Runes of Magic US / AU

If you think of it from a programming standpoint, there is really no need for anything more than accessing a results table and a probability of each result. click on a jewel, you roll the dice. the results certainly are a function of the probability and nothing else.

Quoted from "vfwiffo"

Quoted from "Amberwave"

The only way we will get change is to keep campaigning for it, and I say keep the wheels squeaking!

Ah, yes, a spammer credo. I was wondering where it was.



P.S. In actual practice, once you do that, you automatically go into spam folder.

By that logic, Ice Blade would never be nerfed.

If there's one thing this game seems to prove, it's that no matter how senseless the QQ is, if you do it long and loud enough, they'll change something. Whether it's a good change or a bad one, who knows? Sometimes it feels like they just randomly throw darts at a board to make decisions on game changes.

But then, I agree that plussers as they currently are, especially with the current ridiculous costs, are a waste of money, time and frustration. It's a money thing, though, so complaining about it might not make any difference at all- in this one case, you might be right, Pinky. Who knows though, maybe the dart will land on it this week. Anything's possible.

Ha, i said maybe i would... Considering of course that the mechanics of plussing may be intentional by the game makers, and you just never noticed. Success rate can be controlled by the user, so no, success or failure is not bound to the stones when purchased. In the argument of fairness i am advocating the mechanics be improved, but as it currently stands some users are at a distinct advantage over others such as you.

Quoted from "mnkmurphy885"

But then, I agree that plussers as they currently are, especially with the current ridiculous costs, are a waste of money, time and frustration. It's a money thing, though, so complaining about it might not make any difference at all- in this one case, you might be right, Pinky. Who knows though, maybe the dart will land on it this week. Anything's possible.

There is nearly universal agreement on the forum that a solution to just about any problem is to reduce the cost for players to play the game. It works in real world about as well as it does in theory, but that does not stop people from pushing it. Some days I feel like arguing, others I tell myself that I am not being paid to teach basic economics and my time is better spent in game.

As for plussers, it varies. At current cost, for me some gear does not need to be plussed as much as possible, some does. Everyone's idea on what something is worth is somewhat different.

Well Trebbaron, you have admitted of knowing of an exploit and would maybe start using it, well see you on the banhammer list, if you know of an exploit, send it to support so they can fix it and maybe you might not get banned. If you know of it and it works, just for that you admitted of doing it bye bye, you're fired.


Rustyx as usual the voice of reason, i do agree that except for accessories and weapons to +16, the rest could easily be +12 max.


Make the cost lower in IS and they would still a lot more stuff for sure, but that is all we can hope for.


Fann, i want my Iceblade back!!!!! getting 20 flames from a mage warden is acceptable, but getting an icicle or 3 is not, i call elves racist on humans!!!

Quoted from "zidlef"

Fann, i want my Iceblade back!!!!! getting 20 flames from a mage warden is acceptable, but getting an icicle or 3 is not, i call elves racist on humans!!!

Yeah, you and me both, Zid. I would trade my m/wd for getting my p/s iceblade back.

It does go to show that QQ can move RW, though. Whether or not it can move Gameforge, that is the question. I really don't get the arguments that the game isn't too expensive though. If you do a cost/benefit analysis with pretty much any competing MMO, RoM loses, bigtime. What it does do is allow you to spend more to accumulate more power, moreso than any other MMO I know of, though, so maybe that's partly why the big spenders don't complain as much. After all, RoM does allow them to accrue godlike status easily and quickly, by just opening their wallet wide enough.

I dunno, it's a pretty niche market. I stand by the argument that making it more appealing to smaller spenders and ftp would increase population and profits, but hey, I'm not an economist, nor did I stay at Holiday Inn Express. I know that I will continue to spend my money on my sub game and leverage my investment in RoM as a ftp, because I can't in good conscience do otherwise, and I know too many people that feel the same way. It's a shame, because I was a rahrah RoM supporter for a long time, and I still love to play with mah peeps. "That other game's" call is too stronk to resist, though.

Sam Walton said "people vote with their feet" when talking about the retail industry. In the video game industry, people vote with their wallets. I ain't voting for RoM no mo. Wish I could, but the cost is just too high and the benefits are too low. Plussing gems are a big reason why.

"Changing the plussing system is 1.) off topic and 2.) has also been discussed to death." Lol no its not. Thats more on the topic than accusing me of anything negative.

I confirmed that plussing success can be affected by the player, but other than the fact you don't know how its done and i called it an exploit (perhaps in error), i see no real evidence that the mechanics are in fact an exploit. Its not like you need an addon or anything... Its along the lines of calling clearing debt at the library botting. Anywaye it's already been discussed and explained in past posts, which is where i learned of it. If a GM whispers me i'd be happy to help or discuss further, but they never do...

Yup this game is far too expensive. I spent $50 worth of diamonds on gasha's yesterday and not a single perfect enhanced. Lots of fireworks and zombie pots though... ugg. May not be upgrading rings anymore after all.

Maybe the compromise could be a system like this. Plussing jewels stay the same at the same fail rates. However each item has a failure cap of say 10 per lv 1-6, 7-12, 12-16. So there is still luck involved and sometimes the player comes out ahead and sometimes they don't but no one has to use 50 plussers like in Borella's example because you can only fail a max of 10 times.

Then wouldnt you just fail 10 times with the terrible vendor jewels and just never fail with all the regular ones? And if it is based on jewel type, then that would allow for 10 fails per 3 different jewel levels - for a totla of 30 possible fails.

I still think a good first step is to get of having a chance to lose a plussing level on failure. People are upset with normal fails, but are furious when they PAY money to make an item worse.

Quoted from "Quaffy2"

I still think a good first step is to get of having a chance to lose a plussing level on failure. People are upset with normal fails, but are furious when they PAY money to make an item worse.

+1

That works too. I down for anything that makes it better. I used 10 as an example.