View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0007083 | Valley 1 | Suggestion - UI Ideas | Apr 15, 2012 10:08 am | Apr 27, 2012 9:24 am | |
| Reporter | AlexxKay | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 0.927 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 1.002 | ||||
| Summary | 0007083: Discourage Enchant Hoarding | ||||
| Description | In post http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,9953.msg94390.html#msg94390 TyberZann said: "Wouldn't getting rid of your enchants make it so that you can find that enchant again? I think I would mostly just orginize my enchant menu to keep the ones I would want to keep near the bottom. The rest I can ignore, they're just there to keep me from finding one of them again." I have also had this perception -- and thus spent a *lot* of time on Enchant Inventory management. Combing through the build notes, those for .901 suggest that I was mistaken, and that a lot of that time was wasted. Seems like it would be a good idea to somehow discourage this hoarding behavior. [If I am wrong about what's going on, then disregard the rest of this suggestion, and replace with either 'explain why you *do* want to hoard', or 'change system to not encourage hoarding'.] Suggestion: When a player gets a new Enchant, you should check to see if he already has, say, 3 of that same Enchant Type in his inventory. If he does (and hasn't turned off the hint message), show a message suggesting that he ditch some of the lower-powered ones, explaining that this will in no way hurt his chances of getting better enchants later. This would be reinforced if there was some tangible benefit to 'ditching' an Enchant, other than a cleaner UI. I'm sure someone else must already have suggested being able to 'cash in' an old Enchant for credit towards a new one; that would synergize well with this idea. Of course, you'd need to have a pretty poor exchange rate on this to prevent abuse, but something like one ordinary Container's worth seems like it should be fine. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Feature Suggestion | ||||
|
|
I think that some of the problem with existing players' perceptions was that, at one point, hanging onto enchants actually did reduce the chance of getting that same enchant again -- so it was encouraging hoarding. We then changed that, but I think a lot of folks didn't get the memo, so to speak -- at least not at first. This makes me a bit unsure as to whether or not this is really a problem likely to affect the majority of players, or if it's something just affecting a certain small group of players who have been active in this particular phase of the beta. In terms of a way to cash in enchants, we have been talking about doing an incinerator for a while, but haven't had time to implement that yet. I think that having that as an alternate source of guardian powers and/or arcane ingredients might be a cool thing, but I'm not sure the best way for that to work. There is also the potential for exploits and balance troubles with that in multiplayer, which makes me think this is best left to post-1.0, but it is definitely something I'd like to address. |
|
|
For the record, I was away from the beta for several months (since before enchants existed!), and not following the news, then came back a couple weeks ago. So I was never playing when it was true, yet got that impression anyways. |
|
|
Very helpful to know -- thanks for that added detail. I think you are right that this needs to be dealt with, but I think that it risks a lot of scope creep and potential balance issues, and thus is best as post-release content, to be honest. |
|
|
I think that if you get an enchant that is strictly >= than a current enchant you have, it should directly replace your current enchant. This should help a little. |
|
|
Problem is, that's an edge case. If it's a 30% boost to stat A and a 10% boost to stat B, and then later you find a 30% boost to stat A and a 15% boost to stat C, which is the better enchant? It would really depend on how important stats B and C are to you, etc. I see what you mean on the absolute direct replacements, but that's a smaller percentage of the time compared to stuff that has alternate uses. In multiplayer, there's also the chance that you might want to give your "80% as good enchant" to a friend, while keeping the new shiny one for yourself. Basically, taking player agency away there seems like it will really lead to some unhappy people. |
|
|
Except even with direct replacements that there is no guarantee that you actually want a better enchant, if we take cooldown reduction then, before the mana regen boost, I had a number of enchants with higher cooldown reduction numbers which if I had used them would have been entirely detrimental to my character as my mana consumption would go far too high. |
|
|
That post of mine was fairly old, before the changes to when enchants don't check the inventory. I do agree that it's probably a decent idea to have a pop-up message if you get above a certain amount of enchants. |
|
|
Thanks! * Most enchants, when dropped, are instead (after player confirmation) "reabsorbed": ** Reabsorbing an undroppable enchant gives you 10% progress towards the next enchant, but this process completely and irrevocably destroys the reabsorbed enchant. There is no way to undo this, and so should only be done with enchants you'll never need again. ** The basic light-emitting enchants, seeker, and diluter enchants can still be dropped (and cannot be reabsorbed). |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2012 10:08 am | AlexxKay | New Issue | |
| Apr 15, 2012 10:19 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0022047 | |
| Apr 15, 2012 11:51 am | AlexxKay | Note Added: 0022056 | |
| Apr 15, 2012 11:52 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0022057 | |
| Apr 15, 2012 12:23 pm | Bluddy | Note Added: 0022060 | |
| Apr 15, 2012 12:27 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0022061 | |
| Apr 15, 2012 12:38 pm | Terraziel | Note Added: 0022062 | |
| Apr 16, 2012 10:58 am | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Feature Suggestion |
| Apr 16, 2012 10:58 am | tigersfan | Status | new => considering |
| Apr 16, 2012 2:08 pm | Oralordos | Note Added: 0022139 | |
| Apr 27, 2012 9:24 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0022825 | |
| Apr 27, 2012 9:24 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | considering => resolved |
| Apr 27, 2012 9:24 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 1.002 |
| Apr 27, 2012 9:24 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Apr 27, 2012 9:24 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
