New Paraphernalia

[fodder]

um.. books are read in combat, what else are they used for?

[JPierreD]

um.. books are read in combat, what else are they used for?

It's theorized that through some strange form of magic they can store words and stuff. They might eat your soul in the process, though.

[egamma]

It's theorized that through some strange form of magic they can store words and stuff. They might eat your soul in the process, though.

what fodder is referring to is the message at the beginning of every battle:

Marshal Swordmaster Bater is seen wielding the Sword of Arousal
Sir Mix Alot is seen reading from the Book of Big Butts

[JPierreD]

Yes, I know, I was just kidding.

[Indirik]

Armour/Weapons/Shield - Repairable just like a normal regular Combat Unit, which will never be approved so instead have it so that it is a seriously reduced degrading. Chance of being lost/destroyed in battle is increased and decreased in direct proportion to how big or small the battle is. say 5000CS battle (together not each) = 5% chance of being lost and 2.5% of being destroyed.

The way it works now, you only have a chance to lose your item if you are wounded. You want to make it so that there is a chance to lose your item in any battle, if you're wounded or not? That would seem to greatly increase the overall chances that your items would be lost, since most characters fight in far more battles in which they are not wounded, than in which they are.

However to combat those who would then just only participate in small battles if any, have it so that it works like the old Too Much Peace - if not in a big battle for say an entire season the degrading is increased moderately to normal levels, if not in any battle for a fortnight the degrading is increased dramatically - accelerated even. Reasoning, it is still a battle and there just might not be any big battles around. However not being in a battle all together is just wrong.

Wut? Not fighting in a battle makes the armor/weapon degrade faster? That doesn't make any sense at all. Game mechanics still need to make sense.

Rings and Accessories and Books. - Slower Degrading Over Time overall, but increased chance of loss when travelling more than x amount of turns and/or regions.

So, you want people to lose items just from walking around?

Books in particular - increased chance of destroyed when travelling through non-dry weather.

"I'm sorry, Lord Marshal, I cannot attend the battle today. It is raining!"

Anyone owning a book would have to check the weather daily to make sure it wasn't raining before they traveled, since they can't, you know, leave the book at home. And I suppose we'd need to add a way for people to check the weather.

This one just doesn't sound like it would add anything that would make the game more fun. Just make people afraid to do anything lest they lose their unique items.

[Ramiel]

The way it works now, you only have a chance to lose your item if you are wounded. You want to make it so that there is a chance to lose your item in any battle, if you're wounded or not? That would seem to greatly increase the overall chances that your items would be lost, since most characters fight in far more battles in which they are not wounded, than in which they are.
Wut? Not fighting in a battle makes the armor/weapon degrade faster? That doesn't make any sense at all. Game mechanics still need to make sense.
So, you want people to lose items just from walking around?
"I'm sorry, Lord Marshal, I cannot attend the battle today. It is raining!"

Anyone owning a book would have to check the weather daily to make sure it wasn't raining before they traveled, since they can't, you know, leave the book at home. And I suppose we'd need to add a way for people to check the weather.

This one just doesn't sound like it would add anything that would make the game more fun. Just make people afraid to do anything lest they lose their unique items.

However you are forgetting that with this change, there would be a severe reduction to its degradation. I was thinking that since a severe reduction in degradation without something else being increased (IE chance of loss/destroyed) then it would just never ever even get given a serious review . The numbers I gave were certainly just made up on the spot but take for example that 1 point of degradation happens per week instead of per day (increases longevity and its potential roleplayability... heck I can think up several roleplays, histories and potential wars that could happen if Uniques were stable and not as it is now). Then to make it pass the whole there must also be a punishment thing, then in battle there should be (see my example for why there actually should be a chance at destroyed/loss) a chance that the item is lost or destroyed, with destroyed being at the most half the chance that lost has. The bigger the battle the bigger the confusion and so the bigger the risk. The smaller the battle, the smaller the risk.

However not fighting in said battle should indeed make it degrade faster, after all armour and weapons and shields left unused can become rusty, etc etc etc. It actually DOES make sense if you think about it. RP wise, your servants are concentrating on getting what you actually need done rather than trifling away at some unused piece of equipment. Noble X is writing a report on Godsaloneknowswhat, Servant A can either do something to help with said report or polish armour etc etc.


Its just an example my dear Indirik, but again something needs to be increased to combat the whole - degrading slower is too good, something bad needs to also be there - in this case, walking around in Cities and Towns, a simple accessory is an easy target for a pickpocket. In a scuffle a ring might simply slip from a finger, and I dare say that a book might be accidently dropped during a ruckus.

And I simply forgot books were useful in battles, simple make them the same as Armour/Weapons/Shields... But again, just an example.

[Indirik]

However you are forgetting that with this change, there would be a severe reduction to its degradation.

I get what you're saying. But unless you degrade the rate of decay to almost nothing, then the sheer increase in the number of ways you can lose an item, plus the number of times these events happen... It really seems like you'd end up with an overall increase in the number of losses. In addition, the losses would seem to no longer be linked to specific, avoidable events. Current system: Avoid fighting battles and  you severely decrease the chances of losing an item from being wounded. Your proposal: Fight in a battle and risk losing your item no matter the outcome. Avoid fighting battles and your items goes away even faster.

Plus, you add random, unavoidable ways to lose your item. You would log in and see "Random event! We've taken your precious away from you!" OK, it might not use that exact text, but that's what you'd have. Just senseless, random events that make you lose your toys.

However not fighting in said battle should indeed make it degrade faster, after all armour and weapons and shields left unused can become rusty, etc etc etc.

I'm not buying it.

Its just an example my dear Indirik, but again something needs to be increased to combat the whole - degrading slower is too good, something bad needs to also be there - in this case, walking around in Cities and Towns, a simple accessory is an easy target for a pickpocket. In a scuffle a ring might simply slip from a finger, and I dare say that a book might be accidently dropped during a ruckus.

Slowing degradation is probably a good idea. I personally don't buy any uniques for my characters, because I don't want to deal with the hassle of repairs. If I could get it done once every 6 months, instead of once every 3 months, maybe I might. But increasing the lifetime of the item, while simultaneously decreasing the chance that your character can actually keep hold of it, doesn't seem like you'd really be adding too much to the game.

I particularly dislike the idea that you can just randomly lose an item, for no reason at all. That's a very undesirable game mechanic. Especially if that random chance is tied closely to combat, which is kind of the focal point of the game.

And I simply forgot books were useful in battles, simple make them the same as Armour/Weapons/Shields... But again, just an example.

All unique items are used in battles.

[Ramiel]

Hmm the problem is then getting The Dev Team to just let us having slow degradation, like once every six months, or once every year even. But I just do not think they will like said idea no?

Although the fact is, from what I have read on the wiki and heard from people, the idea behind Uniques is to have long standing histories that can provide for brilliant roleplay. The problem is that degradation simply kills the item too fast for it to even work. I understand the whole cycling part, but that can be done by players themselves, it doesnt need to be hardcoded into the game as it kills Roleplay and fun. However I also understand that making them need repairs also provides potential roleplay (and possibly fun ) but needing to repair, say once a week, is just far too much. Once per three months is far too much. Six months if ok, but once per year would be even better.

[vonGenf]

What if items had wildly varying degradation rates? I know they already do, but make it even more varying. That way most items would cycle rapidly, but once in a while one would stick; and the longer it sticks, the more chances there are of RPs being built around it, especially if we knew that items that have already existed for a long time have a good chance of not suddenly decaying away.

[Indirik]

Hmm the problem is then getting The Dev Team to just let us having slow degradation, like once every six months, or once every year even. But I just do not think they will like said idea no?

Although the fact is, from what I have read on the wiki and heard from people, the idea behind Uniques is to have long standing histories that can provide for brilliant roleplay.

That would be nice. Items that were somehow special to a particular realm or noble, and which they edited the wiki history for, is the idea. The oldest existing item I know of is the Daimon Staff of Thunder on BT. I am pretty sure that it was finally lost in the past few months.  It hung around for 4+ RL years, I think.

The problem is that degradation simply kills the item too fast for it to even work. I understand the whole cycling part, but that can be done by players themselves, it doesnt need to be hardcoded into the game as it kills Roleplay and fun. However I also understand that making them need repairs also provides potential roleplay (and possibly fun ) but needing to repair, say once a week, is just far too much. Once per three months is far too much. Six months if ok, but once per year would be even better.

One idea that may help generate more history for items is to somehow increase the re-use factor of names. Items have occasionally been completely destroyed, but had their names reused. The Scroll of Good and Evil that one of my characters had on BT, way back when,  decayed away to 0% and disappeared. A long while later some advy found another one of the same name. It was *not* the same item, just a reused name. With the random selection of the names, I'm not sure what the chances of that are. It's got to be low.

Anyway, if names were recycled more often, then even "lost" items that decayed away could be reintroduced at a later time, and generate more history.

[Ramiel]

That would be nice. Items that were somehow special to a particular realm or noble, and which they edited the wiki history for, is the idea. The oldest existing item I know of is the Daimon Staff of Thunder on BT. I am pretty sure that it was finally lost in the past few months.  It hung around for 4+ RL years, I think.
One idea that may help generate more history for items is to somehow increase the re-use factor of names. Items have occasionally been completely destroyed, but had their names reused. The Scroll of Good and Evil that one of my characters had on BT, way back when,  decayed away to 0% and disappeared. A long while later some advy found another one of the same name. It was *not* the same item, just a reused name. With the random selection of the names, I'm not sure what the chances of that are. It's got to be low.

Anyway, if names were recycled more often, then even "lost" items that decayed away could be reintroduced at a later time, and generate more history.

4+ Years is good, its how - from the words written on the wiki - Uniques "should" be. Not this Weeklong or maybe a few months long, years long.

Recycling of names would be very nice as well.

[De-Legro]

However not fighting in said battle should indeed make it degrade faster, after all armour and weapons and shields left unused can become rusty, etc etc etc. It actually DOES make sense if you think about it. RP wise, your servants are concentrating on getting what you actually need done rather than trifling away at some unused piece of equipment. Noble X is writing a report on Godsaloneknowswhat, Servant A can either do something to help with said report or polish armour etc etc.

USING Armour and Weapons makes it degrade even faster without cleaning as well. It has nothing to do with lack of use, weapons simply needed regular cleaning and maintenance. This is why a squires duties included daily cleaning of his lords battle gear, including things like saddles. So no it doesn't make sense, armour and weapon were damn expensive, you can be sure that most knights had sufficient servants to ensure they did not suffer degradation.

[Ramiel]

USING Armour and Weapons makes it degrade even faster without cleaning as well. It has nothing to do with lack of use, weapons simply needed regular cleaning and maintenance. This is why a squires duties included daily cleaning of his lords battle gear, including things like saddles. So no it doesn't make sense, armour and weapon were damn expensive, you can be sure that most knights had sufficient servants to ensure they did not suffer degradation.

Meh. Already changed it all De-Legro, do keep up my good sir.