Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Please, introduce ring decay already

Cast your vote:

  • Yes, introduce decay already

    Votes: 19 19.6%

  • Yes, but finalize without decay

    Votes: 21 21.6%

  • Nope, do nothing / proceed as planned

    Votes: 57 58.8%
  • Total voters
    97
San said:
You save defense cost by killing more quickly. By any means which increase your dps.
Click to expand...

The main point with ares is the focus blow and increased critical, that adds dmg without any cost. It makes whatever you hunt with more eco.

This is why the easter ring is the best ring in the game atm.

Just to get clear of any confusion that seems to inhabit this thread.
 
Hatten said:
The main point with ares is the focus blow and increased critical, that adds dmg without any cost. It makes whatever you hunt with more eco.

This is why the easter ring is the best ring in the game atm.

Just to get clear of any confusion that seems to inhabit this thread.
Click to expand...

If you want to see the effect of Easter etc with pills and earth shock, I published my spreadsheet in the hunting forum.
 
San said:
You save defense cost by killing more quickly. By any means which increase your dps.
Click to expand...

Save defense costs is not prooven.:wise:

I can hunt very eco without any Armor and my TT returns stay the same if i hunt with high end Armors.
The same is if using Rings.
I can use defense Ring and Ares Ring to save costs for same ammount of ammo, but who says the tt returns will still be the same???
So there is no proove.

All i can read out of the OP and such other posts is , pll want get Rings cheaper
 
Svarog said:
I never gave it another thought until recently, when the discussions like this started to occur more and more often, with people anticipating this change each VU. It demonstrates MA that the players don't regard such a change as unthinkable, they in fact expect it. So what might initially have been a barely considered option in a corner of a whiteboard, now starts to assume a form.
Click to expand...
Umm, it's already written? With some twisted logic one could say there is a track record of them not fulfilling earlier announcements and silently abandoning it, which would make a lot of people happy in this case. Are you basing your trust on that? I am actually rather positive after recent notable efforts that they really try and realize what they said they would. To me this is a good thing generally, disadvantages may appear in the details/for individuals.

Grave Digger said:
All i can read out of the OP and such other posts is , pll want get Rings cheaper
Click to expand...
There is not anyone without vested interests and complaints from all sides are equally hypocritical. Those already invested fear for their value, and those yet to do it want it cheaper. Sure. And?
 
I just want to TT all my spare rings which don't have full TT
 
San said:
Umm, it's already written? With some twisted logic one could say there is a track record of them not fulfilling earlier announcements and silently abandoning it, which would make a lot of people happy in this case.
Click to expand...

"May have deterioration implemented in future" - it's not an announcement, not even a statement of intent. And this line is the only basis for these expectations.
 
Rings, rings, rings....

Am I the only one who is convinced that rings were implemented BACKWARDS in the first place?
By that I mean that all the adjusted and better rings should have been (L) (with only a handful of very rare UL), and the regular ones should have been UL?

Oh, and if any "official" reads this, you might want to get someone to kick the ring bucket so Halloween Rings start getting looted (and maybe the two less-than-fantastical unique also)?
 
atomicstorm said:
What a shitty attitude. Why do you wish bad things on people? What the hell is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Ditto in this situation.

I can go back in your past and look at some of the things you've said and say "What the hell is wrong with you?".
 
Svarog said:
"May have deterioration implemented in future" - it's not an announcement, not even a statement of intent. And this line is the only basis for these expectations.
Click to expand...

You're right, the wording gives the possibility to retract as well, or even to say they never intended to. To me this is even worse for basing a decision on. This is just legalese weasel-speak.
 
Evey said:
MA is trying for some time to make the game cheaper to play, for the average player, and they succeed at it.
Author of OP asks MA to stop "this nonsense" and make it more expensive to play because he wants a ring but the risk is too high? Can you please help me understand? wth is this crap?
Click to expand...

If it was that, make the game cheaper to play, I'm all for it. Right now it is under the caveat of possibly being temporary, while everybody gets thoroughly addicted to it. Imagine the screaming when/if this ends, the more the longer it lasts. I just rather have clarity sooner. There is more to it than just being able to buy a ring for cheaper, but people believe what they want anyway.
 
San said:
If it was that, make the game cheaper to play, I'm all for it. Right now it is under the caveat of possibly being temporary, while everybody gets thoroughly addicted to it. Imagine the screaming when/if this ends, the more the longer it lasts. I just rather have clarity sooner. There is more to it than just being able to buy a ring for cheaper, but people believe what they want anyway.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're saying, lets take the 'worse' position now and then move forward and see where the market takes us after that.

You're never going to get MA to remove that wording, so we find ourselves in a 'grey' area. It's a bit like every country having nukes, but no one fires them. We know what might happen, but as players as far as we're concerned we don't want said nukes to be fired. Let's live with the status quo. :)

But like I've already said; How do you tell a player that paid $500 for an Ares ring a few months ago, which is now worth $70 in the market (based on implied values in titles of rings), that they now also got to take decay as well, as a very few number of players are not comfortable with unknown risk.

EU thrives on unknown risk; we've got so used to it, we break the glass bottles ourselves now and give them to MA to stick in our bottoms.

Let it go.

Rick

ps: I lost alot myself on high end taming rings and HP rings.
 
San said:
If it was that, make the game cheaper to play, I'm all for it. Right now it is under the caveat of possibly being temporary, while everybody gets thoroughly addicted to it. Imagine the screaming when/if this ends, the more the longer it lasts. I just rather have clarity sooner. There is more to it than just being able to buy a ring for cheaper, but people believe what they want anyway.
Click to expand...

People are threatened by people pointing out that the ring state without decay is temporary, unless mindark changes its announcement of that in the beginning. Ring value and markup has always been suspect. We find all kinds of reasons to justify trying to get $5000 for a ring but when the next one comes out, or multiples drop, or they add decay.... POOF.

Early adopter penalty is a major issue in eu.
 
  • Like
Reactions: San
San said:
Reason is, people rave about how eco it is to hunt with ring combos because they don't decay, and base resale value on that even though the state is predestined to change. On the day of its announcement, their value will crash and lots of peds will vanish in digital Nirvana.

I find it impossible to consider investing in such an item under these circumstances. You have to trust to be able to recover your investment before the change happens, which might be doable for avatars with a very high throughput. Everybody else is ill-advised to do so. Some will be caught unaware because they didn't do homework. The complaints are foreseeable.

Therefore I find it prudent to do away with the dangling Sword of Damocles and finalize the properties of these rings either way, with or without decay*, but main thing is it happens now. At least in good time before the year-end events start so that the market can adapt.

* Leaving it without decay ofc means that stable investors will remain screwed for good. It's already lasting for too long to make amends, so might as well be considered optional. Yeah, I'd go hunt with pay-once-then-forever-free buffs, too.
Click to expand...

Decay HAS already been implemented. They now decay in the same way as clothes do, when you equip and unequip them. Additional decay ontop of this is not likely to be added.
 
e-lite said:
Decay HAS already been implemented. They now decay in the same way as clothes do, when you equip and unequip them. Additional decay ontop of this is not likely to be added.
Click to expand...

thats not really decay. thats more like an equipment fee...
 
e-lite said:
Decay HAS already been implemented. They now decay in the same way as clothes do, when you equip and unequip them. Additional decay ontop of this is not likely to be added.
Click to expand...

The supposed decay was mentioned as "additional" to the equipment one:

Currently rings deteriorate a small amount when being equipped. Additional deterioration may be implemented in a future Version Update, if systems for time-based deterioration are implemented.
Click to expand...
 
Just me why thinks ring decay will be based on what they want you to pay for an normal mmo 20-30 per month.

Would show why they want sooo many rings out there.
Avarage playing time per day (example 3h) x 30 / $20-30 = 2-3 ped per hour and they get a good monthly income from everyone ingame.

The most troubling about ring decay is, where will those money go.
If they are returned too lootpool minus MAs cut its fine.
If they are going too MA alone it makes game even money expensive then it already is
 
San said:
If it was that, make the game cheaper to play, I'm all for it. Right now it is under the caveat of possibly being temporary, while everybody gets thoroughly addicted to it. Imagine the screaming when/if this ends, the more the longer it lasts. I just rather have clarity sooner. There is more to it than just being able to buy a ring for cheaper, but people believe what they want anyway.
Click to expand...

The game IS CHEAPER to play now then it was 4 years ago for example. Let's think about Hedoc Mayhem, how expensive they were compared to their prices today and compared to the new EK series that is much better & much cheaper. Rings and other buffs also makes your gameplay cheaper, NOW. If you cannot justify to yourself the price of an item, don't buy it; but to ask the devs to change it because it's confusing for you, with all due respect..., it's bullshit. Buy or don't. Free market and stuff... nothing ever was crystal clear in this game, about items, about anything, it was always the community who worked together and came up with how things work or theories about how others could work. And things should stay somewhat the same way, IMHO.
Looking at your activity in game from EntropiaLife tracker, I think you shouldn't do many investments as your lack of it (activity) does not justify buying gear because the ROI would suck for you like a mofo. Do something that is cheap and fun, be it forum posting, item and community trolling...


atomicstorm said:
People are threatened by people pointing out that the ring state without decay is temporary, unless mindark changes its announcement of that in the beginning. Ring value and markup has always been suspect. We find all kinds of reasons to justify trying to get $5000 for a ring but when the next one comes out, or multiples drop, or they add decay.... POOF.

Early adopter penalty is a major issue in eu.
Click to expand...


Early adopting has advantages and disadvantages, be it in the game or outside of it. You're taking some risks, hoping for some benefits. No one forces you to take the risk.. it's just that.. a risk.
About the rings, players know it may be temporary, most of them. Some will whine, some will adopt, some will leave, most will stick around and take the next risk available on the table and some of those who risk will win, some will not... a never ending challenge...
 
Evey said:
The game IS CHEAPER to play now then it was 4 years ago for example. Let's think about Hedoc Mayhem, how expensive they were compared to their prices today and compared to the new EK series that is much better & much cheaper. Rings and other buffs also makes your gameplay cheaper, NOW. If you cannot justify to yourself the price of an item, don't buy it; but to ask the devs to change it because it's confusing for you, with all due respect..., it's bullshit. Buy or don't. Free market and stuff... nothing ever was crystal clear in this game, about items, about anything, it was always the community who worked together and came up with how things work or theories about how others could work. And things should stay somewhat the same way, IMHO.
Looking at your activity in game from EntropiaLife tracker, I think you shouldn't do many investments as your lack of it (activity) does not justify buying gear because the ROI would suck for you like a mofo. Do something that is cheap and fun, be it forum posting, item and community trolling...





Early adopting has advantages and disadvantages, be it in the game or outside of it. You're taking some risks, hoping for some benefits. No one forces you to take the risk.. it's just that.. a risk.
About the rings, players know it may be temporary, most of them. Some will whine, some will adopt, some will leave, most will stick around and take the next risk available on the table and some of those who risk will win, some will not... a never ending challenge...
Click to expand...

looks like you misunderstanding him. he didnt ask the devs to change the item. he asked the devs to implement the changes that they allready stated they will do so we got a set price for stuff that is based on its actual value and not this bubbly item prices that are going to burst heavily as soon as they introduce what will come anyway. i wont pay much for a big ring before that happens. and im quite certain that ring decay will come with the next big VU update (should be 16.0 then). and that may be after MM event so in jan, or feb possibly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: San
San said:
Reason is, people rave about how eco it is to hunt with ring combos because they don't decay, and base resale value on that even though the state is predestined to change. On the day of its announcement, their value will crash and lots of peds will vanish in digital Nirvana.

I find it impossible to consider investing in such an item under these circumstances. You have to trust to be able to recover your investment before the change happens, which might be doable for avatars with a very high throughput. Everybody else is ill-advised to do so. Some will be caught unaware because they didn't do homework. The complaints are foreseeable.

Therefore I find it prudent to do away with the dangling Sword of Damocles and finalize the properties of these rings either way, with or without decay*, but main thing is it happens now. At least in good time before the year-end events start so that the market can adapt.

* Leaving it without decay ofc means that stable investors will remain screwed for good. It's already lasting for too long to make amends, so might as well be considered optional. Yeah, I'd go hunt with pay-once-then-forever-free buffs, too.
Click to expand...
Stable investors got what they paid for. Stables are dirt cheap and I would gladly buy them from any disappointed owners. They will profit you just need to wait 5 years like every other propertie owner for content. You don't see the plot people bitching like the stable ones. And there are more people who own plots and paid more then the cheap stables.
 
One possible reason why MA have been dragging their heels for so long is that ring decay would undoubtedly have performance implications. And while they've had some success in the battle for improving performance, there's still a lot to be wished.
 
Thanks #50 and #52, saved me some text.

I've had a little bit to do with risk management in an earlier career. When you begin to reign in your impulses, you arrive at certain ways of dealing with risk. Known risk means you can determine the amount of money you can put on the table (5$'s Risk of Ruin thread is an excellent guide). Unknown risk gets the leftover scraps you are prepared to lose. The other side of this trade is tasked with finding which method gives them the best yield. Could be leaving it unknown is better, because impulsive people spend more. Being better at decision making than their clients is their bread and butter.
 
Me Really Never said:
[...]so we got a set price for stuff that is based on its actual value[...]
Click to expand...

Set price here in EU? Only ammunition and probes have a set value, and the stuffs from TT, the rest, well... to pay or not to pay, this is the question you have to answer by yourself.
All of the sudden a bunch of players need the game changed somehow to elimitae confusion, to have trigger warnings and safe spaces in a wild market so they can still do nothing at all. Can you snowflakes please wake up already?
 
I think a lot of people clicked on '3' without fully understanding the question. I clicked 'leave it the way it is' as in, don't add the screw-you-tax.
 
I havent read through the whole thread but do those who want decay on rings realize that will benefit higher level players even more? Decay would mean we get more bonus from the same ring (because of higher turnover/dmg/base eco) than lower lvl guys, not to mention some might just stop use rings alltogether
 
Piotr said:
I havent read through the whole thread but do those who want decay on rings realize that will benefit higher level players even more? Decay would mean we get more bonus from the same ring (because of higher turnover/dmg/base eco) than lower lvl guys, not to mention some might just stop use rings alltogether
Click to expand...

Unless decay is tiered according to the ring benefit.. not saying it should be directly proportional because that would devalue the uber rings.. but slightly higher decay for perfected ares than imp ares would make sense
 
Rocket192 said:
Unless decay is tiered according to the ring benefit.. not saying it should be directly proportional because that would devalue the uber rings.. but slightly higher decay for perfected ares than imp ares would make sense
Click to expand...

Imo it think its other way around = the better prefix on ring the less decay, iam even willing too risk on it by keeping a perfected ares i dont even use fully.
Just like everything else in game.
 
Evey said:
Set price here in EU? Only ammunition and probes have a set value, and the stuffs from TT, the rest, well... to pay or not to pay, this is the question you have to answer by yourself.
All of the sudden a bunch of players need the game changed somehow to elimitae confusion, to have trigger warnings and safe spaces in a wild market so they can still do nothing at all. Can you snowflakes please wake up already?
Click to expand...

that looks a lot like you invested in some big rings recently and are now afraid that MA will do what MA has said they will do and your investement will lose value. you were willing to take the risk despite knowing it better. so dont rage now that people want a fix state to see the real value of that bubbly stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top