Re: Idea: Plate Mail

[Norrel]

Items aren't created with a skill boost. People need to invest in them for that. It would appear that people can't be bothered to invest in them, but are conversely quite ready to whine about the fact they don't have anything but a skill boost.

At some point, the playerbase cannot be blamed and you have to start looking at game mechanics.
Instead of just saying "oh, the playerbase just won't invest in them, so it's their fault", maybe we should be saying "Why aren't players investing in items? Why are players complaining about them?"

[De-Legro]

At some point, the playerbase cannot be blamed and you have to start looking at game mechanics.
Instead of just saying "oh, the playerbase just won't invest in them, so it's their fault", maybe we should be saying "Why aren't players investing in items? Why are players complaining about them?"

That is only true if the player base UNDERSTANDS the mechanics. Which from this thread they obviously don't. What is the point of changing the mechanics to fix a problem that is observer bias?

[Zakilevo]

Items can last for YEARS. Can I make that any clearer? Besides that they can if people actually bother to invest in them offer decent bonus to stats. I've seen items that boost things like sword fighting by 10-15%.

I can see items ever having such a massive effect they help you win a war though, nor do I think they should. The are about the character, not the realm.

Yes theoretically. I haven't seen a single person who managed to hold the same item over a year. Maybe one or two person managed it but once you lose the item people forget about it. Characters last for years and remembered by others for years after their death, why not have some items which will have deeper and richer history like characters?

[Norrel]

That is only true if the player base UNDERSTANDS the mechanics. Which from this thread they obviously don't. What is the point of changing the mechanics to fix a problem that is observer bias?

Probably because it isn't observer bias.

If a player has never heard of famous historical items, has been told that they are an enormous hassle that require consistent maintenance and will only require more maintenance after an investment, has been told of the length of time and personal involvement necessary for a fairly negligible stat bonus, will he want to invest in one?

I certainly don't, and I don't really see people fighting for uniques for the chance to invest time and cash in them.

[De-Legro]

Yes theoretically. I haven't seen a single person who managed to hold the same item over a year. Maybe one or two person managed it but once you lose the item people forget about it. Characters last for years and remembered by others for years after their death, why not have some items which will have deeper and richer history like characters?

I've seen it, hell I've done it. The only item I ever had I kept for two years.  I then lost it in a battle and commissioned an advy to find it for me. Next thing I know it turns up in the hands of another noble. After some questioning I found the advy had found the item, but also found a higher bidder. I then spent 6 months trying to ensure the advy was killed. Good times.

In Arcaea the Duchess of Lasop was famous for her Sabre of Flames. Hell even Arcachon returned the item to her DURING the war when the advy that was repairing it ran off with it.

Probably because it isn't observer bias.

If a player has never heard of famous items, has been told that they are an enormous hassle that require consistent maintenance and will only require more maintenance after an investment, has been told of the length of time and personal involvement necessary for a fairly negligible stat bonus, will he want to invest in one?

I certainly don't, and I don't really see people fighting for uniques for the chance to invest time and cash in them.

That is the definition of observer bias. You are acting on what you were told? How do you verify that info? Why do you believe the person that told you? What is there experience and bias? How does changing a system that ISN'T what people think it is magically going to fix things. It is just as possible that misinformation about the new system is spread as well.

Well, some of you may want to revisit the thing. I have increased the longevity of unique items in two steps over the past months. It only affects new items, though.

Pay attention to that, I held on to an item, as a relatively new player for 2 years before this change. Who knows how long it is possible to maintain a quality item now.

[Eithad]

The real problem with unique items is the fact that I as a noble need to beg commoners to repair them for me.

Most of the time, no advies even bother to reply to my letter asking them to fix my item. The ones that reply either can't find a sage or don't have the required items for the repair.

When I play adventurer, I ignore request to repair items because I am worried about failing in the quest and getting my head chopped off.

[De-Legro]

The real problem with unique items is the fact that I as a noble need to beg commoners to repair them for me.

Most of the time, no advies even bother to reply to my letter asking them to fix my item. The ones that reply either can't find a sage or don't have the required items for the repair.

When I play adventurer, I ignore request to repair items because I am worried about failing in the quest and getting my head chopped off.

Finding an advy that is good at repair does sometimes feel tricky. Arcaea was blessed with some advies that really understood the system, the Luria region also has some advies that seem decent at repairing items, though it can take them sometime to track down a sage.

[Norrel]

De-Legro:

Sure, maybe I was misinformed.

Still, all your arguments boil down to saying that the current system isn't that bad, rather than why the proposed system is worse.

What, exactly, is wrong with eliminating micromanagement and hassle and letting people get into the unique items game without years of investment?

[De-Legro]

De-Legro:

Sure, maybe I was misinformed.

Still, all your arguments boil down to saying that the current system isn't that bad, rather than why the proposed system is worse.

What, exactly, is wrong with eliminating micromanagement and hassle and letting people get into the unique items game without years of investment?

Because I disagree that there IS micromanagement needed, or that it takes years of investment. I've already said why the proposed system doesn't match the design intent. If that intent changes all well and good, but that is a call for Tom, not me.

[BardicNerd]

That is only true if the player base UNDERSTANDS the mechanics. Which from this thread they obviously don't. What is the point of changing the mechanics to fix a problem that is observer bias?

You may perhaps be right.  I know I certainly have very little understanding of the mechanics for unique items, and I've been playing for quite some time.

This does not mean the problem is with the players, though, but rather suggests to me that the mechanics have been poorly communicated to the players.  This may be partially intentional -- I know we're not intended to know exactly how everything works -- but means that you have to accept that the players will very often complain about things simply because they don't understand how it actually works -- and that it is no no way reasonable for them to understand many of the things they complain about.

That being said, now that I've looked around a bit on the Wiki, I've found out a little more about unique items, so I now know 'what is in theory possible.'  I don't really know any better what is 'normal,' or how easy it is to have items improved, or if items lasting years is an exception or the norm, or many other things.

So yes: players are complaining about stuff they don't understand, BECAUSE they don't understand, BECAUSE up to this thread, little effort has been put into helping them understand (as far as I know.  Perhaps I am wrong).

[Eithad]

Turn over of owner is good, but turn over of items is bad. So solution make repairs easier but still have items degrade.

I propose two things:

1) Change the item repair cost from specific items to a gold cost. adventurers will still need to either sell common items or earn the gold in some way to pay for the repair.

2) When items falls to 0% durability they do not simply disappear, they lose all their stats but the item itself remains in name only. The stats will have to be regained after it has been repaired. This still encourages noble/advy interaction and the advy can still run off with the item if they so wish. But items will remain in the game on the island to accumulate a history.

[De-Legro]

Turn over of owner is good, but turn over of items is bad. So solution make repairs easier but still have items degrade.

I propose two things:

1) Change the item repair cost from specific items to a gold cost. adventurers will still need to either sell common items or earn the gold in some way to pay for the repair.

2) When items falls to 0% durability they do not simply disappear, they lose all their stats but the item itself remains in name only. The stats will have to be regained after it has been repaired. This still encourages noble/advy interaction and the advy can still run off with the item if they so wish. But items will remain in the game on the island to accumulate a history.

I think turn over of items is good, but that rapid turn over of items isn't so great. I'm interested to see how the new durability increases play out and what it means to the total life of an item. For repairs, I was thinking that instead of required specific items, the sage could require items from item group types. This would provide a higher chance of the advy having items in the inventory that match the requirements. But then until I see how the durability changes play out I can't really say if repairing needs to be made easier.

Something I would love to see though is the item recording its history in game, rather then relying on people to keep track of it on the wiki.

[Dante Silverfire]

De-Legro,

I have extensive experience with items from the noble side. I have a limited amount of experience from the advy side personally, but also have had advy characters explain to me quite a bit as well.

I have held an item for over a years time myself personally and got the item prestige up to +9, along with an extra state increase included in it. I know what I'm talking about and have experience in this area.

However, my statements are not that it isn't possible to operate under the current system. What I am saying is that the current system is not optimal. If Tom is seeking to find changes for the item system (with things such as creating armors), then I think one change should be that Unique Items don't degrade, OR they are easy to repair (but perhaps highly expensive). Maybe even phase out the adventurers some in this regard. I don't know. What I do know, is that under a new system, items could gain a greater status of importance, and if you remove the work (on the player side), but increase the value on the game side of the items (in actuallity, or simply by making them easier to keep) you will increase their usage and importance.

[De-Legro]

De-Legro,

I have extensive experience with items from the noble side. I have a limited amount of experience from the advy side personally, but also have had advy characters explain to me quite a bit as well.

I have held an item for over a years time myself personally and got the item prestige up to +9, along with an extra state increase included in it. I know what I'm talking about and have experience in this area.

However, my statements are not that it isn't possible to operate under the current system. What I am saying is that the current system is not optimal. If Tom is seeking to find changes for the item system (with things such as creating armors), then I think one change should be that Unique Items don't degrade, OR they are easy to repair (but perhaps highly expensive). Maybe even phase out the adventurers some in this regard. I don't know. What I do know, is that under a new system, items could gain a greater status of importance, and if you remove the work (on the player side), but increase the value on the game side of the items (in actuallity, or simply by making them easier to keep) you will increase their usage and importance.

Have you had a new item with the new durability changes? Cause that is exactly what they aimed to do, and I believe are relatively recent. If items last longer, the work required is reduced yes? Once people are actually providing feedback on the change, then we can examine if the change fixed the problem, if further tweaks to durability are needed or if the system needs to be rethought. There is little point to changing the system as is until it is determined that the most recent changes haven't had the intended effect.

If you haven't played as a advy, are you really all that confident in saying they are hard to repair? I certainly can't say much because I haven't tried repairing under the new system. Under the old system I never found it that hard, but then I spent considerable time gathering, so when I needed to repair something I had damn good chances of having the items and I was part of a advy group, so if I didn't have the items someone close by probably did. The new sage code means I can't really comment now, cause I have little experience with how easy/hard it is to find sages.

[fodder]

gold? wouldn't it be simpler to have "repair points", so to speak, that is based on the base cost of any and all common items? rather than specific items.

anyway, you would think ooc clans would be into this sort of thing., 1 noble each, 1 advy each. gang together to fight and search and repair, and every noble get a bundle of items.

i probably should go back to 2 advy in an island to see how the new thingy goes.