[Rendar]

So, with the advent of class-changes coming. I feel like this should be brought up once more. "Twinking". A term to give items from your level sixty, to your lower level character. A term that, whilst 'useful', is rather out-dated. It proves to do nothing but hinder people playing your game. It's like LEing to get perfect stats. I can understand 'no partying with yourself'. That is a fine addition. It stops people from grinding themself. Instead it now forces people to grind with their friend who has a grindmage, which in turn forces them to owe a favor and return it later on. Painfully dull cycle when you could just grind yourself, but whatever. You don't want it, you got it.

What isn't cool is grinding for items on your grind mage, to get an item for your Not-Grind-Capable Character. To get your level 60 swordsman that AMAZING TARNADA HE NEEDS FOR HIS BUILD. Except that now that you have it on your grind-mage, you can't get it to your other character without belligerent abuse of the system in attempts to get the item over without anything going off. It's a fruitless system that serves to do nothing but cause points where people groan as they get an item and trade it to someone else. I'm fine with items being restricted by level. Restricted by gold. What have you. I just know a ton of the community is kind of annoyed with it as a whole.

Hell, some newbie asked earlier if he could give his items (a crummy sword and some low level armor) to his alt because his main had died and his brother was going to be adventuring and played now instead of him. His reaction whenever we had to tell him, "No. You can't trade with yourself whatsoever. No items can be transferred between characters because of an OOC ruling." He was outright confused with "Roleplaying mandatory" being limited harshly by an OOC ruling to attempt to 'manage' people trading items between themself and the like.

This ruling really isn't okay, and honestly? It needs to see change from the current state that it is in.

[Egil]

I agree. That's pretty much it.

[Ranylyn]

I personally find the old "Rarity*5" rule was just fine (Example: You cannot twink an 8 star item to a character below level 40) and with the current rule, many people just vendor everything that they don't personally want rather than distribute it throughout the community due to shopkeeps costing Asagorians and bank space being limited. This leads to it becoming virtually impossible to get the exact items you may need for a specific build. In the past, you could have Character B hold onto Character A's item (same person) until character C (anyone) needed it.

As an example, I recently needed a shotgun. Any non-rustic shotgun, or Ether Rustic. I'd have taken iron and unenchanted, I just needed one I could use as a primary weapon in BDPs. 2 LEs (Purely via BDP, no training day/ raids) later, I still had no shotgun because none were dropping/ in my cores, and all the shotguns in player shops were like Rustic Magmic nand the like. A shotgun is only 3 stars, it shouldn't be so stupid just to get one. I'd even argue there should be NPC shops with iron items up to 4 stars, simply because of how dumb the loot systems can be.

Points in favor of the old rule:
- Due to the implementation of BW, many high-rarity items will simply weigh too much to be abused by lowbies anyways.
- It's more feasible to get items for a quirky gimmick build that most people would just pawn to Zeo due to not being overall desirable.
- Continuing on as the next generation would allow characters to inherit gear from parents instead of "lol fuck you get your own you stupid brat"
- You could actually play with roommates or family members without going "lol I know you need this but OOPS, I didn't give it to you, haha!" Personally, I want to get my girlfriend playing SL2 eventually, and it'd be absolutely moronic to not be able to trade between each other.

Points in favor of the new hard-coded restriction:
- Can you trust every player? I know I can't. I can trust quite a few, but not all of them. But by that logic, just shut the whole planet down, because people are always breaking rules and that means we've forfeit our everything.


Dev? I respect you. I do. I may not always agree with you, but you're usually open to suggestions and ideas and that's awesome and the mark of a good developer. That's great. But to me, the new twinking rule just really came across as a kneejerk reaction to learning someone had a level 1 with an arena weapon or something. I'm not trying to knock you, but simply put, this has done nothing but inconvenience the entire community since no one knows what items anyone else may want until it's too late. I've deleted several characters in frustration since I couldn't get the items I needed to even make them work at all, such as needing a Violet Varon for a Bonder/Priest, or the aforementioned shotgun example, etc. And that shoudn't be happening.

When a change happens that shakes the very foundation of the game, such as the implementation of BW, yes, we have our share of complaints, but in the end, we put our trust in you that there's a grand scheme it's building up to, and upcoming balance changes to fix issues with it. Again with BW as an example, Arbalests and BKs aren't completely ruined by it anymore due to getting BW reductions, so it's all good. But the twinking thing hasn't seen any further changes; drop rates are still as bad as ever, and it's just hurting everyone. So would it hurt you to try putting some trust in us on following a more lenient twinking rule? I know we often act like we don't deserve it. Your trust, I mean. But some things just cause more harm than good, and this twinking rule is one such thing that I feel our complaints about are justified on.

I don't care if the rule has to become more strict than it used to be (Example, only being allowed to trade items to your own characters that have a Legend Journal as insurance that you're not giving a brand new character an unfair start) so long as the current restrictions are relaxed. The community really needs this.

[Slydria]

Purpose: The spirit of this rule comes from the idea that, because this is a roleplaying game, new characters should not get a head start above others because they're OOC friends with someone who has a horde of magical artifacts laying around. Characters should have to earn their own things, whether that's through hard work or well-done roleplay. Furthermore, decking out your alts in the best armor and weapons around is not roleplaying at all; it's metagaming, and should not happen at all, unless the only items transferred are donation items, which you can do whatever you want with.

I figured I would post this from the server rules. Mostly because I feel that this last point is a fair one.

I too can agree that it has been inconvenient for me at times in cases of wanting to mess around with certain build ideas I've had but honestly those complaints have little to do with roleplay.


So that just begs the question, why should it be okay to metagame providing your alt with the equipment you want for them?

Because the coded system is inconvenient? Because you may have to rely on random chance to get what you want? Because you may have interact with others to get what you want in this game?


Frankly, here's what I think. These issues are for the most part gameplay ones. Save for a couple of fair points brought up.

Hell, some newbie asked earlier if he could give his items (a crummy sword and some low level armor) to his alt because his main had died and his brother was going to be adventuring and played now instead of him. His reaction whenever we had to tell him, "No. You can't trade with yourself whatsoever. No items can be transferred between characters because of an OOC ruling.

Unfortunately, dealing with these scenarios is inconvenient currently. No one ever comes to me for these reasons because obtaining the means is a slow and roundabout process and trading with other players is almost always the faster, less intrusive option. Perhaps if we GMs were able to circumvent the hard coding, this would be easier to accomplish.

You could actually play with roommates or family members without going "lol I know you need this but OOPS, I didn't give it to you, haha!" Personally, I want to get my girlfriend playing SL2 eventually, and it'd be absolutely moronic to not be able to trade between each other.

I can understand how this would be an annoying scenario and I would suggest excluding IP from the conditions but on the other hand it would lead to more abuse of the system in the case of players with multiple computers logging in to trade over equipment.


Don't get me wrong, I do think a level-based restriction would be the friendlier option for everyone but again, it's hardly for roleplay reasons. I feel this thread is simply treading over ground already covered in previous threads and ending up with the same problems.

[Chaos]

Rendar » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:37 pm[/url]"]Hell, some newbie asked earlier if he could give his items (a crummy sword and some low level armor) to his alt because his main had died and his brother was going to be adventuring and played now instead of him. His reaction whenever we had to tell him, "No. You can't trade with yourself whatsoever. No items can be transferred between characters because of an OOC ruling." He was outright confused with "Roleplaying mandatory" being limited harshly by an OOC ruling to attempt to 'manage' people trading items between themself and the like.

Transfers done for RP reasons can be validated, as long as a GM notifies Dev and gets the okay. What this looks like is players trying to 'enforce' a rule that they themselves aren't fully aware of. Seriously, grab a GM if someone has questions about a rule; one of the reasons they exist is to get the rules across and sort out misconceptions.

Aside from this self-defeating example, this topic sounds like more of an issue with The Grind than anything else, and only opens up an avenue that Dev's adamant on keeping closed instead of tackling the issue that actually deserves the attention and fixing.

[owarinohebi]

I had actually put in a suggestion on the forums about the whole IP thing, and I got a response from Dev himself, actually. He told me he would do what he could.