>>will orbs charged using SimuCoin items still degrade?

What do you mean? Like will new-style orbs (when they are out) degrade that are charged via the SimuCoin potions? The degrading of new-style orbs aren't connected to recharging.

---

Wyrom, PM

>>Outside outliers, this really isn't a lot of upkeep to the average player. People using 10+ fusion enhancives are not average players.

If this is the case, then why is this change even being introduced? Does fusion really break the game? If so, why was it even introduced?

When this sort of massive across-the-board change happens, it not only devalues the items we've collected but also the time we've spent playing. I've been collecting fusion gear for months, and now it appears that all of that time is a little wasted.

What was my plan? To fill up a suit of 3-slot platemail with dope enhancives and pay an extra $5 every month to charge it up. I'd say that's a win-win for both Simu/Gemstone and my character.

Instead this change has me reconsidering my subscription because of all the time I feel wasted. I would rather see fusion scrapped for this and all future Ebon's Gate than the tedium proposed here. At least, that way, all the time and energy others spent collecting this stuffy would retain its value.

I'd also like to add that the option of merchants replenishing fusion items seems kind of laughable. Mage/merchant rechargeables don't even get regular attention.

Not sure what you aim to gain from your comments, Fleurs. Exposing the fact that I don't agree with breakage being the right direction for GS by directly relating it to fusion? You speak as if GS is my game and I'm the only voice that makes a decision.

I agree with fusion needing to be changed though. We didn't sell orbs at Duskruin, so I'm also confused where thousands were being spent. Unless you mean across the board between all the armor that was bought, which can still be used, mind you. The downside to fusion isn't all that severe, and it's slow. And only for new-style orbing (that isn't even out yet), which can be repaired back to it's natural state.

It's a little more upkeep with some extra bounty points to recharge (or silver when we run that). I understand you being frustrated if you burn through orbs, but that's not the reality. Because we know how often people PRY orbs. You threw out some examples like enchanting and ensorcellment, but it's not as often as you're making it out to be. Because again, we do have the ability to see these things across the game.

As for the fusion shaman being available again this year, it was more because the fusion updates didn't come sooner. If they had, then we'd probably have removed him. We still can, if that's what you're asking for. We don't have to bring him back. It's mostly a final courtesy since the plan is now announced to get whatever you want to get done. Are you saying people spent beyond their means last year to orb things they wouldn't have orbed otherwise?

Gear is always subject to change. Nothing is being ruined. It's hardly a huge nerf. With care, nothing is lost.

---

Wyrom, PM

You have 1-3 orbs in armor, shields and the uber rare weapons. Most commonly you have 6 orbs in these three items based on 2 slot fusion. What are some examples of gear that you have that you feel is going to be degraded? If you are concerned about the quality and value then don't pry out your gems.

These seem like a lot of general "this got changed, I don't like it" responses without much detail.

I have 2 orbs in my armor for THW and CM. Beyond that I use enhancives in item slots. Since I only use 2 orbs my set is even more complex. If I could have used 4 orbs it would be simple to max stats. Hell, I think I could build dex/spell aim sets too and it wasn't a priority as the fodder items and orbs have become available at a discounted price of entry. Duskruin made enhancive drops and orbs cheaper so the entry into enhancive sets became easier, not more difficult.

The mentioned pry orbs out and have them on enhancive potions then enchant and ensorcell seems curious and a bit abusive if that is the implication and I'd agree on that change. Fusion armor shouldn't be on project armor, you might upgrade orbs from time to time as you get better ones, but those aren't being pried, just the old one you are replacing. The frustration is those gems are potentially 5% worse for resale?

Again, these complaints are general and aren't very productive so far.

>>Can you give an example of what this will allow? Will there be lvl 100 requirement items now w/ +40 stat bonus or skill bonus?

Changes to the enhancive system aren't happening due to fusion. So finding better enhancives would have nothing to do with or without fusion changing.

Mostly, it will allow us to offer more services for fusion. Socket adding, releasing higher socket items, and adding fusion to existing armor are all possibilities.

---

Wyrom, PM

What is the highest level requirement (or bonus to skill) that the treasure system can generate?

http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif

>>What is the highest level requirement (or bonus to skill) that the treasure system can generate?

https://gswiki.play.net/Enhancive_item_level_requirements

That's a good chart to reference.

---

Wyrom, PM

>Maxing out something to its limit is bound to be nerfed in time, in any game. This is a time-honored truism.

That's fine if you're playing a game with rapid progression and cheap replacement of gear, such as that of an unnamed snowstorm company. It seems Simu is doing its best to tell players they are foolish for actually bothering to financially support this game (see also the ill-timed Premium promo) and that money is better spent elsewhere. Good luck with the F2P replacements that Simu hopes to attract to GS. I personally am done subsidizing this direction of development to the extent I have been.

It'll be a lot less aggravating and wasteful of my entertainment dollars.

>>Explain to me what is wasted.

Certainly.

>>New-style fusion will never degrade their potency when pried from fusion, but will degrade at a rate of 4% a month (real time)

This change is the root of the problem. In the old fusion state, I would always know what my bonus level was supposed to be because it didn't change (unless I pried the orb and lost a charge). Under the new system, I won't be as likely to use fusion because I'm not going to save and put effort into making an item that I continually have to upkeep. The re-charging cost alone is upkeep enough (and almost too much). Not to mention that, if fusion is really a problem, you already have this as a built-in way to control demand (i.e. just make re-charging fusion items more expensive and your problem is solved). Degrading my items over time is really just going to push me away from fusion because I don't want to spend what little game time I have worrying about the state of my enhancives.

Now, I've just told you that I will probably not use fusion because any bonus attrition seems ridiculous to me. I'm one of the players who actively bought into Duskruin so that I could get some of that 3-slot fusion platemail. That's a lot of time and effort (and real-world money) that I've invested for that mail. Not to mention a bevy of items that I'd like to orb - I've spent a good amount of silvers (which equates to time and money) to collect them. Fusion orbs have a certain value too - items that I purchased for the sole purpose of orbing and later selling will not have the same value they did a year ago.

Now, I am a little comforted to know that these changes aren't happening yet and there's still time to make a suit of platemail that will be pretty good. This change though eliminates my potential to respec to a different weapon class (unless I specifically tailor the orbs to go into this thing). There are a lot of mixed feelings that I have because I do want what's best for the game, but I also don't feel like this is a good direction to go. It's a lot of effort to get good fusion gear with marginal bonuses, not to mention the upkeep of keeping the stuff charged.

Does that help explain why I feel that my effort is wasted? I realize that it may not be happening right now, but I'm hoping that someone realizes that the bonus attrition is a ridiculous nerf. If you want people to pay you money for the service of having a little skill or stat bonus, you need to do better. You need to keep the system functional and appealing, not whatever this is.

Questions.

1. As several people have asked, currently the risk of damage is 0 if the orb has become loose in it's depression. Are you removing this mechanic or aren't you? You haven't been explicit enough on this point. Is the 5% nerf chance always, or only if it hasn't yet become loose?

2. Will existing fusion gear be able to accept orbs of both styles, or will new gear be required to use new orbs?

3. Will you be able to use both types of orbs in a single piece of item? Suppose you have armor with 2 orbs, and you pry one and nerf it, can you put it back in that armor or are you now stuck finding new armor to even accept it, and of course your 2nd orb is unnerfed so it can't be with it's buddy anymore? Don't break up orb families Wyrom.

4. So you're working on fusion again, does this mean it will be made (both new and old) compatible with things like rotflares? On a personal note I think I could live with never prying from my stick again if you can put rotflares on it.

5. With the new way to mark items to be unextractable. Is it your intention for this to exist as a play aid, such as the MARK verb which prevents accident pawning. Or as a way to segregate treasure or store merchandise from the fusion system? As a GM do you feel hamstrung by fusion at times because you'd like to release something like a heavy glaes club with +15 strength, but you can't because you know someone will just orb it, so you invent this mark? I didn't think accidental extractions were a problem, so are we to expect to run across found/bought gear that was made to be incompatible with the shaman?

One more question....

Have you ever considered a fusion to permanent service? Ie I give you my fusion item with orbs in it, you make it a permanent enhancive with the orbs, but remove all fusion functionality. So you lose the fusion baggage, but also the chance of any future orb switching.

>Under the future system you could choose to either gamble and pry it out for free but risk damaging it, or pay a set silver fee to have the orb safely removed and its value preserved.

The latter isn't a viable solution if it isn't automated instead of a merchant service as Wyrom posted.

>1. As several people have asked, currently the risk of damage is 0 if the orb has become loose in it's depression. Are you removing this mechanic or aren't you? You haven't been explicit enough on this point. Is the 5% nerf chance always, or only if it hasn't yet become loose?

The "loose in the socket" mechanic is slated for removal. Manually prying out an orb will have the chance for damage. The damage chance upon removal can be bypassed via a common merchant service.

>Will existing fusion gear be able to accept orbs of both styles, or will new gear be required to use new orbs?

Orbs can be interchangeably used. The fusion gear itself is not changing, only aspects of orbing.

>Will you be able to use both types of orbs in a single piece of item? Suppose you have armor with 2 orbs, and you pry one and nerf it, can you put it back in that armor or are you now stuck finding new armor to even accept it, and of course your 2nd orb is unnerfed so it can't be with it's buddy anymore? Don't break up orb families Wyrom.

You can mix and match orbs of any style.

>With the new way to mark items to be unextractable. Is it your intention for this to exist as a play aid, such as the MARK verb which prevents accident pawning. Or as a way to segregate treasure or store merchandise from the fusion system? As a GM do you feel hamstrung by fusion at times because you'd like to release something like a heavy glaes club with +15 strength, but you can't because you know someone will just orb it, so you invent this mark? I didn't think accidental extractions were a problem, so are we to expect to run across found/bought gear that was made to be incompatible with the shaman?

It wasn't to prevent accidental extractions, it is indeed to prevent hamstringing ourselves, as the lack of the ability to specify "no fusion" was making it hard for us to release unusual enhancive items that give interesting bonuses with drawbacks that could otherwise be easily orbed away. For instance, we released musical instruments in the past that gave a large enhancive bonus while being played, which was a drawback/limitation to an otherwise good boost. It was previously possible to play the instrument to activate the enhancive bonus, walk into the fusion locus, extract the instrument as it was being played, and wind up with a large bonus orb without any of the designed drawback. Sometimes that is ok with respect to item balance, but sometimes it is not. We don't expect to make heavy use of this on vanilla treasure system enhancives, but you could see it pop up on more exotic enhancives.

>Do you think its wise to base the new style orb degradation on real time?

We'd prefer to have a consistent base of orbs in the game to go on. If we have a big event where we release/refurbish a large batch of orbs, we can count on them all being consumed to their minimum bonus within a set timeframe at a similar rate, rather than have to worry about large amounts being lockered or otherwise unused and kept for an indeterminate length of time. If we know that batch X is reaching max degradation in 6 months, we can release batch Y at the next scheduled event much more freely. Old style orbs will continue to exist for players who'd prefer long-term stability, but we do intend to use the new-style orbs in new and different ways for events going forward. We prefer having more options for orbs, which is our main goal there.

>Have you ever considered a fusion to permanent service?

I hadn't thought about it before, no. But, I will do so now.

Coase

>>4. So you're working on fusion again, does this mean it will be made (both new and old) compatible with things like rotflares? On a personal note I think I could live with never prying from my stick again if you can put rotflares on it.

The reasoning why it cannot work with RotFlares is due to the creation of that fluff actions subscript. It was coded in a way that won't allow subscripting by anything else. Is it possible to fix? Maybe. But it will require some time.

---

Wyrom, PM

> Currently "old-style" has a chance to lose potency if pried too often, and will shatter when the bonus becomes 0.
Okay. Make my orbs prone to degrade into new-style. Make fusion more expensive to recharge. Not a fan, but I'll deal.

Could you at least tell us, in exact terms, the chance of an old-style orb degrading when pried? Per the "too often" qualifer, is there a period after which it is 100% safe to remove old-style orbs? What is that period?

<You gotta give us something for coming loose in the depression. Risk-free pry every 3 months? 6 months?

It will be a merchant service.

"The "loose in the socket" mechanic is slated for removal. Manually prying out an orb will have the chance for damage. The damage chance upon removal can be bypassed via a common merchant service."
~GM Coase

http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Game%20Design%20Discussions/Fusion/view/281

http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif

Some follow-up questions:

1. Will we see a return of the Fusion shaman on the Firebird due to this change, so we can expect to have more accessible ORBing access?

2. Will adding fusion to existing items (that don't have conflicting scripts) become a service? Or perhaps increasing the number of slots available on existing items?

3. Will you be revisiting the cost to enhance fusion equipment via PPs now that the value is deemed lower than the exorbitant costs required to upgrade your fusion equipment through PPs?

4. What kind of new ORB items can we expect to see? What is the new "flavor" alluded to that will be available with the new system?

>>Not sure I follow this question. Are you asking if the subcharge can be revised?

Yes, the current surcharge for enchanting/padding/flaring etc fusion items adds a significant cost in PPs, making them excessively hard to improve through the premium system. One consideration that could be made in this regard is to consider all fusion items as if they were "empty" because the power of the orbs will degrade - while normal enhancive armor/weapons will never degrade in power. So all fusion equipment would be treated as if the cost to recharge was 9000 regardless of whether it currently has enhancive orbs installed or not.

This would also help players who want to improve their current "tier 1" fusion gear by not forcing them to find a merchant to remove the orbs without risking damage and subsequent conversion to "tier 2".

>the goal is to let fusion be more accessible.

This is a terrible way to fix what became unbalanced, just to create further lack of balancing.

Note also that it already currently is very expensive and takes more than a few days to safely remove both orbs from a single item, so ample time is expected before the changes roll in.

As someone returned to the game, I've yet to acquire one of these 'fusion' items. My husband and I are still on the fence about Ebon Gate, so I'm not sure if we'll ever have one. But, one thing did really did strike me and I wanted to offer my feedback.

I vehemently disagree with tying an items life span to Real Time. There are often times when I maintain my account but I'm unable to play for a few weeks (or months) at time. I find it extremely unfair as a casual (but still paying a Premium price) customer to see items or charges decay when I'm not participating in the game. It seems heavily punitive to those who have a more casual schedule.

Surely there has to be some other solution? If I pay my $39.95 a month plus the $45.00 Ebon Gate ticket, but then I don't get an opportunity to play much again until March -- I've just automatically lost 6 months of my item's uses, simply by being unavailable within the game. This entire decision leaves a rather foul taste in my mouth, and I really, really hope it's not a reflection of what's in store more down the road.

I can understand the want to 'clear out' these powerful items on a set schedule, but I still think nearly the same can be accomplished if it's tied to actual Play Time rather than Real Time (or some sort of combination between the two).