Shattered Kingdoms

Eh, leave the lewt thieves. When i was master i kept plenty of 47+ items and never lost them to thieves. It's not really that bad.

I have to disagree with this idea. It will not “discourage” hoarding, it will in fact encourage it. Even though the chance of losing an item is level independent, the fact that one can be lost encourages players to hold on to a “back up”. For example, let’s say there is a 10% chance upon log in that any master+ equipment would be lost. Therefore, if I have one helm of great coolness, I should lose it once out of every 10 log ins and be without a helm. But if I have two helms of great coolness, it becomes much less likely that I will be without one. In fact, upon any given log in, if I have one helm it is 1/10 chance that I will be without a helm but if I have two then there is a (1/10)*(1/10) or a 1/100 chance that I will be without a helm.

An idea like this might work if the chance of losing an item worked on a progressive scale. For example, holding one M+ item there is a 0% chance of losing it, holding two M+ items there is a 1% chance check done on each, holding three M+ items there is a 1.5% chance check done on each. Granted those numbers are completely hypothetical but one can see the more a player hordes the more they will lose.

I’m not sure I like this suggestion but it is out there for you all to discuss. I’m not sure what about this suggestion I’m a bit leery on but I am. Maybe it just seems a bit too artificial or maybe someone else can see it and point it out. Although, if the numbers are right (meaning X amount of items per increase and Y rate of increase), this would be an efficient way to combat hoarding…especially if it is coupled with the monthly castration.

Lei Kung

I think I've made the exact suggestion, increase monthly castration rates to about double what they are now, but remove the log-in-thieves from characters after master. I would like to see how that would change things. I would definitely enjoy it. Oh, and let the castration affect container type items. Please, Dulrik?

A

I love it Archie. I think that it would keep hoarders down and at the same time make Master lvl chars viable in pk combat or other combat.

Quoted for truth.

All in all, Achernar put it right, remove the log-in thieves from after master/champion but make castration hit more often (and container type items), those who really do put a lot of effort into their character even though they haven't hit gm will not be limited pk-wise (lack of enchantments due to fear of log-in thieves is a large problem regarding pk).

If the castration part seems too drastic (I do not know the numbers) then the removal of the log-in-thieves from champ and up is a good change in itself.

Sorry Lei. Wrong math there. If you have two helms, and EACH one, independantly has 1/10 chances to get stolen, you get (1/10)/2 chances to be without a helm, which is 1/20. So, hoarding two items instead of one is not THAT great a help. I still think that Master level characters should not be able to hold to GM stuff. Champion, it's ok, cause the last levels are usually just frustration levels, but the rest? They make a huge difference.

I only wish I started reading this argument earlier. I hella would have loved to follow this more closely, instead of trying to argue 6 pages of a thread in one post. I will do what I can, but its going to be tough.... bear with me.

Sorry, from what I read, DA has made the most sense. Leveling is a joke. I've taken a char I know nothing about, read some help files, and have managed to get him 21-22 levels in 10 hours. And if I wanted to be generous with how long it will take me to get to 40, I'd say 30 hours tops. I've done this with no help, no idea where to get 1337 armor, no idea where to train skills/spells, and a very small knowledge of good leveling places.

And I'm a lazy leveler as well. I don't time my stuff well, and I don't pay full attention to my game. Leveling is usually acomplished solo and while doing something else that requires a fair amount of attention. Why are we complaining exactly?

Honestly, I don't see the whole point in it. Why exactly are we going to change the way the game is? I'm all for changing it, but with good reason. What exactly is that reason. Is it to help dehoard people? Sorry, doubt that will do much good. There are two types of hoarders: the ones that hide and are impossible to find, and the ones that are so f'ing good at what they do they can hardly be touched. All this will do is help dehoard the average person and make SK more about PvP.

Oh yeah, by the way, there will also now be a scaracity in the good GM armor. Now that masters can hold GM only armor, they are going to want to get their hands on some (who wouldn't?). Chars that once were more PvE, will now become quicker delved into PvP. Now we have the same SK cycle of level, PK, delete after 100 hours on steriods.

Sorry, I'm not for the idea period.

sleeper

Edit: I also failed to mention one important thing. Lets take the Staff of Demise as an example. There is no way in the world that this should be held by ANYONE other than a GM. The Staff of Demise, and items like it, should be reserved for someone who is at the top of their profession. (Hell, I would be content to make it avialable to select group of people only (like Heros), or perhaps put a minimum hour limitation and all that jazz on it.) I'm sorry, If I ICly made something so powerful as the Staff of Demise, there is no way in the world that it should fall and stay into the hands of some low-life that has just barely hit master. In other words, using the Karate training system as an example, theres no way in the world the Staff of Demise should not be in the hands of anyone other than a 10th degree black belt.

I'm more of the idea of removing that kind of item, but hey...

Actually I don't believe my math is wrong. Even though the chance that each item is removed acts independently, the event in which both disappear at the same time is not. Look at it like this, you have door A and door B both have a 10% chance of being empty. If you open both doors there is only a 1% chance you will walk away empty handed. This is because if door A is empty, there is still only a 10% chance that door B will be empty. At least that is what it would seem to be off the top of my head. I will look into it but I'm very good at this kind of thing so unless I'm structuring the problem wrong I do believe I'm right.

Note: this is similar to the lets make a deal argument (I think that was the game show). Where a contestant picks one of three doors, one has a prize and two have goats. After the contestant picks, the host removes one of the unpicked doors and the contestant can stay or switch. Many have argued that they are two different events but they are not and therefore switching gives you a 66% chance to win rather then a 50% chance.


Lei Kung

Lei's right.

Peace,
Bux