already, so I hope you are reading and not just replying:

Player 1 finds an Orcrist (same one) at 13/25 durability. So he repairs it for 12 points for 120 copper (or whatever).

Player 1 uses the orcrist until it is again 13/25. So he repairs it for 12 points again, but this time it costs 130 for the repair (see where I'm going?). etc etc

This way, your items become less (economically) useful, but never decay in power (not this way at least).

Exactly how it would be worked out is impossible for me to say, since I am not a dev.

For item decay read either my post on page 4, or the one above on this page.

and The Cheez: you can use my format all you like; it does help in illustrating the important points, doesn't it? :D

bobxii

04-05-2004, 06:11 PM

What about those people who give hand-me-downs to lower players? And can't you drop items and pick them up without wear? Then people are allowed to trade by dropping the items. And, What if you give someone something to hold because you cannot carry it. Since you wore it it wears through trade and you get it back worn and torn. What's the fun in that? I do admit that Diablo 2 had massive trade deflations but they also had sojs. And Magic Find. I believe that this game will be far more advanced than Diablo 2 and they should put in a patch after release if they still want to have "wear and tear". :thumbsup:
hey man, PLEASE read the rest of these posts, and not just the first page!!!

These things have already been addressed!

Drop & Trade: if you drop an item, a little box will come up asking you, "do you really wish to destroy this item?"

Loaning to buddies: (my idea fixed that, so I am kindof perturbed): simple. read my post two posts above your errant one. Fixes that problem easily.

And, it only initiates one trade decay when you have used it long enough to "bind" it to you (that means a couple battles; long enough for you to try it out).

wakiki

04-05-2004, 06:49 PM

These are great solutions to the hand-me-downs problems, but, umm, shouldn't hand-me-downs be discouraged anyway? I guess people enjoy having no challenge whatsoever for the first 20 levels :scratch:

L337|Master_Chief

04-05-2004, 07:20 PM

I like the original idea alot where if an item gets traded to some one else it loses a little of its power and so on is good right on its own
BUT degrading items is not smart

dead squirrel is right that it would destroy the quest item that people have PUT time into getting and if you spend lets say 32 hours getting this one sword and then you use it for three days and it breaks suddenly and loses abilities then people WILL BE pissed. trust me the hardcore gamers will go crazy. Durability should be there but when an item hits 0 it should not break and lose its attributes however if the person wants to use it again it needs to be taken to a smith for repairs

Malleable

04-05-2004, 07:47 PM

/agree Deadsquirrel, stuyScale, PSUChemguy

People that dont want item decay are those who like EQ.

People who want item decay are those that dont like EQ and have played DAOC.

Item decay is good! Down with Twinks! Down with Farming!

Mal

Nphyx

05-05-2004, 01:28 PM

Forgive me if any of this has already been mentioned, I only got to about page 3 out of 5 before I decided to write a reply.

The first thing I noticed about this whole argument is that much of it is revolving around whether or not decay will stop item farming. Everyone here seems to agree that farming is bad but nobody seems to remember why it's bad, it's like a truism. Farming is for twinks! We all say, because it's been said so often in the MMOG community it's become some kind of mantra or something.

The point of decay as I see it is not to stop farming anyway, it is to stop farming from having ill effects on the economy. Farming is always going to happen, it will never be stopped as long as looted items can be traded and nobody wants the alternative (that looted items can't be traded), so instead we look for alternative solutions to the problem it creates (i.e. market saturation) by providing ways to remove items from the market at about the same speed that they are being introduced (in this case, through item decay).

Item decay has absolutely no effect on money farming, however. The only way to deal with money farming is to provide ways for players to spend their money back into the game (as opposed to spending between eachother), and for the game to subsequently make that money dissapear (it's decay, but for money!). Otherwise the amount of money in the system continues to increase and the relative value of objects in the system decreases (because the amount of money they are worth does not stay proportionate with the amount of money available).

I'm not going to even try to repeat or expand on the reasons why saturation and inflation are harmful, because obviously at this point in the argument those who understand something about virtual economies get it and everyone else has to either take their word for it or not at their own option.
So there's a little food for thought, and here's a new concept to consider:

I don't know if this has ever been tried in a true MMOG, but I played and staffed a pretty popular MUD a few years back that allowed you to break down items into materials for crafting. Naturally the rarer items tended to be made of rarer materials, and any given item only gave about 1/10th the amount of material it would have taken to craft it. Unfortunately this was only half effective because there was no viable alternative method of obtaining crafting materials, so it led to a lot of camping for materials, but it did severely decrease market saturation of a given item because people just as often would grind it down as sell it on the market.

Wickedly_Evil

05-05-2004, 02:07 PM

DeadSquirrel

05-05-2004, 03:21 PM

Nphyx, you got it spot on.
Your idea about breaking items into materials is pretty interesting.. but the problem is it doesnt give any item sink. At first certain items may disappear, but the materials will be used to make very good items, and these very good items will never vanish from the economy :/.

Wickedly, do you even read my posts? You are repeating yourself again with arguments that aren't valid...

Item decay heavily favors a seller's market. This can lead to big economic problems that no one has really paid any attention to.
No, it does not heavily favoir a seller's market. How do you see it heavily favoring tradeskills??? I don't get it.
No matter wether there is decay or not, people can choose to go hunt an item, or create it. Some hunted items are better the created items, and vice versa. It only depends of how you want to spend your time. Decay affects nothing....

Although subject to change, since apparently at present everyone can become a master smith (in addition to every other skill), there will eventually be too many smiths in the world.
First of all, it will be extremely hard and tedious to get expert in all tradeskills. Most people will have 2 or 3 tradeskills the first year... So no, people will still have to choose what tradeskill they want.
Most people will eventually just make their own swords again (not right away of course but eventually) after they decay. That would kind of ruin decay right there wouldn't it?
Why? Why make your own sword? If you got money, just buy the sword from someone else. Instead of spending time getting your smithing up, you can spend time hunting, adventuring, questing....
Decay doesn't affect this at all either.... You got money, you buy items available to you.... wether they be decayed or not doesn't change anything...

Trade based decay wouldn't work because people just would not trade certain items (as if they were bound to their character).
... uhh....
When people don't need items anymore, they can trade them in for money, and then in turn, trade in the money for another item.
WHY wouldnt you want to trade an item that is useless to you!?!? It's going to decay.. who cares??? you're not going to use it anymore, and the buyer knows its going to decay, he's paying for the decayed item..
It may only be 10str instead of the "fresh" 15str... but he wants those 10str... 15str would cost him more money then he can manage.

If you want to sell someone an item, you arrange a price, get the item to drop then summon them with a warlock to loot. Big loophole just like EQ had for a long long time. Use based decay gets pretty worthless if it becomes a task that every character can fix for themself.
Proof you don't read my replies....
I've repeated many times, you can trade items with no decay as long as you don't wear the item.
Instead of having some warlock help you summon someone to the monster's corpse fast enough so the corpse doesn't rot.....
the guy can just loot the item and not wear it.... when he sells it it won't decay.
The Loophole you're talking about only works around "no drop" items, and it's not even used that much heh... I only know a few people who make a living out of ebaying EQ products, that summon people to loot no drop items, and they make the people pay for the summon heh.

The easiest solution is just to have more money sinks in general. Nothing that will be implemented can stop inflation. (please see above for more info)
Money sinks solve a whole other problem. Item sinks are still needed.
Doesn't matter HOW MUCH money sinks you have, if you have no item sinks, 1 year after release you'll have 10,000 Apprentice BreastPlate on the market, and they'll cost 1copper because there are too many.
For an item that costs 5copper to create, it's ridiculous.

Item sinks ARE needed, that's a fact. Now either it's item decay, or you find another possible solution like Nphyx did.

wakiki

05-05-2004, 06:47 PM

I don't think money sinks are a problem. You have to buy tradeskills, and the more tradeskills you buy, the more expensive they get, so you will always have stuff to spend your money on :) Money sinks are good, but Blizzard has already fixed this, from what I hear.

Wicked, your arguements simply don't make sense, or have already been solved by the system...Do you actually read what people write? :scratch: In an earlier thread about PvP Quests (http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=176392), your reply seemed like you only scanned the first post and then didn't read the replies. I get the same feeling here...

bobxii

06-05-2004, 12:44 AM

Will this thread ever die....

Item trading creating decay makes as much sense as having your character automatically sit down to rest whenever you open your inventory. One should not be forcibly linked to the other.

I get the impression that most of the people who like decay also like to craft items. Item decay heavily favors a seller's market. This can lead to big economic problems that no one has really paid any attention to.
Although subject to change, since apparently at present everyone can become a master smith (in addition to every other skill), there will eventually be too many smiths in the world. Most people will eventually just make their own swords again (not right away of course but eventually) after they decay. That would kind of ruin decay right there wouldn't it?

Trade based decay wouldn't work because people just would not trade certain items (as if they were bound to their character). If you want to sell someone an item, you arrange a price, get the item to drop then summon them with a warlock to loot. Big loophole just like EQ had for a long long time. Use based decay gets pretty worthless if it becomes a task that every character can fix for themself.

The easiest solution is just to have more money sinks in general. Nothing that will be implemented can stop inflation. (please see above for more info)

HOLY CRAP bud, you are starting to really piss me off. It is quite obvious that you are not reading any of these posts.

I have countered EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR PROBLEMS with a solution. Will you not STOP and READ!?

It doesn't have to be "trade-based decay", as you so dandily put it; it can be "semi-binding item decay" (as my proposed solution that you didn't read contains).

So, what is your excuse now? That it's not realistic? Well whoop-dee-doo! It's a freaking game, not a BioSphere simulator!

Why don't you get up off of your lazy bum and come up with something original; that's far more productive than being a die-hard nay-sayer simply because you think that DeadSquirrel's solution is the end-all be-all solution that we have picked out - it's not! It doesn't work! Duh! So come up with an improvement upon it! Something constructive!

And try reading some of my posts, at least; your points have been taken into account to produce a better solution.

~bobxii

FlagshipAmadeus

06-05-2004, 01:20 AM

yeah, I know what I said earlier was kind of contradictory... :cheesy: but I didn't realize it untill i was done and it seemed a waste of time to have written all that and not click submit... O well. :uhhuh:

Bartleby

06-05-2004, 01:25 AM

CaptHowdy

06-05-2004, 04:26 AM

When I first started reading this thread I was totally against the idea of item decay, but alot of good arguments have been brought up and I can definitely see the need for item sinks. Two ideas mentioned I particularily like and think would work well without pissing too many people off

1)breaking items down for a portion of materials for tradeskills. as long as it was less than would be needed to make the same item.

2)trade-based item decay only for items that were actually used. the whole "binding" idea.

bobxii

06-05-2004, 04:40 AM

*pats bobxii on the shoulder* There, there bob... it's okay... you have to remember that some people are afraid and or unable to follow debates beyond their own narrow views (not to single anyone out)

*cries* wow man... i love you! *stops acting like a soap opera*. yeah i know :/

When I first started reading this thread I was totally against the idea of item decay, but alot of good arguments have been brought up and I can definitely see the need for item sinks. Two ideas mentioned I particularily like and think would work well without pissing too many people off

1)breaking items down for a portion of materials for tradeskills. as long as it was less than would be needed to make the same item.

2)trade-based item decay only for items that were actually used. the whole "binding" idea.

yay! i love you too man! *stops again*.

KindaNew'RoundHere

06-05-2004, 11:02 AM

This is my first post, and due to the painfully slow download on my modem I haven't been able to read all the posts yet, BUT, I do have an idea that might solve this "item decay" issue. Ironically enough, it started with a flashback to the days of Diablo, the orignal. Does anyone remember the repair ability of the warrior? When his item durability went down for pounding monsters, he could repair it, but at a price: the maximum durability of the item went down, usually the average of the current/max. Example: a sword at 26/30 durability repaired would be brought up to approx. 28/28 durability. And if you let it go down to 0 durability, tough luck it's gone, just like HP or mana, pay attention. Maybe it can even break into small parts so you won't leave completely empty-handed.(YAY! A HILT!) I know this kind of goes back to ideas about durability which a lot of people hate but don't flame me yet!

Imagine now, that we make repair among the blacksmith's/leatherworker's abilities. He has to of course buy a smithy's hammer, water, ad nauseum, so he can charge a premium fee for his services as a repairman, and as an added bonus, if he wants to be a nice guy and do it for free, HE CAN! :surprise: Of course certain items would be easier than others to break, and certain quest items should be indestructible, or have ridiculously high durability values i.e. 500 and the max never goes down), because we all can agree that your precious items breaking is unfair, but if it has 2 durability, where did the money go from beating the crap out of stuff? And as the blacksmith gets better, he can repair with less expensive items, and make more profit by charging more, or can be a nice guy even easier.

As far as lowering stats go...I don't think an item should be lowered in quality simply for being used repeatedly, but perhaps items should have a recommended level, ref: EQ., or maybe items could break more easily against tougher opponents, thus higher level chars would still depend on currency. Example: Iron golems have tougher hides than powder fluff balls and require more powerful weapons to slice through, or at least, that's how I was brought up to believe it. :lol: The alterations and permutations could be fairly endless for my idea, I think, although there are many wonderful ideas already on the thread. This way I think the blacksmith can still be a vital tradeskill (you still have to pay to repair your own stuff) and items that aren't taken care of decay over time in a timely fashion, just like in real life, teehee. I don't see any real problems with this solution, but if you're going to shoot it down, please don't give a free sidedish of dropkick to the head, just a nice explanation, I'm trying to help, just like you. Thanks!

P.S.: To prevent twinks from having their alt repair stuff, make it a window function like bartering, and it will also prevent blacksmiths from acquiring new toys the gods didn't want them to have, hehe.

DeadSquirrel

06-05-2004, 11:44 AM

Bobxii, you still got me a bit confused.
You got a few posts with different ideas in them it seems ;).

I agree entirely with this idea though:The gist of my idea was that an item will "bind" itself to the player that uses it long enough (how that would be determined is not my job).

When it does "bind", it's stats are stuck, and can't go up any further.

Once an item "binds" to a player, other players can only use it at 90-95% effectiveness (damage, +mana, whatever). So if player 1 loans his "bound" item to player 2, who doesn't use it enough for it to "bind" to him, it can be returned to Player 1 at no penalty.

If player 2 uses it long enough for the item to "bind", it's stats for Player 2 (90-95% of max) become permanant; it cannot revert it's stats any longer.
Mostly because it's exactly my idea but reformulated ^^.
I was wondering how an item could be judged "used long enough" though. Earlier in this thread I had proposed something about passing through a certain amount of Rest States with the item.
This way people "lending" items don't have to worry too much about degrading their friend's item... it's controllable.

I don't agree with being able to repair the items though.
It's pretty useless and exploitable with trade-based decay. The only person who would want to repair an item, is a buyer for money purposes.
He buys a horribly decayed item, and repairs to it's maximum and the resells it for lots of cash.
The seller of the item has no use for repair, and a buyer who wants the items for it's stats could just buy a less decayed item for more money, instead of buying a decayed item and spending more money on repair.

Being able to break items into different materials could be mixed with trading-based decay, it would certainly be fun and interesting.
We could have heavily decayed items produce less materials and of lesser quality. While non-decayed items producing more materials of higher quality.
Seeing people go around asking for trash items, breaking them up, and selling the parts to engineers, smiths etc....

wakiki

06-05-2004, 06:44 PM

Welcome to the forums, KindaNew'RoundHere.

The problem with your system if that it will piss most people off(myself included) that the item that I have it getting worse and worse.

However, the durability idea is interesting, and perhaps they could just add that in. It wouldn't interfere with the trade decay system. Although, items would become useless beyond a certain durability, so PC's should be able to give them more(up to their previous max). I think that NPCs and PCs should be able to do the type of repair you are talking about(lowering the max) but also PCs should be able to increase the maximum, for a more expensive recipe. This would make blacksmithing more useful, maybe too useful. I don'y know :scratch:

I like the idea though :thumbsup: I always thought that the stave recharge and weapon repairs from D1 were pretty cool.

And once again, welcome to the forums :)

Kurai Ryu

07-05-2004, 12:23 AM

Having your items get used over time, or for hitting monsters with it, or for dying, is a horrible idea.

Most MMORPGs have rare items that people work hard in order to achieve.
WoW will have lifequests, that take you months of your time just to get the reward.
Once you finally recieve your item, you're going to have to choose when to use it. You're not going to massacre newbie level monsters with it... it's fun, but it will degrade your weapon...
so you'll mostly be using another weapon, and keep your extremely rare weapon wrapped in a plastic sheet, waiting for a special occasion to bring out.

Item decay over time or use, will have a horrible impact on WoW, because quests can only be done once.
So once your quested item decays, it's gone, poof, you'll never see it again in your life.

The whole point of my original idea, was to avoid this plague that's made a vast majority of people hate item decay.
No matter how much you use an item, or how long you hold an item, it should never decay within your hands... not in a game where items are so important to the player.

In games like shadowbane and diablo, it's acceptable because items are randomly created...
in WoW or EQ though, when you spend months of your life to get a certain item, having it decay for using it will disgust anyone...

It's not ALL that bad an Idea, just, as always, depends on how its implamented. If degraded by use, then for rare Items it can be set for extreemly high useage limit, lower usage limit for poopier items (I recently have discovered that there is no greater word than poop...even **** and **** cower in comparison!). This does seem like it could have its downsides though, so if items degrade over time, maybe it would be better to go somthing like this: items should'nt degrade *every* time they are traded maybe every other time or something to help slow down the time it takes for an item to hit the bottom, or rarer items could just not decay...I think you;ll get what I mean if you sit and think about it a little. I know these items were kinda introduced a little before, but I wanted to shed my insight on this and gather a little info in one place.

Your Night Elf pall
-Kurai Ryu-
-ILM-...check us out!

bobxii

07-05-2004, 08:35 AM

Bobxii, you still got me a bit confused.
You got a few posts with different ideas in them it seems ;).

I agree entirely with this idea though:
Mostly because it's exactly my idea but reformulated ^^.
I was wondering how an item could be judged "used long enough" though. Earlier in this thread I had proposed something about passing through a certain amount of Rest States with the item.
This way people "lending" items don't have to worry too much about degrading their friend's item... it's controllable.

I don't agree with being able to repair the items though.
It's pretty useless and exploitable with trade-based decay. The only person who would want to repair an item, is a buyer for money purposes.
He buys a horribly decayed item, and repairs to it's maximum and the resells it for lots of cash.
The seller of the item has no use for repair, and a buyer who wants the items for it's stats could just buy a less decayed item for more money, instead of buying a decayed item and spending more money on repair.

Being able to break items into different materials could be mixed with trading-based decay, it would certainly be fun and interesting.
We could have heavily decayed items produce less materials and of lesser quality. While non-decayed items producing more materials of higher quality.
Seeing people go around asking for trash items, breaking them up, and selling the parts to engineers, smiths etc....

Sure I'll clear it up: --- and yes it is your idea, but tempered by the whole character/soul-binding thing. ;)

Determining how long an item can be used to be consider "long enough" isn't really my main concern - how to implement it is the dev's problem :)

The repair thing was not for repairing the decay of the item (the thing that degrades by a trade), but the durability the thing that (may or may not) have any effect on stats - the same durability as Diablo 2- usage-based, but repairable. They are two independent ideas, really. In other words, a user can repair an item's durability (due to him beating the crap out of an Iron Golem), but he can't repair his item's stats ( that degrade through trade, as stated). That should be pretty clear.

And yes, breaking items down sounds like a blast. I'm all for it.

Wickedly_Evil

07-05-2004, 09:46 AM

So come up with an improvement upon it (deadsquirel's idea)! Something constructive.

And try reading some of my posts, at least; your points have been taken into account to produce a better solution.

~bobxii

I actually do read your posts. I'm sorry but I find your solutions ineffective. While you have a very unique idea with the item binding bit, it isn't a good idea in the sense of implementation. The reason for this is that it would create ridiculous server load as the server checks every item in use after so long a period. Not to mention a same check whenever an item is traded or equipped. Additional checks make more lag and more server load. When dealing with bandwith simpler is better with all things being equal.

It's just my point of view that no item decay is a better solution as you put it. I don't want the idea to get better , unless it gets better from my point of view. You have no respect for my perspective, as is obivous by your previous posts.

To be constructive though, I do believe that breaking down items is a good idea. When there are too many of an item on the market for sale craftsmen will absorb the materials from that item to make new things that might sell. This also would not create all kinds of crazy checks for the server. The problem though is that every item needs to have a set formula for what it can be turned into. That would be a lot of tweaking considering the planned rarity of some materials.

On the diablo item repair theory.... the only real use for that skill was to sell items to the merchant that you found instead of paying to repair them so you got more money ( a 4/28 sold for much less than a 26/26). Degredation and unrepeatable quests wont be a good thing. Repeating difficult quests (most likely for zero xp if it was allowed) would also be not fun as far as I see it.

Wickedly_Evil

07-05-2004, 10:26 AM

Yoy accuse me of not reading your posts, I accuse you of not comprehending mine.

Wickedly, do you even read my posts? You are repeating yourself again with arguments that aren't valid...

No, it does not heavily favoir a seller's market. How do you see it heavily favoring tradeskills??? I don't get it.
No matter wether there is decay or not, people can choose to go hunt an item, or create it. Some hunted items are better the created items, and vice versa. It only depends of how you want to spend your time. Decay affects nothing....

Go look at SWG's item market. People always need new things as items decay with use. Most vendors overcharge heavily because they can. Just something to keep in mind on the issue of decay. I think it is better that items slowly lose their value over time. New players get bargains on old things, and better things always come to the market.

First of all, it will be extremely hard and tedious to get expert in all tradeskills. Most people will have 2 or 3 tradeskills the first year... So no, people will still have to choose what tradeskill they want.

Some people are not daunted by tediously clicking over and over to master a skill. Unless things change you can eventually master every skill. I never said anything about first year. Keep in mind some hardcore gamers bot characters. If one character is a supplier and the other works those materials you could see some traders with a definite advantage who could master more skills sooner.

Why? Why make your own sword? If you got money, just buy the sword from someone else. Instead of spending time getting your smithing up, you can spend time hunting, adventuring, questing....
Decay doesn't affect this at all either.... You got money, you buy items available to you.... wether they be decayed or not doesn't change anything...

If you can make it for free or nearly so why spend the money? Some people like being self sufficient. Rest states will encourage people to tradeskill when they are at a low "bonus" state. The idea I was going for here is if decay is supposed to be a sort of limiting factor, what is the point if it can get to where it isn't very limiting.

... uhh....
When people don't need items anymore, they can trade them in for money, and then in turn, trade in the money for another item.
WHY wouldnt you want to trade an item that is useless to you!?!? It's going to decay.. who cares??? you're not going to use it anymore, and the buyer knows its going to decay, he's paying for the decayed item..
It may only be 10str instead of the "fresh" 15str... but he wants those 10str... 15str would cost him more money then he can manage.

If you can't get what the item is worth you may as well keep it. If you occasionally still use it this is especially true.

Proof you don't read my replies....
I've repeated many times, you can trade items with no decay as long as you don't wear the item.

I'm aware of your ideas. I just don't think they make much sense. One moment you say wear through use is horrible and the next you make it an essential part of the item trade decay plan.

Money sinks solve a whole other problem. Item sinks are still needed.
Doesn't matter HOW MUCH money sinks you have, if you have no item sinks, 1 year after release you'll have 10,000 Apprentice BreastPlate on the market, and they'll cost 1copper because there are too many.
For an item that costs 5copper to create, it's ridiculous.

Item sinks ARE needed, that's a fact. Now either it's item decay, or you find another possible solution like Nphyx did.

If you had just the right number of money sinks, then those apprentice breastplates would be worth worth more and less in quantity. People would have less money to invest in items to sell. People would therefore make less breastplates. Additionally they would be much less reluctant to sell them at very low prices.

Why are item sinks a must have? Everquest seems to work just fine with only money sinks. Yes, low grade items become pretty worthless as time progresses but in the beginning they are vastly overpriced. Items tend to settle on a particular price and stay there until new waves of items are introduced. What is wrong with the new/best items always being expensive while old not as good gear becomes cheaper? This kind of system seems to do naturally exactly what you are proposing (without any new complex changes).

DeadSquirrel

07-05-2004, 12:15 PM

Go look at SWG's item market. People always need new things as items decay with use. Most vendors overcharge heavily because they can. Just something to keep in mind on the issue of decay. I think it is better that items slowly lose their value over time. New players get bargains on old things, and better things always come to the market.
SWG's item decay is horrible. I've always said decay on use is bad, and SWG proves it. What is your point with my idea?
My idea has items decay only once the person no longer needs it, he would of got rid of it anyhow... either by selling it, giving it or destroying it. If it sold it, it would just be worth a little less.
Nothing changes, except that items are sold a bit cheaper then what they were bought.

Some people are not daunted by tediously clicking over and over to master a skill. Unless things change you can eventually master every skill. I never said anything about first year. Keep in mind some hardcore gamers bot characters. If one character is a supplier and the other works those materials you could see some traders with a definite advantage who could master more skills sooner.
Bear in mind that tediously clicking isn't sufficient to level up tradeskills, you still got to earn many many many many skillpoints. Thus the player will have to grind the high level monsters (with Rest, he can't grind them 24hour/24),
he will then have to go find ingreidients (which is time not spent grinding),
and then skillup the tradeskill.
SOME people might end up with all tradeskills maxxed, but those people will be very rare.
And there can't be mules like in EverQuest, the person with the tradeskill will have to level up in order to gain level in tradeskills, making it a lot harder then in EQ to gain every tradeskill. And in EQ, there were very few people who had maxxed ALL tradeskills, even with mules.

If you can make it for free or nearly so why spend the money? Some people like being self sufficient. Rest states will encourage people to tradeskill when they are at a low "bonus" state. The idea I was going for here is if decay is supposed to be a sort of limiting factor, what is the point if it can get to where it isn't very limiting.
Like I said, gain point in tradeskills is very very time consuming. It's muchmuch more efficient having 1 or 2 tradeskills yourself, and buy the things from all the other tradeskills.
Yes, some will want to have all tradeskills and have the capacity to get all tradeskills, but those will be very few on each server.

If you can't get what the item is worth you may as well keep it. If you occasionally still use it this is especially true.
Erm... say you get a fresh item worth 10,000gold,
it then decays and since the stats are lower it's only worth 7,500gold now.
Instead of selling it 7,500gold, you'de prefer keeping it in your bank?
(it becomes worth 7,500 only if you used it for a certain amount of time, if oyu didnt use it, it's still worth 10,000)

I'm aware of your ideas. I just don't think they make much sense. One moment you say wear through use is horrible and the next you make it an essential part of the item trade decay plan.
Umm no? Decay through use is horrible, because the person holding the item will be scared to use it... if he likes the item a lot, and see it decay, it will annoy him and hinder his game experience.
My system will never ever have items decay while the person still needs the item and uses it. It allows players that love their item, to never have to fear its decay. Avoiding the biggest(only?) plague caused by item decay in other games.

If you had just the right number of money sinks, then those apprentice breastplates would be worth worth more and less in quantity. People would have less money to invest in items to sell. People would therefore make less breastplates. Additionally they would be much less reluctant to sell them at very low prices.
There has to be items in all level ranges.... you can't have the cheapest items start at prices that are unaffordable by even level 10s...
Items will enter the market, through drops/quests/crafts. If nothing makes them leave the market, then these items will eventually saturate the market.
EQ had expansions fix this problem. Thing is, all items in the old world became completely useless, as did old world content. There was no use at all to roam the old world, other then nostalgia.
Would you want all of the current lands, to become utterly useless in the next expansion?
I don't.

Why are item sinks a must have? Everquest seems to work just fine with only money sinks. Yes, low grade items become pretty worthless as time progresses but in the beginning they are vastly overpriced. Items tend to settle on a particular price and stay there until new waves of items are introduced. What is wrong with the new/best items always being expensive while old not as good gear becomes cheaper? This kind of system seems to do naturally exactly what you are proposing (without any new complex changes).
See above...
and no, EQ isnt working fine at all.
EVERYONE is playing in Lost Treasure of Norrath expansion areas. While some are still in the Planes of Power. (not sure the impact Gates of Discord had).
There's basically NO ONE except farmers, that are playing in the old world, or Kunark, or Luclin, or Velious...
that's 4 places full of content that are completely ignored. While the current places are crammed with people.
Why?
Everyone wants the latest items.... the old items are saturating the market, it's no use getting those anymore, so they all try to get the new items. Cramming 100s into the same zone.

With item decay, old items would still be worthwhile, and people would spead out around the world, to get to places that aren't crammed.

L337|Master_Chief

07-05-2004, 06:00 PM

Dead Squirrle i like your idea with the trade part but i think that there should be durability on items as well and it will function just like D2

CaptHowdy

07-05-2004, 06:43 PM

I actually do read your posts. I'm sorry but I find your solutions ineffective. While you have a very unique idea with the item binding bit, it isn't a good idea in the sense of implementation. The reason for this is that it would create ridiculous server load as the server checks every item in use after so long a period. Not to mention a same check whenever an item is traded or equipped. Additional checks make more lag and more server load. When dealing with bandwith simpler is better with all things being equal.

How would this be any different than a buff? It'd just need to be a countdown timer that starts when an item is equipped and pauses when unequipped. I can't see it really causing much of a problem.

wakiki

07-05-2004, 10:30 PM

Umm, yeah. The idea of it lagging the server when items change seems ridiculous. If so, then they should remove enchanting, since it edits the stats of the item....

If you can make it for free or nearly so why spend the money? Some people like being self sufficient.

You can't make it for free. Buying the ingredients or searching for them takes time and/or money, which isn't free. So, it wouldn't be worth it to make these items. However, what you said about people being self sufficient is correct. Some people would still do Blacksmithing just for the sake of doing it, so yeah, that makes sense I suppose. However, it would be better if blacksmithing was actually more useful than that, I think.

CaptHowdy

07-05-2004, 10:53 PM

Some people would still do Blacksmithing just for the sake of doing it, so yeah, that makes sense I suppose. However, it would be better if blacksmithing was actually more useful than that, I think.

That's exactly right. Tradeskills would be far more fun if they served more of a purpose than simply being self-sufficient. How many mechanics do you know that learned it just so they could fix their own cars? Or how chefs just so they could cook themselves dinner? Without item sinks that's exactly what will happen with tradeskills, they'll be useless for anything else.

bobxii

07-05-2004, 10:58 PM

I'm glad to see support on this issue.

Wickedly_Evil, you do want a working economy for this game, don't you?

Because everything you say is along the lines of someone who hates Blizzard and wants all of it's games to die. Do you even care about it? Or are you one of those power-gamers/über-farmers?

Seriously, you havent come up with anything even remotely useful to try to solve the economy problem... all I've seen is:

"Oh it's a problem we'll never fix, so why even bother. I'm just going to chop up everyone's ideas for fun with irrelevant arguments."

It seems your point of view is total fatalism toward this problem.

I don't want the idea to get better , unless it gets better from my point of view.

I think that about sums it up.

bobxii

07-05-2004, 11:06 PM

How would this be any different than a buff? It'd just need to be a countdown timer that starts when an item is equipped and pauses when unequipped. I can't see it really causing much of a problem.

I agree; this causing excessive "server lag" is a load of bull. There are simple, effective ways to solve this "problem"; like your suggestion, Capt. Though I would personally have it be through actual usage instead of equipping only.

Degredation and unrepeatable quests wont be a good thing. Repeating difficult quests (most likely for zero xp if it was allowed) would also be not fun as far as I see it.

DUH. Everyone agrees. So instead of throwing the whole thing out, let's try solving it: quest items are exempt from permanent decay.

There. Problem solved. Anything else?

DeadSquirrel

08-05-2004, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Wickedly_Evil
Degredation and unrepeatable quests wont be a good thing. Repeating difficult quests (most likely for zero xp if it was allowed) would also be not fun as far as I see it.

DUH. Everyone agrees. So instead of throwing the whole thing out, let's try solving it: quest items are exempt from permanent decay.

Well... most quest items will be Bind on Use or Bind on Acquire.... so they won't ever decay anyhow.

For those quest items that can be traded, I don't see why we should avoid them from decaying.
An item that decays is an item that is no longer needed by the former owner, but is needed (in the deteriorated form) by the buyer.
The person who did the quest won't be able to do it again, ya, but he doesn't need to do it again anyhow. He no longer had a use for the item in question, so why redo the quest?

SDC Pred

08-05-2004, 03:44 AM

wakiki

08-05-2004, 07:40 PM

Ugh. :grrr:

I guess we can't expect people to read the thread now that it's six pages long. Oh well.

Xinhuan

09-05-2004, 08:14 PM

I don't know if someone else had already said this, but if you want item decay at least have some way of restoring the items stats, for example, going to a blacksmith, tailor or leatherworker to repair the item with reagents. Or, perhaps a merchant could repair the item for money so there would be a way to erase money from the circulation as new money is made from looting, questing and gathering tradeskills.

Someone has already said this. You see, if items are repairable, that completely DEFEATS the purpose of item decay in the first place, and we might as well leave both out. There are already tons of ways to make money leave circulation (aka money sinks), but there are NO ways to make items leave circulation. I.E, the number of Armor X is only going to increase, and never decrease.

Permanent Item Sink is a must have for a surviving economy that doesn't fall into saturation, aka Diablo 2. For example, you buy a refrigerator for your house. Every family in the world buys one. If fridges don't spoil over time, the company that makes frigerator is going to go out of business.

It applies to the computer game world too. If every crafted item that can be possibly made doesn't decay, after 2 years, the crafters are going to go out of business. Everybody already owns one of everything. Would you make a crafter then?

The Cheez

09-05-2004, 09:59 PM

Hear ye hear ye, I nominate bobxii for mayor of this thread, all who are with me say AYE!

So, permanent usage-based weakness is BAD, but usage-based fully repairable durability is fine. Here's a possible solution to the infinite repairability problem:

I posted this twice already, so I hope you are reading and not just replying:

Player 1 finds an Orcrist (same one) at 13/25 durability. So he repairs it for 12 points for 120 copper (or whatever).

Player 1 uses the orcrist until it is again 13/25. So he repairs it for 12 points again, but this time it costs 130 for the repair (see where I'm going?). etc etc

This way, your items become less (economically) useful, but never decay in power (not this way at least).

This actually sounds pretty good to me. Weapons/armor temprorarily decay by use, reducing damage output or armor factor, and repairing the item will bring it back up to maximum effectiveness. All this while not affecting magical enchantments, which would only drop from your semi-bind-trade system. I can see how the decay-by-use would be bad for quest items that could only be attained once.

bobxii

09-05-2004, 11:07 PM

I humbly accept the nomination by The Cheez; thank you :)

*cries* "Yay, they luv me now!" *stops being that stupid emperor from Gladiator*

cool cool; not affecting magical traits could be a good idea, but there needs to be a way to make the casters repair durability (somehow).

I was thinking that there would be no way to repair the decay of "bound and traded" items (at least not without a lot of difficulty; more than it would be worth to trade the newly repaired item); that only durability would be reparable (through the above system).

Tweaks are always a good thing :)

DeadSquirrel

10-05-2004, 02:40 AM

I don't get why you'de want to add a whole other decay system in parallel to the trade-decay system.

Decay isn't really a "cool" thing to implement. But it's a needed thing in order to have an Item Sink.
Since Trade-decay solves that, why have a decay by use added to it?

Decay by use is horrible... even if you can repair it completely. It just annoys people into going back to the village and finding someone to repair their item, and forces them in spending money, which they may not have.

The only bonuses from repairing:
-Gives more things to do for tradeskillers.... but with an Item Sink working properly, Tradeskillers will always have things to create. So why bother repairing?
-Money sink. But I much much rather see things like those races for which you can gamble your money on. Arena events. Housing. Mounts.
In other words, things for which you choose to spend money on, in return of additional "fun". Rather then things you're forced to pay in order to maintain your current fun.

bobxii

10-05-2004, 04:42 AM

sorry if i got you confused.

The repair "decay" is actually another money sink, and doesn't "decay" the item's stats (at least permanently), only it's economy (the item becomes less and less economically useful for the player, since they have to spend more and more money on it; like a car that's getting old, but still drives 140 mph when you want to).

I'm for either way on whether or not lowered durability lowers stats, but remember that it is more realistic, and reality is the only standard we have to go by. (not that it's always the aim, but it should always be in sight at least). Lowering item stats temporarily is just an incentive to repair your stuff ( or else they would just wait until it breaks ).

The semi-binding-trade decay thing is totally separate, and it's a true item sink.

Bartleby

10-05-2004, 06:27 PM

The semi-binding-trade decay thing is totally separate, and it's a true item sink.
And the most important part... not too difficult to implement. You can come up with whatever kind of system you want, but if it's too elaborate then it's not going to happen.

In life, the best possible system or product is rarely if ever created, because the benefits aren't worth the costs. The more complex the solution the more new problems it creates.

Remember, "keep it simple stupid".

Jondar

10-05-2004, 09:19 PM

Jesus. I lost track of what was being said after the first page.

I hate item decay. It severely dampens my spirits when my Daedric Longsword (yes, from morrowind) hits as hard as an iron dagger. I know you can go and repair it, but its still damned annoying. While its a good idea, DeadSquirrel, I hope its not implemented.

I dont know if anyone else has mentioned that, but theres my two cents. Boo to the item decay, of any kind.

DeadSquirrel

10-05-2004, 10:09 PM

I hate item decay. It severely dampens my spirits when my Daedric Longsword (yes, from morrowind) hits as hard as an iron dagger. I know you can go and repair it, but its still damned annoying. While its a good idea, DeadSquirrel, I hope its not implemented
Did you even read my original post?
There's no repairing,
and your item will never degrade as long as you keep it.
So your Daedric Longsword will always hit as hard as it does, until you no longer wish to keep it, and sell it to someone else.

Jondar

10-05-2004, 11:58 PM

Did you even read my original post?
There's no repairing,
and your item will never degrade as long as you keep it.
So your Daedric Longsword will always hit as hard as it does, until you no longer wish to keep it, and sell it to someone else.

Yes.. Im fully aware of it, Squirrel. Take a breath. I was using that as an example of why I dont like decay anyways. Its never fun, to me at least. I dont like buying degraded weapons, anyhow.

bobxii

11-05-2004, 01:07 AM

Yes.. Im fully aware of it, Squirrel. Take a breath. I was using that as an example of why I dont like decay anyways. Its never fun, to me at least. I dont like buying degraded weapons, anyhow.
hell, man. He just agreed with you! Take a breath yourself.

The whole thing is still in the works, remember? You're acting just like Wickedly_Evil is.

That example is void and irrelevant. So is the "I don't like buying degraded weapons" argument; go and find one yourself.

Puuuleez, get some sense to see what we are aiming for.

and Bartleby; the simple way to look at the semi-binding-trade-decay thing is this:

Items have a timer (of some sort, like kills or time equipped; whatever); when you exceed that timer, the item is "bound" to you and DeadSquirrel's trade decay kicks in for the next trade.

With the next person (that posesses it, by drop or trade or whatever), it starts over. Pretty simple.

I have added some quirks so that it doesn't hurt "loaning" (like to a guild buddy or whatever).

The only thing about it is that it could be kept at full power by not using it much then trading it around; it could keep a timer for each player. Yes, that's it.

Best way to understand something like this is to take an example item and apply the rules; I have some pretty explicit examples on pages 4 and 5 (in orange text).

bobxii

11-05-2004, 01:14 AM

DeadSquirrel, we need to get together on this and write up an "official", definite system for proposal to Bliz.

(bobxii12 on AIM)

Just got another idea: to encourage players to let their items bind (and helping along the decay system), there could be a twist which allows "bound" items to be a bit more powerful when used by the "binding" player.

This would cause players to allow items to "bind" to them, since they would have that little advantage. At the same time, they would be helping the trade-decay system to work even better.

Sounds tasty to me :)

Jondar

11-05-2004, 11:33 AM

lol Bobxiii. I know what hes saying. But he doesnt need to sound offended- i.e "Did you even read my first post?"

And no, Im not acting like anyone - I know hes not trying to argue with me. All I am saying is that I dislike the idea of item decay, period, regardless of the fact that it wouldnt degrade until you trade it. Its still annoying to me, in any shape or form.

...and once again, thats my *opinion.* Ive read what you have to say, and I dont like it; you dont have to take offense, its just not something I like.

DeadSquirrel

11-05-2004, 03:12 PM

Hehe Jondar, I'm not offended ;). I was just a bit annoyed by this:I hate item decay. It severely dampens my spirits when my Daedric Longsword (yes, from morrowind) hits as hard as an iron dagger. I know you can go and repair it, but its still damned annoying. While its a good idea, DeadSquirrel, I hope its not implemented.
Saying you dislike my idea for these reasons, when these reasons are exactly why I thought up trade-decay. To avoid these reasons... to avoid having your spirit dampened, so that you don't have to be annoyed repairing it etc...
You can't say Item Decay is a bad idea, the way it's implemented could be a bad idea, but item decay itself is basically necessary.
If you don't like buying cheaper decayed items, then don't. Buy the fresh ones, or go hunt/quest for your own items.

Bobxii, that idea about having your weapons get a "bonus" for binding is pretty good ^^.
Reminds me of ShadowBane, I never new if it was an intended feature, but I was under the impression that after a while of using the weapon, it would get better, which I thought was pretty neat.

It's not really necessary, since it would be too much trouble to keep trading items in order to avoid "binding". If you wear an item, it's to use it, and you can't use it properly if you keep trading it with friends.
And it may be a bit too much to reduce stats on items if they're not "binded". It would be best, imo, to only reduce DPS off weapons slightly, until the item is "bound".

But best would be to keep the ideas as simple as possible. The idea of giving a bonus to bound items, would make a neat other thread though.

wakiki

11-05-2004, 06:30 PM

I think the "browned-out" idea should be removed, to stop people from complaining about using decayed items.

At that point, the arguement that you dislike trade decay should disappear, right?

What's the difference in trading for a fresh Crown of +10 strength, or trading for a used Crown of +15 strength that has decayed to a crown of +10???? They are the exact same. Hello? :howdy:

"Ugh, this is a crown of +10 strength. But, man, I'd rather have this +5 strength one because this +10 strength one used to be higher." This arguement makes no sense to me.

I'm a little irritated by people's ridiculous reasons for disliking the system. People seem to see "item decay" and think "this sux!" without even reading the topic.

DeadSquirrel

11-05-2004, 09:12 PM

But I like the browned-out part! :hanky:

Item decay rate can be tweaked as well... maybe have the first few trades not affect the item, or affect them very slightly.
After the 5th trade or so, an item will only be a little bit browned out. You'de have to compare to people with the same item, to realise that the fresh one is more colorfull ^^.
It's really just a way to differentiate those that worked for their item, or those that twinked/bought them. Which would probably be appreciated by the majority ^^.
Ah well. it's probably impossible to implement the browning-out part anyhow :/.

bobxii

12-05-2004, 04:58 AM

nah... just yank the brown thing. If you leave in it you end up with this:

a decayed Frostmourne (like anyone would trade it) looks like crap compared to a Normal Bastard Sword.

It's just not right, you know?

Jondar

12-05-2004, 11:29 AM

Hehe Jondar, I'm not offended ;). I was just a bit annoyed by this:
Saying you dislike my idea for these reasons, when these reasons are exactly why I thought up trade-decay. To avoid these reasons... to avoid having your spirit dampened, so that you don't have to be annoyed repairing it etc...
You can't say Item Decay is a bad idea, the way it's implemented could be a bad idea, but item decay itself is basically necessary.
If you don't like buying cheaper decayed items, then don't. Buy the fresh ones, or go hunt/quest for your own items.

Well, Im sorry I annoyed you - didnt mean to. I do admit, it is a good idea, and is infinitely more tolerable than any other item decay solution... but I still dont like item decay in any shape way or form :D Cant change that. But anyway, Im washing my hands of this thread. Good luck with developing it.

wakiki

03-06-2004, 12:03 AM

Can a beta tester just copy-paste this thread onto the beta forums? I would really like to see Blizzard implement this.

Riden

03-06-2004, 06:16 AM

Can a beta tester not copy-paste this thread onto the beta forums? I wouldn't like to see Blizzard implement this.

Wickedly_Evil

03-06-2004, 10:39 AM

Hehehhe good one Riden. Not to worry around page 4-5 you get the idea that this idea is really quite self defeating. Now hopefully this thing will stay dead. Oh and since someone criticized me for not helping to make wow better, I threw up a suggestion of my own.

wakiki

05-06-2004, 05:10 AM

Apparently, the almighty Riden disagrees, therefore, by his command, we must not tell Blizzard about this. Seriously, just because it's an ide atht you don't like, doesn't mean thath it's a bad one(and teh majority do like it), so why shouldn't Blizzard at least hear about it? They may not even implement it if they dom but they should at least hear about something that got onto the WWN front news page.(Hopefully they saw it then).

Oh and since someone criticized me for not helping to make wow better, I threw up a suggestion of my own.

Yes, and I even supported it! See? I can be a nice guy. Do you feel the love? :lol:

Riden

05-06-2004, 09:39 AM

Apparently, the almighty Riden disagrees, therefore, by his command, we must not tell Blizzard about this.

:D Thats it, your getting it, yay!

Seriously, just because it's an ide atht you don't like, doesn't mean thath it's a bad one(and teh majority do like it), so why shouldn't Blizzard at least hear about it? They may not even implement it if they dom but they should at least hear about something that got onto the WWN front news page.(Hopefully they saw it then).

Just because it's an idea that you like, dosn't mean that it's a good one (and the, so called "majority" was just a few random posters from this board, 1-3 extra posters "in favor" does not make a "majority").
"Why shouldn't Blizzard atleast hear about it?" Well, would you've ever wanted to tell your parents that your grades were comparable to an inanimate objects cause your've been a little sh*t at school for fear they would implement a beat down on your ***? No I didn't think so, so why should I want Blizzard to see something I deffinatly would hate them to implement?

Cell

08-06-2004, 03:44 AM

wakiki

08-06-2004, 11:18 PM

Good ideas however the system in general would probably drive me insane... If say you are completely eqquipped with a set of items that will overtime deteriorate, then I will tell you right now that I would try to sell it off ASAP on principal, because if I waited, my account would lose serious value later on.

Please, please, please, please, Please, oh PLEASE at the very least! Read the initial post, by DeadSquirrel, before commenting on this idea. No, this is wrong, wrong wrong, according to his idea your items would NOT in fact, deteriorate over time. You could keep the forever and they would never decay. I don't expect you to read the 7 pages of comments, but at least read the first post! Please!

*Sigh.*

Just because it's an idea that you like, dosn't mean that it's a good one.

The ideal thing would be for Blizzard to hear all ideas that have ever been thought up. Then they could pick all of the best ones, and the game would be perfect. Unfortunately, this is not viable. However, they should know about an idea that has received so much attention, and that(in the majority's opinion) solves so many problems in a very effective way.

(and the, so called "majority" was just a few random posters from this board, 1-3 extra posters "in favor" does not make a "majority").

Firstly, let me educate you on what the word "majority" means. In order for one side to be the "majority," it must be greater than 50%. Therefore, if there was one more poster in favor than against, they would have the majority. If the vote were 900 vs. 901, the 901 would be the majority.

You used the word majority incorrectly, but I get the gist of what you were saying, although you were wrong. I believe that the point that you were trying to make was that "in favor" wasn't that far ahead of the "against" side, however, you would, once again, be wrong. Let's take a look:

34 in favor: DeadSquirrel, JAEF, Achameleon, Xinhuan, Brainless, Bartleby, GreenFaun, wakiki, Johan, PhatAlbert, LordGex, stuyScale, niteshade6, HisNameIsMunky, PSUChemGuy, flick556, Rulan, Bly, Forxr, EvilWarlock, Kisenger, El Pingu, SilentEd, Morphina, bobxii, malakye3d@yahoo.com, Drec The Darkone, LinkN, Mallow, regicide13, Wizardx8, L337|Master_Chief, Malleable, Nphyx, CaptHowdy,

8 against: Wickedly_Evil, Riden, FenixStryke4, Etra, FlagshipAmadeus, Orodreth Anwamane, Jondar, Cell

Clueless: FlagshipAmadeus, Orodreth Anwamane, Jondar, Cell

So, 34 vs. 8. Quite a bit more than 1-3 more to me. Get your facts straight, please.

Riden

09-06-2004, 07:45 AM

I don't care for your dictionary definition.
A word only has meaning due to a person's belief and to the context used.
Herein lies the point; 900 vs. 901 in favour of decay will not see it implemented.
900 vs. 90,001 might. This is the context used; so don't come back at me with some brainless twaddle about definitions as 100,000,000 other IRC/webboard jerkoffs love to do. I dunno, they think it's "cool" or something, those crazy kids.

Secondly it is not 34 vs. 8.
Most replies of this thread were just fluff, people who didn't bother to take the time to think it out or even read most of the posts. They would only count if this was an actual vote, and the idea had been properly thought out and finalised, they do not count in a discussion and if you like to think they did then you will only ever get half truths in life, so wise up.
And I cannot believe you went through this entire thread over something so trivial.

Thirdly, it's as I said above, I do not want to see this implemented, so why, in all that's green and good, would I want Blizzard to ever see it on the tiny off chance that they might actually implement it. Trying to convince me otherwise is folly :)

Ravendove786

09-06-2004, 01:55 PM

I don't care for your dictionary definition.
A word only has meaning due to a person's belief and to the context used.

No, it is ridiculous to state that a word only has meaning due to a person's belief and to the context used. A person may *intend* something different, but his or her words' meanings are independent of his intention as they depend on the rules of language developed by society. Otherwise, when you say "I hate the idea", how can I be sure that what you really intended wasn't "I love the idea"?!

Secondly, I have read through the entire thread, unlike many of the idea's detractors, and I think the original idea is excellent in principal. My few comments are:

1) There should be some amount of use allowed before trade-decay kicks in to allow people to try out weapons and allow refunds if people are dissatisfied with their new buy.

2) I don't see why allowances have to be made for lending items. Just don't lend your best stuff to someone. Although an item shouldn't trade-decay a second time when given back to someone.

3) Use-decay and repairing items is NOT FUN. Just to reiterate.

4) I agree with Blizzard's idea of making high-end items look ubercool rather than be overwhelmingly powerful.

5) I do think recycling items for a fraction of the original materials used is an excellent idea also.

Riden

09-06-2004, 03:23 PM

No, it is ridiculous to state that a word only has meaning due to a person's belief and to the context used. A person may *intend* something different, but his or her words' meanings are independent of his intention as they depend on the rules of language developed by society. Otherwise, when you say "I hate the idea", how can I be sure that what you really intended wasn't "I love the idea"?!

Nope. Wrong. That is a perfectionist's pompous BS.
If that were true then slang would not and would never exist, nor would different meanings of one word.
Definitions of a word, found in a dictionary for example, are not the word, they are merely a guide as to the general standard meaning/uses of the word, but what defines the word is who used it and how, when, why it was used i.e. the context.
Language is not a set of rules for your to speak, it is not a computer language for you to input parameters, you can't define a persons mind can you?
How do people know what you mean if you don't use the word to the exact definition as stated in the oxford dictionary? Common sense, everyone has it, this is even proven above; Wakiki miraculously knew exactly what I meant (*gasp*), and then, in an effort to proclaim his overflowing intelligence, tried to show me that in fact what I said was wrong and how I should change myself to fit his liking. If it was so 'wrong' then how in the nine hells did he know what I was talking about? He must obviously be a God, let us all bow before his grandiose presence.
Communication; as long as someone knows what you mean, language has succeeded, the way and means this has come about are irrelevant. (Although it is entertaining to make fun of Asian engrish)

As for the rest of what you said, meh, the origional point of this thread lost meaning to me a long time ago, I am just rambling ;p

Malleable

09-06-2004, 03:51 PM

Boy I just jumped into this thread, but Ridden seems like an ***.
Mal

Xinhuan

09-06-2004, 08:50 PM

Can a beta tester not copy-paste this thread onto the beta forums? I wouldn't like to see Blizzard implement this.

I'm here to burst your bubble, but the original thread creator of this thread HAS already taken and posted it on the battle.net forums *weeks* ago, and Blizz DID give a reply on it.

http://worldofwar.net/shredder/index.php?pid=6402

Of course, the thread no longer exists on the actual bnet forums, but the entire content of it was there, and there were about 30 or so replies before it got lost.

Kisenger

09-06-2004, 10:14 PM

Okay I haven't read the entire thread just mostly the 1st page and this page. What I am wondering though say someone put a sword with +5 str and just equiped it. Then they traded it would it decay if it wasn't used but just equiped or even used to kill 1 creep. To me it would make more sense to have the item decay depending on how many times it has been used. Then to have it decay as soon as someone worn it for 1 minute and then traded it.

wakiki

09-06-2004, 10:19 PM

1234567890

900 vs. 901 in favour of decay will not see it implemented.

It might. It could go either way, if it's that close. If it was this close to 50%, why are you saying that it wouldn't be implemented? See, that's your problem. You automatically assume that things should go your way, even if more people support the opposite side. You, apparently, don't even stop to consider the opposing side. Of course, I might be wrong, but this is what it looks like.

Furthermore, it's not even close to 50%. its 34-8. Meaning, 19% are opposed to the idea, and 81% are in favor of it.

As far as the word "majority" - let's not start a debate on what was intended; that would be petty. We both know what you intended to say(that there weren't that many more people in favor of the system) however you were still wrong.

Most replies of this thread were just fluff, people who didn't bother to take the time to think it out or even read most of the posts.

Actually, the majority of the people who were against it were the people who didn't even read the initial post. Please refer back to the "Gluteus is a Sad Gnome" story earlier, and to Cell's previous post, to see what I mean. Many of the people who were against the system had obviously not even read the initial topic, so I put them under "Clueless" in my list.

Which leaves on four people on your side who had reasonable arguements. However, I decided to count them in the tally anyway(a bonus for you).

Secondly, I have read through the entire thread, unlike many of the idea's detractors, and I think the original idea is excellent in principal.

Wow, I'm impressed. I wouldn't really expect people to read back through 7 pages of long forum posts. That's very cool of you :) I suppose that you would be the opposite end of the spectrum from Cell.

He[wakiki] must obviously be a God, let us all bow before his grandiose presence.

:D That's it, you're getting it, yay!

Wakiki miraculously knew exactly what I meant (*gasp*), and then, in an effort to proclaim his overflowing intelligence, tried to show me that in fact what I said was wrong and how I should change myself to fit his liking. If it was so 'wrong' then how in the nine hells did he know what I was talking about?

:scratch: :scratch: Please explain....

So, when you said that the 1-3 posters was not a majority, did you mean that not very many people are for this idea, or that only a few more people are for this idea, or what? In either of these two examples, they are wrong, because it turns out thaht many people support the idea(more than 4 out of 5). So, unless by saying "1-3 is not a majority" you meant "Many people support this idea" then you would be incorrect....Apparently, I don't know what you were talking about, so could you please explain what you meant by the following quote?:

1-3 extra posters "in favor" does not make a "majority"

Thanks!

Foxer

10-06-2004, 09:25 PM

I think that the item-decay-on-trade solution is a probably the best suggestion I've heard so far.

But let's back up for a moment and think about the dynamics of the root problem:
1) Everyone wants rare items.
2) By definition not everyone will get rare items.

The item decay solutions address #2--effectively preventing the commoditization of rare items. This is a good time to ask: "how does a rare item enter the WOW universe?" I assume that rare items are generated in two ways:
A) Continually dropped, on a random basis, with some very small percentage chance (e.g. 1 in 5000).
B) The result of a quest

It seems to me that in previous MMORPGs, that (A) was the main generator of rare items. This promotes loot stealing, farming, camping, etc.

(B) seems better but then how do you prevent everyone in the world from getting that same item?—hard quests will probably be taken up by many people.

At the end of the day, my question to the gallery is: “who deserves to attain a rare item?”

Once we agree on the answer to this question I’m confident we have enough bright minds to implement a solution….

red.13

10-06-2004, 09:43 PM

You may not believe me, but I read all 7 pages! It was hard, but what matters now is that I agree and you can sign me under bobxii(and others) proposal. How to say, oh I know K.I.S.S. Yes, this proposal is simple and it works how it should. It will keep the shops running, ppl looking for new stuff - so it resolves main problems. Guys, feel free to post this idea to Blizz. Good work, after 7 pages you managed to somehow resolve this prob.

Riden

11-06-2004, 01:12 AM

I tried to post this yesterday but the forums weren't working, anyway:

It might. It could go either way, if it's that close. If it was this close to 50%, why are you saying that it wouldn't be implemented? See, that's your problem. You automatically assume that things should go your way, even if more people support the opposite side. You, apparently, don't even stop to consider the opposing side. Of course, I might be wrong, but this is what it looks like.

Furthermore, it's not even close to 50%. its 34-8. Meaning, 19% are opposed to the idea, and 81% are in favor of it.

Um, no. This isn't a vote for president here, this is a vote for weather a game mechanic is wanted or not. 50% will see it not implemented as it is too much of a risk. 75%+ in favour could possibly see it implemented, especially in Blizzards case as they never do something radical unless their sure it will work. Good business skill.

As far as the word "majority" - let's not start a debate on what was intended; that would be petty. We both know what you intended to say(that there weren't that many more people in favor of the system) however you were still wrong.

Sigh, yes, I'm wrong because your perception of existance is obviously the correct one. I'm sorry oh great one :(

Actually, the majority of the people who were against it were the people who didn't even read the initial post. Please refer back to the "Gluteus is a Sad Gnome" story earlier, and to Cell's previous post, to see what I mean. Many of the people who were against the system had obviously not even read the initial topic, so I put them under "Clueless" in my list.

And? What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I already excluded anyone like that.

Which leaves on four people on your side who had reasonable arguements. However, I decided to count them in the tally anyway(a bonus for you).

A bonus for me? Lol, you shouldn't have *blushes and batts eyelashes*

So, when you said that the 1-3 posters was not a majority, did you mean that not very many people are for this idea, or that only a few more people are for this idea, or what? In either of these two examples, they are wrong, because it turns out thaht many people support the idea(more than 4 out of 5). So, unless by saying "1-3 is not a majority" you meant "Many people support this idea" then you would be incorrect....Apparently, I don't know what you were talking about, so could you please explain what you meant by the following quote?:

Thanks!

Why exactly do I need to explain it? You already understood and posted agaisnt it in a previous post. You randomy want to bring up the past which we have already gone over to go over again because.... ?
Changing your tune to disrupt someones statments rather low brow, and rarly works, not only does this contridict your statments, It robs you of any credibility or visible common sense.
This pointless argument was fun, but it's starting to digress for the worse so I think I'll leave it at that unless your've got something else to talk about.

Xin: I think I already knew that though anyway :P

Mallleabbbble: Why thank you, kind sir!