June 3rd Game Change Log

[Evangelion]

Death is to be avoided.

Just sayin'.

[Mindflayer]

Just sayin'.

Well played Steven, well played.

[EyeSeeU]

Indeed!

[Grim_Reefer]

I honestly think max lives should be cut in half.

[Twinblades713]

Not even against that tbh.

[Iyorvin]

Maybe use item levels to develop a formula for item crumble, instead of an instant loss of two. Seems rather dumb I would lose 2 low level rares to a mob death while trying to reequip from a cabal stomping. Now, if I am decked and I have items that are all lvl 50+, I would lose two randoms. I think approach would take too much work, so I have an alternative;

Calculate the formula based on the amount of rares a character holds. For the most part that translates to a decked char. This will simply prevent reequiping characters from losing the only rares they have when they mob die or get beat down, etc.

[The-Nameless]

Actually in hindsight I like your idea Festy.

What if it worked this way. You calculate total OBJ level of all gear your wearing. if it is over a certain total level THEN you are up for the crumble. Because there is a huge difference between two terminators, and two bracelets of magic. If I have Soulreavers shadow instead of double plated leggings. Etc etc. Thoughts?

[Anume]

Rares do not crumble at all for moderates.

Rares do not crumble for ruthless if they do not have more than 5 rares total (=reequipping).

[f0xx]

Rares do not crumble at all for moderates.

Rares do not crumble for ruthless if they do not have more than 5 rares total (=reequipping).

Where does this number 5 comes from anyway, and why is it not as much as moderates can wear?

[mya]

My moderate as more than 5 rares. With helm, and basic rares.

A invocker with 2 elemental bracelets, the frost staff, the silver armor and the protection boots has 5 rares. All mostly the first things people gets.

I get the cristal earing of +3 luck and now one of my rares is going to crumble...

We have like 18 eq slots. Five is to low. 8 or ten.

All this change does is kick down people who get killed while re-equiping by decked people.

[Croyvern]

I honestly think max lives should be cut in half.

I think it would be interesting to add a third tier, Hardcore. Every life lost could hurt Con and lower your condition. In return, Hardcores, have no rare limits. If you want to play fast and furious, you would have that option. Just a thought.

[Kyzarius]

My moderate as more than 5 rares. With helm, and basic rares.

A invocker with 2 elemental bracelets, the frost staff, the silver armor and the protection boots has 5 rares. All mostly the first things people gets.

I get the cristal earing of +3 luck and now one of my rares is going to crumble...

We have like 18 eq slots. Five is to low. 8 or ten.

All this change does is kick down people who get killed while re-equiping by decked people.

I must agree with Mya on this one. All this does is make it harder for those who are learning pk, while those who are solid at it will barely notice since they die once in a blue moon as is.

[Anume]

Rares should not crumble for moderates, no matter what. If they do it is a bug.

Moderates can wear between 8 and 12 rares, depending on class. None should crumble if they die.

[Mindflayer]

I think it would be interesting to add a third tier' date=' Hardcore. Every life lost could hurt Con and lower your condition. In return, Hardcores, have no rare limits. If you want to play fast and furious, you would have that option. Just a thought.[/quote']

I love this

[f0xx]

Eh, ruthless chars have no rare limits as it is...

[mya]

Inventory Quit.

I know, it makes no sense.

[P_body]

Anume, what are the reasons for the change to crumbling rares if you're a ruthless with 5+? No one seems to like it, but the staff seems pretty set on making/keeping it that way, which seems to mean there's a solid reason(s) and a general consensus among the imms to implement it.

What inspired the idea, why was it discussed, and what are the goals the imms want to achieve by its implementation?

[Anume]

The change was implemented to help with rare circulation, take care of the constant problems we see with the "Death is to be avoided" rule and also to make moderates a more viable option.

We'll discuss if we raise the limit a bit though.

[P_body]

he problems with death to b avoided? You mean people just keep throwing themselves at people with no thought of the consequences of their death?

Sounds reasonable. So many people have been complaining about no rares being around. This will DEFINITELY help. I would agree with the large number of of people saying we'd like you to consider raising the rare limit above five. I like to play melee classes, and what I go for first are my weapon selection. If a melee isn't holding at least five different options (polearm, shield, flail, whip or axe, sword or sanc staff or exotic or staff) he's asking for a stomping. After that I go about trying to upgrade my nonrare armor for rares/uniques. Because with melees, you can be decked to the hilt, and if you choose the wrong weapon to fight a class with, you're just making it that much harder on yourself..

Just my 2 cents.

[Pali]

I'm still curious as to if it happens to people who have life insurance.

[Anume]

Yes.

[Pali]

Excellent.

[The-Nameless]

Excellent.

This.

[Balgashang]

I'd rather a char limit myself then the crumble affect, I've never been all the way through desolation myself, finding a group to do it is rough. I am curious though, does the binding an item negate the crumble affect? I know it said except owner only items, but I believe even though an item is bound, it can still be sac'd.

[Erana]

Anything bound should be safe.