Bowfling

[ QUOTE ]
Modify game behavior as follows: in the enhancement screen, player placement of an Enhancement into an power slot already occupied by an Enhancement causes the Enhancement being replaced to move to an unoccupied Enhancement inventory space.

Also, tangentially, double or triple the current number of Enhancement inventory slots (perhaps award additional slots commensurate with advances in character level, similar to the way the number of Inspiration slots increases).

Alternatively, create (as has been previously suggested*), one or more "mini-respecs". In one type of mini-respec, perhaps the overall slot placement is kept the same, but the player is given the option to replace currently placed enhancements with different ones without losing the originally placed enhancements.



*
https://boards.cityofheroes.com/show...page=&vc=1
http://de.boards.cityofheroes.com/sh...Number=1381433

[/ QUOTE ]

We already have numerous methods for respecing, including, free, vet, buyable, buildable, and earnable. Those methods sufficiently address your concern.

Buyable ones in particular are the most likely form of acquisition, assuming you have maximized your use of all the others.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, part of the reason I made this thread is because TOs are almost useless,


[/ QUOTE ]no they aren't. They are 1/2 as good as DOs, and 1/4 as good as SOs. Plus, IOs, even at low levels, are reasonably effective.[ QUOTE ]


and because of that, lower lvls cant hit anything,

[/ QUOTE ] With just one even level TO, you should hit about 85% of the time. If you are used to 95% hit rates, it will FEEL like you are missing a lot, but tha tis only because you are missing 3 times as often. But you are still hitting 85% of the time.[ QUOTE ]

hurt anything, endure anything, nor be effective in a prolonged fight.



[/ QUOTE ] I have played drops only characters, even running one now at the moment, up to DO levels, and have no problem facing even level critters. If you face things harder then that, then consider that it isn't the lack of endurance that is the issue.[ QUOTE ]


I understand that it's supposed to fit the theme of as you gain lvls, you become stronger, but there's a fine line between, being weak, and just being frustrating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I find the low levels to be easier, if only because there are fewer choices to make and therefore less variability in battle patterns. If you have become too used to stamina as your crutch to cut out endo redux, and then use that extra space to add acc or damage or something, I can see your concern, but have to argue that you are giving up at least one power, and sometimes people consider 3 powers and a set, as the cost to have that ease. Try using the techniques I suggested above, and I think you will be better off.

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't been looking Bowfling.

Haven't seen you in a while. been hiding from me?

[/ QUOTE ]

the forums really, been doing other things with my micro time allowances.

Oh I have so missed these threads.

It has been a while since I could paste this bad boy

Sha bang

This is the second in a series of point-counterpoint articles, which will review commonly requested player suggestions, and review the pros and cons of those suggestions.

This week’s subject – Endurance Management

POINT:

Endurance is one of the key factors in determining the pacing of the game. For an action oriented game like Co*, having to wait for endurance to recover is often a boring time sink. Making players wait around while they recover endurance can disrupts the flow of the game.

There are numerous ways in which the devs could modify the way we handle endurance that would significantly reduce the time spent waiting for endurance to recover. The devs could provide players with an inherent form of stamina, just like rest and brawl, or just up the recovery rate. They could also increase the amount of endurance we have, either at a certain level, or each level, like +1 end per level. The could also add new badges that lead to accolades that provide endurance pools, like some already do, or increased recovery rate. Another idea would be to add more temporary powers, like those from Mayhem and Safeguard missions, ones which would increase recovery or overall endurance. Many of the mechanisms for doing these things already exist, so adding to them would be easier than making up something entirely new. By increasing the speed of the game by making endurance easier to manage, the devs can capitalize on the action centric nature of the combat system, allowing players that enjoy fast paced action to maintain a high level of speed throughout a mission.

COUNTERPOINT:

But there are also certain reasons why endurance is the way it is. The most important is probably because the devs wanted endurance to be a tactical feature of the combat system. The game system is currently balanced around the existing endurance limits and recovery rates. Changing them could require a further set of balancing changes to critters. It is also possible to think of Endurance more as a percentage of available endurance, something that rises as we level, but is countered by increasing power costs.

Further, there are existing methods of endurance management that players can do that do not require any game changes. Power and Toggle management can be used in combat situations to decrease endurance usage, either by using the more cost effect attacks to defeat opponents, or turning off toggles of little or no value during the fight. Powers can be selected, like stamina, which increase personal or team recovery. Players can also make more frequent use of recovery powers, like Rest. Invention sets can provide increased recovery. Doing missions or collecting badges which lead to existing recovery buffs is also possible. It is also possible to manage powers through enhancements, adding more endurance reduction enhancements into powers, in particular, replacing recharge reduction enhancements. If all else fails, players can take on easier critters, which will increase the drops/level while increasing hr/level.

It is also possible to modify the way players can gain endurance modification, without necessarily modifying the game balance. Adding new power pools that provide a recovery buff that does not stack with stamina, or moving some of the recovery in stamina to other powers in the fitness pool. The devs could also provide another global endurance reduction, like the one that came with the launch of enhancement diversification. There are numerous ideas on how endurance could be modified.




In all, here is a list of all the robust ideas that have come up regarding endurance. Each has Pros and Cons:

1. Inherent stamina, either granted at a certain level, or at level 1 as represented by an increase in base recovery
PROS: Relieve players of the requirement to get the fitness pool in order to maintain game play speed, opening new power selections.
CONS: Fundamentally alters the nature of endurance management, could require other game balance changes to compensate.

2. Increased endurance pool, either a step increase at certain levels, a gradual increase, such as +1 endurance per level, or a new power.
PROS: Allows for an increase use of progressively greater number of powers available to characters.
CONS: Fundamentally alters the nature of endurance management, could require other game balance changes to compensate.

3. Add additional pools that end in stamina, or rework existing pools to allow stamina.
PROS: Allows great freedom in build selection while still maintaining the current game balance.
CONS: Existing pool changes may cause existing build difficulties for coding. Changing pools may require further pool balancing. Finding a different but equal pool to fitness may prove problematic.

4. Change global endurance costs, or modify specific AT costs.
PROS: Global change has already happened, so the code already exists. Can pinpoint specific AT needs rather then change the entire system.
CONS: Could require further balance changes, stamina likely reduced in effectiveness.

5. Modify the existing fitness pool, making part of the enhanced recovery of stamina available in other powers in the pool.
PROS: Requires minimal work to change, does not modify game experience for anyone not taking the fitness pool.
CONS: Does not provide alternative methods from existing conditions.

6. Add a new accolades and set bonuses that increases endurance recovery.
PROS: Requires minimal work to change, inspires proactive player action.
CONS: Likely small increase similar to other accolades may not address endurance concerns, may require farming of certain critters to obtain.

7. Add new temporary powers that can buff recovery, either click powers (timer or use limit), or inherent buffs.
PROS: Inspires proactive player action, temporary powers already obtainable via safeguard/mayhem missions, so the code already exists.
CONS: Stacking with stamina could require other game balance changes to compensate, may require farming of certain missions to obtain.

Hopefully this article will get you thinking about your own endurance usage, and perhaps provide you some insight into a means of addressing your own endurance concerns. Endurance is an issue which the devs have commented on in the past, so it is one they will definitely be keeping an eye on.


If Endurance is causing you problems, try a few of the following.

1. Turn off toggles mid-fight. Trade Green Bar for Blue.
2. Remove Recharge Reduction enhancements from your powers, and replace them with endurance reduction enhancements. Remove or do not use Hasten as often from your builds. Reduce DPS to increase DPE.
3. Select Endurance recovery improving powers (Stamina, AM, Recovery Aura, etc.)
4. Team with players who have AoE Endurance recovery improving powers.
5. Use Rest, it recharges in 3 minutes unenhanced.
6. Fight less challenging opponents, thus reducing the need to have toggles on at start, or reducing the risk if endurance does run out.
7. Do missions or gather badges which boost endurance amounts.

Not everyone will like the above suggestions, because they do not necessarily fit a particular play style. But using them works, and asking the devs to change something that works is going to require significant effort. Choosing not to use them isn’t going to convince the devs something is wrong. Certainly, if there is an endurance usage bug, it should be fixed, but choosing to play a certain way is not sufficient reason for change.

Also consider the following. Two people playing the same character, same build, and same slots can run out of endurance at different times. One player saves his AOE attacks for when there are actually multiple monsters in the target zone — doesn't fire Fireball or Ball Lightning or Stone Cages at a single target. That player also turns off any toggles that aren't directly contributing to his combat: Sprint, Superjump, etc. When facing enemies that don't do Energy damage, he turns off his Energy defense toggle; when the enemies are doing neither Smashing nor Energy damage, and do not stun, he stops buffing people with Increase Density to conserve power. That player slots for Accuracy; because he knows that hitting 9 times out of ten instead of 7 times out of 10 is like a 15% Endurance reduction over time — enemies will drop with fewer attacks.

Perhaps that player examines his attack chain and decides to take a medium-damage, low-endurance attack instead of using Brawl, which is pretty inefficient for its Endurance cost. Or perhaps he skips that attack and just waits one to two seconds for a better attack to come up. That one player may also anticipate when he has powers that do DOT — instead of wasting another attack to zap that last 3 Health away, he'll let the DOT take the enemy out at 2 damage per over 2 ticks.

The other player mashes all the biggest buttons as soon as they're recharged — Rain of Fire, Fireball, Fire Breath — and doesn't stop to wonder if a smaller, more efficient attack is better.

If the devs were to provide some form of modified endurance recovery, they would have to balance that with the rest of the game content. It would have to be weak, endurance reduction enhancements reduced, or power cost increased. They could also increase the available endurance pool, but doing so would require all powers to go up in cost as you level as well. Another alternative would be to increase the pool of endurance, but also maintain the current cost for powers by having each power do a set amount of damage. That would maintain the balance, but that would make fights longer because critter HP goes up with level too.

The devs believe that endurance management is a vital part of the gaming experience. The game is balanced around the current endurance system. If endurance management is a problem for you, try using some of my above suggestions. If you still experience problems, offer some counter balance for the increase recovery rate, otherwise the devs would have to balance all the current mobs to the higher recovery rate, which would take a lot more time than just adding a modified endurance recovery, and might actually make critters harder to beat.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anyways I'm against this, I'm sure recipe prices would go up because lack of supply.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I call that a load of BS. Why?

I already store recipes in Wentworths/BM, or on my higher level characters. Or make them and throw them in my various SGs "IO Hold" bins. I know many, many others who do the same thing. It's roughly as common as breathing.

It's *already happening,* and has been since inventions came in. Removing the 60 day limit from the consignment house made it even easier.

And "Enhancement hogging?" Really? So actually doing things like, oh, crafting a bunch of lvl 15-20 Acc, Damage, and END reduciton IOs for the lowbies in the SG is a bad thing? I don't think so. Guess where they go? Hasn't seemed to hurt the market so far. Heck, I've been throwing SOs and DOs in bins since we had them to help out lowbies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This and I'll again throw my support to a compromise that has been suggested in the past several times.

Allow recipe storage with a caveat. A recipe will take up say 5 salvage slots. This will limit SGs ability to hoard recipes and make them make a decision on what they think is more important to store.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I support even PERSONAL salvage storage being converted to multi purpose storage, with enhancements and recipes being storable for a certain salvage space amount. So I can see it for SG storage too.

Oh I know....

How about a mini-game where your characters take on the role of ordinary people in some place called "real life" where they spend hours at a time doing mundane tasks, like filing reports, flipping burgers, and cleaning ben pans. That way, we can play characters playing people living lives....


If you want to play gambling games, there are sites dedicated to that purpose. There is really nothing to be gained by adding it here, particularly if it interferes with moving other content forward. Any mini game has to be MMO related, and gambling just doesn't seem to fit the purpose of this MMO.

Further, because we now have a MA, you can design missions that offer you an opportunity to create "athletic" competions, which were the only mini games that really made any sense for this MMO.

If the lowered the price, they would need to generate 50% more players to compensate, either by bringing players back, maintaining players intending to quit (like the OP claims), or adding new subs.

I doubt anything but a direct price war with Champions (or other direct compete Hero based MMO) could arguably generate the necessary player liquidity to validate the move as fiscally responsible. Generally speaking, just like taxes, people are willing to pay what is being asked, significantly resist even slight increases, and if decreased, do not tolerate increases, even back to the old levels. Better to leave things as is.

If they make any kind of new enhancements, these are the ones I think are reasonable:

This is the seventh in a series of By Popular Request articles, which reviews commonly requested player suggestions that have strong positive support, and reviews the implications and considerations that would need to be considered if these suggestions were to be implemented.

This week’s subject – New Enhancements:

Many forum posters have offered suggestions as to what kinds of new enhancements could be added to the game. Status effect Magnitude increase would make it possible to get a successful status effect on a critter where, ordinarily, effects must be stacked. Buff Duration increase, perhaps the most often requested, would increase the length of time a particular buff is in effect. Another popular one is Area of Effect Impact radius Increase. This would make the cone of a cone attack wider, or the radius of an AoE wider. Reduce Activation Time would decrease the time a power takes to activate, although this particular enhancements may be significantly harder to code. For some players, knockback is a negative, so the Knockback Reduction enhancement would reduce the knockback potential of an attack, potentially turning knockback into just knock down. There might also be an enhancement that increases the number of ticks of damage a damage-over-time attack has, which would differs from a damage enhancement that increases the amount of damage done by each tick.

An interesting new form of enhancements might be a hybrid enhancement. Unlike HOs or multi aspect IOs, these enhancements would have both positive and negative effects. For instance, one might be a +40% accuracy buff, greater than a normal SO, but suffer a -10% damage reduction. A very likely hybrid that incorporates some of the above ideas would be Increase buff duration/Increase recharge time, since this would help insure powers that are not desired to be permanent remain so, even with a buff duration increase. If nothing else, hybrid enhancements would give players even more flexibility in maximizing the aspects of their powers to their own liking.

Well, doing this would result in a few things:

Players who favor burst behavior benefit from the added initial supply of end, allowing for a faster discharge of high end powers.

It would strengthen the benefit of other powers that increase recovery or regeneration, since these powers work based on a percentage of total value. So more value means each tick is bigger in raw numbers.

The "balance" point, as mentioned above, isn't easy to define.

Should the net loss in recovery or regen be sufficient to make a "normal" battle take as long time wise? Should the risk of defeat be equal? Should the time from fight A begining to Fight B begining be the same (thus including mob to mob travel time)?

And if you balance for normal fights, harder fights get worse. If you balance around harder fights, normal fights get easier.

As firespray says, it seems more logical to pick a direction and pull.

If you want to buff them, buff them. If you want to debuff them, debuff them. But sideways changes seem likely to serve little purpose for time spent.

So wait, the less the team seems to need a Defender, the more you want the Defender to be able to act as a Blaster? Um, so just get another Blaster.

Let me just state I am for allowing movement of enhancements WITHIN a power (enhancement clean up), but even moving them to other powers is still too much.

We can already create a second build. To me, that is sufficient character flexibility.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we get the ability to remove enhancements and move them around at free will, it sucks that I have to delete one enhancement to replace it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you no longer want the enhancement, for what purpose would that character want to move it? Consider it the cost of the enhancement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that this creates a place where the Vets have all leveled out of the newbie zones right off the bat. This leaves truly new players with no veteran players to learn from in the early levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention they now have level 50 characters with no influence, no enhancements and no salvage/recipes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this to be a big problem, amoung the many in this idea.

Once again, if the devs were to do this, and I do not recommend they do so, but if they did, it must come in the form of a rewards increasing temp power, which would allow players to increase reward rates, while still allowing them to go through all the content. It has so many advantages, and none of the disadvantages of the level skip plan.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of recipe and salvage drops aren't going on the market right now, which makes it hard to get your hands on them. How about making it so that if a player sells a recipe to a vendor, that recipe still goes on that market, at a price determined by some algorithm that takes into account the item's price trends but that I can't be arsed to come up with. This would greatly improve the availability of most items. Now obviously, most of those items don't make it to market because there's no market for them (Who wants a level 10 Adrenal Adjustment recipe? Really?) so these seller-less recipes would have to be purged occasionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh oh, I get to use a new metaphor I have been developing when considering the US government plan to inject government health care options.

Did you ever play a game with rules?

ever play with a person who intended to interpret those rules (a judge or referee)?

ever have that person also directly involved in playing the game competitively?

If you have, you would know that there is a significant danger in letting a player also be the referee. They can't call fouls without there being accusations of favoritism, even if there was none. It just gets too unbalanced.

So if the game is now moving items to sell in direct competition with players, and the system is determining prices as well as supply, I think players would find it unfair in the extreme.

Items would go to market if the prices they fetched make it worthwhile to do so. Start paying higher prices for the items you want. It would be very bad for the system to both determine drop rates, and then determine prices. The devs would be blamed for "manipulating" drop rates, even if they didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Back when shields went live BS/Shlds were all the rage. Yes, I made one, I have a BS/Reg, BS/WP but even still at the beginning, there was that debate of which was better to have: Slice or Parry? Not to mention some of the powers in Shields: Which is good to have? Should I take this? or That? Build Up and Against All Odds, blah, blah, blah... No one had a guide yet that gave an idea of what to expect from this set, so it was "learning" process. With much repseccing. I finally get Rudius' build how I want -even invested in some Mako's Bite and Crushing Impact sets (6 each) Plus, Impervious armor and a Miracle and a Numina.

I decided to respec Rudius out of those sets and remake him -pfft, not like I couldn't get him back up to lvl (I run scanners on Rugged and then bump it to Invince in Banks and clear it. Back up to lvl 30 in no time)- So, as I go to respec,

[/ QUOTE ]

If you intended to remake him, what purpose did the respec serve?[ QUOTE ]


I remember: DARN IT!! I have 17 IOs I do NOT want to lose!...

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are going to remake him, they are lost anyway[ QUOTE ]


I didn't want to, but... I did it anyway. Not like I couldn't get back some of those recipes again, but it was the thought of losing those from the get go. Now, I know some of you might bring up Mid's and all that stuff, but please keep in mind of how this story went. This was BEFORE a single guide was made and a week after Shields went LIVE. So, not too many players had an idea of how the set played out. Like like now.

Could we please have extra slots for ehancements. Maybe for Respecs ONLY (if need be).

[/ QUOTE ] You can sell unused enhancements during a respec, thereby recovering some of the inf used. That adequately covers players who intended to continue playing. If you are removing so many items that you need multiple respecs, buy one or use a free one.[ QUOTE ]


How about this scenario: you have your toons build at 25 or 30, but think, "Ya know, I don't like him/her being BS/Regn.. I want BS/SR." This has happened, but you've invested SOs or IO sets and you really don't feel like losing them...

[/ QUOTE ]

again, if you are deleting the character, everything is lost anyway, so respecing out additional enhancements would serve no purpose.

Clearly, you intend to transfer them, which I don't think is the intended use for a respec. Since you have used a significant amount of time in playing a character, why delete it? Simply make the new character anyway.

My concern on this would be someone "forgetting" about an item in an add on slot, just as they do with items being lost for the 90 day rule. Further, I suspect this kind of accounting issue is problematic to code.

We already have game play means to add slots, which I think is the appropriate way to obtain additional play options. I would rather see more methods to obtain additional slot through play, then additional slots through pay.

I am fascinated by the lack of a simple and elegant reply to the OP.

If you wish to know what sets someone is using, one need only ask.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to keep my account active and play it every now and then but im finding im playing a lot LESS then I used to, and issue 14 holds nothing of interest for me...

I'd like to pay on an hourly charge as apposed to a flat rate...

$0.25 per hour I think is a fair price. Would allow for people that play less then 2 hours per day or less to save some money and not want to cancle the account...

[/ QUOTE ]

Under this plan, someone who plays 4 hours a day, 3 times a week, and every week in a 4 week month would end up owing less than the 15 a month. That seems like a pretty typical consistent, but not intense player. I can't see the devs dramaticly cutting their income this way. Further, it ands the "oh no, I forgot to log out last night" issue.

Most on demand services are one-and-done, or recurring monthly. The things that charge hourly are not to be discussed in polite society.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Possible impact on the market is grossly exaggerated for the following reasons:

1) I can transfer stuff to alts it just takes time.

[/ QUOTE ] That you can do a thing does not mean that everyone does a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But it DOES prove that everyone CAN do it. Which was the point I was making.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Huh? You were argueing that the impact on the market is being "grossly exaggerated" and your point was
"1) I can transfer stuff to alts it just takes time."

Since I believe that there are a significant portion of people who do NOT inherit BECAUSE it takes time, I disagree with your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I also believe that there are a significant portion of people who do not transfer because it takes time, you will not be surprised to hear that I think that makes absolutely no difference to my point.

Making behaviour X annoying or hard so that people will refrain from behaviour X and start doing behaviour Y doesn't work. At least hasn't yet. Certainly won't encourage people to use the market.

[/ QUOTE ] I disagree entirely. Any psychology major would be able to provide numerous examples of how people will modify their behavior in response to modified stimuli. A good example is that increasing taxes on cigarettes produced an almost immediate decrease in their use, whole differential from improved knowledge of the negative impacts, or added restricitions on use. I would expect that the recent huge increase in the cig tax will have similar effects, which is why I believe that Congress overestimates how much money will be drawn into SCHIP services due to the tax.[ QUOTE ]


What might encourage people to use the market is getting a special drop on one character transfering it to another and then needing to buy the rest of the set.

[/ QUOTE ] but you could do EXACTLY the same thing by selling that drop on the market and then buying a piece of a set you want.

In any case, I think the groundrules for an objective evaluation of the impacts of inheritance are not too hard to set, we just need help in collecting the data.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Possible impact on the market is grossly exaggerated for the following reasons:

1) I can transfer stuff to alts it just takes time.

[/ QUOTE ] That you can do a thing does not mean that everyone does a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But it DOES prove that everyone CAN do it. Which was the point I was making.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Huh? You were argueing that the impact on the market is being "grossly exaggerated" and your point was
"1) I can transfer stuff to alts it just takes time."

Since I believe that there are a significant portion of people who do NOT inherit BECAUSE it takes time, I disagree with your point.

So your reponse would not be relavent to my position.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh I agree. But I am only checking if ANY one does it. If anyone does it, then it is wrong to say that "it won't hurt the market" at all. The only question is will it hurt the market "enough" to be impactful, or not. That is why I mention the complaints about the BM already being slow, since that suggests any slow down would be problematic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I think it's helpful to define an "impactful scenario" as one that is actually significant. If there's an impact that proves insignficant, then it's safe to round down to "no impact". An old teacher of mine used to call that "a distinction without a difference".

For example, if this change went live and it was found that 1% of the players started banking all or most of their goods with alts instead of putting them on the market, I'd say it was worth it and the 1% counts as insignificant impact. If that number was 25%, that'd be significant, and would have an obvious impact on the markets.

Maybe that's the problem with this debate. It really revolves around presumed future behavior. It's obvious to some folks that it'll have a negative impact on availability of goods at WWs, and just as obvious to other folks that it won't!

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully agree. So what kind of number would be "too much"

As I mentioned above, we can probably get one of the Marketeer people to provide some decent data one item liquidity. Since recipes and crafted IOs are likely to eb the most impacted, and also lower volume as it is, I think it is fair to say that if recipe and enhancement item changes are impactful, then the market has been impacted. I do not believe salvage or inspos will be significantly impacted, nor that even if I am wrong that the market will break down with the loss of significiant salvage volume.

Further, I believe that it is the BM which we should analysis, because it is fair to say that WW is more active. Although an impact to the BM will also impact WW, it is entirely possible for WW to remain active enough, even if the BM was not.

So there are the perameters. Recipes and crafted Enhancements on the BM. If those are not significantly impacted, then this change does not significantly impact the market, fair enough?

So now, how do we judge market activity? If 10% of posters think the BM is presently not active enough, what would that mean? Is outstanding sale and buy bids what we should measure? Is last 5 sale times?

Lets see if we can't get some framework to judge existing activity, and from that, begining analysising the potential impact inheritance might have. We have to find the existing conditions first.

I have been in modest favor of revising existing salvage storage to allow storage of enhancements and recipes, something like a 1:3:5 set up, where each recipe requires 3 salavge spaces, and each enhancement requires 5 salvage spaces. This gives players flexibility without increasing overall storage.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can trade items between characters, is there ANY character on ANY account that would have inherited ANY item rather then put that item onto the market. Some people seem to claim this isn't the case, but I know for a fact that it is because I have. I fully believe many players have done so.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't seem like clearing the hurdle required for a proof. Asserting that because you have traded items to alts and even that "many players have" proves that an email system would make this the default scenario thus destroying the market is a huge leap.

I have 3 accounts, with multiple alts parked at WWs. It's trivially easy for me to move items between characters. But my normal practice is to convert items to Inf by selling them. Later, if an alt needs an IO, I buy it. But my practices don't prove a norm, any more than yours do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I agree. But I am only checking if ANY one does it. If anyone does it, then it is wrong to say that "it won't hurt the market" at all. The only question is will it hurt the market "enough" to be impactful, or not. That is why I mention the complaints about the BM already being slow, since that suggests any slow down would be problematic.

[ QUOTE ]


Possible impact on the market is grossly exaggerated for the following reasons:

1) I can transfer stuff to alts it just takes time.

[/ QUOTE ] That you can do a thing does not mean that everyone does a thing.

I have mentioned before, what if you had to wait 1 week for a transfer to go through, would you still do it? What if it was 2 weeks? 4? What if there was a fee of 5% of the sell back price? 10%, 100%, 1000%? You could still do it, but some people will view those constraints as too costly to do.

The same is true with the time it takes to do transfers presently. Some people see them as being time effective, others don't.[ QUOTE ]


2) the only things I can't transfer easily at the moment are recipes and money
3) stuff I can't transfer DOESN'T make its way to the Market anyway so the market isn't loosing out.

[/ QUOTE ]but some people do put their items up on the market. You are not necessarily representative of all players.[ QUOTE ]

4) if it was easier to build up my alts using stuff my main doesn't want then I would be more likely to invest in "special" stuff for those alts and therefore more likely to use the market.

[/ QUOTE ] But you already have a far superior delivery vehicle for special stuff. The market provides you access not just to the items you have, but all items from all players. While you keep talking about what you have, what about what you don't have? What about the items you want but never had drop for you? Why would we want to deliberately harm a superior tool in order to provide an inferior one?

People always bemoan what they have already gotten, but always forget what they haven't gotten. We are infinitely more likely to not get a drop we want, then we are to get it.

[ QUOTE ]

I see the "it'll hurt the market" as the only substantive objection ever given to this idea. And (I wish I'd bookmarked it) I've seen posts in previous threads where it was pointed out that several MMOs include the ability to send items to one's alts and it hasn't caused the market apocalypse that is proclaimed will happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those other games have far different conditions under which they operate. If we had Tanker only Damage enhancements, or Energy Blaster Recharge items, Or you were allowed to make either Recharge IOs, or Damage IOs, but not both, then there would be more cause to be able to trade.

Further, WoW has substantially more players, yet the market is no more active then ours, which suggests that their market activity is lower than ours, and they make up for their lower activity per person by having more persons.[ QUOTE ]


Can someone chime in with some actual examples of how the ability to send items to alts has killed/not killed markets in other MMOs? EDIT: to clarify, I've seen the claim in the past that "most other MMOs already offer the ability to send items to alts." If that's true, this is a totally baseless objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a very simple balance to consider:

If you can trade items between characters, is there ANY character on ANY account that would have inherited ANY item rather then put that item onto the market. Some people seem to claim this isn't the case, but I know for a fact that it is because I have. I fully believe many players have done so.

Thus, it is merely a question of measure. Will the loss of items to makret undermine the market sufficiently to "harm" it, or will it be able to sustain lower volume. With the BM argued as being already too slow, I fear slowing it further to exacerbating the situation.