[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, what got this board moved to this section was the behaviour of Shiverwraith and KittyKrusader
[/ QUOTE ] In all fairness to those two, it was a group effort that got this section moved down here. If it was just two people they would have been banned and that would have been the end of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that their actions acted as the catalyst that got tempers flaring on all sides.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you understand why people who have a house, a secure job, aren't in the military, and are too young to really be concerned about social security or medicare might not list those things as being of high importance to them.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I really don't. I have a secure job, but can't find a better one with better long-term potential for me because nobody is hiring in my field. My office-mate has a house, but got hosed by the housing crisis because if they tried to move, they'd be in debt before they even bought a new house. People who aren't in the military might either know someone who is, or are at least paying a lot of taxpayer dollars funding it. The people too young to be receiving social security right now are the ones who should care MOST about reforming it, because if it doesn't get reformed, they'll never receive it. These things, whether or not they affect you right now will affect you in some way, whether you realize it or not.
The attitude that what matters right now is most important, rather than looking at the long-term issues that are much graver if nothing is done, is a pervasive attitude that gets nothing done for long-term problems.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the point being that the mother with a kid fighting oversees is likely to put more importance on the war effort and the mother whose only son is in jail on a drug charges is likely to put more importance on the decriminalization of drugs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. But as national issues, I think that the wars take more importance than the decriminalization issues, especially at this time.
In game terms, which is better: more long-term content like the MA, or a QOL issue such as a mailing system? If the Devs that would work on the mailing system were the same as those making the MA, would you want them pushing back the MA to get this into I14? The long-term health of the game is more important than a QOL issue. If they can get it in, then so be it. But there may be some more important stuff that they want to get out that would help more people.
[ QUOTE ]
I think you'd see better suggestions, and see those suggestions hashed out better in this forum, if the development time argument wasn't so prevalent.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this: "and see those suggestions hashed out better," but not this: "I think you'd see better suggestions." Basically, the later has nothing to do with feedback, as people don't use the search engine anyways to see if something has been suggested before. So regardless of what happens after a thread is posted has little to do with what is in a new thread. But yes, ideas would likely be hashed out better if the argument wasn't presented as much. I agree with you there.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
I know the devs are against this system (or have been in the past) but one way to keep it almost balanced would be to institute a delay on all mail under the same account that includes attachments. Mailing yourself items would have anywhere between a 15-45 minute delay so why it will be easier to transfer goods to yourself it wouldn't necessarily be faster.
[ QUOTE ]
/unsigned for all the reasons given.
There would be little point to selling IOs,salvage, recipes, etc. you can't use if you can just easily mail them to an alt.
That WOULD have a more negative impact on the market. That's enough to /unsign it right there.
If we had a game pop like WoW's where there are enough sellers to offset it, then that's a different story. Unfortunately we don't. Our population of market users is so small that any things done that take extra supply off the market has an effect (see merits).
Again, /unsigned.
[/ 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. 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.
By the way, I don't understand your example of citing WoW's user population as being significant. What does it matter if 100K or 10M people use a market in this scenario? In other scenarios it matters (i.e. arbitrage of slow-moving goods is easier in a low population market), but I don't see it relevant here.
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, what got this board moved to this section was the behaviour of Shiverwraith and KittyKrusader
[/ QUOTE ] In all fairness to those two, it was a group effort that got this section moved down here. If it was just two people they would have been banned and that would have been the end of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that their actions acted as the catalyst that got tempers flaring on all sides.
[/ QUOTE ] Absolutely, they were probably the two worst. But the rest of us(myself included) didn't help it at all. And I still don't think jranger should have been banned. I thought he was amusing.
[ 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.
[ 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.
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
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! 
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
[ QUOTE ]
Some people want to be able to respec out of their powersets.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't post in those threads, if it happened I wouldn't use it much, it doesn't affect me either way.
[ QUOTE ]
Some people want to merge the servers.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would meaningfully affect many people's experience. It's not nearly comparable to this suggestion.
[ QUOTE ]
Some people want the company to sell influence.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would meaningfully affect many people's experience. It's not nearly comparable to this suggestion.
[ QUOTE ]
Some people want to eliminate PvP altogether.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you think about these things before you posted them. The last three are all suggestions that would GREATLY negatively impact other people's playstyle.
[ QUOTE ]
Some people want to get rid of co-op zones.
[/ QUOTE ]
See above.
[ QUOTE ]
None of those things will affect your game. They are all optional features you can choose not to use. So you have no legitimate reason to object, other than trolling.
[/ QUOTE ]
None of these things would be things that people who didn't like them could ignore. They are major changes that would impact a great many. The instant suggestion impacts no person who does not wish to use the service and I would challenge you to demonstrate how it's in any way comparable to these suggestions.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
I don't care how often this subject is brought up.
Great idea and it's long overdue.
/signed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Allowing transfers through an easy means would not harm the market in a drastic way.
[/ QUOTE ] I dispute this statement, and thus the basis for our disagreement.[ QUOTE ]
Making enhancements free would instantly destroy all market values for such and ruin the market entirely.
[/ QUOTE ] The market would be obsolete, as you could obtain any item you want at any time. It is fair to say that Marketeers would strongly disapprove, but overall, it makes item acquisition easier then transfers, which was the direction of my suggestion.
So if you favor transfers because you believe the impact to the market would be small, but oppose free enhancements because the impact to the market would be huge, can we agree then that there is some limit, call it the Blackavaar
limit, over which the market is "too impacted", but under which the market is "still fine"?
If we can agree on this, then we need only define what that limit is.
Some people will say the BM is already too slow, how much slower can it sustain? If WW were to slow down to the liquidity of the BM, is that too slow? Or if you believe that the BM is fine, how much slower can it sustain?
Then we have to determine how much impact inheritance would produce. You say it won't be much, I say it will be noticable. If inheritance causes a 5% slowdown on CH, is that sustainable? How do we know how much it will slow down?
Consider: We can roughly determine the activity on recipes and crafted IOs, due to their lower turnover rate. I have no doubt that some friendly Marketeers could provide us some numbers on that. Then we need only determine how many items that would ordinarily go to the CH end up being transfered instead. We could start collecting data on it similar to the data I collected on inf tranfers back when the limit was 4 or 5 digits. Back then about 60% of players were transfering inf. When I asked if they made it easier, how many people that were not trading would do so, about 25-30% said they might. While this is not in anyway representative of what we would find for inheritance, if you will indulge me this as a starting point, it would be fair to say that we would see a 50% increase in the number of players transfering. If tha tis true, we find the average number of items CHed instead of transfered, and we have the two varriables needed to find out the estimated market activty loss. If it causes the illiquidity to go over the Blackavaar
limit, we know not to do it. If it doesn't, we can. Not simple to do, but at least we have a mathematical way to determine whether you or I am right. Not just think we are, but know we are.[ QUOTE ]
As far as your argument goes your "Free Enhancements" would be a whole lot worse than my transferred influence.
[/ QUOTE ] Only if market activity is the only or major part of the determination. On the other hand, as I mentioned, if ease of enhancement acquisition is the major or only consideration, then my way is better. Which makes the point I wanted to make. The choice is complicated because there ar emore factors involved then just "I can do it already, so why not make it easier".[ QUOTE ]
And "twinking" as you define it is stupid if anyone can do it given the right circumstances. "Twinking" as it is defined for the majority of MMO's means you are able to use something that you are not powerful enough to get for yourself (ie, a drop from a dungeon that is limited to level 46+ being usable by a level 32 character and giving stats beyond those available for other level 32s) to great advantage. There's no great advantage here when someone uses some extra influence to green up their enhancements because they can never get above the limitation of their own level.
[/ QUOTE ] If there is no great advantage to be gained by "greening up your enhancements", then why do it?
You can't simultaneously claim it is too important not to make a change, while not important enough to worry about the consequences.[ QUOTE ]
Just make up another word, or keep using that "tricking out" phrase you seem to like so much (even though it is not fitting to the situation either).
[/ QUOTE ]
I use tricked out because of the use of twink in slang. But it means the same thing most people use twinking to mean. Having superior equipment then a character of your level can reasonably expect to have. That you MIGHT be able to get that powerful under extraoridinary circumstances does not mean you SHOULD be able to get that powerful all the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
So that you know, Bowfling. I rarely, if ever, transfer anything between any of my 147 alts. The majority of them are well off enough by the time they hit 25-30 that I do not need to worry about collecting more influence/infamy for anything until they hit 50 and start going after purples.
I never claimed the ability to transfer between alts was too important not to make the change. I simply stated that it is not so drastic as you make it out to be and that since the devs have made a game that encourages the creation of alts (more so than any other MMO available) that they should support that encouragement with the amenities the players want, namely a transferring system.
I still firmly believe that the Exchange Banks (which popped up all over the city just after the market was introduced) will eventually fill this desire regardless of your complaints to the contrary.
Say what you will.
I say do away with e-mail altogether. All I get is spam. It's useless anymore to me.
ARC # 2517 "Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting"
ARC# 102898 "The Great Sewer Rescue"
I love that people talk about the market as if it's the American economy!
"If we can attach influence to an e-mail and send it an alt, we'll end up foreclosing on our SG bases and then the poor heroes of Paragon City will be jobless! It'll be like the great depression!!!"
I agree with DocFantasy... We should just get rid of e-mail altogether.
IF this was to be considered in the future, I also agree with the poster that mentioned fees per transfer. That seems fair since there are also fees associated with using Wentworths.
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with DocFantasy... We should just get rid of e-mail altogether.
[/ QUOTE ] Thats a 100% stupid idea.
[ QUOTE ]
Thats a 100% stupid idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Under what logic??
We have the ability to leave offline messages for people as it is and 99.999999999999999% of the time the in-game e-mail is used by spammers! In fact on the RARE occasion that I do get an e-mail, I typically hit the spam button by accident because it's lost in a sea of RMTer messages.
[ QUOTE ]
Technically it would be constructive in informing the OP of a way to get information on this subject themselves instead of rehashing all the same old stuff. Sort of a 'I don't have the time/inclination/etc to hunt it down, but it's there and here are the tools to find it yourself' type deal. With the knowledge that there's already a large thread or 8, it should be easier to find.
With that being said... /unsigned.
I'm assuming the other threads have better points than I'm about to make, but for me personally... while it would make a lot of things easier for the players, I can also see how it would make things easier for the... you know, RMTers. I support restricting ingame e-mail more than it is now, not giving it more features.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why should actual players have to sacrifice user friendliness and convenience because of a small undesired population? And by the way, the RMTers can transfer their influence and what not just fine so far, all this reasoning does is let the small amount of RMTers ruin it for the rest of us...
"Where does he get those wonderful toys?" - The Joker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Technically it would be constructive in informing the OP of a way to get information on this subject themselves instead of rehashing all the same old stuff. Sort of a 'I don't have the time/inclination/etc to hunt it down, but it's there and here are the tools to find it yourself' type deal. With the knowledge that there's already a large thread or 8, it should be easier to find.
With that being said... /unsigned.
I'm assuming the other threads have better points than I'm about to make, but for me personally... while it would make a lot of things easier for the players, I can also see how it would make things easier for the... you know, RMTers. I support restricting ingame e-mail more than it is now, not giving it more features.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why should actual players have to sacrifice user friendliness and convenience because of a small undesired population? And by the way, the RMTers can transfer their influence and what not just fine so far, all this reasoning does is let the small amount of RMTers ruin it for the rest of us...
[/ QUOTE ]
Because experience has shown us that most players are more than willing to put up with a minor inconvienence if it gets rid of a major inconvienence.
The Trial account restrictions are proof of that. Before we had them RMTer's were running amok abusing the system. The restrictions went into effect and overnight the chat channels fell silent, and the RMT sites could no longer use trial accounts to shuttle funds between accounts.
The doomcriers ranted and raved at the draconian measures. The game was going to die from this. The restrictions were going to let the RMTers ruin it for the rest of us.
Guess what. The games still here. Everyone is still enjoying it. No one wants to return to the bad days prior to the trial account restrictions. The inconvienent restrictions didn't ruin it for the rest of us.
Giving us the tools we need to restrict or block emails entirely will benefit the majority of the customers and only frustrate the RMT sites and the losers that use their services.
[ 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.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
The point *ahem* is that you have speculated wildly that it would harm the market. I have speculated equally wildly that it could benefit the market.
The truth is that it would have bugger all impact 
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats a 100% stupid idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Under what logic??
[/ QUOTE ] Some people use the email system. Optional filters would be a much better way to handle the problem. People could choose who to receive emails from.
Why not just get rid of email permissions to trial accounts all together?
I seriously doubt the majority of non gold farmers use it.
I sometimes get useful emails and accidentally delete them through the spam function.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats a 100% stupid idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Under what logic??
[/ QUOTE ] Some people use the email system. Optional filters would be a much better way to handle the problem. People could choose who to receive emails from.
[/ QUOTE ]
To elaborate, our spam problems would be solved if email was changed to only allow messages from friends and SG/coalition members.
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can already fairly easily trade resources.
[/ QUOTE ]
If trading resources is already fairly easy, then there really isn't a need for the devs to waste time on this idea.
They can use their resources on more important issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
If a number of people want it, then it's an important issue. All QoL features are low-priority. This one is no different. And this response is almost desperate. If it doesn't affect your game, you have no legitimate reason to object. Other than trolling, but then I think half the people who spend time on this board are here to down any idea for the fun of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just because people want something doesn't mean it should be done.
Some people want to be able to respec out of their powersets.
Some people want to merge the servers.
Some people want the company to sell influence.
Some people want to eliminate PvP altogether.
Some people want to get rid of co-op zones.
None of those things will affect your game. They are all optional features you can choose not to use. So you have no legitimate reason to object, other than trolling.
So if you voice any disagreement with those ideas it's solely because you enjoy downing those ideas for the fun of it.
[/ QUOTE ] Just throwing wanted to point out that a few of the things you mentioned would effect everybody.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually they would all affect a lot of people, the same as a global mail system. I was just trying to illustrate that just because there are people that always ask for it doesn't justify it's implementation, nor does it mean you are trolling if you don't want it implemented.