“But would you lose the argument?”
A proposal for reworking the most tedious feature of AO: Modifiers
effort
4.466666666666667
45
quality
4.5625
48
reasonability
4.473684210526316
57
“Nah, I’d yap”
(to keep this thread alive because modifiers kinda suck in their current state 
)
“You forumers”
are you not a forumer? do you think you are above us?
yes
nah we gon’ drag you down with us
1 Like
soifonfan, the strongest yapper of today, vs biologlol, the strongest yapper of history
to Tartarus I go
the difference here is that biolog was actually sorta funny and their delusion was benign
reddit (immovable object) vs vitality (unstoppable force), who will win
Vitality solos, it lets you be a tank without a neck beard!
deeper than Tartarus bro we’re dragging you into the Old Chaos
bumping this cuz I cant let the modifierpilled gamblingmaxxers win
seriously though who the hell would enjoy keeping the system as is except stocksounds. I’m pretty sure these guys are just baitingb (please I cant believe someone could be that stupid)
save the modifier society
peroxide reference???
I would enjoy keeping the system as is, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.
I seriously doubt that reason is a good one if you prefer the slop that’s in-game rn…
I think they like the new system, but still want a neat rare thing.
so in response I suggested a more exclusive set of “trade off modifiers” like atlantean, that don’t have essences. (also atlantean essence is gone so now atlantean boss items are rarer than sunkens!!!)
I think having the additional tradeoff modifiers has potential, but I think that it’d end up with the same people being disgruntled by not having a Very Blasted Arcsphere. It would be mitigated if the itemized modifiers were the ones with tradeoffs, because more often than not people chase after stat maximization without worrying too much about downsides when it comes to optimizing. But then, what happens to current Atlantean? Why deal with higher insanity when you can just take a few dozen health off the top?
The reason I voted as I did was because there was clearly effort and quality, and it wasn’t an unreasonable suggestion. However, I do think it would end up being a net negative for the game due to the reduction of trading opportunities as only the essence would be in any significant demand, and from that a reduction in items that are worth being even somewhat pleased over when treasure hunting. I also think the problems will be mitigated by the increased amount of treasure hunting that will likely be done in the next update thanks to the new items.
I also do not think this would put an end to treasure hunting feeling like a gamble. Instead, the gamble would just be changed to having only one singular jackpot instead of multiple smaller jackpots of varying value.
listen, i respect your opinions, i really do.
but i have to say this far too often.
THE MICROECONOMY. IS NOT. MORE IMPORTANT. THAN GAMEPLAY.
the idea that somehow most peoples gameplay experience revolves around trading is untrue, and is the result of the forums being an echo chamber of experienced players. i didnt even kow the rarity of modifiers until 100 hours in. I need people to understand, the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
2 Likes
And what are the needs of the many? To have the absolute pinnacle gear, or to have good rewards for doing the gameplay? I understand and agree that gameplay is more important than economy, but the economy can affect how players approach the gameplay - more specifically what parts of the gameplay they approach.
Not everyone trades often, or perhaps at all, but the option of trading allows for players to get items from one sources of gameplay (treasure hunting) in exchange for items from other sources of gameplay. If the rewards from the gameplay are diminished, then there will be less people doing said gameplay by choice. With this suggestion in place, people would grind out their 4-5 essences and walk away with nothing more, no surplus items that weren’t what they were looking for, and therefore instead of being able to trade for said surplus, the next player has to grind out their 4-5 - or not want to deal with it and walk away 12% less effective at best, or completely from the game at worst.
The core problem with this suggestion is that there would no longer be anything between “exactly what I want” and “nothing”, or if there is, it would be diminished compared to the essences.