Keep Tomes when TRing

[Impatiens]

I didn't neg you, but I consider "easy button" derogatory and inflammatory. You basically are saying anyone who disagrees with you is an incompetent noob. It's an otherwise meaningless epithet, as it can be applied to any and all aspects of the game that help the players in any way.

I also did not neg rep. I don't even have enough reputation to do so if I wanted to, but basically this. While it is not a comment that I would give someone negative rep for I can definitely understand why someone may take that comment as derogatory. The problem with the rep system is that people can have very different definitions of what they consider derogatory or not and it is pretty impossible to never offend anyone.

[JOTMON]

I would like to see a Supreme True Reincarnation in the DDO Store or as a rare random event drop that allowed you to keep all Tomes used in past lives.

I know I would buy one and so would many others...

[SableShadow]

I know I have stated this before but I will say it again here. You would have to speak pretty good numbers-ese in order to pitch this to a marketing team. You would have to outline that more people would spend more dollars on TR to make up for the decrease in sales of +2 tomes due to people never needing tomes after their first life. If theres demographic evidence to support this then I am sure Turbine would move on it.

If anything happens to +2 tome sales, they would likely go down and not up from this move. Do the now higher TR purchases make up for that?

"Gold Seal Greater Heart of Wood - Now you can TR and re-read the tomes you read in your previous life!"

Cost: ....you guessed it, the cost of a GHW + a full set of tomes + a premium. And you only put it out seasonally, so even people who aren't planning on TR'ing will buy one or two..."just in case."

I would like to see a Supreme True Reincarnation in the DDO Store or as a rare random event drop that allowed you to keep all Tomes used in past lives.

I know I would buy one and so would many others...

Doh! i r not teh fastemest enough!

[Chai]

OK, my apologies. Your insistence on focusing on +2 tomes made me think you were objecting to a proposal to keeping them through TR. I now see you are simply and obviously wrong.

An ML7 +2 tome obviously has "reason" to be used in times an ML11 +3 tome won't be. Qualifying for ITWF in a timely manner for one. And several possible implementations could provide further reason.

As I have said 3 times before now how this could be implemented to not be the case: simply require the use of a +2 tome before the +3 or +4 tome from a previous life can be applied. Voila: no reduction in demand for +2 tomes, and in fact, an increase now that more TRs take place.

The straw man is you picking an implementation that has potential flaws that support your case, instead of examing the implementation I've now proposed 4 times that avoids those problems.

Understand yet?

This has nothing to do with what I am saying.

There are people who get to 20, farm a bunch of gear and tomes and TR right away. If they get to keep their +3 stat bonus, how is that incentive to buy +2 tomes from the store?

Requiring the use of a lesser tome to be used before a greater tome kicks in goes against every single stacking rule in D&D. You want to banter this is all irrelevant because it doesnt match your opinion, but you cant just cast aside 30+ years of stacking rules to enforce an opinionated stance.

Here we are, talking about tossing out traditional rules with 30 years of canon behind them in favor of altering game mechanics again to suit our opinion, eh? I thought we already had this little chat.

[dkyle]

This has nothing to do with what I am saying.

There are people who get to 20, farm a bunch of gear and tomes and TR right away. If they get to keep their +3 stat bonus, how is that incentive to buy +2 tomes from the store?

Because they want the bonus at level 7 instead of 11 or 15? Because it could be implemented that they have to use it to get the bonus?

Requiring the use of a lesser tome to be used before a greater tome kicks in goes against every single stacking rule in D&D. You want to banter this is all irrelevant because it doesnt match your opinion, but you cant just cast aside 30+ years of stacking rules to enforce an opinionated stance.

DDO has already smashed D&D stacking rules to little bits.

And items can do anything the DM wants them to do. If our DM wants to make a +3 Tome with "Prereq: must have +2 inherent bonus already" why can't they?

I'll take 30 years of Rule 0 over some minor bit of rules that I'm pretty sure wasn't introduced until 3E.

Here we are, talking about tossing out traditional rules with 30 years of canon behind them in favor of altering game mechanics again to suit our opinion, eh? I thought we already had this little chat.

And I remain thoroughly unconvinced that there is any such thing as "30 years of canon" in D&D. I find such notions totally anathema to what D&D is.

[JOTMON]

Doh! i r not teh fastemest enough!

Ninja spy posting enhancement FTW

[Chai]

Because they want the bonus at level 7 instead of 11 or 15? Because it could be implemented that they have to use it to get the bonus?



DDO has already smashed D&D stacking rules to little bits.

And items can do anything the DM wants them to do. If our DM wants to make a +3 Tome with "Prereq: must have +2 inherent bonus already" why can't they?

I'll take 30 years of Rule 0 over some minor bit of rules that I'm pretty sure wasn't introduced until 3E.



And I remain thoroughly unconvinced that there is any such thing as "30 years of canon" in D&D. I find such notions totally anathema to what D&D is.

Which is why your stance makes sense to you, who are just willing to cast anything you dont agree with aside as irrelevant, but not to those who understand D&D as a game with rules and guidelines and not just something the DM totally and completely pulls out of nowhere, or an unmentioned somewhere, heh. D&D has a system, and while DDO, which is derived from D&D sometimes changes things to fall in line with their game, simply ignoring all rules and guidelines caliming they are irrelevant around every corner would not produce a game derived from D&D.

Stacking rules were in place in AD&D, and there are even some in OD&D. 3E was certainly not the first edition to use them.

Its still a bad business decision. If it wasnt, we would already have seen it implemented. One does not simply walk into the marketing team meeting and banter that all of their money concerns as well as cited precidence of failure of similar moves made in the past are irrelevant simply because they dont support the stance of those in support of a change.

As I stated before, you might be able to convince me as a player, but not with bantering that all rules and canon that can be cited are irrelevant because you say so. You will not likely convince me when looking at this through the business lens however.

Because they want the bonus at level 7 instead of 11 or 15? Because it could be implemented that they have to use it to get the bonus?

Please do let me know a few weeks in advance when the change will go into affect that makes people have to use a +2 tome before they can use a +3 tome just to get another +1 bonus out of it. I would like to use that time to stock the store with pitchforks, duct tape, and materials needed to build makeshift popcorn machines and picket signs. The hilarity that ensues from this will be on par with the U5 combat nerf debacle.

[dkyle]

Which is why your stance makes sense to you, but not to those who understand D&D as a game with rules and guidelines and not just something the DM totally and completely pulls out of nowhere, or an unmentioned somewhere, heh. D&D has a system, and while DDO, which is derived from D&D sometimes changes things to fall in line with their game, simply ignoring all rules and guidelines caliming they are irrelevant around every corner would not produce a game derived from D&D.

A slight tweak to how specific tomes work, justified by the realities of the campaign, is not "pulling from nowhere". It's a call a houserule. Houseruling and reflavoring is the heart and soul of D&D and has been from the beginning

3.5 rules are relevant as a starting point, suggested rules that work pretty well in PnP that the Devs can use. But they are not a straight jacket. Rules that don't adapt well to DDO have and should continue to be changed. If you think my suggestions are bad for DDO, tell my why. That the differ from PnP is a non-issue. This is not PnP.

Stacking rules were in place in AD&D, and there are even some in OD&D. 3E was certainly not the first edition to use them.

A myriad of mismatched and arbitrary rules were present. 3E standardized them, and that standardization is what you're holding up on a pedastal.

A tome that only stacks with up to +2 of another tome would be right at home in pre-3E D&D.

Its still a bad business decision. If it wasnt, we would already have seen it implemented.

LOL, seriously? By this logic, every suggestion we could possibly make is "bad for business", since by definition, anything that would be "good for business" would already be in the game.

I've solved your business-related objections, why do you cling to them?

Your objections now are based on closed-minded fealty to a rules system DDO already deviates from in far greater and significant ways than how tomes work.

[TPICKRELL]

...staring at the fruits of that effort longingly for months or years without using them is totally tons of fun!

This... I have several toons who could benefit right now from +3 tomes that are in the bank, but since I might decide to TR them some time in the future, I'm not willing to eat the +3 tomes until I have a second of the same type or absolutely decide that I will never TR that toon.

[Impatiens]

This has nothing to do with what I am saying.

There are people who get to 20, farm a bunch of gear and tomes and TR right away. If they get to keep their +3 stat bonus, how is that incentive to buy +2 tomes from the store?

But with the suggestion they wouldn't get to keep that +3 (or +4) stat bonus from level one. They wouldn't get the bonus until 11 or 15. That is plenty of incentive to get +2 tomes at level 7. Four or Eight levels on a TR can take a while and people would want to benefit from those extra stats earlier on. There's no way someone who had a +3 or +4 int tome would forgo using a +2 int tome at 7 and miss out on those extra skill points. Someone who needed a dex tome to get ITWF would most likely not want to just wait until after level 11 or 15 to pick it up. People will still use +2 tomes even if they have a +3 or +4 tome waiting for them.

[GentlemanAndAScholar]

What if it's a second TR? Is it even possible to get twice as much XP? I haven't really looked at total possible XP numbers and a lot of content has been added since TRing was first introduced, so maybe it is, but that seems like a stretch.

I seriously doubt there is 8.6 million XP (for a Super TR2) to be had in any one single life. The content doesn't support it.

Oh, and I vehemently oppose keeping tomes after TR. This game has more than enough easy buttons. We don't need yet another one.

[Impatiens]

Oh, and I vehemently oppose keeping tomes after TR. This game has more than enough easy buttons. We don't need yet another one.

People use this excuse a lot, but tell me how is keeping raid loot tomes after TRing any more of an easy button than keeping raid loot gear? Keeping tomes does not make the game easier, it makes it less grindy and more fun and makes it so you don't have to worry about waiting for something that may or may not be added in the future before you decide to finally use those tomes you spent so much time trying to get. Keeping tomes after TRing also helps people who have been in the game for a while and may have used those valuable tomes before TRing even existed and are now forced to lose that loot they worked so hard to get if they want to TR their character.

To everyone who says this is an easy button, please give some explanation as to how. Just saying something is an easy button doesn't make it true. An easy button would be something that makes it so you don't have to do any work at all, such as offering +4 tomes for sale in the store. We already worked to get our tomes. Why should we lose them?

[GentlemanAndAScholar]

People use this excuse a lot, but tell me how is keeping raid loot tomes after TRing any more of an easy button than keeping raid loot gear? Keeping tomes does not make the game easier, it makes it less grindy and more fun and makes it so you don't have to worry about waiting for something that may or may not be added in the future before you decide to finally use those tomes you spent so much time trying to get. Keeping tomes after TRing also helps people who have been in the game for a while and may have used those valuable tomes before TRing even existed and are now forced to lose that loot they worked so hard to get if they want to TR their character.

To everyone who says this is an easy button, please give some explanation as to how. Just saying something is an easy button doesn't make it true. An easy button would be something that makes it so you don't have to do any work at all, such as offering +4 tomes for sale in the store. We already worked to get our tomes. Why should we lose them?

I never said I approved of keeping gear either.

[dkyle]

I never said I approved of keeping gear either.

Then I assume you've either never TR'd, or deleted all your characters' BtC gear when you did? Anything less and you're guilty of of using an "easy button".

[Cyr]

I never said I approved of keeping gear either.

I'm sure that would incentivice alot of people to use the system

[GentlemanAndAScholar]

Then I assume you've either never TR'd, or deleted all your characters' BtC gear when you did? Anything less and you're guilty of of using an "easy button".

If everyone else did, or if the game did it for everyone who TRd, it would be a different story. If I were to destroy my BtC loot and no on else does, it would put my toon at a severe disadvantage. but I would've TRd my toons even if it meant losing all my gear. In fact, that's what we all did before TR was invented. We deleted the toon and re-rolled it.

[GentlemanAndAScholar]

I'm sure that would incentivice alot of people to use the system

The argument here is not the monetization of in-game mechanics.

[Impatiens]

I never said I approved of keeping gear either.

You may not approve of it, but Turbine certainly does and my argument is that +3 and +4 BtC tomes should not be treated any differently than gear.

[dkyle]

If everyone else did, or if the game did it for everyone who TRd, it would be a different story. If I were to destroy my BtC loot and no on else does, it would put my toon at a severe disadvantage. but I would've TRd my toons even if it meant losing all my gear. In fact, that's what we all did before TR was invented. We deleted the toon and re-rolled it.

So it's OK to use "easy buttons" if everyone uses them?

TR was introduced partly because "re-rolling" is a ridiculous thing to require in an MMO to respec. It was a huge design flaw, one that frustrated and alienated players.

The argument here is not the monetization of in-game mechanics.

Huh?

[GentlemanAndAScholar]

You may not approve of it, but Turbine certainly does and my argument is that +3 and +4 BtC tomes should not be treated any differently than gear.

I suppose you do have a point there. The only suggestion in this thread that I see that would make some sense would be the tomes to be added to your TR cache and not automatically included in your stats. Since tomes now have ML it wouldn't be too difficult to implement.

I still disagree in principle with keeping stuff from past lives in general though