+- NEUS Projects (https://neus-projects.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Sigrogana Legend 2 (OOC) (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Twinking (/showthread.php?tid=3689)
Re: Twinking - Rendar - 11-17-2016
Nah. I asked around some people. I had given them some Ogata's way back apparently. Couldn't get it back for my new character because #Twinking.
I'm really just curious as to how having the rule be updated to include an exception for level 55-60 (or LE'd) folk would negatively affect the game.
It's clear that there are a number of people here, old, and new(ish) that this has an effect on.
Re: Twinking - Lolzytripd - 11-17-2016
or perhaps once an item has been in another players ownership for x amount of time, we would be able to buy said item on any of our characters.
I mean if lets say I sold X item to poptart( who doesn't sell items to poptart?) after a month or so in their house/shop/inventory it wouldn't be against for another character of mine to purchase the same item from them. thats not twinking, thats just economy.
Re: Twinking - Ranylyn - 11-17-2016
"Neus" Wrote:'Some people' being your alts?
Dev, sorry to say this, but this statement was really quite dickish. We have a small community and the only way to get items is from each other, because RNG is a bitch and a half. "Oh, I don't need this anymore, and someone's asking for one - oh, I can't sell it to them, damn." Being unable to recieve items we traded away/sold MONTHS ago is something that's happened to ALL of us. It's beyond inconvenient.
Could you at least provide VALID counterpoints for why you feel it's mandatory for us to need to put up with this, instead of "I said it was an RP game back then and I'm not repeating myself?" Because let's face it; not only is this actually worse for RP than directly allowing alt trading, but everyone is frustrated with this, and your casual taunting about it is not helping public opinion in the slightest.
Re: Twinking - Neus - 11-17-2016
Coming off as dickish isn't my intention but Sderg wasn't being very clear. I really don't want to get into it again but if you insist then I guess I will restate my position on this for the millionth time.
SL2 is an RP game. Being able to mule items and then dish them out to your alts as required is not RPing. It directly contradicts RP, because the exchange of goods is entirely OOC between yourself, and yet somehow has an IC benefit to you. You could make the same argument about donation items but since those are a result of support to the game and the items themselves do not offer much if any benefit beyond convenience, it's not that big of a deal.
Your character shouldn't have an OOC armory. Accomplishments another alt of yours has should not directly benefit your character. This is the same reason you aren't allowed to bring your alts into situations where your main is under RP duress and needs a backup army. It's why you're not (supposed) to team up with alts and farm, a rule I know a 'few' people have broken when they know no GMs are on. Without the twinking restrictions, it'd the same as one person having 4x the drops.
For gathering, it'd be like having 4x the stamina (or as many keys as you care to muster, really). And so on. And so on. If you don't think anyone would be such a no-lifer to abuse it to that degree, you'd be wrong. I'm sorry if the system is a little inconvenient at times when you're not trying to game it, but it works the way it does because people have (and would continue to) abuse it if it didn't.
Re: Twinking - Rendar - 11-17-2016
Then don't allow the trade of stackable goods between folks. This will stop the stamina issues that allow for mass gathering.
Allow, maybe, one 'item' a day, or even a week, that bypasses this or let GMs forcefully have a way to bypass this and allow for certain situations to be able to be resolved entirely.
I understand that you want this to be an RP game, but there is a lot of ooc grinding. There is a lot of OOC inherent to the game, because there has to be. Having your character forced to be level 1 unless you go out and murder monsters (or tend to sick people, etc) is awful if say.. your character is a pacifist. "Crouching tiger, hidden badass" for an archetype here.
Just adding a way around it, however limited, would greatly alleviate this issue and stop the issues like I spoke of from really happening. We don't want armories. We just want to be able to get an item that we've already OOC grinded out (generally whilst OOC grinding for other things).
Re: Twinking - Ranylyn - 11-17-2016
I thought you'd say that, Dev, and here's my counterpoint that I was already prepared to make when I asked: An IC transaction being stopped because an item once belonged to a character that could have potentially been deleted MONTHS ago ALSO directly contradicts RP, as you had no way of knowing it wouldn't be allowed before the transaction began. This leaves people with no choice but to omit the conversation, which is dumb. Therefore, you just undermined your own point.
Do you have anything else to put forward? Otherwise, this discussion is essentially a stalemate. The rest is besides the point; I've personally ratted several people out over the self-party thing, for example, so the fact that a few people have tried to get away with it just means that cheaters will be cheaters and we punish them accordingly.
Your statement about OOC armories would hold weight if not for how absurd it can get to get even low rarity items sometimes (People are selling boxing gloves, a TWO STAR item, for THOUSANDS of murai, simply so people can unlock boxer. Seriously! I saw a pair for 15k the other day!) and how entire builds can be invalidated by not having a specific weapon type. (While Kensei have it easy between a purchasable wo-dao and the ability to work toward the braver replica, there's no such ease of access to many other types of weapons, like the different types of guns, hence my example of going 3 LEs without finding a single shotgun, even an iron one.)
And let's not forget 10* boss drops - some of us have been hunting for them for literally months, only to accidentally get them on the wrong character. I'm sorry, but if one character has killed 1000 of boss X and another character has killed 3, the whole "accomplishments not benefitting another character" argument falls flat as well, because in terms of hunting that boss, the first character is over 300x more accomplished in that example.
So basically, either we come to a compromise, or you go "Screw you guys, what I say goes." We're trying to suggest solutions that are compromises. Could you please at least discuss solutions with us?
Re: Twinking - Autumn - 11-17-2016
I mean, to solve the whole back and forth thing with items that once belonged to you way way ago in the past, it could be possible to erase the character ID on the equipment item after 2 or 3 months, to allow trading between players to be more consistent and not run into "Alright have I owned this item in the past? Yes? Ok I look like a jackass and have to search for another person who has the exact same item"
Re: Twinking - Esther - 11-17-2016
One could argue that characters with public shops, must actually break character to justify their alt not purchasing a fairly-priced item that they like from their main's shop. Neither character knows the other, but when an item is on display that you want to buy, and because of OOC reasons, you can't?
That's a rule that's not functioning properly. That is not protecting IC, that is forcing OOC.
Re: Twinking - Exxy - 11-17-2016
Player shops disallow alternate accounts from purchasing twinking-restricted items so I can't see the point being made on that, Esther.
This entire thread concept has been done to death already; personally, I can see somewhat-of-a-reason for Dev having decided on this way back when but I wouldn't say I particularly like it. The more annoying thing, while we're on the topic, is when GROUPS of people look for exploits to get around restrictions for Twinking because they think it's a dumb rule. I think if anything, people are taking advantage of Dev's soft-nosed approach on this.
Re: Twinking - Neus - 11-17-2016
The entire discussion has been done to death and this topic hasn't added much new to it. I'm aware that the rule isn't perfect but I am also aware that it's entirely necessary and prevents abuse which I am well aware that certain members of the SL2 community will abuse without restraint.
"Spoops" Wrote:I mean, to solve the whole back and forth thing with items that once belonged to you way way ago in the past, it could be possible to erase the character ID on the equipment item after 2 or 3 months, to allow trading between players to be more consistent and not run into "Alright have I owned this item in the past? Yes? Ok I look like a jackass and have to search for another person who has the exact same item"
This is possible but I don't know if it's a good solution, because all you do is delay certain abuses by that time period. I could potentially see some way to wipe the 'fingerprints' off a weapon so it can be traded to the originally owner again but it would possibly need to be expensive and/or restricted within a certain time period to keep it from making the restriction trivial. Either costing Asagorians or a decent chunk of Murai or other items; I don't know, and and I don't know if people would be satisfied with that type of solution either.
"Exxy" Wrote:Player shops disallow alternate accounts from purchasing twinking-restricted items so I can't see the point being made on that, Esther.
This entire thread concept has been done to death already; personally, I can see somewhat-of-a-reason for Dev having decided on this way back when but I wouldn't say I particularly like it. The more annoying thing, while we're on the topic, is when GROUPS of people look for exploits to get around restrictions for Twinking because they think it's a dumb rule. I think if anything, people are taking advantage of Dev's soft-nosed approach on this.
I don't like it either but it's necessary, as has been proven several times in the past. The game didn't always have this system in effect, so the fact that I had to go and add something I didn't really want to have to do should be telling of how bad the problem got. I would like to have full trust in the player base not to abuse freedoms but I've been burned several times by that desire, and I understand it's not a realistic attitude for me to have.
If someone wants to expand on my proposed alternative then that's the direction we could move but I see no reason to remove the rule entirely and many to keep it in effect.