Part of the solution, but you probably won't like it

[Amber Moon]

Items can be classified into tiers.

Top tier items: the very best are "Bind on Acquire". You earn em', you own em. no other way to get them.

Second tier items: Good enough for most of us. "Bind on Equip". You can buy them, but use them once and they are character bound forever. This actually creates more crafting demand.

Third tier items: Resources, consumables, and everyday items. Freely traded.

I know well that the devil is in the details and what ends up in each category but first, consider it as a concept and how it changes the feel and play of the game.

Could you support it?

(This is the system, btw, used by most modern MMOs to help discourage trading related issues).

 

[Connor_Graham]

That would pretty much ruin crafting professions all at once.

Sorry, this isn't WoW.

 

[love2winalot]

Hail: Even if we support it, the bigger question is, "Does EA know how to Code it"? hehehe

 

[Azureal]

(This is the system, btw, used by most modern MMOs to help discourage trading related issues).

This system also inhibits trade.

Its a two way street. Some think its great, others think it sucks.

Im of the latter, so no.

 

[Doomsday Dragon]

I also think this is out of the question.

You cannot just put something like this into a game that is over ten years old. This is something that must be in place right from the start or not at all.

And if this were introduced how would certain characters get top tier items? Not all templates are capable of earning an item some characters you need to give items to or buy items for because they are not capable of getting them any other way.

 

[Landicine]

(This is the system, btw, used by most modern MMOs to help discourage trading related issues).

Most modern MMOs are levelers which try to discourage twinking out alternate characters and friend's characters. While items in UO can make a new player better or make gaining skill easier, items being freely traded doesn't make an item broken. Usually it is some other property of the item that makes it broken.

Runics seem to be the dupe of the day, and dupers would simply make powerful tradeable armor and sell that if the runics themselves were bound. Or they would sell the completely bods that weren't bound. Or they would dupe resources. Or they would find the loophole in the system because human beings are very good at breaking systems made by other human beings.

If a few more items had the "owned by" property, it wouldn't really bother me, but if most of the stuff I crafted could only be used by my crafter or the first character that wore it, I wouldn't see the point of crafting.

I would rather see a better system of item tracking and dupe prevention than some item binding system that decreases flavor, immersion, and trade in favor of not really solving any problem.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

The idea basically is not bad. I'd put runic crafting tools into the first tier. Everything else should be second tier items.

Making artifacts not tradeable wouldn't be a good idea, because you may earn artifacts that are no use to your character(s), and not being able to trade them seems stupid. You should at least be able to trade an item once. Also, I like the idea that someone can rather focus on crafting instead of making Doom rounds and buy an artifact from his earned gold.

 

[Kith Kanan]

the idea stinks like poo , you cant share items btween your chars , you cant twink new chars , you cant sell or trade high level gear you dont need ... no thx I had enough of that in WOW ...................

 

[Amber Moon]

Well, thanks for all the replies so far. I told ya you wouldn't like it.

But perhaps now we can take the next step and consider the irony that these responses illustrate. Its about customer desires and expectations and what can be practically achieved in a game. We all want solutions to the dupes, scripts, and cheats but the tools available to the development largely consist of game mechanics and systems.

Beyond "they need to fix the dupes and track the cheats" what specific game mechanic or system would you suggest?

This is an honest inquiry, not trying to troll anyone up here.

 

[Jhym]

Absolutely NOT. I or you or anyone else should be able to buy and sell every item in the game unrestricted.
What the binding system does is make everyone HAVE to do "quest A" or "kill monster B" in order to get said item(s). Then, after you have lost interest or are above the skill level of the item, you have to throw it away, you can't sell it or give it to someone who can use it.

It is a cop-out by the developers who do it. Trading in and of itself is never wrong. The individuals who try to cheat others or who cheat to get said items are the problem in that case. The cop-out is the customer service time spend figuring out who cheated whom and why, which some companies just decided they'd rather not deal with.

Foolish idea.

 

[Aurelius]

Beyond "they need to fix the dupes and track the cheats" what specific game mechanic or system would you suggest?

This is an honest inquiry, not trying to troll anyone up here.

Not even slightly a 'trolling' response - but since the core of the problem is the ability to dupe items, why should the solution be a 'game mechanic'?

Seems to be the wrong tool to fix the fault.... stop the dupes being made, or delete them before they get much chance to be sold on.

 

[Amber Moon]

Developers don't talk about it a lot but you get hints once in a while that nearly every game, even ones with modern databases and tracking tools, get dupe exploits occasionally. And the do generally put them as a very high priority to snuff them quickly.

But the issue is larger then just dupes. It scripts and other exploits as well. In an open trading game, the incentives to turn these into real life profit is what draws much of the scripting and cheating in the first place.

One can through game mechanics and systems reduce the demand and incentive but the real question what that costs in terms of game play options to achieve that.

Most here seem unwilling, and I am not personally disagreeing, to pay that price.

Its fine to sit back and demand that the development team fix it. I am just trying to point out, be careful what you wish for.

 

[RenaLynne]

Thats rediculous, sorry.