Runes - balanced?

[Teron]

Earlier, you said:
"Personally I find it rather sad people would vault and not use items"

If you knew this beforehand, then you shouldn't be too sad.

[*Splork*]

Imagine that, players being greedy or paranoid and vaulting items rather than using them. Sorry but this isn't a new concept, its been happening since the inception of vaults into Slothmud.

Going by your amazing analysis, I guess I should never feel sad that someday my mother will pass away or my dog is going to die.

Realizing that certain events are going to happen has absolutely no bearing on preventing or establishing feelings towards said event.


There really is no reason to be antagonizing, rude, or chastising inside this thread. Its perfectly acceptable to not like a decision that goes against every player's opinion on the matter.

At this point, watching how runes have entirely over taken the game, which I did not anticipate, it might be time for me to look into controlling the issue. Forcing them to be used or lost within a certain time period doesn't seem like such a bad idea at this point.

Enjoy,
Splork

[Thraxas]

At this point, watching how runes have entirely over taken the game, which I did not anticipate, it might be time for me to look into controlling the issue. Forcing them to be used or lost within a certain time period doesn't seem like such a bad idea at this point.

Sometimes Splork you talk huge sense and rightly hold opinion against the crowd. I think you're wrong about the unsocketing, I have tried to demonstrate the reason for my view by showing how underused they are, but fair enough its your decision I think you're wrong you think you're right we disagree, it happens.

This idea of making them lost if not used within a certain period is however quite another matter, its completely ridiculous, its insane, its mindnumbingly fantastically outrageous. Given the hoops players have to jump through to get to the point of forging there is a value that is therefore inherent in them (value not usefulness which will only come with the ability to unsocket).
The threat (which is how I perceive this) to make them disappear if unused is as ridiculous as saying if I dont spend my coins within x days of gaining them they will disappear, or if I vault any item that I want to hold onto maybe against a possible future use they will also disappear unless I withdraw and use them frequently enough. Or unless I gain some millions of xp every month / logon frequently enough my char is wiped.

I do wonder if you're not serious about this suggestion, given that its so insanely ridiculous that I cant believe you'd be in your right mind if you're seriously considering it. I wonder if the only reason you raise the suggestion is because you know you're wrong about the unsocketing or have no reasonable arguement in favour of your decision and are trying to divert the discussion off onto a tangent.

Thraxas

[blackmore]

If runes poof from non-use, everyone will stockpile gems instead of runes.

I personally could care less about unsocketing, I'll take the benefits as long as I can get them. For items I know I want to swap out, I'll probably hold off on socketing, but it depends on how long I'll keep the item also. If it's going to be a year before I can use an item, I might as well socket to what I currently have, and hope/try for another rune for the new item. Premium eq is too low level and too easy to obtain compared to the expected life of the character, that's why runes are taking over the way they are.

I'm actually bothered that you effectively can't get rid of the eq once a rune is socketed to it, unless someone else wants the same rune. If we aren't going to allow reusing runes, I'd rather have the ability to destroy it so a new one can replace it, or so you can vault/sell/auction the eq without requiring the buyer to take your rune you had attached to it.

[*Splork*]

As I have clearly stated, there is no right or wrong regarding this issue. Its simply opinions by the players and myself, the person who tries to keep this game balanced and fun. Unreal to add a feature as rich as this one only to see the bitching it has created between players and now myself.

Yes, my suggestion was an off the cuff comment because Im getting sick and tired of stating my decision. Its utterly ridiculous that people treat these decisions as if they are life and death. Its a game, use the rune and if a new one comes a long get rid of it.

People can continue to state their reasons for being "right". I really do not care at this point and will not respond regarding this issue anymore. Im sorry but nobody here has proven to me that my decision is "wrong", you included Thraxas. Many valid points have been brought up regarding WHY players want runes to be removeable and there are many reasons why I do not want them to be.


As for pop rates of the different tiers of gems, there is no difference from the best gem to the worst. All gems have the very same pop rate. So this is just another urban legend.

Splork

[Teron]

I wasn't trying to be "antagonizing, rude, or chastising", Splork.

I simply pointed out that it seemed odd to me you weren't really satisfied with the results that you've clearly anticipated - that is all. To me, it seems there's a difference between sad things that can and can not be changed.

If you did take it personally (I see no reason why you shouldn't have), I apologize. I should've probably worded it differently.

[*Splork*]

After speaking with Blackmore online for a few minutes this evening, I think we have come up with a solution that will satisfy all parties involved, at least partly.

Ive been training on third shift all week( 11 pm - 7 am ) so I am extremely tired and will be busy all weekend ( buying a golf cart ), so the code involved will have to wait a few days.

I'll repost with an update once all is ready to be put ingame.

Enjoy,
Splork

[blackmore]

and will be busy all weekend ( buying a golf cart ),

How long can it possibly take to buy a golf cart? Do you have to travel around to different golf cart dealers, to make sure you get the best deal? Do you get to test drive them before you buy them?

[*Splork*]

Working all weekend and then buying a cart on Sunday:) Then I have to drive it all day around the yard with the boy till I get bored!

[Insomniac]

Seems like it's been a few weeks since the original discussion but I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Splork here. I think that people forget just how amazing some of these runes are - take the stat runes, for example! You might spend weeks forging ingame eq to get a +stat without losing any AC. Even so, something like Darksteel Guards (0.8 +con) is still not as good as other shoulder guards available in the game without the stat (0.8 20 hps). In other words, there are no free stats in the game...except with runes.

I also agree with some other ideas posted so far and I would suggest that a good solution would be to:

Allow *unsocketing* from tri-40 and elite EQ only as Splork mentioned.

Allow *destruction* of socketed runes from normal eq (meaning eq can be sold on/used by another char or a different rune can be attached). This would be quite a penalty in itself (some people are selling -saves runes for 20-30 mil, so just think how much a stat rune could cost).

I think from a long-term perspective, what will happen as more runes are accumulated (runes keep popping but player base isn't exactly doubling every week), the price of runes will go down and the obsession with them will fall too.

Personally, I think one of the problems is that there is not a big enough market in gems/runes yet, i.e. rather than selling gems you don't need for coins and then using coins to buy gems you DO need, what happens is people hoard gems/runes in the hope of trading for something they will use.

One of the reasons for this is that there is currently no penalty whatsoever for holding on to gems. I could have 50 gems in my robe and it wouldn't be any more difficult for me than having none. I could have the 50 gems on a storage char and it wouldn't cost me anything either. Even though, imho, the price of gems is way inflated, people still don't have enough of an incentive to sell them! (Personally, I have sold all the unneeded runes I ever got but that's mainly because I'm skint!)

The obvious (and imho bad) solution would be to hike up the rent on gems, but then you only reward people with big vaults/lots of cash. You could combine that with making them unvaultable. This would reward people with lots of cash and/or punish lowbies who may only get a gem once in a while, so their chances of ever forging a rune would be slim because they couldn't afford the rent.

Another possible solution would be to make gems go personal after a few days - that way you either move the rune on, you use it or you, in essence, lose any value it had (if you can't/don't want to use it and can't trade it). It would also put downward pressure on prices because the buyers would know you can't hold out forever, making runes more accessible to all.

I wonder what Blackmore suggested too, maybe Splork can let us know when he's done with his golf cart

[Teron]

Insomniac, do you practically suggest to somehow penalize people with more runes? Is this your solution to the low amount of runes that you have?

Do take into account that the amount of runes popped depends on the amount and size of 40-41 lev mobs killed. That is, the more huge mobs you kill, the more chances there are that you'll get a gem.

Also, as you get random gems solo or in groups, you'll only need to make runes from a fraction of them, thus ending up with more random gems, than the gems you need.

The problem with your solutions is that, as you've said, while people will be getting more and more gems, it'll become unwieldy to store them and it will snowball.

Do you really want to add more penalties to the current situation?

P.S. No one makes you buy the runes or gems for money. Especially, if you don't have the money.

[Insomniac]

You assume that my thinking is based on the number of runes I have (which you do not know) and my desire to improve my position (you also imply that this would be at the expense of other people). It's interesting that the assumptions we make about other people's intentions often reflect our own attitudes to the topic of discussion.

For the record, in suggesting potential solutions I was looking at the issue on a mud-wide, long term basis, i.e. what would be good for the mud as a whole over a period of a year?

As I said, hiking up the rent and/or making gems unvaluatable is a bad solution in my eyes for the reasons I have given.

How does making gems go personal after 4-5 days make storing them more difficult? In this situation you would either keep the gem to make a rune, sell it for coins or trade it for one that you need or you lose the ability to do anything other than store it in the hope of using it in the future.

This would discourage people from keeping gems they can't/won't use and encourage a more lively market for gems both in coins and in direct trades.

Insomniac, do you practically suggest to somehow penalize people with more runes?

People with more runes? No. People with more gems? Not necessarily.

What I do strongly suggest is that we penalise people who hold on to gems/runes they can't/won't use and give them positive incentives to move those gems on.

Is this your solution to the low amount of runes that you have?

Given how much time I spend leading groups or following in them, it won't be long before I have as many runes as you or more. When I do, my view of the situation will be the same. I am not looking at this situation from the viewpoint of "How can I get the most for me?" - I am looking at it on a long term, mud wide basis.

This is my solution to the fact that good runes are not traded/sold a lot. What impact does this have on the mud?

One of the consequences is that some players now try to blackmail leaders into reserving certain gems for them, i.e. a tank invited to join a group might say "hrm, isn't XXX calling Rhodo? Hrm, I won't come unless I can call it" etc.

Also, as you get random gems solo or in groups, you'll only need to make runes from a fraction of them, thus ending up with more random gems, than the gems you need.

Precisely. And my suggestion is that rather than simply hoarding these gems till 2015, we are actually encouraged to uh... you know... move them on either for coins or other gems... to uhh... you know... people who might actually use them?

The problem with your solutions is that, as you've said, while people will be getting more and more gems, it'll become unwieldy to store them and it will snowball.

That's not the problem with my solution, it's the point of my solution. Looking from a mud-wide perspective, what's good about people storing lots of gems? I don't want people to hoard gems, so I'm glad you agree that my solution will be as effective as I thought.

Do you really want to add more penalties to the current situation?

Rofl. I used to think Splork didn't understand the playerbase here. Now, I think he's a genius. He sees us for what we are: spoilt and greedy little children - give us amazing toys and after a while we lose all sense of perspective and demand more.

[Teron]

Insomniac, I think the solution with desocketing for a certain fee would allow us to use the better runes sooner on mid eq. This is the sufficient solution to the problem, in my opinion, and I had thought about it/suggested it earlier.

Destruction of runes from mid eq only prevents us from using the high runes on mid eq altogether. Now you want us to give away those runes to others. Why should we do it again?

I don't think there needs to be a reason to *give away* better runes earlier, than they have the eq for them, even if it's mid eq.

I say give away, because trading even a better rune usually gets you need less, unless you are lucky enough to trade it for the same rune with someone, who's already decided on the eq.

Speeding up the socketing will create chaos I see no need to exist. Maybe it's just me, though.

You ask, what's so good about having lots of gems? It's about using the right gems for the right slots for the right eq that you need. Do you wish anything else here? The right gems on the right slots on mid way eq and lose the gems on unsocket?

Personally, I agree that gems are a good thing and they'd require sufficient effort to get and use. Which they do, because you need a high end piece of eq to use them without reselling, at the moment. It means that those, who do bother to get the high end eq will use the high runes they got. I don't see anything wrong here.

The problem was that while ppl get high eq, they can't use high runes on mid eq and reuse them on high-end or drachma eq. Your solution of destroying runes after use on mid eq doesn't solve this problem.

P.S. I was not implying anything. I was asking questions. Your solution solves one minor problem that isn't a problem, if you get as many gems as you want, but creates a bigger problem of trading goods gems/runes for something you need less. This is usually bad, rather than good, IMHO.

P.P.S. The choice to join groups, based on gem calls, is the same as joining eq groups, based on mob calls. Also, it can be based on fun/not fun priorities, which nearly everyone makes. As for me, I don't need so much a rhodo, as I'd prefer to have fun. If I don't have fun in groups, I'd rather get a rhodo solo, really. Though, ironically, getting a rhodo earlier, rather than solo, would be fun too It is probably as important to me as getting the Joraine crown for you.

[Insomniac]

Insomniac, I think the solution with desocketing for a certain fee would allow us to use the better runes sooner on mid eq. This is the sufficient solution to the problem, in my opinion, and I had thought about it/suggested it earlier.

Destruction of runes from mid eq only prevents us from using the high runes on mid eq altogether.

Did you read what Splork said? This will likely cost 20-30mil in gold and/or drachma. You don't think this would discourage people from using good runes on mid eq?

I don't think there needs to be a reason to *give away* better runes earlier, than they have the eq for them, even if it's mid eq.

What are you talking about? Who ever said anything about giving away runes? I said that we should encourage people to sell/trade *gems* rather than holding on to them. What this means is that if you don't plan to use a gem yourself you'll have to sell it or trade it and others will do the same. The chances of you being able to buy a gem you actually need will be higher as a result (because people will be shedding unneeded runes).

Speeding up the socketing will create chaos I see no need to exist. Maybe it's just me, though.

Probably is just you. I can't see many people being happy at hoarding runes/gems in their vaults and not using them...

Your solution solves one minor problem that isn't a problem, if you get as many gems as you want

I'll leave this without comment - I think your way of thinking is plain for all to see here.

P.P.S. The choice to join groups, based on gem calls, is the same as joining eq groups, based on mob calls.

Yes, that's true except it's not.

You join a group based on mob calls. That guarantees you only that your mob will be killed if the group can do it. In other words, you join groups for a 100% guarantee that your mob will be killed for you. This guarantee that your mob will be cycled is why people may only join an eq group if their mob isn't called, in other words you're fighting over something concrete.

With gems, since they are random pop, there's no guarantee of anything. If the tank in question refuses to join a group because he can't call a Rhodo he's essentially blackmailing the leader over something neither of them have any control over.

Either way, the point is: I doubt gems were put in the game to make grouping more bitchy as they seem to be doing.

[Teron]

I have edited my post somewhat.

Runes, gems, whatever. This is a minor point. We can trade high gems for gems can use right now without anything done on the imm front. I believe they'd agree it's a bargain for them

A fee discourages use of runes on midway eq, but not completely, as long as the fee is less, than the cost of the rune itself. There needs a balance to be found here, but without knowing about what exactly Splork is working on, I won't comment on this.

You are forgetting that poprate is based on a random generator as well. For example, me calling grixathem (for my boots, earlier) or webmistress for a night or three didn't guarantee me pops on most of those.

Thus, for example, you can guarantee that the mob is called and killed, but you can't guarantee it'll load - there's the same thing with gems. The gems have a lower chance to pop, but that's in their nature, I believe. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to call the gems we need, however.