Instead of multi-quoting, I'll address your points individually and summarize what I've seen you post about your experiences in EQ below (in a 2nd post). I will give you credit for being strong-willed and sticking to your beliefs (or as my wife calls me - stubborn) and it appears we both are. So perhaps it's better to pull a RallyD, exit left, and agree to disagree. However, I'll take one more shot at it and don't take it as a personal attack, it isn't, we just disagree as Hrimnir suggested. And, for the record, we agree on most things, this just isn't one.
1. You did not provide a response to my supply/demand point. You gave a politician type answer that sounded intelligent, had little substance, and at the end did not push the conversation any further. It's very simple:
Nasthar Greatsword - one of many weapons available (low demand/high supply) caused lower prices on P1999
Fungi Tunic - the only +15 hp regen item (high demand/low supply) caused higher prices. This was heightened by the fact that it was "the" best twink item which even further increased the demand. Again, not difficult to understand - stop trying to spin MMO economics like it's some impossible Rubik's cube.
Where I'd agree with you is inflation exists in an MMO as well (just like the real world), and all items eventually become more expensive as more platinum is introduced into the market. However, the same supply/demand principles are still observed even with more platinum in the market.
2. You used no trade as an example and I gave rebuttal. Adding a tax into an economy does not increase gameplay or add some sort of "risk" to trading. It effectively reduces the value of an item. If I sold an item for 100 pp before taxes were introduced, knowing there was a 30% tax penalty, I would mark it up to 130 to account for the taxed pp, and you would have been left with the same issues.
3. RMT occurs regardless of the trade system. If a game is healthy, there will be RMT. Introducing artificial systems will not curb it, it will only penalize the players and cause RMT'ers to take an extra step to bypass it - even you said the rulebreakers won't follow the rules. So adding additional artificial rules won't curb the behavior. And with the EULA, I'm not talking about more rules here Sinist. I'm saying, someone gets caught RMT, ban them, and ban the buyer - be consistent and be certain. That's one rule - stop trying to spin a point to fit your narrative. RMT is rampant in most games because it's difficult to track them all, it's impossible to stop new accounts being created even after being banned, and bottom line, RMT'ers are paying a subscription as well so many games have left them alone for profits.
4. Twinking is not left better to another thread, as that's one of your main fears of player trade and bypassing content. But, we agree on scaling twinking, which was an issue in original EQ (we agree) and it could be avoided being an issue even with player trade.
5. Probably the most important point, and the concept you continually fail to grasp. No one is arguing that it's "riskier" to purchase gear compared to adventuring. You are. People are arguing that purchasing game via in game currency gives another form of advancement. What you also fail to realize in your biased scenarios is that there's more "reward" in camping the fungi tunic yourself versus than the person who farmed hill giants to purchase it. You have the chance for other drops, spell drops, and most importantly experience. So, there is a greater reward for your risk; whereas, the person farming hill giants "only" has the chance at the Fungi tunic. The problem is here again is you don't want people to be able to buy their gear, but earn it the way "you" want to. Also, you fail to address the point that a player obtains an item of greater than or equal difficulty, sells it, and buys a lesser item he/she needs. How is there any less risk? All you're doing by limiting the trade system is effectively eliminating that possibility and creating very linear gameplay.
And, to your point on player skill, yes, there were many twinks who were unskilled and it was noticeable - but did that effect my gameplay - no? I didn't group with them, and player/server reputation made it known if a person bought a character or was terrible. This is why I want player/server reputation to matter.
6. And your rebuttal on Hrimnir's point. When it is your idea, and RallyD says that your idea would make an item more rare, it's ok. But, on Hrimnir's suggestion - it isn't? Ok - just sounds like you want "your game world" and no one else's ideas.
Hrimnir's point isn't punishing the player, he offered the suggestion as a counterpoint to your complaint that it trivializes gear by offering more options for haste items. They could all have the same drop rate as the FBSS for all I care - they'd still be "much" more rare than WoW instanced haste items.
Here's the things I've gathered from your experiences playing EQ (yes it is off my subjective opinions of reading your many posts).
1. You played on Test Server, which is not truly representative of live. There was a server wipe in early 2000, so if it is true you played at launch which there's no reason for me to think you're lying, your experience is much different than those who played on live servers starting in March of 1999 which many were already max level in early 2000. Thus, less camps were "locked" down as those who were 50 already moved to Kunark for another wave of players.
2. You had difficulty obtaining an FBSS due to necros farming it, so you want restrictions placed on gameplay to avoid that scenario because you feel that them locking down a camp, selling it, and purchases gear bypasses content and promotes RMT. We agree to disagree here.
3. You didn't obtain a Fungi Tunic as it was "always" camped, and you saw people buy the Fungi tunic, and you don't want that to occur because you need to feel prestigious knowing that you "earned" the Fungi tunic the right way. We 100% disagree here - there were plenty of items that were still known and prestigious such as raid items or epics. Not all items had to be renown or none would have been. Also, the fungi tunic was not continually locked down as it took a solid group or a smaller group of very raid geared/skilled players to lock it down.
4. You also played the market and earned "millions" of plat as did many other people, but somehow, never had the items that could easily have been purchased with that money (perhaps you didn't want to out of principle).
5. You originally referenced the AH being the issue until someone called you out saying the bazaar wasn't released until Luclin and then changed your narrative stating the problems still occur with the EC tunnel system, albeit slower. Again, no one is arguing that the EC tunnel was perfect, but a better system.
6. You say Druids healed monks better than clerics - not true.
Honestly, the more I've read your posts, the more I think you're recalling EQlaunch incorrectly or blending your memories with Luclin post era, or had a vastly different experience on the test server than those of us on live did.
It's ok Sinist, you were proven wrong about 10 different times in this thread and all you've done is make even more radical claims to further back up your position, and now you've gone so far that everyone can see through your house of cards.
But trying to discredit anyone who posts an opinion that counters yours isn't the way to garner support for your ideas.
I shall take it with a grain of salt then. Personally, I see 0 fun,
immersion or role-play in buying dropped game loot. If I had it my way
(and I know i'll be burnt at the stake for this) i'd have no trading of
any mob dropped loot. I like the idea of trading potions, crafts, or
anything player made, but I feel you should have to risk the adventure
yourself if you want that loot. You don't pull Excalibur out of the
stone to trade for a few gold pieces...just sayin.
I don't see any point either, but consider that mainstream has made ridiculous amounts of money off RMT and that is very similar to what buying off the trade market is (ie you pay general coin for a win versus the specific trials of earning that win individually). So you have a lot of people conditioned to a certain mindset of play as to what is acceptable. I have watched this over the years since early MMOs, though I didn't really put attention to it until EQ. When I was on EQ test server, we had a much harder stance about such, EC trading for plat was frowned upon. Any trading was done via barter and even then it wasn't a common occurrence (everyone was too busy playing the game, we had 800-1000 on each day).
When I moved my character from Test after the test wipe fiasco, the production servers were a very different mindset. Player trade EC style was openly accepted via barter mainly, then the plat system took off with some people opposing that, but of course it winning out, then there was the bazaar trading, more again against that, but in time, it won out. During this time as well, it was frowned on generally by most that players that RMT were cheating. People did it, but kept to themselves as such behavior in early MMOs was not openly accepted. Game developers even were writing posts about their analysis of the issues, SoE treating it like a serious threat as well.This of course changed over time and and AH systems with RMT are now openly accepted by most and an encouraged form of play by not only the players, but the companies who adopted it and began to profit off it (all I can say on that one is bahhaha)
It is an interesting progression to watch games be turned into gimmicks, where game play is second to entertainment gimmicks, but.. well... that is what mainstream appeal gets you. Of course, MMOs weren't the only ones that suffered from this design direction, it is a cancer throughout the entire gaming industry.
As for removing trade entirely, see... I don't think that needs to be done to compromise with people (while I have said that "ideally" I agree removing it entirely would solve the problem). I think a balance of some specific things just not being trade able (rare and unique items) and that of making trade an actual game with the wins/losses that we experience in adventure game play would go a long way to at least making the trade system less of a gimmick. As it is now, trade has no game system, it is just a interface where people trade. From the game systems perspective, trade doesn't exist unless it is via a vendor and the vendor trade system is constrained by price establishment and sale amount.
Player trade has no controls and no consequences. You don't die permanently, so there is no need to worry much about food/water, clothing, or shelter. There are no systems of degradation in items be it perishables, there are no controls by the factions and governments, no loyalty collections, rent, fees, licenses, profit shares or tithes to an organization, no loss of product due to time based devaluation, the list goes on. All of these things are elements in a real trade system that bring choice and consequence to the play.
That is also why it is odd to see Mr. RallyD go on with a RL example to try and justify his position all the while ignoring the lack of any RL structure to the trade system he so adores.
As I have said many times in this thread, game play is the important key here and for game play to exist, there must be rules, structure, choice and consequence, etc... These things just don't exist in the player trade market, just gimmicks that produce profit off certain behaviors.
I shall take it with a grain of salt then. Personally, I see 0 fun, immersion or role-play in buying dropped game loot. If I had it my way (and I know i'll be burnt at the stake for this) i'd have no trading of any mob dropped loot. I like the idea of trading potions, crafts, or anything player made, but I feel you should have to risk the adventure yourself if you want that loot. You don't pull Excalibur out of the stone to trade for a few gold pieces...just sayin.
So, to prove a point, you try to use the most extreme example - Excalibur. Even in EQ at launch, there was a healthy mix of No Drop/Droppable items. Many of the best raid items were still No-Drop at launch, and, I'd be ok with the compromise for Pantheon that nearly all or all would be.
But, you're removing a huge factor of what made EQ memorable by removing the ability to sell. Example: I just went to group in Gukbuttom - no drops for our group were upgrades, and we only obtained /no drop non-upgrade gear. Dang! guess we'll have to destroy it. I can't understand how anyone could argue that's quality gameplay or beneficial.
I shall take it with a grain of salt then. Personally, I see 0 fun, immersion or role-play in buying dropped game loot. If I had it my way (and I know i'll be burnt at the stake for this) i'd have no trading of any mob dropped loot. I like the idea of trading potions, crafts, or anything player made, but I feel you should have to risk the adventure yourself if you want that loot. You don't pull Excalibur out of the stone to trade for a few gold pieces...just sayin.
So, to prove a point, you try to use the most extreme example - Excalibur. Even in EQ at launch, there was a healthy mix of No Drop/Droppable items. Many of the best raid items were still No-Drop at launch, and, I'd be ok with the compromise for Pantheon that nearly all or all would be.
But, you're removing a huge factor of what made EQ memorable by removing the ability to sell. Example: I just went to group in Gukbuttom - no drops for our group were upgrades, and we only obtained /no drop non-upgrade gear. Dang! guess we'll have to destroy it. I can't understand how anyone could argue that's quality gameplay or beneficial.
That's why I specifically said if I had my way and essentially I knew next to no one would agree with me. I also played when EQ had No-Drop and I liked how it was done. You wouldn't have to destroy said items, if they had the system in, you could disassemble items for rare crafting components? It seems we agree though, if nearly all were No-Drop, and if no party members could use the item that drops, you can /ran on who gets to disassemble the item? I'm not blind enough to not see the other side of it though. In most games, the highest end loot (raid drops) are Soulbound,BOPU/No-Drop, whatever you want to call it so all of the trading has been taking out of the top tier folks anyway. I do see the need to be able to trade items and who doesn't mind when you trade an equal value item for another to suit your class? I simply stated, I wouldn't prefer it was all.
Actually, for the first few expansions, very few items were no drop - even at the raid level. I think the system was great like that. The raid drops were so rare, they were almost never sold. I never remember seeing things like cloak of flames auctioned until player started replacing those early raid items in Velious and later. The only items that were nodrop were those that required a quest, whether that was epics, a key (Veeshan's peak) or trial (plane of sky). It was logical that those items were nodrop.
The ability to sell those items later to players who had amassed wealth doing group content and trading was perfectly legitimate in my opinion. Not everyone has the time to raid the cutting edge content, yet trade allowed those items to eventually be earned other ways. Those players are always going to be well behind the curve, theres no reason to stamp out their dreams of progressing through farming the content accessible to them and diligently trading what they've earned.
Actually, for the first few expansions, very few items were no drop - even at the raid level. I think the system was great like that. The raid drops were so rare, they were almost never sold. I never remember seeing things like cloak of flames auctioned until player started replacing those early raid items in Velious and later. The only items that were nodrop were those that required a quest, whether that was epics, a key (Veeshan's peak) or trial (plane of sky). It was logical that those items were nodrop.
The ability to sell those items later to players who had amassed wealth doing group content and trading was perfectly legitimate in my opinion. Not everyone has the time to raid the cutting edge content, yet trade allowed those items to eventually be earned other ways. Those players are always going to be well behind the curve, theres no reason to stamp out their dreams of progressing through farming the content accessible to them and diligently trading what they've earned.
I couldn't agree more. As I stated before, it's definitely not my preference, but I don't always get what I want. This is also why I suggested that passing items down from character to character should have some sort of penalty once equipped. This is the age ole argument that often goes in too many different directions. Once again, these are just personal opinions, but humbly I don't think a non-raid player should ever have the chance to match that of a raid players gear, however outdated it may be. If X player wants to obtain it, wait until the next expansion when many raids then become group content and get it then.
This is true, but they were also rare because there were so few raids (Nagafen/Vox) . And once Plane of Fear/Hate were introduced, the most "common" drops from Plane of Hate/Fear were No Drop (Class specific armor). So, that's what I was meaning by the healthy mix of droppable versus no drop with Cloak of Flames being a great example of a rare, droppable item. I think Pantheon could be successful under the same premise.
And, Velious opened up a lot more options for the raiders with the 3 paths, which introduced a lot more raid gear options. Also, I played on the FV server as well where raid gear ultimately became tradeable and I enjoyed it; however, I would be the first to admit that RMT did massively inflate that market, but, it was mainly due to absolutely zero policing of any player behavior. Either way, I'd still support the healthy mix as a compromise.
The value in disassembly assumes everyone was a crafter, which, not everyone was in EQ. However, the system you're proposing would basically mandate that everyone would be a crafter as that's the only way they could engage in player trade and obtain value from the non-essential dropped adventuring items.
And, I think we're more in agreement than disagreement, and I know you admittedly stated that most wouldn't agree with your all no drop stance - but, I'm not proposing everything be "No Drop", but that I would be ok with the healthy mix which I gave with the example above. I think you could have the healthy mix ala EQ and still maintain the prestige of the items like Excalibur that you want.
This is true, but they were also rare because there were so few raids (Nagafen/Vox) . And once Plane of Fear/Hate were introduced, the most "common" drops from Plane of Hate/Fear were No Drop (Class specific armor). So, that's what I was meaning by the healthy mix of droppable versus no drop with Cloak of Flames being a great example of a rare, droppable item. I think Pantheon could be successful under the same premise.
And, Velious opened up a lot more options for the raiders with the 3 paths, which introduced a lot more raid gear options. Also, I played on the FV server as well where raid gear ultimately became tradeable and I enjoyed it; however, I would be the first to admit that RMT did massively inflate that market, but, it was mainly due to absolutely zero policing of any player behavior. Either way, I'd still support the healthy mix as a compromise.
I actually completely forgot about planes. Probably because planar gear wasn't technically raid gear to me. I acquired almost my complete set on Tarew by doing pick up groups which inhabited that zone perpetually. Oddly enough, the gods of hate and fear both dropped items and quest components which were tradeable. Nevertheless, you are right. It was a healthy mix.
This is true, but they were also rare because there were so few raids (Nagafen/Vox) . And once Plane of Fear/Hate were introduced, the most "common" drops from Plane of Hate/Fear were No Drop (Class specific armor). So, that's what I was meaning by the healthy mix of droppable versus no drop with Cloak of Flames being a great example of a rare, droppable item. I think Pantheon could be successful under the same premise.
And, Velious opened up a lot more options for the raiders with the 3 paths, which introduced a lot more raid gear options. Also, I played on the FV server as well where raid gear ultimately became tradeable and I enjoyed it; however, I would be the first to admit that RMT did massively inflate that market, but, it was mainly due to absolutely zero policing of any player behavior. Either way, I'd still support the healthy mix as a compromise.
The value in disassembly assumes everyone was a crafter, which, not everyone was in EQ. However, the system you're proposing would basically mandate that everyone would be a crafter as that's the only way they could engage in player trade and obtain value from the non-essential dropped adventuring items.
And, I think we're more in agreement than disagreement, and I know you admittedly stated that most wouldn't agree with your all no drop stance - but, I'm not proposing everything be "No Drop", but that I would be ok with the healthy mix which I gave with the example above. I think you could have the healthy mix ala EQ and still maintain the prestige of the items like Excalibur that you want.
Actually, for the first few expansions, very few items were no drop - even at the raid level. I think the system was great like that. The raid drops were so rare, they were almost never sold. I never remember seeing things like cloak of flames auctioned until player started replacing those early raid items in Velious and later. The only items that were nodrop were those that required a quest, whether that was epics, a key (Veeshan's peak) or trial (plane of sky). It was logical that those items were nodrop.
The ability to sell those items later to players who had amassed wealth doing group content and trading was perfectly legitimate in my opinion. Not everyone has the time to raid the cutting edge content, yet trade allowed those items to eventually be earned other ways. Those players are always going to be well behind the curve, theres no reason to stamp out their dreams of progressing through farming the content accessible to them and diligently trading what they've earned.
I couldn't agree more. As I stated before, it's definitely not my preference, but I don't always get what I want. This is also why I suggested that passing items down from character to character should have some sort of penalty once equipped. This is the age ole argument that often goes in too many different directions. Once again, these are just personal opinions, but humbly I don't think a non-raid player should ever have the chance to match that of a raid players gear, however outdated it may be. If X player wants to obtain it, wait until the next expansion when many raids then become group content and get it then.
I actually suggested a similar solution earlier this year:
I actually came up with a system of Item Degradation tied to repairing items that would solve some problems. Items begin at pristine quality and decay through use and the act of repairing until they eventually reach a poor quality. When the item is traded, the new owner gets it in a state of decay which may or may not involve stat reduction. Either way, at some point the item would reach its lowest grade but always remain useable by the last player to have equipped it. However, it would be unequippable by anyone other than the owner, though it could still technically be sold to a player to sacrifice for buffs or break it down.
Sort of like a delayed bind on equip (but again, not actually bound). It honestly may be more prudent to simply make the item bound once it reaches its lowest quality in order to prevent people from scamming others with something they can no longer technically use.
The idea is to adjust decay so items have a long life and multiple owners, without becoming a perpetual hand-me-down. Players could also obtain lower quality items at a discount, but knowing that it would have a lower resale value. Ideally an item would be viable for hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of use, but would eventually be retired. This would mostly address mudflation caused by eternal items.
1. I was talking of supply and demand, you were taking popularity and then labeling it an economic principal. The elements to which establish supply and demand as an economic principal are mostly missing in the game world. I pointed this out even listing a couple of the missing elements that define it, call it what you will but it is not simple economics because you are taking what appears to be as such and the claiming it is the same thing. Why a price goes up and down is based on more than popularity to what other reason people choose to price an item at in the game. I am sorry, but you are incorrect on this one.
At best you can say that what happens in the game economy "appears" to mimic a concept of such, but what drives those pricing principals are not the same in the game as what drives it in RL. We consistently can see a result in RL because of the distinct elements to which drive that pricing, but that pricing is not consistent to such in game which is why you have to continue providing a list of "exceptions to the rule".
2. If you had been reading my responses in this thread, no-trade was an example of showing how the problems of abuse would disappear. By rebutting that as what I was seeking as a suggestion, you were arguing a point I was not making.
As for the tax, I said "pre-sale tax" which means you pay a broker fee of 30% or more of your listed sale as you sell it. If it doesn't sell, you are out your 30% of your listed price. Kind of makes you strongly consider if it will sell does it not? If you sell it at that, great... if you don't you are down 30% of whatever get rich listing you thought you were going to make. It is a consequence to not knowing your market or trying to gimmick it. That is just one idea, the key point here is consequence.
3. Didn't argue to curb it... I am sorry... were you reading my response?
Also if you were reading my points, I said that the idea was not to
eliminate all possible abuse, as this really is impossible (build a
better mouse trap, they build a better mouse). You can however make it
so that such attempt to bypass such an implementation is obvious and
easily noted. This allows VR a much easier time to seeking out the
offenders. Normal players aren't likely to hit those implementations,
leaving the people who do as a much smaller target for evaluation.
That is exactly what I said. It directly answers to your response again, which acts as if you completely ignored my response to you before.
so far we know VR is considering a FTP up to a certain level. this means, plenty of accounts for RMT. Bad start as FTP games are rampant with RMT. You could require a CC, but... that is kind of defeating the ease of FTP trial, so.. we are back to square one. Now add in that they are considering having the FTP on the servers with paying players, so... we now have those issues to consider. Do they lock down the FTP acounts to completely inability? Also, it is one month of sub, and you do realize that this never stopped RMT companies from buying box after box. The business is too lucrative, there is no way the costs of a sub even becomes an issue.
Banning only works if they put effort into the systems and let me tell you, SoE was putting a lot of effort into it and they had much more resources than VR does AND they eventually decided "can't beat them, join them". I mean, we are talking about needing to design the systems with extensive logging (which eats up resources ) to monitor trends (which is why I pointed out using game play designed to force them into the open, you control them by making the abusers have to look obvious in their efforts, which means less man hours to identify them by VR)
So unless you decide to take your implementations past the standard EULA/BAN account approach, you shouldn't bother, give up, open an RMT store and save the effort because it will be rampant.
4. What is the point? Twinking is not the cause, it is an incentive. Player trade is the cause, without twinking players will still buy their way up. So it is really irrelevant to the discussion here. I just used it as an example of buying ones way up.
5. A game designed based on risk vs reward and you are saying that people should have an option to avoid the risk just because it is another way to advance and well, having options is good, because you don't want to offend anyone and like force that "achiever" game play on them! If people want to farm mundane grinds to advance so they can circumvent the risk, because they would like that option?
Why not play any mainstream game out there? All of their content is about doing mundane grinds of little risk to be able to gain achievement.
Here is the problem. Watching some unskilled hack gimmick farm some mundane easy target over and over to make a bunch of coin so they can easily waltz up (with no risk) and get the same reward that I had to put out risk to get makes my effort pointless and defies the very thing to which the tenants declare. Let us look at them shall we?
An understanding that a truly challenging game is
truly rewarding.
An expectation that with greater
risk will come greater reward.
So, explain to me how a dingle ball who is out kiting hill giants with ease while he is watching TV so he can mundanely grind up some cash to buy the same item that I have to use enormous skill and take large risk to achieve is serving that?
I know you guys aren't arguing that it is the same risk, you are attempting to claim that "effort" regardless of difficulty or risk is the same amount of play which is bullshit and completely invalidates a player who does take the risk. I mean, I don't know how I am even having to explain this to people who I have personally seen argue risk/reward in other threads. It is like this trade issue comes up and you guys throw out all logic to try and defend it. Your position is in conflict to the nature of the game and irrational to your very own points in other topics.
As for the player skill, didn't stop them from from getting items from players who were camping to produce items for unskilled hacks and RMT people who wanted to buy there way up through the game. so yes, it did affect your game play if you were trying to camp an item, remember, someone had to farm that item to sell it to that player hack.
6. Apples to oranges. RalllyD was complaining about camps being more heavily contested than before, that by having items on the market, there would be less contest. It is a flawed argument because each item has to be camped, it makes no difference.
Hrimnir's argument was to split the spawns into 3 separate spawns and then split the drop rate between them making the chance of getting the drop only a 1/3 of a chance of the original. This won't increase camp contest, it just makes people sit for longer periods to try and gain the item. What is that a solution for? It opens more camps in the same dungeon, but make people camp longer to get them? What is the goal here?
My suggestion was to disallow camps being locked down indefinitely for the purpose of supplying the trade market. I don't care if the camps are contested, I care that they are being contested to fuel people who want to skip having to camp them and have them handed to them on the player market.
It's ok Sinist, you were proven wrong about 10 different times in this thread and all you've done is make even more radical claims to further back up your position, and now you've gone so far that everyone can see through your house of cards.
But trying to discredit anyone who posts an opinion that counters yours isn't the way to garner support for your ideas.
Rallyd, if you can't quote and then defend your claim, you are talking out of your arse. Maybe that is why you stopped quoting because you don't want people to see where your arguments are lacking. Quote and support your position or move along. These accusations need to stop. Act like an adult please.
I'm exiting the debate with you stage left - you are arguing so vehemently just to defend your point that you'll never see any logical reasoning outside of what you so strongly believe. And, much like Kobin24's example of Excalibur prior to our good discussion, the hill giant example is an extreme example, and all you use are extreme examples to try to validate your points. Guess what, a Necro soloing the frenzied at 50 came with a lot of risk, and he probably used more individual skill than than a full group at the Myconid King. But there are many other variables outside of risk. As I said, we agree on most things - this isn't one. I'll leave this one at we agree to disagree.
One final edit after reading your last response - you want to be right "so" much that you result to personal attacks. You are beyond ridiculous in this thread. We've all read your nonsense throughout this thread, and surprise, we don't agree. What comes as a greater surprise is that you have to resort to personal attacks because we see your house of cards crumbling and you can't let that be the case.
@Raidan_EQ You really need to stop falsely summarizing me. It is a devious tactic.
1. I played on Test, then Lanys Tvl, then Stormhammer. All on the same character. I never used my test experience as evidence, only to describe the transition in acceptance as I moved. Again, if you had been reading the responses here rather than looking for a way to box me into dismissal, you would have known that I experienced all aspects of EQ server life (except PvP).
So your attempt to brush off that I just don't understand is again, a failure.
2. I experienced locked down camps in multiple camps over the case of the first 5 expansions. I used the FBSS as an early example to show that yes, camp locking occurred even in early EQ content for the sake of selling an item. I want to see extreme cases of camp lockdowns by limited people to be reduced.
3. The fungi tunic was a camp that most players had to run in groups of two because it was too hard for them. The fungi was an example of where a very difficult camp to break and hold was cheapened by player trade so people who weren't even skilled enough to handle the camp were wearing such. I want people to earn their gear through play. The point about this example was that the place was perma camped BECAUSE it was a hot selling item that made big money on the player trade market. If it was not for that, it would not have been as popular because the drops there were really only good for specific use and melee classes.
This is why I brought up the twinking because this tunic was MASSIVELY popular for twinking and so the camp was heavily camped for the sale of such. I knew casters who were constantly trying to get into the camp (even though nothing was of value to their class there) because it was a massive bank of cash to sell it in the market.
We disagree because you think some druid kiting easy targets grinding cash is proper balance to the risk a player spends to obtain it through the camp. This is not a disagreement, you are simply wrong here.
4. Wrong, you really need to read what I write, it is devious in your false summarizing me. What I said is that in other games later on to show people that trading was stupidly easy, I made millions as an example because they told me I was full of crap about how easy it was. I proved them wrong every time. So again, learn to read. Also, your position is missing the point. If I have to buy my way through the game, I am not playing it which is defeating the entire concept of risk/reward.
5. I used AH as a term to describe trading, it is easier to type. You are fishing to be right and dismiss me. Get on with it, you are wasting my time with your petty games.
6. Building another case for dismissal. So you can spike the ball. This is a fallicous form of discredit to try and invalidate a persons argument. It is devious and honestly a sign you can't defend your points.
I explained my position in that thread, you want to use it as some means to false summary, quote the discussion like an adult, argue your point rather than hide behind gimmicks to try in win in a childish flail for dominance. I admitted I remembered some spells wrong, but also explained later my position and what I meant as well. You using it as a means to argue here? Pure despicable deviousness of a sore loser in discussion.
How would you know if I am recalling it correctly? You can't even seem to remember what I wrote in a post you are responding to. Need I cut and paste to show your devious manipulations or are you going to slide it off and summarize this as well to your own needs.
Seriously, for a person who started out trying to be reasonable, you sure turned into one of the worst argument examples for fallacious tactics I have seen in a while and that is saying a lot considering the company posting here.
I shall take it with a grain of salt then. Personally, I see 0 fun, immersion or role-play in buying dropped game loot. If I had it my way (and I know i'll be burnt at the stake for this) i'd have no trading of any mob dropped loot. I like the idea of trading potions, crafts, or anything player made, but I feel you should have to risk the adventure yourself if you want that loot. You don't pull Excalibur out of the stone to trade for a few gold pieces...just sayin.
So, to prove a point, you try to use the most extreme example - Excalibur. Even in EQ at launch, there was a healthy mix of No Drop/Droppable items. Many of the best raid items were still No-Drop at launch, and, I'd be ok with the compromise for Pantheon that nearly all or all would be.
But, you're removing a huge factor of what made EQ memorable by removing the ability to sell. Example: I just went to group in Gukbuttom - no drops for our group were upgrades, and we only obtained /no drop non-upgrade gear. Dang! guess we'll have to destroy it. I can't understand how anyone could argue that's quality gameplay or beneficial.
He provided a solution that allowed both. Items of fresh drops are of a higher quality, when traded the item loses some stats. This retains the value of camping the item yourself, but still giving value to the sale of an item.
Honestly, you don't get to take a shot at me, then run off. I don't care what you wrote to me. You have false summarized me multiple times and upon correcting you, have done it again. You don't get to whine about me. Run along.
You do realize the more you post - the more you prove me right? If you take time to read as you claim others need to, you would have realized I said I'm exiting the debate with "you" as you are the only unreasonable poster in this thread. If you acted even somewhat like you do on these forums in game, I could see why you had difficulty obtaining items.
You do realize the more you post - the more you prove me right? If you take time to read as you claim others need to, you would have realized I said I'm exiting the debate with "you" as you are the only unreasonable poster in this thread. If you acted even somewhat like you do on these forums in game, I could see why you had difficulty obtaining items.
You do realize that with the power of literacy, anyone can read through our discussions and see how you falsely summarized me, I corrected, you came back, ignored my response then did another false summary and kept upping the anti with accusations and typical fallacious means to dismiss?
For the love of sanity, you were pulling deep in the last summaries, actually trying to correlate the fact that I didn't remember something exactly right in a past threads discussion (which I admitted and corrected) about an unrelated topic as if it somehow invalidated any point I made in this one? You with all honesty actually thought that was an honest discussion point? /boggle
I have said to you before, if you don't understand me, ask... I am more than happy to clarify, but don't assume, don't speculate, as it is a very ass hole thing to do when someone is right there to clarify any point to you. You ignored this, and continue to push this on me as if I am being a bad person because I countered every claim you made. You used fallacies constantly and you know what? You might as well have been lobbing names at me left and right because to me, such approach to arguments is devious, and disrespectful.
In all that, you try and spin this as my responses of "just having to be right" as if I am being unreasonable by correcting your asinine misrepresentation of my points. I may not stack on the pleasantries in discussion when contested, but I am honest, and I attempt to explain my position.
By the way, the only reason you are "exiting" the debate with me is because you really don't have an argument anymore without applying fallacies.
Heck, I was wondering how you were going to get around that one point you made when I linked you the tenants from the main site. It seems I know now, just point a finger as if I am being unreasonable and claim victory. As I said though, anyone who can read critically can see your arguments to be lacking.
make items lose monetary value when traded. have it to where you can't drop the item to force a high price trade. so even with an auction hall, you bought an item for 100k, you cant sell it for more than 90k. problem solved.
make items lose monetary value when traded. have it to where you can't drop the item to force a high price trade. so even with an auction hall, you bought an item for 100k, you cant sell it for more than 90k. problem solved.
I prefer a system that devalues items naturally, such as item degradation. The whole point of this topic is to come up with ways to balance the competitive atmosphere, risk vs reward and a healthy economy without just arbitrarily slapping rules down that dictate how the player plays the game.
For instance, if the item degrades through long term use, its value naturally depreciates.
make items lose monetary value when traded. have it to where you can't drop the item to force a high price trade. so even with an auction hall, you bought an item for 100k, you cant sell it for more than 90k. problem solved.
If you are going price control routes, better to develop an entire trade system with depth of systems and rules, regional/factional influences, etc... this way you can insert "control" in a manner that still provides player freedom of choice in a game play manner. Hard "in your face" type of caps and restrictions are very artificial and tend to just anger everyone.
make items lose monetary value when traded. have it to where you can't drop the item to force a high price trade. so even with an auction hall, you bought an item for 100k, you cant sell it for more than 90k. problem solved.
I prefer a system that devalues items naturally, such as item degradation. The whole point of this topic is to come up with ways to balance the competitive atmosphere, risk vs reward and a healthy economy without just arbitrarily slapping rules down that dictate how the player plays the game.
For instance, if the item degrades through long term use, its value naturally depreciates.
Wouldn't trade initiated degradation be a better fit as it would only degrade an item each time its traded, which is ultimately the concern of such gear inflation (ie the positive flow)? If you go straight item degradation based on use, then you have to balance the system of negative flow of items which creates its own issues.
Excessive trade would degrade an item and eventually get rid of it, but for someone who doesn't want to trade the item and hold on to it, there is no forced requirement to replace it.
Personally, I always found the systems where you had to replace your items caused developers to make items more available because having an item you worked excessively hard to get degrade away is a very demoralizing issue.
make items lose monetary value when traded. have it to where you can't drop the item to force a high price trade. so even with an auction hall, you bought an item for 100k, you cant sell it for more than 90k. problem solved.
I prefer a system that devalues items naturally, such as item degradation. The whole point of this topic is to come up with ways to balance the competitive atmosphere, risk vs reward and a healthy economy without just arbitrarily slapping rules down that dictate how the player plays the game.
For instance, if the item degrades through long term use, its value naturally depreciates.
I wouldn't be opposed to an item degradation system like you suggest; however, I would want it to slow enough that it doesn't overly affect difficult to obtain items such as epics/raid gear, etc.. Where, if an epic degraded too quickly, I would avoid completing the quest as it wouldn't retain its value long enough. Basically, slow enough that it depreciates over long term use, but long enough that it could take Pantheon's progression (and expansion releases) into account. It would be a mechanic that I wouldn't mind testing in alpha/beta.
Comments
But trying to discredit anyone who posts an opinion that counters yours isn't the way to garner support for your ideas.
When I moved my character from Test after the test wipe fiasco, the production servers were a very different mindset. Player trade EC style was openly accepted via barter mainly, then the plat system took off with some people opposing that, but of course it winning out, then there was the bazaar trading, more again against that, but in time, it won out. During this time as well, it was frowned on generally by most that players that RMT were cheating. People did it, but kept to themselves as such behavior in early MMOs was not openly accepted. Game developers even were writing posts about their analysis of the issues, SoE treating it like a serious threat as well.This of course changed over time and and AH systems with RMT are now openly accepted by most and an encouraged form of play by not only the players, but the companies who adopted it and began to profit off it (all I can say on that one is bahhaha)
It is an interesting progression to watch games be turned into gimmicks, where game play is second to entertainment gimmicks, but.. well... that is what mainstream appeal gets you. Of course, MMOs weren't the only ones that suffered from this design direction, it is a cancer throughout the entire gaming industry.
As for removing trade entirely, see... I don't think that needs to be done to compromise with people (while I have said that "ideally" I agree removing it entirely would solve the problem). I think a balance of some specific things just not being trade able (rare and unique items) and that of making trade an actual game with the wins/losses that we experience in adventure game play would go a long way to at least making the trade system less of a gimmick. As it is now, trade has no game system, it is just a interface where people trade. From the game systems perspective, trade doesn't exist unless it is via a vendor and the vendor trade system is constrained by price establishment and sale amount.
Player trade has no controls and no consequences. You don't die permanently, so there is no need to worry much about food/water, clothing, or shelter. There are no systems of degradation in items be it perishables, there are no controls by the factions and governments, no loyalty collections, rent, fees, licenses, profit shares or tithes to an organization, no loss of product due to time based devaluation, the list goes on. All of these things are elements in a real trade system that bring choice and consequence to the play.
That is also why it is odd to see Mr. RallyD go on with a RL example to try and justify his position all the while ignoring the lack of any RL structure to the trade system he so adores.
As I have said many times in this thread, game play is the important key here and for game play to exist, there must be rules, structure, choice and consequence, etc... These things just don't exist in the player trade market, just gimmicks that produce profit off certain behaviors.
So, to prove a point, you try to use the most extreme example - Excalibur. Even in EQ at launch, there was a healthy mix of No Drop/Droppable items. Many of the best raid items were still No-Drop at launch, and, I'd be ok with the compromise for Pantheon that nearly all or all would be.
But, you're removing a huge factor of what made EQ memorable by removing the ability to sell. Example: I just went to group in Gukbuttom - no drops for our group were upgrades, and we only obtained /no drop non-upgrade gear. Dang! guess we'll have to destroy it. I can't understand how anyone could argue that's quality gameplay or beneficial.
The ability to sell those items later to players who had amassed wealth doing group content and trading was perfectly legitimate in my opinion. Not everyone has the time to raid the cutting edge content, yet trade allowed those items to eventually be earned other ways. Those players are always going to be well behind the curve, theres no reason to stamp out their dreams of progressing through farming the content accessible to them and diligently trading what they've earned.
@Dullahan
This is true, but they were also rare because there were so few raids (Nagafen/Vox) . And once Plane of Fear/Hate were introduced, the most "common" drops from Plane of Hate/Fear were No Drop (Class specific armor). So, that's what I was meaning by the healthy mix of droppable versus no drop with Cloak of Flames being a great example of a rare, droppable item. I think Pantheon could be successful under the same premise.
And, Velious opened up a lot more options for the raiders with the 3 paths, which introduced a lot more raid gear options. Also, I played on the FV server as well where raid gear ultimately became tradeable and I enjoyed it; however, I would be the first to admit that RMT did massively inflate that market, but, it was mainly due to absolutely zero policing of any player behavior. Either way, I'd still support the healthy mix as a compromise.
@Kobin24
The value in disassembly assumes everyone was a crafter, which, not everyone was in EQ. However, the system you're proposing would basically mandate that everyone would be a crafter as that's the only way they could engage in player trade and obtain value from the non-essential dropped adventuring items.
And, I think we're more in agreement than disagreement, and I know you admittedly stated that most wouldn't agree with your all no drop stance - but, I'm not proposing everything be "No Drop", but that I would be ok with the healthy mix which I gave with the example above. I think you could have the healthy mix ala EQ and still maintain the prestige of the items like Excalibur that you want.
I actually came up with a system of Item Degradation tied to repairing items that would solve some problems. Items begin at pristine quality and decay through use and the act of repairing until they eventually reach a poor quality. When the item is traded, the new owner gets it in a state of decay which may or may not involve stat reduction. Either way, at some point the item would reach its lowest grade but always remain useable by the last player to have equipped it. However, it would be unequippable by anyone other than the owner, though it could still technically be sold to a player to sacrifice for buffs or break it down.
Sort of like a delayed bind on equip (but again, not actually bound). It honestly may be more prudent to simply make the item bound once it reaches its lowest quality in order to prevent people from scamming others with something they can no longer technically use.
The idea is to adjust decay so items have a long life and multiple owners, without becoming a perpetual hand-me-down. Players could also obtain lower quality items at a discount, but knowing that it would have a lower resale value. Ideally an item would be viable for hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of use, but would eventually be retired. This would mostly address mudflation caused by eternal items.
1. I was talking of supply and demand, you were taking popularity and then labeling it an economic principal. The elements to which establish supply and demand as an economic principal are mostly missing in the game world. I pointed this out even listing a couple of the missing elements that define it, call it what you will but it is not simple economics because you are taking what appears to be as such and the claiming it is the same thing. Why a price goes up and down is based on more than popularity to what other reason people choose to price an item at in the game. I am sorry, but you are incorrect on this one.
At best you can say that what happens in the game economy "appears" to mimic a concept of such, but what drives those pricing principals are not the same in the game as what drives it in RL. We consistently can see a result in RL because of the distinct elements to which drive that pricing, but that pricing is not consistent to such in game which is why you have to continue providing a list of "exceptions to the rule".
2. If you had been reading my responses in this thread, no-trade was an example of showing how the problems of abuse would disappear. By rebutting that as what I was seeking as a suggestion, you were arguing a point I was not making.
As for the tax, I said "pre-sale tax" which means you pay a broker fee of 30% or more of your listed sale as you sell it. If it doesn't sell, you are out your 30% of your listed price. Kind of makes you strongly consider if it will sell does it not? If you sell it at that, great... if you don't you are down 30% of whatever get rich listing you thought you were going to make. It is a consequence to not knowing your market or trying to gimmick it. That is just one idea, the key point here is consequence.
3. Didn't argue to curb it... I am sorry... were you reading my response?
That is exactly what I said. It directly answers to your response again, which acts as if you completely ignored my response to you before.
so far we know VR is considering a FTP up to a certain level. this means, plenty of accounts for RMT. Bad start as FTP games are rampant with RMT. You could require a CC, but... that is kind of defeating the ease of FTP trial, so.. we are back to square one. Now add in that they are considering having the FTP on the servers with paying players, so... we now have those issues to consider. Do they lock down the FTP acounts to completely inability? Also, it is one month of sub, and you do realize that this never stopped RMT companies from buying box after box. The business is too lucrative, there is no way the costs of a sub even becomes an issue.
Banning only works if they put effort into the systems and let me tell you, SoE was putting a lot of effort into it and they had much more resources than VR does AND they eventually decided "can't beat them, join them". I mean, we are talking about needing to design the systems with extensive logging (which eats up resources ) to monitor trends (which is why I pointed out using game play designed to force them into the open, you control them by making the abusers have to look obvious in their efforts, which means less man hours to identify them by VR)
So unless you decide to take your implementations past the standard EULA/BAN account approach, you shouldn't bother, give up, open an RMT store and save the effort because it will be rampant.
4. What is the point? Twinking is not the cause, it is an incentive. Player trade is the cause, without twinking players will still buy their way up. So it is really irrelevant to the discussion here. I just used it as an example of buying ones way up.
5. A game designed based on risk vs reward and you are saying that people should have an option to avoid the risk just because it is another way to advance and well, having options is good, because you don't want to offend anyone and like force that "achiever" game play on them! If people want to farm mundane grinds to advance so they can circumvent the risk, because they would like that option?
Why not play any mainstream game out there? All of their content is about doing mundane grinds of little risk to be able to gain achievement.
Here is the problem. Watching some unskilled hack gimmick farm some mundane easy target over and over to make a bunch of coin so they can easily waltz up (with no risk) and get the same reward that I had to put out risk to get makes my effort pointless and defies the very thing to which the tenants declare. Let us look at them shall we?
http://pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/
So, explain to me how a dingle ball who is out kiting hill giants with ease while he is watching TV so he can mundanely grind up some cash to buy the same item that I have to use enormous skill and take large risk to achieve is serving that?
I know you guys aren't arguing that it is the same risk, you are attempting to claim that "effort" regardless of difficulty or risk is the same amount of play which is bullshit and completely invalidates a player who does take the risk. I mean, I don't know how I am even having to explain this to people who I have personally seen argue risk/reward in other threads. It is like this trade issue comes up and you guys throw out all logic to try and defend it. Your position is in conflict to the nature of the game and irrational to your very own points in other topics.
As for the player skill, didn't stop them from from getting items from players who were camping to produce items for unskilled hacks and RMT people who wanted to buy there way up through the game. so yes, it did affect your game play if you were trying to camp an item, remember, someone had to farm that item to sell it to that player hack.
6. Apples to oranges. RalllyD was complaining about camps being more heavily contested than before, that by having items on the market, there would be less contest. It is a flawed argument because each item has to be camped, it makes no difference.
Hrimnir's argument was to split the spawns into 3 separate spawns and then split the drop rate between them making the chance of getting the drop only a 1/3 of a chance of the original. This won't increase camp contest, it just makes people sit for longer periods to try and gain the item. What is that a solution for? It opens more camps in the same dungeon, but make people camp longer to get them? What is the goal here?
My suggestion was to disallow camps being locked down indefinitely for the purpose of supplying the trade market. I don't care if the camps are contested, I care that they are being contested to fuel people who want to skip having to camp them and have them handed to them on the player market.
@Sinist
I'm exiting the debate with you stage left - you are arguing so vehemently just to defend your point that you'll never see any logical reasoning outside of what you so strongly believe. And, much like Kobin24's example of Excalibur prior to our good discussion, the hill giant example is an extreme example, and all you use are extreme examples to try to validate your points. Guess what, a Necro soloing the frenzied at 50 came with a lot of risk, and he probably used more individual skill than than a full group at the Myconid King. But there are many other variables outside of risk. As I said, we agree on most things - this isn't one. I'll leave this one at we agree to disagree.
One final edit after reading your last response - you want to be right "so" much that you result to personal attacks. You are beyond ridiculous in this thread. We've all read your nonsense throughout this thread, and surprise, we don't agree. What comes as a greater surprise is that you have to resort to personal attacks because we see your house of cards crumbling and you can't let that be the case.
You really need to stop falsely summarizing me. It is a devious tactic.
1. I played on Test, then Lanys Tvl, then Stormhammer. All on the same character. I never used my test experience as evidence, only to describe the transition in acceptance as I moved. Again, if you had been reading the responses here rather than looking for a way to box me into dismissal, you would have known that I experienced all aspects of EQ server life (except PvP).
So your attempt to brush off that I just don't understand is again, a failure.
2. I experienced locked down camps in multiple camps over the case of the first 5 expansions. I used the FBSS as an early example to show that yes, camp locking occurred even in early EQ content for the sake of selling an item. I want to see extreme cases of camp lockdowns by limited people to be reduced.
3. The fungi tunic was a camp that most players had to run in groups of two because it was too hard for them. The fungi was an example of where a very difficult camp to break and hold was cheapened by player trade so people who weren't even skilled enough to handle the camp were wearing such. I want people to earn their gear through play. The point about this example was that the place was perma camped BECAUSE it was a hot selling item that made big money on the player trade market. If it was not for that, it would not have been as popular because the drops there were really only good for specific use and melee classes.
This is why I brought up the twinking because this tunic was MASSIVELY popular for twinking and so the camp was heavily camped for the sale of such. I knew casters who were constantly trying to get into the camp (even though nothing was of value to their class there) because it was a massive bank of cash to sell it in the market.
We disagree because you think some druid kiting easy targets grinding cash is proper balance to the risk a player spends to obtain it through the camp. This is not a disagreement, you are simply wrong here.
5. I used AH as a term to describe trading, it is easier to type. You are fishing to be right and dismiss me. Get on with it, you are wasting my time with your petty games.
6. Building another case for dismissal. So you can spike the ball. This is a fallicous form of discredit to try and invalidate a persons argument. It is devious and honestly a sign you can't defend your points.
I explained my position in that thread, you want to use it as some means to false summary, quote the discussion like an adult, argue your point rather than hide behind gimmicks to try in win in a childish flail for dominance. I admitted I remembered some spells wrong, but also explained later my position and what I meant as well. You using it as a means to argue here? Pure despicable deviousness of a sore loser in discussion.
How would you know if I am recalling it correctly? You can't even seem to remember what I wrote in a post you are responding to. Need I cut and paste to show your devious manipulations or are you going to slide it off and summarize this as well to your own needs.
Seriously, for a person who started out trying to be reasonable, you sure turned into one of the worst argument examples for fallacious tactics I have seen in a while and that is saying a lot considering the company posting here.
Honestly, you don't get to take a shot at me, then run off. I don't care what you wrote to me. You have false summarized me multiple times and upon correcting you, have done it again. You don't get to whine about me. Run along.
@Sinist
You do realize the more you post - the more you prove me right? If you take time to read as you claim others need to, you would have realized I said I'm exiting the debate with "you" as you are the only unreasonable poster in this thread. If you acted even somewhat like you do on these forums in game, I could see why you had difficulty obtaining items.
For the love of sanity, you were pulling deep in the last summaries, actually trying to correlate the fact that I didn't remember something exactly right in a past threads discussion (which I admitted and corrected) about an unrelated topic as if it somehow invalidated any point I made in this one? You with all honesty actually thought that was an honest discussion point? /boggle
I have said to you before, if you don't understand me, ask... I am more than happy to clarify, but don't assume, don't speculate, as it is a very ass hole thing to do when someone is right there to clarify any point to you. You ignored this, and continue to push this on me as if I am being a bad person because I countered every claim you made. You used fallacies constantly and you know what? You might as well have been lobbing names at me left and right because to me, such approach to arguments is devious, and disrespectful.
In all that, you try and spin this as my responses of "just having to be right" as if I am being unreasonable by correcting your asinine misrepresentation of my points. I may not stack on the pleasantries in discussion when contested, but I am honest, and I attempt to explain my position.
By the way, the only reason you are "exiting" the debate with me is because you really don't have an argument anymore without applying fallacies.
Heck, I was wondering how you were going to get around that one point you made when I linked you the tenants from the main site. It seems I know now, just point a finger as if I am being unreasonable and claim victory. As I said though, anyone who can read critically can see your arguments to be lacking.
As for your last comment, yet another fallacy.
Wow.. really? You are being seriously dishonest.
For instance, if the item degrades through long term use, its value naturally depreciates.
If you are going price control routes, better to develop an entire trade system with depth of systems and rules, regional/factional influences, etc... this way you can insert "control" in a manner that still provides player freedom of choice in a game play manner. Hard "in your face" type of caps and restrictions are very artificial and tend to just anger everyone.
Excessive trade would degrade an item and eventually get rid of it, but for someone who doesn't want to trade the item and hold on to it, there is no forced requirement to replace it.
Personally, I always found the systems where you had to replace your items caused developers to make items more available because having an item you worked excessively hard to get degrade away is a very demoralizing issue.
I wouldn't be opposed to an item degradation system like you suggest; however, I would want it to slow enough that it doesn't overly affect difficult to obtain items such as epics/raid gear, etc.. Where, if an epic degraded too quickly, I would avoid completing the quest as it wouldn't retain its value long enough. Basically, slow enough that it depreciates over long term use, but long enough that it could take Pantheon's progression (and expansion releases) into account. It would be a mechanic that I wouldn't mind testing in alpha/beta.