Unique Policy

... sit down, kick back and relax, and talk about anything that doesn't belong on one of the other forums.
Rig
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:00 pm
Location: JESUS

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Rig » Mon May 23, 2022 2:44 pm

Fermin wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 2:21 pm
I'm not seeing anything here prohibiting the trading of the unique...is that correct?

I think 100% of the time everyone involved going for the split of the unique is a good thing, and I think almost all unique will trade for more then the turn in amount. Trading will be encouraged because it stops the unique from just disappearing (once it gets to be blunt it gets turned in...).

Gives another differentiation to LS/DS because of the way we split gear on the various sides...
I think this would probably not be very good. Mostly due to the fact that it would require more policing. This is because if someone is rolling in the lotto to trade it, then their intention is to trade the unique for items, and this would mean that the person who has a unique for this purpose is going to play less to conserve the unique/not participate in pk or leaving the safety of a city so as to not lose it/etc due to wanting to hold onto it for a trade.

Fermin
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:16 pm

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Fermin » Mon May 23, 2022 3:07 pm

"
I do not believe the flat turn-in reward for uniques will work. I understand the intent behind it to get some value for the unique when your chracter is unable to make use of it otherwise, but I see the 5 qp and 5 crafting tokens for turning in those TPS as being more useful for character progression than what would be achieved through using any of the uniques.
Especially for abs uniques, as that means they get nearly instantly turned in similar to the Xmas heron greatswords (before that option was removed)."

Quoted from above Prykor, this is what I was thinking about with my post above.

This is not the pker mindset but this is also not a minority...winning the lotto on a unique and knowing you have a chance to trade that unique for probably 5+ craftables is going to get people excited. I doubt anyone is going to horde it for weeks and weeks trying to get the best deal...but I see the risk, I just think it is worth it to get everyone involved.

I also think it gives us a reason to consider some role play type rules, made by players.
Imagine if the Lancers make a law that the if a unique is recovered in PK in the borderlands by a group led by a Shienaren lancer - that lancer shall wield the powerful weapon. Encourages leading and playing a lancer for example.

Just a thought.

Razhak
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:43 am

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Razhak » Mon May 23, 2022 4:15 pm

Feneon wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 12:12 pm
Dreadlord J is pretty full. The Dreadlord in keep is not. I do not think that spending a tic at most searching for dreadlord and then using grovel to gain MVs back is too much of an ask.
Perhaps add a once a tic yelling his position like other wandering pracmobs had? You know, for all of us who cant grovel and stuff..

Fuujin
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:54 am

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Fuujin » Mon May 23, 2022 8:53 pm

Fermin wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 3:07 pm

I also think it gives us a reason to consider some role play type rules, made by players.
Imagine if the Lancers make a law that the if a unique is recovered in PK in the borderlands by a group led by a Shienaren lancer - that lancer shall wield the powerful weapon. Encourages leading and playing a lancer for example.
This would be honestly terrible. It's one thing to be asked to turn in clan gear that's found in PK, but giving a clan free rein to lay claim to uniques found within their lands by virtue of one of their members being involved? That wouldn't be acceptable for rares or anything else, don't see why it would be for uniques. I feel gear lotto is just one of those things that best remains as a game-play element and not one subject by roleplay restrictions beyond what's necessary to keep integrity (e.g. warranting people who make off with gear). We lotto gear because this is ultimately a game, just like we can turn in the severed heads of the same person 3 times in a day to get promoted in our job.

Feneon
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:02 pm

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Feneon » Tue May 24, 2022 10:48 am

RE: Trading--if we are allowing turn-ins for the weapon then trading is a relevant way for someone to gain value out of a unique that is behind progression. For any trading of them, as likely or unlikely as it occurs, just use the forums Tairen Bazaar with offers and posts so that we can track it and so that a public value is established for the item in the case that a new player gains an item and then gets undercut because they don't know the value of the item. If trading begins to be an issue where the items are traded more often than played then we'll look at establishing clear rules around it.

Likely the flat turn-in will be opted out for most of LS and most of DS, but it may get used. While we may not all agree with this mindset, especially those players who prioritize PK over other alternatives, we have a wide playerbase and trading / turn ins give options to players who wouldn't commonly get these weapons. Again, refer to Razhak. This is a baseline to start from and we can look to make adjustments as we go.

RE: Imm-run events. For most immortals it would be a fairly simple process to reintroduce uniques into the game through something similar to either a Kenria event or a mobraid or even a go-look at smobs mission. It would also be good for introductions of quests and so the removal of circulation, while maybe obnoxious, may be valuable. If a unique is loaded 5 times and leaves the game each time immediately then we will evaluate if the rewards are too high.

Alting sides: No. The tracking isn't too much, but it goes against the intent of the reintroduction. If you end up with a unique and find yourself consistently having nothing to do then you have options to either get rid of it for value to yourself or give it to someone else. Dark Side will be the side that struggles the most with the inability to trade their uniques combined with the no alting cross-race policy and that gray area may lead to choices and suspicions by other players that taint reputations, but again, as long as the weapons are being played there is an opportunity for the weapons to be a rallying point for activity which in the past they have been. If you want to play more characters then one then either play as aggressively as possible with the unique or opt out of the weapon.

As the original intent of this post was to field questions, I'll leave it open for a little bit longer, but I wanted to get gut reaction and feedback. Obviously we've struggled in the past of having unique policies that led to good interactions. More often than not uniques have led to toxic behavior inside and outside of the game. This is unfortunate. With the release of uniques for the first few we will try to diversify the opportunity to retrieve them for different time zones. We will also aim to give at least 24 hours notice before loading any of them.

Re Razhak: Have been working on a way to get dreadlord to announce his position, though it is so far unsuccessful. It will likely be a command in a certain room that has a zone echo which brings the dreadlord to that room to double as an option when the keep is being raided.

Hieronymus
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:14 am

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Hieronymus » Tue May 24, 2022 11:02 am

Feneon wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:48 am
Likely the flat turn-in will be opted out for most of LS and most of DS, but it may get used.
Assuming you're referring to the flat turn-in for QPs or TPs, it strikes me as a little naïve and against the grain of how we've seen rares with the option of turning in actually play out.
While we may not all agree with this mindset, especially those players who prioritize PK over other alternatives, we have a wide playerbase and trading / turn ins give options to players who wouldn't commonly get these weapons. Again, refer to Razhak. This is a baseline to start from and we can look to make adjustments as we go.
I'm struggling to square the bolded part -- they're only nominally "getting" these weapons if they're just immediately turning them in. People not only opt for "permanent" progression when they can vs. "the experience of use", but it sounds like uniques will also have additional burden associated with them ("play this character exclusively"), which might cause more people to opt to just turn it in. I'm having trouble squaring it because the intent seems to be keeping these weapons in-game and active, but this just totally flies in the face of that and adds another (unnecessary) layer of perpetual, manual Immortal involvement.

I don't really see how it's out of pocket to suggest this is something that can be addressed up front rather than "wait and see" -- we've seen how people generally behave with the option to turn stuff in.

Naerin
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:29 pm

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Naerin » Tue May 24, 2022 11:07 am

Agree with Daemon. You're placing tight restrictions on what you can do while you have the unique, so you're limiting the pool of people wanting to play one. At the same time, you're creating an incentive for everyone to go in on the split, because you're either getting the equivalent of a set of dirks (250 TPs turnin, which is probably worth a few rares atm?) or a bunch of rares from someone with tokens to spare. In either case, I think you'll see them traded/turned in more than used, and I think you'll see them gravitate towards the same set of players.

For leaders who would prefer this behavior be avoided, I'd recommend asking your group, pre-split, who plans to use it and dividing it accordingly. This is sometimes done for rares and I see no reason not to do it for uniques.

Hieronymus
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:14 am

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Hieronymus » Tue May 24, 2022 11:21 am

Naerin wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 11:07 am
For leaders who would prefer this behavior be avoided, I'd recommend asking your group, pre-split, who plans to use it and dividing it accordingly. This is sometimes done for rares and I see no reason not to do it for uniques.
It's sometimes done for rares and there's often some commensurate degree of whining/grumbling about it.

That being said, I'm usually happy to do this if "using it" is the primary function, or if the secondary functions aren't substantial. 250 TPs is substantial. Four instances of either getting it from PK or smobbing for it or trading for it, notwithstanding other activities, = 75 qps.

I don't think it's really fair to create a substantial and artificial incentive beyond "using it" and then put it on other players to deny them of that.

All this is to say, if you want uniques used and in the game, don't create an opportunity cost that's better than doing that for the vast majority o the playerbase.

Naerin
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:29 pm

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Naerin » Tue May 24, 2022 11:28 am

Yeah, I was thinking about it. Suppose you're an upstanding, well-rounded member of the WoTMUD community. You've got a main LS alt, a main DS alt, and you're also clanning someone on LS on the side. And let's also assume that Fermin's estimation of a unique's value is correct and you could get 5 craftables in a trade for it. Would you rather have the unique or the flexibility to continue playing all those chars plus a reset's worth of rares to play on whatever alt you wish?

Rig
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:00 pm
Location: JESUS

Re: Unique Policy

Post by Rig » Tue May 24, 2022 1:10 pm

Agree with the sentiments above. Another question, does having one unique stop someone from rolling/splitting another? Let’s say for example I have ksword on Ryzom. Jade partisan comes up for grabs in a split, but I don’t actually want to use it. I just want to turn it in for turn points. Is there anything actually stopping me besides someone perhaps winning the roll instead or self policing myself?

I also feel that instead of creating very aggressive pk, you’ll find that there will be much more risk aversion v aggression due to the fact that maybe someone will want to preserve the unique from getting turned in?

Post Reply