Thanks for providing an explanation, Coase. I don't agree with the decision to pull it, much less immediately prior to the event and strongly urge the PTB to reconsider the decision to pull enhancive permanence this run.

It's possible that I'm salty after buying into the Cyber Monday GoA discount in preparation for what I assumed would be a February run, followed by dropping several million coins on crumbly items once I heard SA was coming up this month. Egg on my face for trying to play into project piece game; I sure as heck won't make that mistake again. This could have been a nice last chance for Simutronics/StillFront make bank off players before the end of the year. Though, what does it matter; they already have my money...

>Regarding enhancive permanence, it had become an increasingly common service or the last year or two, way beyond what it was actually planned or authorized to be.

I recall 20 slots being offered this year in total, provided via EG spinner. It also appears that SA may have run in FEB/2017. Was the FEB/2017 run not planned or authorized?

How did it go from planned and authorized in FEB, to not okay by DEC?


>It (and fusion) became increasingly notable when we were going over the 2016 auction items and various feeder items (before that too, but that was the tipping point) to the point where we increasingly found ourselves pulling back on what could be offered with respect to enhancive items because most of the balancing factors that we could add to the items could trivially be circumvented at the next event or two, either by literally orbing away most of the item or by simply applying a common service (which was getting to the point of being slipped into goody bags for basically free).

If the 2016 auction was the "tipping point" how did the FEB/2017 run get approved. And the new 125% cost to recharge doesn't fix the balancing factors related to using enhancives?


>So, unfortunately, we need to pull back enhancive permanence to where we actually wanted its rarity level to be at (which, as a permanent removal of a significant item drawback, should be much rarer).

What does this mean exactly? 20 slots once a year? Some new simucoin event?


>In its place, we are intending to offer a less permanent item crumbliness protection service, so that if you do find a crumbly enhancive item you'd like to to keep, you can still access a fairly common service to prevent it from crumbling, but at a cost and/or effort more in-line with the benefit derived.

Is this a simucoin item? Does it cost silvers? Bounty points?


>Again, I apologize for this, but its an unfortunate set of events that requires us to pull back on some of the excesses of enhancive item distribution that have occurred over the last few years, so that we can have more flexibility in offering new things going forward.

Is the unfortunate set of events the back to back faucet of enhancive items from Duskruin? Will Duskruin be changing to drop less enhancive items?

How would allowing us to have "one last chance" to permify items prevent you from having more flexibility in offering new things going forward?

...

I'd also like to point out that the other changes to enhancives were announced in advance so people could make choices around them. The changes to orbs, enchanting fusion, etc. One last chance to make an enhancive permanent isn't going to significantly change the future of enhancives.

My subscription was never guaranteed from month to month. I already canceled one and this confirms that the other is now to be canceled.

This is a PVE game. If development spent more time on actually developing new things instead of letting them linger you wouldn't have to spend this time nerfing stuff and worrying about balance against ... no one? There is no PVP, balance shouldn't be your first thought beyond "is everyone invincible, is everyone having fun?".
I don't even use fusion, I don't use enhancives, but I identify them as a way to become more powerful, and the recent years direction of tedium and nerfing is unacceptable.
I regret defending the terrible Mana point change with enchanting. Its consumed my game to now making me feel a slave to hunting and getting that 10k to be able to enchant in reasonable times. I let other parts of the game suffer and become unfun because hunting is so unfun. Theres no real progression available from RP so I never felt I was getting anywhere even while having fun. There was lots of good times that I feel are now ruined by the changes and how they made me feel.
I spent thousands between my subscriptions and what I spent on simucoins and now I just feel disgusted for doing so and being backstabbed.

Thanks for nothing, merry christmas.



Wyrom says, "Ordim is the reason savants won't be coded as well."

"hunting and getting that 10k to be able to enchant in reasonable times." -- JoeKups

Maybe I'm alone, at this point, but to me I still think Enchant is pretty good: permanent change, and I can actually do it.
No need for a mana pool, or infusing army.
Pour, wait, cast, done.
This is a huge step up from "1996 to 2004" state of being. (Dates are approximate.)

And now, should I choose to <do something special> in order to get it done faster, I can. (Typically I don't, because I got bored with hunting the Mage in like 2002 or so, but still. I could if I wanted to.)

.

Is it as flexible or as fast as Ensorcel? 10 weeks for a T5 and max something out? No. Ten weeks is not-done-for-another-month on a 7x, for example.
But I am also NOT required to hunt to enable those casts, as the Sorcerers are with Ensorcel.

Different spell, different effect. Different requirements.

>>My subscription was never guaranteed from month to month. I already canceled one and this confirms that the other is now to be canceled.

We definitely encourage players to take a break if they are no longer getting enjoyment from their subscription. It's unfortunate the way you feel, but it is within your right to place your entertainment dollars where yo see fit.

>>If development spent more time on actually developing new things instead of letting them linger you wouldn't have to spend this time nerfing stuff and worrying about balance against ... no one?

The Development Team spends countless hours developing new things, as GemStone IV has had more developments in the last 3 years than ever before.

>>There was no further information for 11 days after this post that the permanence would only be using old/SimuCon-issued tokens. People made plans and you're wondering why they're upset.

If someone made a purchase on or after 12/4 that we can verify from the logs for in-game silver and they used the GIVE or EXCHANGE verb, I'll go ahead and reimburse your silver and take the enhancive item out of game. You will need to email me directly using the email author link to the left of this post (in Legacy).

---

Wyrom, PM

>If someone made a purchase on or after 12/4 that we can verify from the logs for in-game silver and they used the GIVE or EXCHANGE verb, I'll go ahead and reimburse your silver and take the enhancive item out of game. You will need to email me directly using the email author link to the left of this post (in Legacy).

pretty snarky response. Some people also spent time going through their inventory looking to see what needed to be permified. Are you going to give us back our time as well?

Thanks Wyrom. If I am able to verify things through my logs, I'll reach out to you.

< Why would you want to "encourage" your loyal/long-standing playerbase to leave rather than attempt to understand or acknowledge the reasons for their dissatisfaction. It's just bizarre! >

Likely because there's no applicable "quarter" to be given in this scenario. The customer is griping, but there's not a workable solution available. In the scheme of the real world, they would have been sent to a client feedback cycle where the gripe/email was read, scanned, checked for keywords and an applicable refusal letter sent.

I don't like the scenario either, but at least you're getting an authentic response. What's 3 months of missing revenue for a game that's lasted 20 years in comparison to an outright closing of accounts?

We can't all be cast iron pots and kettles when reviewing snark.

~James/Stunseed

>>pretty snarky response. Some people also spent time going through their inventory looking to see what needed to be permified. Are you going to give us back our time as well?

How is that snarky? I'm willing to offer a complete refund for anyone who spent silver on a purchase in game as long as it was between the dates of 12/4 and the response that the service won't be offered.

---

Wyrom, PM

Well yes, that's how refunds work. I have to take it back. You're more than welcome to work out a deal with the seller who can take the item back. I'm not sure I understand your stance here. We'd not go after the seller of the item, since it wasn't they call, they'd get to keep the silvers as well.

---

Wyrom, PM

While I agree 100% with your change, please don't say stuff like this:

>>as GemStone IV has had more developments in the last 3 years than ever before

There's too much production history in the product in the past 3 decades to back a statement like that up. It diminishes your position. As someone who started working on the product in 1992, I can say that GemStone as a playable universe grew by leaps and bounds between 1996 to 2001, receiving a huge amount of system development, area expansion beyond the Landing, creature AI, customer service enhancements, and more. Most of what players experience today was created during that time frame.

Now that said, I do agree there's a problem that needs to be solved. Sadly, the core skill advancement system does not match the design of the original combat system. It was a 20-30 level product at best, and now we have 100+ (post cap as well) levels shoved into it. The sad reality is, that's a problem that can't just be solved without significant game changes that could easily cause huge subscriber problems. The system that Warden and I designed via Growing Pains (the first one) to combat this problem had to be discarded as well due to its huge development time/cost. It's unfortunate, but that's where we sit. Do I claim responsibility? I suppose so in part. And I mean "unfortunate" for everyone, players and developers alike. I am sure everyone would like a more scalable product, since most popular long-living games include two major features that everyone seems to like: Customization, and Itemization. GemStone has customization down pat. There's no more customizable product out there. Itemization however suffers due to the original design. When we de-Iced and went to the web, we took a 20 level game system (RoleMaster) and tried to make a scaling product, and that just didn't work. Since then, several systems have been bolted on top of it, enhancives included, and those need constant adjustment. We can't continue to add layers like this without going back and ensuring we are maintaining at least some form of balance, such as it is.

Granted, a bit more information earlier might have been ideal, but the player base also made an assumption that they shouldn't have as well. I condone neither side's actions, but each side has a huge stake here as well.

"it was never intended for people to walk around with +40 and +50 to multiple stats and skills, but that's a reality now. We have to scale back at some point"


Sanctimony about scaling back for the sake of game balance would be more convincing if you were not, at the same time, offering in the simucoin store the 30 day enhancive charger potions that, literally enable people to walk around with +50 enhancives in exchange for $.


You do realize that people are going to "walk around" with +50 enhancives next week, whether you hoist yourself with your own petard related to the Summit event, right?

I mean its sort of like a classic false choice: either we cut back on enhancive tokens, or else people will walk around with +50 enhancives!

Wyrom:

>Since then, we've either done one per account or limited it to tickets to an event. The SimuCoin events are very tough for us to forecast how they will do, but one thing is certain is that they do much better than we ever anticipated. We can only continue to gather data and adjust the events each run. Even Duskruin, an event that has run 8 times now, is tweaked and molded from previous data. It's constantly evolving.

Translation: The SimuCoin model either hasn't been working or we don't understand it.

"the simucoin store the 30 day enhancive charger potions that, literally enable people to walk around with +50 enhancives in exchange for $.

You do realize that people are going to "walk around" with +50 enhancives next week, whether you hoist yourself with your own petard related to the Summit event, right?" -- GilchristR

You do realize that there is a big difference between
"managing to keep enough actual charges in an item (to ensure that it does not have a chance to crumble) and also then keeping twelve (12) potions going for EACH of the minimum of three (3) items to achieve Enhancive cap (be it 40 for stat or 50 for skill), for EACH year"
and
"pay this fee once, ever, for each of these items" (to ensure the first step, "never crumble")... and then just have to worry about charges (which can be done by a merchant in-game for silvers, or at the Guild for Bounty Points/silvers at the end of the year... now that you are not worried about that whole "it might crumble" issue)?

And that's "a big difference" on ALL THREE sides of the equation: us as the player managing all of that, and on their side as a game provider enabling it/having to balance for it, and on their side as a for-profit company managing cashflow.

.

When <someone, maybe Haliste?> replied to my comment about crumbliness with a reminder that armor (to include accessories) & weapons & shields did not crumble, it prompted me to go looking at those quite a bit harder.
For anyone that I have who is already in head-to-toe coverage? SURE, bring on the enhancive helm and arm greaves and whatnot. Why not?
And maybe I pick up some crit- or elemental-protection along the way, too. I don't care about it, per se, but if it comes for free--along with the Enhancive that I'm actually interested in--why not?

I went looking for pocketed containers, too, for the same reason.

>> They have a story that doesn't require a GM to force everything to happen.

Without weighing in too heavily on this - I can't think of ANY other game where the story often is written by the players, and sometimes (?:infrequently|not-often-enough) actually incorporated and used by the GMs. I don't see this as 'GM force something to happen', I see it as 'GM recording what happened and helping to increase the engagement'.

Certainly not everybody's cup of tea - but not available anywhere else I can think of off the top of my head.

Doug

There are lots of different reasons people play. My understanding is only a limited group of players were attempting to maximize fusion. When maximized, fusion gear creates a pretty big disparity for continuous balance. In other words, it makes it hard to create and release new things. Rather than penalizing the players who aren't using fusion, it seems to make more sense to try to bring fusion back down to the way it was designed.

This is my own observation, and I could be completely wrong. I know for certain that once a change is made it becomes a precedent. It is exceedingly difficult to fix a problem once there is a precedent without grievance from players who were using it to their advantage. Especially so with something like fusion, that can mitigate racial and professional trade-offs. I'm not surprised players of halflings and gnomes, for example, are upset about the fusion changes, or giants who swing a lance, or any number of similar examples where fusion has become a fundamental part of being able to play the character as they want to. And, since fusion has been around for quite awhile, players have lots of time and money invested in it to create things like maxed out logic daggers, for example. I suspect they are asking how they are going to be reimbursed for this change, and the answer is not forthcoming.

This was a no-win scenario. Someone would have lost out, one way or the other -- even if the status quo was maintained, even if cheap fusion was pushed out to everyone.