Jump to content

Photo

Relic Poll - Let's put it to the vote :)


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

Poll: Should any/all of these changes be implemented to relics ? - tick for AGREEMENT (118 member(s) have cast votes)

Should any/all of these changes be implemented to relics ? - tick for AGREEMENT

  1. Voted Bonuses from relics ONLY apply to hunting, nothing more (14 votes [11.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.57%

  2. Voted Maximum of 2 stats per relic (22 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  3. Voted Stamina/XP/Gold gain bonuses distinct from hunting bonuses (13 votes [10.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.74%

  4. Voted Upkeep fee depending on level and number of defenders (34 votes [28.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.10%

  5. Voted Lower each relic to a MAX of 5% empowerment (13 votes [10.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.74%

  6. Voted Maximum TOTAL relic bonus of 10% instead of current 20% (15 votes [12.40%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.40%

  7. Voted Reduce the overall number of relics in the game (10 votes [8.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.26%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 14:41



I know, but this would essentially rule most guilds outside of about the Top50 from having more than 1 relic, which is not the way to go. There is just no way that most guilds could afford 124K an hour, thats 3M per day. I know the rewards from a fully empowered, multiple stat relic is probably worth that much, its just that many cannot afford it.


Just how many outside the top 50 do you think actually fully empower relics ? - I'd say next to none do ? - I know when we take a relic, we'll MAYBE empower it up to 2 or 3 for a quick hunt bonus, but that's all.

Most guilds will only fully empower a relic if they're almost CERTAIN that it'll remain in their hands - otherwise why risk all that investment ?. And ergo, if they're certain it'll remain in their hands (either via sheer numbers defending it, or backdoor agreements not to take each others relics) then the upkeep fee should come into play and for the hefty associated price tag too.

Besides, where is the NECESSITY to hold more than one relic ? - relics are a luxury, not a game essential. Hell, my preference would be that ALL relics had an upkeep fee, but i'm willing to throw in with Shar's idea that the first one is free if it means the system is changed.

I challenge anyone to say that current relic system isn't massively overpowered and a privilige for a "select few" - mostly guilds with EOC players where relics are scattered all over the place with every bonus under the sun. How is that equitable ?


That's the problem, all of your suggestions are towards making relics for an even more "select few".

Shouldn't relics be looked at as a fun competition between guilds? I'd be less opposed to making relics change hands less often by not being able to capture back for 6 hours, cost 2.5M to fully empower, reducing the number of relics and 2 stats max per relics. At 2.5M for 6 hours many more guilds would perhaps capture a relic and empower it for a short hunt and at less relics it would mean taking a relic form someone else who cares.

The sum of your suggestions simply aim at making relics boring and elitist.

#22 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 15:02

That's the problem, all of your suggestions are towards making relics for an even more "select few".

Shouldn't relics be looked at as a fun competition between guilds? I'd be less opposed to making relics change hands less often by not being able to capture back for 6 hours, cost 2.5M to fully empower, reducing the number of relics and 2 stats max per relics. At 2.5M for 6 hours many more guilds would perhaps capture a relic and empower it for a short hunt and at less relics it would mean taking a relic form someone else who cares.

The sum of your suggestions simply aim at making relics boring and elitist.


Sorry, but that's rubbish ... Lowering the number of stats on relics and lowering the overall number of relics would make guilds have to take more of them to get the full sweep of bonuses.

Therefore they'd change hands more frequently because guilds won't be able to (or will find it much more challenging to) defend the same number of them. That makes them at least more volatile, as opposed to the "power" relics sitting in the same hands for months on end.

And i'd love to know how reducing the maximum empowerment of a relic, or seperating xp/stam/gold gains from hunting gains, or making the bonuses only apply to hunting is making them boring or elitist.

#23 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 15:53



That's the problem, all of your suggestions are towards making relics for an even more "select few".

Shouldn't relics be looked at as a fun competition between guilds? I'd be less opposed to making relics change hands less often by not being able to capture back for 6 hours, cost 2.5M to fully empower, reducing the number of relics and 2 stats max per relics. At 2.5M for 6 hours many more guilds would perhaps capture a relic and empower it for a short hunt and at less relics it would mean taking a relic form someone else who cares.

The sum of your suggestions simply aim at making relics boring and elitist.


Sorry, but that's rubbish ... Lowering the number of stats on relics and lowering the overall number of relics would make guilds have to take more of them to get the full sweep of bonuses.

Therefore they'd change hands more frequently because guilds won't be able to (or will find it much more challenging to) defend the same number of them. That makes them at least more volatile, as opposed to the "power" relics sitting in the same hands for months on end.

And i'd love to know how reducing the maximum empowerment of a relic, or seperating xp/stam/gold gains from hunting gains, or making the bonuses only apply to hunting is making them boring or elitist.


Your suggestions would make them more "volatile" also. But by them being volatile means that they will have to be re-empowered often, thus costing a brick. None of your suggestions aim towards making them more available, only more expensive. I am against the bulk of your suggestions for this very reason, that they are meant to punish those who partake rather than encourage those who don't. No real improvement to relics is being proposed.

#24 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 17:06



That's the problem, all of your suggestions are towards making relics for an even more "select few".

Shouldn't relics be looked at as a fun competition between guilds? I'd be less opposed to making relics change hands less often by not being able to capture back for 6 hours, cost 2.5M to fully empower, reducing the number of relics and 2 stats max per relics. At 2.5M for 6 hours many more guilds would perhaps capture a relic and empower it for a short hunt and at less relics it would mean taking a relic form someone else who cares.

The sum of your suggestions simply aim at making relics boring and elitist.


Sorry, but that's rubbish ... Lowering the number of stats on relics and lowering the overall number of relics would make guilds have to take more of them to get the full sweep of bonuses.

Therefore they'd change hands more frequently because guilds won't be able to (or will find it much more challenging to) defend the same number of them. That makes them at least more volatile, as opposed to the "power" relics sitting in the same hands for months on end.

And i'd love to know how reducing the maximum empowerment of a relic, or seperating xp/stam/gold gains from hunting gains, or making the bonuses only apply to hunting is making them boring or elitist.


Your suggestions would make them more "volatile" also. But by them being volatile means that they will have to be re-empowered often, thus costing a brick. None of your suggestions aim towards making them more available, only more expensive. I am against the bulk of your suggestions for this very reason, that they are meant to punish those who partake rather than encourage those who don't. No real improvement to relics is being proposed.


Sorry, we're going to have to disagree here. Yes, it's making it more expensive ... IF ... you want to hold them and ... IF ... you want to empower them. But, you get an on-going guild wide bonus from them if you do, so why shouldn't there be an on-going guild expense too. Lowering the number of stats / relic just means that guilds will have to work harder to have the LUXURY of 20% bonuses across the board. As for them changing hands more often and thus having to be empowered more often - that's a GOOD thing - it would be a productive gold sink - and more of those are needed.

And as for your "punishing those that partake" comment, I think i'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. MOST guilds partake in relic captures on one level or another, but not all guilds, or even most guilds, can take a relic giving every bonus going, empower it, reap the massive bonuses and sit on it, safe in the knowledge that a covert agreement will mean it's safe.

#25 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 17:42

but not all guilds, or even most guilds, can take a relic giving every bonus going, empower it, reap the massive bonuses and sit on it


That is the issue I am discussing. Your suggestion simply ensures that the same (or even less guilds) will actually partake in relics.

What will this update do to encourage your guild to sink gold with relics? As that is the goal of relics, sinking gold. Nothing, it won't encourage you to do so at all as you will still believe you will lose it within an hour or that it is too expensive. Alternatively you'll think "omg in 5 hours we'll have to lose it or go bankrupt". Is that good for the relic system? No. I can tell you outright that your system will sink millions of gold from FFS, PANIC, TEW, AL and a few others.

If you make relics more expensive with less benefits then less guilds will partake in relics, so even if there are less relics going around there will still be no competition as the number of relics needed to cater to the needs of the guilds in the game is still less than that of the guilds in the game. Well, except for the odd person who takes it for no purpose except to make the other guild lose 10M (which is fine by me).

Hopefully you understand that my concern is not PANIC's bank, simply to see more competition for relics.

#26 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 08 May 2010 - 17:50

Khan we've been through this many times. MY proposed idea was to make ANY guilds first empowered relic upkeep free. This isn't going to dissuade any guild from empowering them. You're argument is always under the assumption that a guild must empower enough relics to get the 20% bonus to ALL stats. This simply is not neccessary and is a luxury.. ;)

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#27 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:05

Khan we've been through this many times. MY proposed idea was to make ANY guilds first empowered relic upkeep free. This isn't going to dissuade any guild from empowering them. You're argument is always under the assumption that a guild must empower enough relics to get the 20% bonus to ALL stats. This simply is not neccessary and is a luxury.. ;)


Ok so we dissuade empowering a second or more relics, I am fine with that. But the guy who had no relic before and didn't fight for them, how is he encouraged to do so? He isn't. The crux of the problem is that 80%+ of the game doesn't give a rats ass about relic as they can't afford them and any benefit they can reap is overshadowed by the costs.

Fixing relics:

Step 1) Making people with more than one relic pay millions.
Step 2) Errrrh?

Still the same boring old system with no competition.

#28 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:21

I think you're misunderstanding the point here. It's not just about getting relics to the masses. Like has been said over and over again. The bonus's aquired are LUXURY, not neccassary. This idea is there to firstly drop the number of bonus's per relic, drop the actual amount of relics out there AND finally put in place a suitable price tag for the godlike stats that these relics give you..

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#29 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:22

Sorry, I guess we cannot truly agree here. I think they should be an integral part of the game that guilds should fight for. Not simply 'being able to afford'.

#30 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:24

You've just gotten too used to the extra stats is all... ;)

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#31 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:27

I know I'll still have them. But if fewer guilds have them then more people want to get into fewer guilds who have them as there is no (i.e. even less) hope of having them for smaller guilds. I think we've seen enough small and medium guilds dying/losing their big members.

#32 Booger

Booger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:28

You can't have a democratic poll on this subject when there's no option for 'none of the above'

#33 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:30

If you make relics more expensive with less benefits then less guilds will partake in relics, so even if there are less relics going around there will still be no competition as the number of relics needed to cater to the needs of the guilds in the game is still less than that of the guilds in the game. Well, except for the odd person who takes it for no purpose except to make the other guild lose 10M (which is fine by me).

Hopefully you understand that my concern is not PANIC's bank, simply to see more competition for relics.


The only MAJOR additional expense involved would be a relic upkeep fee and, if Shar's plan was adopted, that would only apply from the 2nd relic onwards too. As the upkeep fee would be dependant upon multiple factors and relics do not HAVE to be empowered, then i fail to see what the major issue is. If guilds want the full boost, then they should have to pay the full whack for what is, again, a LUXURY.

All of this is hypothetical anyways - and this thread will, unfortunately, go the way of all the other ones before it, and disappear into obscurity, despite quite a few people voting and making it clear that the current situation is wrong. All i can do, as have those who've gone before me, is to try and keep the topic active and hope that the cows cast a beady eye over it and think about some changes that will make relics more equal, or at least, less elitist.

#34 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:33

Sorry, I guess we cannot truly agree here. I think they should be an integral part of the game that guilds should fight for. Not simply 'being able to afford'.


I'd actually agree to an extent there if the top guilds DID fight for them, but from looking at the Relic Control list, for the most part, that doesn't seem to happen - hence my commenting about backdoor agreements not to take each others relics. But, as that doesn't happen, something else has to change...

#35 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:38



If you make relics more expensive with less benefits then less guilds will partake in relics, so even if there are less relics going around there will still be no competition as the number of relics needed to cater to the needs of the guilds in the game is still less than that of the guilds in the game. Well, except for the odd person who takes it for no purpose except to make the other guild lose 10M (which is fine by me).

Hopefully you understand that my concern is not PANIC's bank, simply to see more competition for relics.


The only MAJOR additional expense involved would be a relic upkeep fee and, if Shar's plan was adopted, that would only apply from the 2nd relic onwards too. As the upkeep fee would be dependant upon multiple factors and relics do not HAVE to be empowered, then i fail to see what the major issue is. If guilds want the full boost, then they should have to pay the full whack for what is, again, a LUXURY.

All of this is hypothetical anyways - and this thread will, unfortunately, go the way of all the other ones before it, and disappear into obscurity, despite quite a few people voting and making it clear that the current situation is wrong. All i can do, as have those who've gone before me, is to try and keep the topic active and hope that the cows cast a beady eye over it and think about some changes that will make relics more equal, or at least, less elitist.


First paragraph: I get the if you want it you pay for it. Some guilds will choose to pay for it, but fewer will be able to benefit from it. And the fewer people are able to benefit from something the more those who do are advantaged.

Furthermore, making empowerment costs depend on number of members if a bad idea, as it puts limit on who you should recruit. If a guild wants to recruit and train noobs they will have to cover their fees for them, that simply isn't right when these new players are the blood that will keep FS alive.

Second paragraph: You are plainly wrong. Considering me and Shardoom pretty much singlehandedly made the relic bonuses go down from 60 to 20% there is always hope. It takes many threads but it does happen if your suggestions aren't flawed and the other side's main argument is "man up". Not that this last part relates to this discussion as that isn't what I am saying and your suggestions aren't flawed, I simply disagree with what you want relics to be: a toy for the game's rich guilds.

#36 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:40

Sorry, I guess we cannot truly agree here. I think they should be an integral part of the game that guilds should fight for. Not simply 'being able to afford'.


I'd actually agree to an extent there if the top guilds DID fight for them, but from looking at the Relic Control list, for the most part, that doesn't seem to happen - hence my commenting about backdoor agreements not to take each others relics. But, as that doesn't happen, something else has to change...


Wouldn't that lack of fighting for relics be because there are simply 10 times more relics available than needed? If you increase demand and reduce supply you will create competition. Though your suggestions would reduce supply by a lot and reduce demand slightly, a smaller pool of guilds able to benefit will quite simply increase the amount of backdoor deals. More competitors = Less chance of price fixing.

#37 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:55

This is simply devolving into a flame infested version of Shardoom's thread. The poll is also woefully inadequate.

#38 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 18:57

The only MAJOR additional expense involved would be a relic upkeep fee and, if Shar's plan was adopted, that would only apply from the 2nd relic onwards too. As the upkeep fee would be dependant upon multiple factors and relics do not HAVE to be empowered, then i fail to see what the major issue is. If guilds want the full boost, then they should have to pay the full whack for what is, again, a LUXURY.


First paragraph: I get the if you want it you pay for it. Some guilds will choose to pay for it, but fewer will be able to benefit from it. And the fewer people are able to benefit from something the more those who do are advantaged.

Furthermore, making empowerment costs depend on number of members if a bad idea, as it puts limit on who you should recruit. If a guild wants to recruit and train noobs they will have to cover their fees for them, that simply isn't right when these new players are the blood that will keep FS alive.


That is the current situation now (the bold part of the statement above) - the "key" relics - those with the stam/xp/gold gains or those with the multiple hunting bonuses - are already controlled by the top guilds and, with very few exceptions, they don't change hands at all. Charging an upkeep fee won't, I admit, solve that particular problem, but it might make some guilds think twice about sitting on a relic that they don't "want".

As for the 2nd part of the statement .. that could be a valid point, but from looking at the top 4 guilds, none of you have anyone under L200 other than FFS with Reg, n he's hardly a noob :)

All of this is hypothetical anyways - and this thread will, unfortunately, go the way of all the other ones before it, and disappear into obscurity, despite quite a few people voting and making it clear that the current situation is wrong. All i can do, as have those who've gone before me, is to try and keep the topic active and hope that the cows cast a beady eye over it and think about some changes that will make relics more equal, or at least, less elitist.



Second paragraph: You are plainly wrong. Considering me and Shardoom pretty much singlehandedly made the relic bonuses go down from 60 to 20% there is always hope. It takes many threads but it does happen if your suggestions aren't flawed and the other side's main argument is "man up".


I hope i AM wrong - and that further action is taken :) ... Bringing the overall bonus down from 60% to 20% was a BIG step in the right direction, but further work still needs to be done.

Not that this last part relates to this discussion as that isn't what I am saying and your suggestions aren't flawed, I simply disagree with what you want relics to be: a toy for the game's rich guilds.


They already ARE a toy for the games BIG/RICH guilds - Luxury items always come with a luxury price tag tho. Some of the changes i've proposed won't alter that, I admit, but will make guilds pay for the privilige of those 20% across the board bonuses. Other suggestions WILL alter that.

#39 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 19:06

That is the current situation now (the bold part of the statement above) - the "key" relics - those with the stam/xp/gold gains or those with the multiple hunting bonuses - are already controlled by the top guilds and, with very few exceptions, they don't change hands at all. Charging an upkeep fee won't, I admit, solve that particular problem, but it might make some guilds think twice about sitting on a relic that they don't "want".

As for the 2nd part of the statement .. that could be a valid point, but from looking at the top 4 guilds, none of you have anyone under L200 other than FFS with Reg, n he's hardly a noob :)


Stam gain/exp relics are part of the game since a long time and used to be the only difference between a top 5 guild and a top 150, apart from economy of scale. And they make a slight difference, not a huge one.

All of this is hypothetical anyways - and this thread will, unfortunately, go the way of all the other ones before it, and disappear into obscurity, despite quite a few people voting and making it clear that the current situation is wrong. All i can do, as have those who've gone before me, is to try and keep the topic active and hope that the cows cast a beady eye over it and think about some changes that will make relics more equal, or at least, less elitist.


If you want to make relics less elitist then they shouldn't implement all of your suggestions lol.

They already ARE a toy for the games BIG/RICH guilds - Luxury items always come with a luxury price tag tho. Some of the changes i've proposed won't alter that, I admit, but will make guilds pay for the privilige of those 20% across the board bonuses. Other suggestions WILL alter that.


They're a toy for the upper-middle-class I'd say, for the top 20%. There's about 30 guilds with empowered relic I'd say and probably 15 more that could afford and defend one. Will making it for only the top 5-10% make it less elitist? Hmmmmdonotthinkso.

And currently there's enough all-stats relic to go around. Not that I disagree with making them only 2-3 stats.

#40 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 08 May 2010 - 19:27

Khan, making the first fully empowered relic upkeep free changes nothing for the lower level guilds. IT means everyone can afford to have at least one (assuming they can afford the empowerment fee). What the upkeep is intended for is to provide the gold sink that these massive bonus's should be providing..

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: