Looking at the runes available while thereare a lot that are of general use to any class, of those that appear aimed at a specific classe there do seem to be more aimed at Thief/Warrior/Cleric classes than the others with only one aimed at necros, I just wondered if this was deliberate?
Stats - Good for All classes
Quote: Rhodochrosite +1 Max Dex torches and other held items
Tiger Eye +1 Max Int torches and other held items
Emerald +1 Max Wis torches and other held items
Malachite +1 Max Str torches and other held items
Obsidian +1 Max Con torches and other held items
azurite +1 Dex torches and other held items
banded agate +1 Str torches and other held items
blue quartz +1 Int torches and other held items
hematite +1 Wis torches and other held items
Lapus Lazuli +1 Con torches and other held items
AC Good for All Classes
Quote: Violet Garnet -0.1 AC body armor
Mana & HP for All Classes
Quote: Aquamarine +5 Mana cloaks and mantles
Brown-Red Spinel +5 Mana body armor
Pearl +5 Hitpoint shoes and boots
Coral +5 Hitpoint shields
Dark-Green Spinel +5 Hitpoint body armor
Saving Spell for All Classes
Quote: Chrysoprase -2 Saving Spell rings
Eye Agate -2 Saving Spell cloaks and mantles
Rock Crystal Quartz -1 Saving Spell shoes and boots
WA Runes - 6
Quote: Colorless Sapphire +2 Weapon Damage one-handed weapons
Amethyst +2 Weapon Damage vambraces, brassards, and phylacteries
Tomb Jade +2 Weapon Damage bracers, bracelets, and wrist-bands
Quartz +10 Kickdam shoes and boots
Orange Zircon +20 Flail Damage vambraces, brassards, and phylacteries
Pale Golden Pearl +20 Flail Damage bracers, bracelets, and wrist-bands
TH Runes - 5
Quote: Water Opal +15 Stab Damage one-handed weapons
White Opal +5 Stab Damage bracers, bracelets, and wrist-bands
Fire Opal +20 Circ Dam one-handed weapons
Amber Rune +20 Circ Dam vambraces, brassards, and phylacteries
Silvery Blue Pearl +20 Circ Dam bracers, bracelets, and wrist-bands
CL Runes - 4
Quote: Light Blue Iolite +4 Heal Bonus belts
Pink Diamond +4 Heal Bonus helmets, hats, and the like
Champagne Pearl +1 SysShock bracers, bracelets, and wrist-bands
Chrysoberyl +1 SysShock vambraces, brassards, and phylacteries
MO Runes - 3
Quote: Black Pearl +1 Hand Dam gloves and gauntlets
Golden-Yellow Topaz +1 Hand Dam bracers, bracelets, and wrist-bands
Alexandrite +1 Reduce Damage body armor
BA Runes - 2
Quote: Citrine +1 Charisma cloaks and mantles
Moss Agate +1 Charisma gloves and gauntlets
MA Runes - 2
Quote: Rose Quartz +4 Spell Bonus belts
Tourmaline +4 Spell Bonus necklaces, amulets, and gorgets
NE Runes - 1
Quote: Jasper +1 Undead Control cloaks and mantles
**Limited or no use if no better rune available for a slot - Not specific to a class - 6 **
Quote: Brilliant Green Garnet -1 Saving Breath shoes and boots
Chalcedony -2 Saving Breath rings
Deep-Blue Spinel +5 HPR greaves and leggings
Bloodstone -3 Saving Poison rings
Carnelian -3 Saving Petri rings
Freshwater Pearl -3 Saving Para rings
Runes were set up by what special attributes are available. There are simply more available bonus effects for the original classes then there are the ones that were added a decade ago.
We have already discussed adding one more Undead Control rune and when we find an open rune we will. For the most part, I believe they are pretty well balanced with the effects we have to offer. With an eight class system, most of the runes are options for everybody, except for a very few. Runes that are labeled on this thread for warrior, such as kick dam are just as useful for non primes as they are primes. And most of the list is thought of this way.
As new effects are added for classes, you could probably expect a new rune to be associated with it.
Enjoy,
Splork
Agreed some of those I categorised can be used by more than one class, but the skewing to a couple of classes does seem to be real.
This is increased when looking not only at the available runes but also at how many can be worn, i.e. the availble slots:
- WA Runes - 6 gem types 5 slots
- TH Runes - 5 gem types 4 slots
- CL Runes - 4 gem types 5 slots
- MO Runes - 3 gem types 4 slots
- BA Runes - 2 gem types 2 slots
- MA Runes - 2 gem types 3 slots
- NE Runes - 1 gem type 1 slot
- DR ???
With the prospect of new Runes coming on line does this mean there may in the future be the possibility of runes for:
- resist fire
- resist frost
- sanctuary : )
- +control horde
- +dam
- reducing % lost concs
- extending attunement impact
- increasing shapeshift size
- +spellcraft
- +focus
- +%chance for masterful cast
- +% learned of skills (that cant be taught by teaching)
- +attacks
On another tangent I do wonder about the reluctance some of us feel to socket and use forged runes due to the inability to unsocket middle class runes from elite and hard to gain equipment when a better rune may come along and from socketing top class runes to high but not elite equipment when in the long term better equipment may come along. I guess this dilema may well be intentional but I’d suggest has led to more runes being vaulted than used.
Would it be better perhaps to give us some route to unsocket runes at appropriate cost? e.g. unsocket and it unforges the rune to 4 gems therefore costing 1 gem?
Thraxas
i agree on the unsocketing. i think there should be some reasonable way to unsocet if you find a better rune or better eq. i have a few i can use now but dont want to risk it til i know what else i can use . can you please give us an unsocet rune option so i can make us of what i have til better eq or rune comes along and that way i can pass them down to newbies to use til they get something better… this way everyone gets benefit of runes and not just the elite.
please
shyla
I think socketing shouldn’t be “reversible”, but you should be able to destroy the socketed rune at a fee.
Also, I think high-end forges or elite eq should have 2 rune sockets (of course you can’t socket 2 of the same runes) this would really help people in the long term….nobody wants to re-forge a piece of eq they took 6mths to make, because a better rune comes along
Very nice list Thraxas.
For my 2cents I think there should be a process for removing runes. Otherwise, we end up with the system we have now. Everyone fights over the elite gems and the less valuable runes get made and dont get socketed. Of course, unless its 3x40 eq or a personal item you could re-run the eq, and sell the one you had with the rune. Depending on the piece of eq and the rune, that could be what I would do. To elements point, I dont see two rune sockets happening, and really that doesnt solve the problem at all anyway. People still would only want to socket 2 top notch runes to their item.
If given the option, I think Thraxas’s idea (or some version there of ) works. ie a gem cost to break the rune down. Even from 5 gems to 3 would probably be acceptable from a cost / time standpoint in many cases.
Xamak/Elwyn
Absolutely agree, let us unsocket gems please.
Even if it take some drachma scroll to unsocket it.
Thanks in advance,
tukster
As of right now, there are no plans to allow the unsocketing of runes from equipment. If we ever change our minds, it will require a hefty gold or drachma price, most likely.
Just about all runes are known at this point. A few more may eventually be added but for the most part, we are pretty close to set in this aspect of the game. Slothmud, unlike most other muds, has very little chance in ways of player’s losing eq. About the only was is with a crash( which most of the time we correct now ) or by losing cps due to a forge explosion ( and most of these rates have been and are being drastically reduced). If a new rune happens to come ingame and is in a spot that is already taken, the player can spend a little more effort and repop that item or reforge it.
Eventually, there may be a way to remove runes from eq but there is not currently and will not be for quite some time until my mind changes on the subject. Runes are an extreme luxury and long term goal for players. These are dozens of items which simply increase a player’s power simply by putting time into the game which you guys love to play.The only drawback currently is the fact they can not be removed and I am unwilling to remove that drawback right now.
Enjoy,
Splork
To Splork,
thanks for your response on the sbject of unsocketing runes. It would appear that the majority of the playerbase disagrees with you on this, not necessarily a bad thing and in itself dosent mean you’re wrong, you have in the past been proved right a number of times when you’ve held your ground against public opinion.
Could I however as a favour, dosent need to be responded to or posted here, but count up the number of runes that have been forged, look to see how many have been socketed and compare to the number languishing in vaults/robes unused, consider why it is that this what should be hugely expansive and enriching aspect of the game is unused to this extent.
T
Rather or not you guys are using runes/gems or vaulting them is entirely up to you. It has no effect on my decision to make them removable and neither does the fact everyone disagrees with my decision on the matter. There is no right or wrong here, regardless of the implication that there is.
Personally I find it rather sad people would vault and not use items, just in case a better option becomes available. I fully knew people would not use runes right away, until most if not all, have been forged. Well, the majority of runes and stats are known now. There is very little reasoning, other than hoping new runes become available, to not using them at this point. The only rune I currently plan on adding is a UC rune for Necromancers and when I do, I will voluntarily remove runes in that slot for people if they choose to use the new rune. As I offered regarding the stats changes on weapon damage runes. This is not the ideal solution but until I feel more comfortable regarding the situation, this is how we are going to proceed.
I am more apt to make runes have to be used within a certain time period or they get lost, making them no vault, etc, then allowing them to be unsocketed. That is s how strongly I feel about the situation.
Runes are a luxury, simple as that.
As I have said, when and if they finally become unsocketable, it will be at a very hefty gold or drachma price.
Enjoy,
Splork
Is there an outcome on the silvery blue pearl rune yet, is it still hand dam?
Greetings Splork,
It has come to my observation that the pop rate on certain group of gems are much lower than other group of gems. Perhaps this is intentional but i would like to bring your attention over to Weapon Dam runes.
Currently, those known weapon dam runes available are as follows:
Amethyst +2 Weapon Damage vambraces, brassards, and phylacteries
Colorless Sapphire +2 Weapon Damage one-handed weapons
Tomb Jade +2 Weapon Damage bracers, bracelets, and wrist-bands
Based on my limited knowledge, the number of pple with Amethyst rune should be more than 2 and the amount of these gems popping is of the best pop rate among the three runes.
Tomb jade and Colorless Sapphire gems are really popping at a much lower rate that i know of. As such, with the recent round of adjustment of the weapon dam (which i agree is necessary to prevent overpowering) , would you kindly consider increasing the weapon dam for these rarer popping gems? A logical and personal thought would be to increase one of them to 3 and another ot 4 weapon dam perhaps. Given that Tomb Jade is at wrist which has 2 slots, i would think having 3 Wpn Dam May be overkill….but it’s just a suggestion. Wholistically, having 3 or 4 wpn dam for Colorless Sapphire
rune would really make sense given the rarer pop rate on it.
For that matter, the rarer gem group like Black Onyx,etc could having some % increase in effects as compared to other groups as they are really rarer at pop rate.
Just my 2 cents suggestion and for your consideration.
Thanks for reading and regards.
DSFren
Splork, you said:
“There is very little reasoning, other than hoping new runes become available, to not using them at this point.”
But Thraxas already said:
“I do wonder about the reluctance some of us feel to socket and use forged runes due to the inability to unsocket … top class runes to high but not elite equipment when in the long term better equipment may come along.”
This is a very, very valid concern in my opinion.
Let me give you a few examples.
It took me 2 months of cycling to forge gleaming sabatons (without the Mercurial Woods key, which would take me a month or two, too). Should I have socketed a -saves rune there instead of a +5hp rune, I’d be in trouble. Also, if there’s a better feet rune in the several unknowns or new ones left, I am in as much trouble.
there are lionheart armplates listed in the eqlist, which makes it an ideal candidate for an Amethyst rune. Guess what, I don’t know how to get those armplates, so it’ll have to wait (it took me about a month or two to get the Amethyst rune).
I can’t use my Violet Garnet rune, because I don’t have a cuirass or a shirt of mithril rings now (which is another forge in a nasty area, wouldn’t expect less a month of cycling to get it). Using this rune on a diamond platemail is pretty much useless (makes it same ac as the two -2.5 forges shirts available).
I also don’t have Walls of Jericho at the moment, so a Coral rune will have to wait its turn, too. There’s no alternative to the Walls to make a Coral rune socketed elsewhere to be worth much.
I can go on and on with Freshwater Pearls, Jaspers, etc. I believe that I’m not alone with these dilemmas.
There’s also another reason to unsocket runes: if you suddenly forge a different rune in the same slot from random pops/group wheels. Though this does fit Thraxas’s reason of “using middle class runes on high end eq”.
There’s yet another reason: using middle class runes on middle class eq.
Should we be able to unsocket runes, we’d be able to:
socket available low value runes in high, but not high-end eq
socket available low value runes in high-end eq
socket high value runes in high, but not high-end eq
When I developed and coded this feature, I fully knew all of this. I am not budging on my stance regarding runes. People can continue to post the same reasons over and over but my decision was and has been made.
Runes are an extreme bonus to players. They force tough decision making and if something better comes a long, it forces you to reforge or repop the items in question. Obviously this is how I want it to be.
About the only thing I am considering, at this point, is something regarding triple 40 or quest equipment.
Splork
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.
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
Splork wrote: 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
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.
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
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.
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
Splork wrote: 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?
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!
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 :)
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.
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.
Teron wrote: 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.
Teron wrote: 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.
Teron wrote: 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?
Teron wrote: 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.
Teron wrote: 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.
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.
Teron wrote: 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? :)
Teron wrote: 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? :roll: 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).
Teron wrote: 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…
Teron wrote: 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.
Teron wrote: 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.
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.
Teron wrote: 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.
The fact that he mentioned a drachma cost and the rest of his posts suggest to me that the cost of unsocketing would be punitive to say the least, hence destroying the rune might be cheaper in the end.
Teron wrote: 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.
Sure. What did happen is your mob was killed repeatedly and your chance of obtaining the item you wanted was GREATLY increased as compared to not killing those mobs (from no chance at all to about 1 in 30 per kill, depending on the mob, i.e. about 1 in 5 chance per group, assuming 6 kills are made over the evening).
This is not the case with gems, joining a group only marginally increases your chance of popping the gem you want, especially for a high level player who is mostly killing level 41+ mobs when soloing.
Teron wrote: Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to call the gems we need, however.
And I said otherwise?
I don’t see the point of twisting players arms to make them trade runes/gems. It’s a free marketplace regarding those items and IMHO should remain so. It’s really no different than any other random pop in that sense. So what if certain higher level chars have tons of gems/runes vaulted… they also have better equipment overall than I do…more drachma than I do etc… following that logic lets penalize people for not spending their drachma sooner and buying more drachma equipment since its so underutilitzed overall etc.
As for the point about tanks joining for rhodo’s etc, anyone is free to impose whatever position they like for joining not joining a group, and its up to the leader to make the call if they agree. We all have a limited amount of time free to play, and should work on whatever goals we feel are best for our chars.
Back to the original point about unsocketing etc, I’m just curious as to what Splork and Blackmore discussed that might be proposed. Hopefully, there would be a way to remove / destroy gems from 3x40 eq and drachma eq. As for lower level eq, just sell /trade the item with the gem and repop if necessary. Clearly no one is going to socket elite runes to mid level eq anyway…
Xamak/Elwyn