Jump to content
Jason

Official Game Poll - Degradeable PvP Items

Degradable PvP Items  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want PVP items to be degradable and dropped during the Global Wilderness event?

    • Yes
      21
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jason said:

No, they would receive the item and it would either not be degraded or already degraded if a player has the same item and it is degraded.

Why

Because we don't handle each item as unique. If we compare two whips for example, our system cannot tell the difference between the two items. It's because of this that each degraded item can't have a unique degraded value. The value is dependent on the player account. If you use a vesta longsword and degrade it a little, then receive another, they both have the same degraded amount. 

No, they wouldn't be separate items. You could still obtain via MB, but they're both degradable. 

I might be reading this wrong. But from what I understand; you're saying that what would be dropped for the killer would be what the current state of the item is on their account? Like if the killer owns a VLS and has been using it; the VLS dropped by their opponent would also be in the same state of degradation as the current VLS the killer is using?

If so, would that mean that having multiple of the same item would mean that all of them degrade at the same time if one of them is used?

Also, if a player had never used a degradeable-VLS before, would the VLS they receive from killing a player (assuming the player who died had been using their VLS) still be intact as their account has no history of ever using one?

 

You also said "If you use a vesta longsword and degrade it a little, then receive another, they both have the same degraded amount. "
Doesn't that seem a little unfair? Let's say you kill someone and receive a VLS as a random drop. If you had a VLS that was nearly depleted when you receive that drop, the new vls would also be almost depleted, correct?

 

Again, I might be reading all this wrong (really hope not) :P

Edited by La Campeon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as an awesome update if added ingame,  i do agree With @Food stamps that it sucks for him having an 10m item all the sudden turn to 400-500k, and you should meet him halvway either paying the blood Money or do something... It's not like we have the G.E where we can sell it due to update. What im trying to say is i don't support that his vls should just start to degrade.... Find a soloution :)

 

Other than that, awesome update if added ingame, keep the updates coming and Dawntained will rise to the STARS again xD <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It should of been invented a long time ago.

All other servers have had it for months, and for those saying I didn't pay 15m for this and that, no one forced you to pay anything, you paid what the other person wanted. Also you will still have your VLS for the rest of the server time.

Also the degradeable versions of the items should be untradeable and dissapear on death.

Edited by mex
  • POGGERS 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to the update! Pvp armor and weapons will make pvp and pvm more interesting :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Food stamps said:

literally makes me paying 17m for a vesta longsword useless.

MGT made your 17m purchase useless months ago when he nerfed VLS.

I can't say yes or no to this. This should be polled after the player base actually understands this event. Repoll after release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Firstly, you'll either have to buy out everyone who purchased the items for a ridiculous amount or go to my second point. If you don't do this, you'll go the way of the server I used to dev and you will lose massive swathes of your dedicated playerbase. Yes, you artificially add more BM into the game but degradation is meant to pull money from the economy.

Secondly, mainly directed at @Food stamps, degradation is necessary in an RSPS because inflation will annihilate this game beyond repair in the long term. I used to dev (mainly UI and language interfaces) for the largest RSPS and you know what killed us? Besides Jagex finally getting the domain pulled, but the lack of cash sinks in the game. Our first idea was to make shops actually cost gold, then it was to make PvP armors degrade (idiot owner started RWT trillions so that didnt help) and then Barrows became degradable but oh no! - we still had a garbage inflated economy so then the most radical, and honestly our only shot, had to be employed - we reduced the cash stack of EVERY player by 10. You have max stack? Now you have 214.7m. That killed the game permanently and lead to Ikov and Alora or whatever it's called. Also, if @Jasonwere to implement PvP armors dropping, the market would very quickly become inundated with PvP armors and your investment would still be shit out of luck.

My suggestion would be to round up everyone like @Food stampswith PvP armors, give them either untradeable or degradable (leaning towards untrades) PvP items that you would always keep. PvP (maybe Barrows?) should have repair costs associated with them but with PvP items having both higher initial and higher ramping so that a 1% Vesta item would cost more to repair than a 1% Barrows. 

If you don't want to make them untradeable, then @Jasonyou have to really consider flooding the market for a temporary time. Do you have any statistics of how much BM there is currently within player banks? More information is required to answer this question

Edited by Melbrooks
Funsies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×