Unbinding Weapons and Armor
Sun, 10/31/2010 - 17:41
Right now, if you want to trade an item that is bound to you, well, you can't... directly. You can, however, use it as a component to a more powerful item, and trade that item instead. That way, bound items aren't completely worthless.
But what if you don't have or don't want to spend all the required materials for the next upgrade?
I have actually two suggestions, depending on the intention of the system.
The first one is simple. Allow players to "break" or "disenchant" weapons and armor. These items can then no longer be equipped, but can still be traded, and can also be used as special ingredients.
The other suggestion questions the intention. Should players be able to trade bound items after they have been upgraded? Doesn't this circumvent the entire binding system? Are you supposed to level and upgrade all of your armor yourself, trading only for drops? If this is the case, then items created from bound items should also be bound.
Sun, 10/31/2010 - 18:02
#2
I don't know- I rather like
I don't know- I rather like the possibility of trading items after I create new versions. For example, this allows me to give a friend a better, more interesting weapon- but only if I myself am willing to invest the materials (and heat) required to produce the high-level components. That makes the gift more personal, removes the possibility of cranking out weapons on a factory line, and creates an incentive for me to invest in alchemy and new items, even after I no longer need to upgrade my own gear.
Sun, 10/31/2010 - 19:15
#3
I'd say that a bound item is
I'd say that a bound item is bound, even if upgraded. I'd say no to that idea of "A bound item can be upgraded and traded".
Now, the obvious problem: How do you get an item upgraded if you don't know the upgrade yourself?
The first answer: A bound item is not untradable. A bound item is only equippable by the bound person.
In other words, if I have a bound item, I can trade it to someone (probably in my guild), let them upgrade it, and then trade back a better weapon that is bound to me.
Or, if we have a real economy, I can take my bound weapon to a player shop, and pay for the upgrade.
> The first one is simple. Allow players to "break" or "disenchant" weapons and armor. These items can then no longer be equipped, but can still be traded, and can also be used as special ingredients.
My vote is no. You don't know how to upgrade an item. The machines do. You've just got the instructions to give to the machine. All the build up and tear down knowledge is in the machines and gremlins; you're just a button pusher.
Otherwise, the components keep flooding and coming back. That would be like saying you wanted to break a skull dagger apart to get the Papagoite.
So, a bound item can be traded; binding means "equippable binding". Trade windows (which I still haven't seen; how do you trade?) would say "Item being traded is BOUND; it can only be equipped or used by the bound person.", or some other warning.
Sun, 10/31/2010 - 20:06
#4
There could be an energy cost
There could be an energy cost to unbind items, kind of like the Wax Candle item in DFO.
Sun, 10/31/2010 - 20:31
#5
@BehindCurtai The tradable
@BehindCurtai The tradable binding you suggest is actually the intention behind my first idea. You aren't getting the raw materials back, you're just changing the equipable, non-tradable (bound) item into an unequipable, tradable ("broken") state. So in effect, it allows you to trade bound items, but not equip items that are bound to others. The only difference is that you must first "break" the item, allowing for a possible money-sink, as well. "Breaking" an item would also probably require an alchemy station. I think it's less confusing to players if each state has a completely different name.
Initial: Can be equipped. Can be traded. Can be used in upgrades. Becomes Bound if equipped.
Bound: Can be equipped. Cannot be traded. Can be used in upgrades. Can be changed to "Broken".
"Broken": Cannot be equipped. Can be traded. Can be used in upgrades.
Thinking about it more, I think both of my initial ideas would work well together. If a bound item is upgraded, it should remain bound. If a "broken" item is upgraded, it would return to the initial state. If an item in the initial state is upgraded, it remains in the initial state.
The cost to "break" an item should be based on the item being "broken", of course. It could be set just high enough so that "breaking" something is only profitable if there is a demand for that item.
Sun, 10/31/2010 - 23:20
#6
So lets get a different name
So lets get a different name besides "broken".
How about "Item core"?
The basic idea is that a given item, bound to a single person, will wind up being used by another person.
That breaks the concept of binding. That breaks the supply and consumption balance.
That's why I'm against it.
Mon, 11/01/2010 - 01:02
#7
The name doesn't really
The name doesn't really matter. I'm starting to like "dismantled", actually. It's been taken apart by the machine, and only the machine can use it again.
I think that being able to unbind items doesn't necessarily hurt the balance. First, there would need to be a significant price to dismantle an item. The price would scale with the item, and it would probably involve both crowns and energy. Second, there would have to be alternatives that are generally more beneficial so that players will not default to dismantling items. You can sell the item to a vendor. Someone suggested adding a "furnace" that can be used to convert an item into heat. Perhaps you could convert it into a small portion of the materials used to create it. In any case, dismantling an item should be generally cost-ineffective. It would still, however, cost less than buying the item directly from a vendor, which, in my opinion, should remain very inefficient.
Another option is to make each item, when dismantled, change into the dismantled form of its previous upgrade. So, a Khorovod becomes a dismantled Troika. This dismantled Troika can then be used to create a new Khorovod, but the full cost must be payed again.
One way or another, this isn't an idea I'm extremely attached to. I just think it's something that can be done with items we don't need anymore. At the moment, there isn't much.
What I do think, though, is that bound items, once upgraded, should definitely remain bound.
Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:05
#8
Dismantled?
This would just add something to the game that we dont need right now
Imo, the only reason they did binding was so that new players can't be given level 10 equips when they start
I think it would be better for trading, if when you trade equips, they lose all heat and go back to level 1
much simpler, fixes the problem, new players wont get level 10 equips through trading
Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:47
#9
And yet they can be given 4
And yet they can be given 4 star (or even 5 star once we get them) weapons. Arguing that it's done for balance reasons doesn't make sense, binding is done so that equipment loses all of its value once it is equipped, acting as a money sink as well as an incentive for players to continue playing, as more resources need to constantly be farmed to make more gear.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:16
#10
Binding (here, or WoW), or
Binding (here, or WoW), or item decay (YPP), is less about trade balance ( Imo, the only reason they did binding was so that new players can't be given level 10 equips when they start
I think it would be better for trading, if when you trade equips, they lose all heat and go back to level 1 ), and less as a money sink ( binding is done so that equipment loses all of its value once it is equipped, acting as a money sink ). It is more of a game design balance issue.
The basic rule for game design: you want stuff that comes into the system to leave the system at about the same rate.
Binding does this -- a given item will come into existence at the same rate at which players want that item. If you don't have binding, you'll wind up with a huge surplus of these things, and no more will be generated. Suddenly, all your loot drops are pointless after time X.
Item decay did this on a dynamic fashion -- you'll always need to buy new items. Here, we have binding and better equipment.
It will fail at the high end. Eventually you'll have top equipment, that will never need to be replaced, and you'll still be generating loot / mob drops. At that point the economy will break -- stuff is coming in faster than it is being used.
I'm assuming Three Rings is smart enough to have something in mind to address this. Something not yet implemented, but planned, that will be in place before release.
The nature of saying "I want to dismantle an item that I don't need anymore, and create a new unbound item that I can give away" is to say "I want to reduce the rate at which the mob drops, vendor basics, etc, are used". That will just cause the economy to break faster.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:49
#11
your inane economic theories
your inane economic theories fail to take into account that nobody really likes their hard-earned loot periodically disappearing for no good reason, even if it benefits the greater good
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:22
#12
"inane"?
Nobody really likes
"inane"?
Nobody really likes a broken economy. Do you really want something that looks like WoW?
How about your real life? Do you still have the same stuff you had from 30 years ago, working just fine as when it was brand new?
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:38
#13
>How about your real life? Do
>How about your real life? Do you still have the same stuff you had from 30 years ago, working just fine as when it was brand new?
I'm just going to point out that this sort of logic is completely irrelevant in a computer game.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 19:31
#14
For the record, the economy
For the record, the economy is run by energy.
Which is bought with real money.
The amount of money generated is already infinite.
And playing the game will always cost you something regardless of your gear.
Stop trying to be smart, it's not working.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 19:46
#15
> For the record, the economy
> For the record, the economy is run by energy.
< Sigh >.
We're talking apples and poka-dots.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 19:57
#16
Alright, I apologize for my
Alright, I apologize for my last post.
I'll just say this: You don't understand what I mean by economy. I don't mean that crowns and mob drops are infinite, and only energy above 100 is scarce. That seems to be what you think.
To me, all items in the game are potentially scarce (I sure don't start with them all :-). All items have some value because I want better gear.
The allocation of scarce goods is what an economy is all about. (first approximation, anyways).
Yes, you buy energy with cash. Yes, you can trade energy with others. Yes, you can do anything up to 100 energy, but have scarcity for 150 and up items.
The economy is much more than that.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 20:09
#17
No, the economy doesn't even
No, the economy doesn't even exist.
To get crowns and loot, you need Energy. To get Energy, you pay real money, or buy it with crowns/items.
It's a self-sustaining loop, the need for Energy and rare equipment/materials goes hand in hand.
Energy will leave the system as people use it playing the game, while playing the game, people will get the rare items and crowns.
Bound rare items leave the loop.
As the amount of players increases, demand will level out.
It's common sense.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 20:48
#18
> "PS world of warcraft is
> "PS world of warcraft is not actually, despite what you seem to think, the end-all be-all, ultimate example of an utterly failed online video game economy"
That would be APB.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 05:45
#19
Even though that's 99%
Even though that's 99% copypasta and I'm watching Kamen Riders, I still chuckled at that enormous wall of insults.
Partly out of irony for the fact he won't get halfway through reading them all before commenting on it.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 09:42
#20
Just the opposite: I got
Just the opposite: I got about 25% through, and then skipped to the next message. I don't feed the extreme trolls.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 12:37
#21
>Just the opposite: I got
>Just the opposite: I got about 25% through, and then skipped to the next message. I don't feed the extreme trolls.
If by "the opposite" you mean "exactly what Shoebox said."
also stop posting
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 12:29
#22
@Shoebox on Wheels - what is
@Shoebox on Wheels - what is this i dont even
Thu, 11/04/2010 - 02:39
#23
Shoebox, since the thread's
Shoebox, since the thread's purpose is just about done for, I may as well ask: which Kamen Rider series are you watching at the moment?
Thu, 11/04/2010 - 06:10
#24
I wasn't actually watching
I wasn't actually watching it.
It was just on TV and I was like, wtf am I watching.
It was like Power Rangers except I'm not dis manies anymore.
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:47
#25
Turning back to give my suggestion.
Well, dunno if it will matter at this point, but, here it goes, anyway:
The player could umbind any iten that they have, IF they go to a unbinder NPC, pay a small crown tax, and then reseting it's level counter to lvl 1. So, if traded, the one receiving the iten would necessarelly need to upgrade it again. Also, If the iten can be got only via a recipe, it's price for delevling would increase, making so that players would need to charge more for the iten, making so that the recipe only itens turn to be significantly more expensive than the normal ones. Also, a last recipe iten (one iten that doesn't have a upgrade) could not be traded, and some high lvl recipe itens too could not be traded, to make some high lvl itens more exclusive to high lvl players (i know that this game doesn't have exp system, it's just a way to put real life gameplay experience levels).
I was going to post something along these lines. It is a little silly that a level 10 alchemer cannot be traded, yet a level 1 alchemer MK II, a superior weapon in pretty much every way, can be traded. I understand why the binding system is in place, it promotes continual gameplay, but it disconnects the player a little bit from the "multiplayer" element of the game. I think being able to break down an item into a "material" would be a very good idea.