Some ideas on improving the Attunement changes

[Flab]

<DIV> <DIV>Hi </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>After listening to the complaints, pro and con the chenges made regarding attunement, I thought of a an alernative that might work better than the radical and lets face it extremely 'constructed' fix we now have to endue.</DIV> <DIV>I understand the reason behind making the changes, but I feel like its a job half done. By this I mean that the logic behind having to attune armor (or a wristband etc.) to fit a character is sound, but I will not agree to the fact that it turns into scrap metal after the first user. Could they not perhaps add the option to UN-attune an item, but at the cost of permanently lowering the items max condition ? This would indicate that the item is second hand, and not as good as new any more, BUT still useable , and attunable to the next user..</DIV> <DIV>The effect would be that the market would still favor the NEW artisan stuff,as they would provide the full benefits and bonuses of a fitted piece of equipment...On the other hand, the market would also have second hand stuff, which new players can buy at cheaper prices, so they would not all be stuck with the same limited selection due to small market and rising prices ( as they will when demand overtakes supply for made items..)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>An alternative, or additon to - this, could be another element in consideraton to attuning - namely SIZE.</DIV> <DIV>ex: If u devide the races in the game into 3 sizes, Small ( dwarf,ratonga,gnome and Halfling) , Large (Barbarian, Troll and Ogre) and Medium (the rest) - and each time u attune an item, it attunes to you, AND your size. And to change the size of an item later would further affect the max conditon of the item... (as it would if u were to make a piece of armor larger of bigger, its integrity would suffer..).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So for example. A Ratonga has a New helmet attuned himself , a Small character, at 100% condition.</DIV> <DIV>He wants to give it to an ogre, so first he Un-attunes the item at (for example) a 10% permanent damage</DIV> <DIV>The item is now attunable to another SMALL character at 90%</DIV> <DIV>But, as the Ogre would be 2 levels larger, it would suffer another 20% of Max conditon (10% per lvl) if it was to be attuned to him (to simulate weakenig of integrity of original piece..)</DIV> <DIV>So in the end - the Ogre attunes the helmet , now at a max 70% conditon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is I undertand an item breaks down when it goes under 50% (or so I belive), so items nearing this level of wear and tear would be fazed out anyway.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Imagine in the long run, they could add damage models to the gear, so the knight in new shiny armor would relly stand out from the guy in the [FAAR-NERFED!]ty second hand-twice refitted gear.... adds texture to the world.</DIV> <DIV>In the end, we all want to have FUN, not get into heated debates about economics. Make it as playable as possible...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...I dont know..it sounds logical to me, what u all think ?</DIV> <DIV>-----------------</DIV> <DIV>Aqition Derrinye</DIV> <DIV>Kassander Leonidii</DIV> <DIV>Larrie</DIV> <DIV> - all on Neriak server</DIV></DIV>

[Marvolo62442]

<DIV>The most logical method is item detioration. That is, as you take damage, so does your armour. Menders can only do so much, so over time, the armour eventually becomes useless, it can be passed on, or even sold (but it's value will be less), but eventually it WILL be completely useless.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Obviously, it's a much more complex method, which would require serious reprogramming. Attuning is something that can be done quickly, and doesn't require any reprogramming, just database updating. With so many other things to fix, plus an obligation to add new content, it may be a long time before we see an alternative to attuning. At the moment, it is the simplest method of solving the problem of market saturation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hopefully over time, it will lower the value of items as well, as players won't pay as much gold for an item that they will not be able to recoup.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I learned a long time ago that a decision a popular decision and a right decision are NOT the same thing.</DIV>

[Dimidri]

<DIV>If it degenerates by the amount of hits, mobs that hit fast would suck, and you'd make soloing more difficult because they have to kill more mobs per level (and take more hits). Not to mention, this makes plate tanks even more expensive, even though their armor is already the most expensive. This is unfair.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The loss of max quality per use might be a good idea. Let's see over time how many items make it on the market. If it turns out to not be enough, this might help things out a bit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's my opinion anyway. I feel that attunement was a good decision, but we'll see how things unfold from here.</DIV>

[Chees]

Get rid of attuning as implemented. Problem solved.Worst mistake to date by the developers putting it in. And that's saying something.

[Wossname]

I think the attunement of items was an excellent change for a number of reasons. It addresses the item removal problem in a simple way. Simple means less time coding and less to go wrong in that code. It is perhaps the least offensive way to achieve item removal. Item rotting has a nasty, degrading and slightly random feel to it. Attunement means I can get full use out of whatever it is until I outgrow it. Worrying that my items will rot away while I adventure is *not* fun, taking time out of a group to run home to get my randomly degraded gear fixed up is *not* fun. Simply attuning my items is an easy fire-and-forget solution.Aside from the complexity of your solution, I think it has other flaws. Currently there are varying degrees of quality of items, adding to this the degradation state of an item would just add confusion to the market, especially for new users. It's a pointless complication that adds realism but no fun. A pristine forged feyiron breastplate should be just that, rather than a twice recycled pristine forged feyiron breastplate which is less good. Item comparisons are currently easy, under your suggestion they are not.The sizing of armour based on race was part of EQ1 and I'm very glad it didn't get carried over. It meant that certain races had a much harder time getting certain types of armour that fit. This was a pointless annoyance, not fun and discriminated against players of certain races. Usually the large races like my old Troll SK. EQ2 has tried to make race more of a style choice and this is good. Sized armours will create a division and make certain races more desirable than others.Adding damage models to the gear is, again, a pointless waste of coding time. Would you really rather the devs put in time making your armour look bad instead of getting on with fixing the lengthy list of bugged abilities etc?I don't want to be down on your whole post, as you want to have fun playing the game, same as me. I just think that the attunement solution is quick, simple, robust and probably the least un-fun solution.

[Blindrage]

<DIV>I am indifferent to the changes that have been put in since the release of EQ2, I do not see any of them as a big problem. (I guess that is just me hehe) However, I am wondering if the attuning will hurt the artisan more than help.(If indeed that is what it was put in for)  I say this because if I can go kill a dragon/named mob for a cool item or buy something really similar off the market that was made by an artisan of said trade, I am going to go with the dragon.  Not only for the fun in killing it, but the item theoretically did not cost gold that I could use elsewhere.  Maybe I am looking at this wrong but that is how I see it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blindrage 25 Guardian</DIV> <DIV>Splitpaw 24 Monk</DIV> <DIV>Blast 21 Wizard</DIV> <DIV>Squattingdog 19 Shaman</DIV> <DIV>Guk Server</DIV>

[Flab]

<DIV>Hey.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did not know thar size was included in erly EQ 1. However my idea states that an item is not locked into one size only ,but that it is possible to change that size at a degrade of effect.</DIV> <DIV>Wether or not certain races will become less desireable is not for me to say, the demographics may or may not be affected. Personally this would not affect my decision to play certain characters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That the alteration is heavy on coding is probably right...never implied it was not..My post was just hypothetical, and if the idea sounds like a good one, then the "how to " is a question for other people, not us..we are costumers, not devs. That we advocate simple and quick fixes will probably please devs who would rather do something else, but do we not wish to see the best game possible out there ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>U really think this would make the game confusing for players ? I would sincerly doubt it, players are not that helpless in my experience, and the level of debt on some of these boards indicate that this change would strain their intellect too hard..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Damage models would be cool though? U are a costumer, not a dev, dont feel like its your job to make the changes, nor that such changes is the alternative to code fixes etc...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>well..again, u may be right</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Keep the fun coming . I am hooked, please keep me hooked <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Flabby on <span class=date_text>02-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:38 AM</span>

[Schirf]

<DIV>The only "un-attune" option that I think would work would be to allow player crafted items to be "un-attuned", but have the resulting item drop in quality.  The second character using the item would get a slightly weaker item, and so on...  meaning a pristine item could be used by 4 characters before completely falling apart, but only one character could use it as a pristine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: But this isn't the board for this type of discussion...  </DIV><p>Message Edited by Schirf on <span class=date_text>02-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:04 AM</span>

[Cheshirepezk]

<DIV>Actually that makes complete sense to me, making everything attuneable, and not implementing an idea like in your prior post is ridiuclous.  There are many players out there that have devoted their countless hours and time and what not out adventuring; just as there are many that have done the same in crafting.  I understand how when crafters are leveling and such, that they have an abundance of similar goods for sale, and thus the price may/may not be reduced.  However, haven't we given the crafters enough opportunites to make tremendous amounts of money?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you look around and see, imo, I have noticed a major portion of the amount of money floating around (on my particular server, as I've noticed, again IMO) is in the crafter's hands.  By making all goods attuneable, it thereby inflates the already high ecomony, making it that much difficult for main playing adventurers such as myself to keep themselves properly equiped.    Therefore driving crafters to raise prices, as they are having to do, with the increase of fuel costs, etc.  And making more money for the crafters- though maybe not to the extent as it once was.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any items, I feel that were dropped off monsters, (with the exception of epic mobs, in which I would completely understand this justification) should be in fact either not attuneable and/or depreciated in 2nd hand or what not "hand me downs."  It makes sense, thereby adding more of a community element that I believe was the vision of EQ in the first place-- a community of people working together for the betterment (is that even a word LOL) of themselves as well as a team in order to accomplish mutual goals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't know, I personally am a team player, and thrive on helping others, I just hate the idea that when I get an upgrade for a piece of equipment, I can't pass down the item to a guildmate or someone deserving of it.  It makes it almost a waste, and makes you wonder.. why did I put so much effort into working so hard to gain this, if as soon as I'm able to get an upgrade, I can't help someone else?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I really wanted to commend the above poster for his/her insight.  I had not even given that matter a thought, but it truly is an innovative game element design I would love to see come into factor for this game. </DIV>

[Sunfire]

<DIV>I thought the current system could work if they expanded the level range of wearable items from 10 lvls for crafted and 4-6 levels for dropped up to 15 levels for crafted and 10 for dropped.  As it is now the system is too expensive for many players to afford timely upgrades but if they could keep their armor longer and get better armor sooner that financial burden would be lessened.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How is it worth investing to purchase a piece of 1-4gp armor that is going to go green in 3-4 levels if you cant sell it for any substantial value afterword - its really not.  But purchasing a 1-4gp piece that will be white+ for 6-8 levels.... that would be worth it.</DIV>

[Wossname]

<blockquote><hr>Cheshirepezkat wrote:<DIV>I don't know, I personally am a team player, and thrive on helping others, I just hate the idea that when I get an upgrade for a piece of equipment, I can't pass down the item to a guildmate or someone deserving of it. It makes it almost a waste, and makes you wonder.. why did I put so much effort into working so hard to gain this, if as soon as I'm able to get an upgrade, I can't help someone else?</DIV><hr></blockquote>If you want to help someone then show them what you did to get the item. Don't deny them the satisfaction of working for it themselves. Passing on equipment kills the game in the long term. This has been discussed over and over and some people still don't get it. As for degrading one quality level at a time, this isn't such a hot idea either. The level requirements and stats for different quality levels are not the same. Jewellery is a prime example. My monk wears non-pristine rings for the simple reason that they give better AGI than pristine. Lowering the quality level on re-attunement would result in a change in the usefulness and level range of an item not just an extension of its lifespan.Twinking, since that's what you are talking about, is still possible after the attunement change it just gets done differently and is harder and less effective. The whole tier system seems to be anti-twink and I'm glad of that. EQ1 had uber-twinks and normal players with level appropriate gear couldn't compete with some twinked out toon with gear 40+ levels above them. How could they get this high end gear? It was the inevitable result of equipment that never left the game.This thread is about trying to soften the perceived nerf of attunement. I don't see it happening, both because SOE rarely reverts a change and because it doesn't need reverting or softening.

[Flab]

<DIV>Hey Wossname</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree with u on the part where u talk about the game-experience, and getting items off quest yourself. Totally.</DIV> <DIV>I sure dont want to be handed free gear all the time, as off course this would ruin the fun in acheivment for yourself.</DIV> <DIV>However....</DIV> <DIV>Your argument  :"Lowering the quality level on re-attunement would result in a change in the usefulness and level range of an item not just an extension of its lifespan"  - is this an argument against the original tread ? Dont really see that this would be a problem at all, in fact, it would be (in my opinion) a benefit. Having the chance to buy second hand-but-partly-nerfed gear is to me a good thing. Variety people, and u are all capable of making decisions about what to buy yourself. The prices of second hand gear would naturally be lower than new gear, as it should be. New players would benefit from this, experienced players would still choose to get new gear for their main and their alt (or so I would at least, cant speak for everynoe).. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another thing that has got me worried is the fact that greed seems to be on the rise since the patch. The unspoke rule of "need before greed" was never once in my experince with EQ2 - broke . In days after the patch, this has happened many times, and players seem to be honestly worried about wether or not they can afford new gear when they level up, as the sell back option is close to non-existant.</DIV> <DIV>You may argue that this is both coincidence, and that these players are just being greedy,  and you may be right too - but this seems to be a change in player attitude after the changes.</DIV> <DIV>Just stating what I experience, this may blow over when players get accustomed to the new economy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A note to SOE. If u intend this to be a money-sink , then you should in stead make more things for players to invest their money in, not up-price the existing selection of goods. I agree that items should leave the game after a while, totally, but the changes made now seem to be based on "politics" and not really to the benefit of the casual or new player.</DIV> <DIV>When I try to get my friends to play the game I must say that among the elements where I find it hardest to convince em of EQ2's greatness IS the attunemt changes ("why?" or "thats not very realistic" - being the normal response...)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Understand that the now applied changes are a "quick-fix" ... In my experience that is never a good way of making the game survive in the long run, as the fix for one problem tend to create new problems. (players being unhappy with the direction the game is taking is in fact a major problem for a MMO, regardless is you and I understand the deeper foundations of the changes)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But..then again..u may be right, and I am just wasting my time when I should be out killing mobs... <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Keep the fun coming</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kroder]

<DIV>Ok, try this one on for size.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You get a piece of armor off a gnoll in blackburrow.  Unless you are playing a gnoll of that exact same size, (not a playable race, making a point here), then that armor won't fit you.  Heck, unless you are a race with a tail, you got a hole in your pants in an interesting spot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crafter, with a common drop base material for that items tier, can refit the armor to be your size and shape.  (Hide for leather, metal for plates/ chains, woven base roots for cloth).  Bingo, you now have your custom fitted armor, ready to be attuned to you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But! We are not done here.  You want to sell your armor, or maybe pass it on? Fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Go to a crafter and provide the RARE for your tier to them.  The armor will not be exactly the same after either.  It will lose some of its modifiers and effects, but will gain armor class.  (You had to sacrifice some of the original material, and replace it with new).  The item is now tradeable, and ready for the next owner to attune it.  (The crafter would get the piece in a form that is otherwise useless to them, or would create a magical patch that would be attached to the armor in the form of a buff that let the character dettune the armor for a period of time)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How does that sound?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I used armor as an example, but weapons are similar, in that a grip an ogre could use on a sword, would be useless to a woodelf, etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Lig]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kroder wrote:<BR> <DIV>Ok, try this one on for size.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You get a piece of armor off a gnoll in blackburrow.  Unless you are playing a gnoll of that exact same size, (not a playable race, making a point here), then that armor won't fit you.  Heck, unless you are a race with a tail, you got a hole in your pants in an interesting spot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crafter, with a common drop base material for that items tier, can refit the armor to be your size and shape.  (Hide for leather, metal for plates/ chains, woven base roots for cloth).  Bingo, you now have your custom fitted armor, ready to be attuned to you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But! We are not done here.  You want to sell your armor, or maybe pass it on? Fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Go to a crafter and provide the RARE for your tier to them.  The armor will not be exactly the same after either.  It will lose some of its modifiers and effects, but will gain armor class.  (You had to sacrifice some of the original material, and replace it with new).  The item is now tradeable, and ready for the next owner to attune it.  (The crafter would get the piece in a form that is otherwise useless to them, or would create a magical patch that would be attached to the armor in the form of a buff that let the character dettune the armor for a period of time)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How does that sound?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I used armor as an example, but weapons are similar, in that a grip an ogre could use on a sword, would be useless to a woodelf, etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Hah.. an interesting idea. A unique one too I have never heard it. The problem with decay (as stated in the interview they posted) is that they are saying items are no longer really rare since they all will leave the game. I have long been an advocate of a DAoC style decay... but you know what? Their argument makes sense and I think it is credible. So I think the solution would be to make the rare component items and the rare dropped items not decay but the rest decay.</P> <P>The decay system I have always advocated (because it would be simple to code) is a decrease in quality with each mend. Coding damage decay like in DAoC is not a feasable option right now. Maybe with an expansion it could be coded in but not right now... no way.</P> <P>So I say every time you mend 10% of an item it goes down in quality by 1% or something. Let armorsmiths and weaponsmiths repair the items at a lesser hit to quality... say .5% and when the item gets to 0% wam you can't wear it... you can only sell it for scrap metal to a vendor.</P>

[Joker3]

<DIV>I think everyone agrees that there needs to be some way to take items out of the economy.  That is pretty clear. There is no way for tradeskillers to be viable if they don't. A year from now, all the same stuff is going to be still floating around and a weaponsmith is going to have to complete with the 19,000 other pristing forged clubs of bashing +1 that everyone is passing from alt to alt. That being said, the attunment change really stunk. SOE even admitted it should have been done in beta. I still think there is a way to make everyone happy though. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think they should change the system so that each character must attune 2 pieces of jewelry and 2-3 pieces of armor/weapons. That seems like it would be a win win situation. It would still remove a ton of items from the economy and it would still allow adventurers to pass down or sell that sweet shield or weapon they found.  Everyone could choose which items they wanted to attune and which items they would like to save to resell. If a character didn't have 4 pieces of equipment attuned, it would act as if NONE of their armor or weapons were equiped. It seems like it would be an easy and well liked change to make. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why is it when changes are made, it is always in the most drastic of directions? There is usually some middle ground that is a viable solution that will make the majority of people happy. Although I really don't expect to ever see this change made, I think it would be great and sensible. Anyone agree/disagree? I haven't heard this solution posted before and I am very curious as to what others would think of it. </DIV>