[.11] Weapon/Armor Duration (split from Packet Color Thread)

Discussion in '{Archived} Alliance Rules 2.0 Playtesting' started by Sage of Legaia, Nov 27, 2018.

  1. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    I don't disagree with that. Still, if this is what we are focusing on regarding our economy, we are nitpicking and not dealing with the bigger issues. Seriously we are quibbling over such a small amount when these weapons last 2 years. I bet people lose more tags in their own stuff or in the wetness of Seattle than people's weapons degrade in Denver.
  2. Muir

    Muir Fighter

    Anecdotally I have a large number of weapon tags that are approaching 10 years old. If my home chapter put expiration on basic weapons in contravention of the rest of the Alliance I would simply buy my tags from travelling players and resell spares at a markup, making weapon production economically non-viable in that chapter.
  3. Alavatar

    Alavatar Baron

    Merchant the expiring treasure equipment. Blacksmith non-expiring equipment. Put those smiths back to work.

    Sounds like a potential economy stimulus.
    JeffL and Cedric like this.
  4. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    If all loot dropped production had a 2 year expiration, we’d see uptick in a need for crafters to make items that don’t expire. Maybe we should head more in this direction. Alliance doesn’t have good gold sinks, we need things to expire. We need to focusing on creating a need for crafters.
  5. Ken

    Ken Artisan Alliance Logistics

    That's exactly what happens. I've seen our blacksmith come into logistics with a pile of expiring weapons to merchant back, which can then be rebuilt at the standard discount. Though it's rough when they're silvered/strengthened as we don't currently have a way to recover that.
    JeffL likes this.
  6. Muir

    Muir Fighter

    I agree, but doing it in a way that puts people in a position of not being able to play the game if they can't muster sufficient treasure is a bad way to do it.

    I remember the Northern Minnesota event where the grand total of weapons left in town were a dagger and a rock. Making crafting 'viable' needs to be focused on 'nice to have' not essentials that take characters out of play.
    MaxIrons and mikestrauss like this.
  7. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    2 years is a VERY long time for something to expire. Plot can always put out more treasure if they feel like there isn't enough. They can send in merchants to sell gear if needed. You can spend a minimal amount of GS (which promotes volunteering) to also get yourself a few backup weapons. I think new/low level chapters need to be careful but even my second game playing Alliance I ended up GSing a spare long sword and shield. Most higher level players in Denver I know already have indestructible everything due to cheap DS items.

    Honestly if there was an Alliance game where all that was left is a dagger and a rock, your plot team done fucked up.
  8. Draven

    Draven Count Seattle Staff Marshal

    I have less of an issue with the idea of production items expiring and more an issue with a single chapter defending that it’s the only chapter that does this but is somehow not LCO.
  9. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    Nod Zeth, I get your point. But, the rules are inconsistent and incomplete. Whatever takes the place of the treasure policy committee really should put out a handbook reviewing this and other issues when we go live with the new treasure policy. The by-laws are poorly written for that section and woefully out of date. We need someone to go through and clean up, our tags, color coding of tag system (if we want it), etc. Technically the chapters that print the scroll tags ON the scroll are violating policy as well as it needs to be a tag, not part of the scroll itself. But..these are all small potatoes to the bigger fish we have to fry.
  10. Draven

    Draven Count Seattle Staff Marshal


    That being said, I totally agree that this is relatively small potatoes. It’s just something I feel like would be fixed pretty quickly if some people decided to easily abuse it (like “smuggling” in clearly superior tags that don’t expire from other chapters). I doubt it’ll ever be a really big deal unless someone really wanted it to be.
  11. PirateFox

    PirateFox Scholar

    Can assure, importing "superior" tags did not fix the expiration date on ours even after much importing. /shrug
  12. Inaryn

    Inaryn Knight Marshal

    Durnic and MaxIrons like this.
  13. mikestrauss

    mikestrauss Squire

    I think the core of this discussion really needs to be focused on one thing: item removal isn't fun for players.

    Whether we are talking about Shatter effects, item duration, in-game theft, or "the Dark Sun scenario," item removal pretty much just causes more problems than it creates good stories. It is the reason that many players consider Ward to be a customer service effect and simply won't play without one. It is the reason that the Shatter spell is arguably the most terrifying thing for low level players (usually better to take a Death than a Shatter). It is the reason that explosive traps easily the most hated trap type in the game.

    Whether the rules technically allow item duration or not, it is a poor choice in terms of customer service, for a variety of reasons. Most obviously, if you use actual dates, it outright punishes players who have limited incomes or who can't make game often due to real life conflicts. It is also extra work for logistics and creates another vector for accidental cheating. It is yet another mechanic that is significantly more painful for new players than it is for older players, which is not good for the overall health of the game. And, as was pointed out above, if it doesn't exist in every chapter, it creates disparities where they shouldn't exist.

    Temporary item removal is great for challenging players (and pretty much half the status effects in the game are effectively some version of temporary item removal, when viewed through that lens). Permanent item removal is, more often than not, poor customer service.


    P.S. -> If I had my druthers, "Shatter" effect would simply disable an item until somebody with Blacksmith spent 1 minute repairing it (similar to armor breaches), thus removing one of the big sinners in this area.
    JeffL and Muir like this.
  14. Draven

    Draven Count Seattle Staff Marshal


    I don’t mind item removal effects, as long as they’re consistent across the Alliance and are reasonably delivered. For example, using Shatter significantly against low-level character weaponry can potentially remove them from a fight and make it less likely they can participate. Shattering their Cure Light potions, while annoying, can create a sense of “justice” when such a shattering fiend is brought down.

    Also, it means they’ll have to buy from the local potion vendor (which Plot should have accounted for), and that’s good.

    Also, Shattering Purify potions from high level characters can also be real good...or Enslavement Antidotes...or Euphoria Antidotes...or coin....

  15. Gandian Ravenscroft

    Gandian Ravenscroft Knight Chicago Staff Marshal

    Definitely been there.

    "We need a purify here, right now!"
    "I've got a purify potion!"
    "I summon a force to shatter your purify potion!"
    "...I no longer have a purify potion!"

    Thanks, @Stana. :p

    I thoroughly enjoy when shatter is used on non-weapons. It's refreshing, and can add a completely different threat to a situation that rarely just disables someone from a fight entirely.
    Stana likes this.
  16. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    I disagree with you MS that item removal isn't fun for players. It is fun for players as long as certain expectations are made AND it promotes the bigger picture of a real game economy.
  17. Feldor

    Feldor Scholar

    I'd believe that the rules folks believed item removal was fun for players if it worked on magic items. The default render-indestructible that comes with items means that mostly shatter is a tax on low level players, and seems to indicate that there is a belief in whoever wrote those rules that item removal is not fun.
  18. Draven

    Draven Count Seattle Staff Marshal

    This logic is highly flawed.

    If we look at the breadth of the Alliance rules system and review what constitutes as <blank> removal, there are four major ways in which a removal occurs.

    1) Permanent Death, in which ownership is removed via the removal of the character.

    2) Destroy Magic, in which rituals and/or battle magic effects are removed from the target item.

    3) Shatter, in which an item is destroyed if it is not indestructible.

    4) Theft.

    Each of these are explicitly permitted by the system, but each of them have limited solutions.

    1) “Solved” by abilities that minimize the likelihood of death and/or permanent death, such as Regen, Rebirth, Life, and new rituals. This solution is limited in that you eventually run out of lives.

    2) Destroy Magic is solved depending on how it is delivered; if via Dragon Magic, it’s stopped by anything that stops a spell (Spell shield, dodge, spell parry, resist spell). Barring that, it’s solved by Resist Destroy Magic.

    3) This is solved by rituals that render indestructible or via strengthening. These are resource intensive solutions that are limited in advantage outside of “Won’t Break.”

    4) This is solved via Wards/Limited Circles, though that’s only for stuff you don’t actively carry on you. For stuff actively on you, Spirit Link/Lock/Item Recall, or just not putting yourself in a position to be robbed.

    That being said, it would indicate that the rules authors didn’t find the idea of loss to necessarily be unfun, but more that the idea of loss to be an impetus to find solutions to loss, and for that aspect to be part of the game.
    Cedric likes this.
  19. Muir

    Muir Fighter

    There's a reason Northern Minnesota isn't a chapter anymore.

    2 years, to go by SoMN's schedule, is 8 events just now, assuming someone can make all of them. I'd need to replace my longsword and shield, that would run 5pp per event, or about 1 silver market value per event on top of consumables. Of course, it'd be significantly more than that, as we've already had the discussion that only a fool wouldn't have backups for when plot busts out Shatters to make the game 'more interesting'.

    If we're going to be that regressive, we should just go back to requiring players to pay for build with coin.
  20. Cedric

    Cedric Rogue Marshal

    Great points Evan. On one hand, I'd almost rather Alliance as a game decided do they care about an economy or not. It's a big decision that should be made at the game level. Dystopia Rising decided it would be a key part of their game, so it's designed with that in mind. Other games have decided it isn't a big deal.
    JeffL likes this.

Share This Page