could you give a general idea of how many runes extra would come from talismans, and I'm assuming you'd want all of the rune drops to be replaced by noted talisman drops of an equivalent quantity instead?My Suggestions:
Cross Minigame Reward Shop - waiting since December 26th 2013
Spelunking - non-combat raids
4evsaid: could you give a general idea of how many runes extra would come from talismans, and I'm assuming you'd want all of the rune drops to be replaced by noted talisman drops of an equivalent quantity instead?
Not exactly - monsters would still drop runes, but less frequently. Again, I go with the analogy of herbs and herb seeds. Monsters drop both herbs and herb seeds. The herb seeds allow the number of herbs dropped to be lower in general, but don't entirely replace herb drops. It would also differ by monster.
So in general runes would drop less frequently and talismans more frequently, but it wouldn't be a straight one to one conversion and it would differ by monster, to avoid things being boring.
As for the number, I was thinking something like 200-250 runes per talisman. That would put talismans which correspond to high-demand runes (like the nature talisman) at a value of around 40k-50k, which would be in value comparable to a herb seed like Ranarr.
One thing I should note is that, were this done, the number of runes per essence wouldn't necessarily need to increase by a whole number, to avoid talismans being too fast to burn through, and also to avoid problems with diaries. For instance, 250 100%-chance charges would last only five trips. 1000 25%-chance charges would last 20 trips, for the same average number of runes per talisman.
On that note, there's two ways a chance-effect could be done. That is, a charge could be expended per-essence regardless of success, and talismans would grant more charges to compensate, or a charge could be expended only upon success, with less charges per talisman.
I think the first one is better for three reasons.
(1) The effective number of runes per talisman would vary, which would feel more interesting to players (less deterministic) (2) Players could plan out usage more easily (not having their charges disappear too fast or too slow) (3) It would be possible to actually allow for a player's level to have an impact on the success rate, allowing this to scale for players who've gotten a higher Runecrafting level, and making leveling up Runecrafting more interesting past just milestones and unlocks.
Everyone has different opinions about what it means to be oldschool. The fact that your signature supports Warding would be enough, in some people's eyes, to consider you an enemy of "oldschool". Some people feel what matters the most is graphics. Some people want altogether static servers. Some people think as long as the hefty grind is still in place, it's still oldschool. Some people care the most about the battle system.
In short, what makes the game "oldschool" is incredibly subjective. So it's basically meaningless. Anyone could object to any suggestion you do support with the exact same reasoning.
Mind you, if it would change the feel of the game too much for you, that's totally fine, and I think an excellent reason for not supporting. But don't say it's not "oldschool" as if that's an objective statement.
Either way though, I appreciate the feedback.
- Last edited on 30-Jun-2019 19:10:37 by Clawdragons
I personally find the notion of Runes coming into the game mainly from the Runecrafting skill to be pretty oldschool. The current situation where most of them seem to come from monster droptables seems far from oldschool. Since this suggestion seeks to address this issue, I don't think it is un-oldschool at all.
- Last edited on 30-Jun-2019 22:53:44 by Notcool97