Curse

lacasner · Aug 06, 2007, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Hi, I know a thread like this is already going around, but by posting this idea/discussion topic there I'm afraid it would get lost and never noticed. The topic is pertaining to inscriptional/non-inscriptional items.

Now, I don't know if this is in the realm of possibility from Anet's side (I'd like some clarification and discussion on this as well), but is it impossible to toggle item "purity" and "inscriptionability" when an item is in your inventory? IS that even possible? If so, I believe this idea would be the perfect solution to the inscription/not dilemna anet is facing with already existing items.

However, my idea is that this can only work with items which drop non-inscription, and u turn them into inscription, not vice versa. This way, collecters can keep their old, valuable items, and other players can mod them however they want and not affect the market and economy?

Thoughts and ideas on this?

Malice Black · Aug 06, 2007, 02:55 AM // 02:55

I highly doubt such a thing is possible, and even more unlikely it would get implemented.

Molock · Aug 06, 2007, 05:19 AM // 05:19

I really doubt they would do something like that.. lol
They are just gonna make eberything inscribable and we will probably lose a few mods in the process.

free_fall · Aug 06, 2007, 05:25 AM // 05:25

What would be nice would be something like Tomes for weapons, that would turn a non-inscribable weapon inscribeable, maybe with the proviso that it would make it customized, so you couldn't sell it afterwards.

The Herbalizer · Aug 06, 2007, 12:38 PM // 12:38

Sounds complicated. Complicated things are usually expensive or problematic.

The best way to deal with the problem is imo either of the following: -

1. Only future drops are inscribable.

2. A high percentage of future drops are inscribable and the remaining are non-inscribable.

I also doubt Anet can change existing gold items as they have never altered white, blue, purple or gold items in the past. There were many cases when they really should have. For example, change of staffs, hex shields, al vs shields, stance shields, -3 10% shields etc.

Jetdoc · Aug 06, 2007, 02:12 PM // 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Herbalizer

I also doubt Anet can change existing gold items as they have never altered white, blue, purple or gold items in the past. There were many cases when they really should have. For example, change of staffs, hex shields, al vs shields, stance shields, -3 10% shields etc.

To be technically correct, they actually did change (1) several existing blue collectors items (e.g. Charrslaying mods, double health axe, Nolani wand); (2) existing staves to show the recharge mod (if any) as a white text item and (3) made the blue IDS a gold IDS.

I think one of the difficulties that A-Net would have in implementing a retroactive change would be to the dual modded damage reduction shields, as the current inscription system does not allow for them. I'm not sure how they would accomplish that unless they allowed all inscribables to have those types of mods.

lacasner · Aug 06, 2007, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Quote:

I think one of the difficulties that A-Net would have in implementing a retroactive change would be to the dual modded damage reduction shields, as the current inscription system does not allow for them. I'm not sure how they would accomplish that unless they allowed all inscribables to have those types of mods.

Yea, but how many of these actually exist on active accounts to influence the market significantly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Herbalizer

also doubt Anet can change existing gold items as they have never altered white, blue, purple or gold items in the past. There were many cases when they really should have. For example, change of staffs, hex shields, al vs shields, stance shields, -3 10% shields etc.

Yea, but this is different, because with this idea you would have the option of keeping all of these "old-items" in tact. Simply, if you were to select an inscription mod, the game would say "Warning, this is not retroactive, and is making this item permenantly inscribable".

Is this not plausible at all?

Jetdoc · Aug 06, 2007, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacasner

Yea, but how many of these actually exist on active accounts to influence the market significantly?

I'd say well over 1,000, if not 10,000.

You have to remember that this encompasses also those shields with + armor vs [blank] and a -2 damage [vs blank] as well.

I personally have three shields with dual reduction/armor bonuses...

warren_kn · Aug 06, 2007, 03:42 PM // 15:42

Firstly I will admit I'm not a big follower of markets and rarities of items in GW...

What would happen if ANet made all purple items inscriptable, and all gold items non., from now on. Players would be able to all skins with stats they would like, while the rare items (and they really would be rare as in reduce the drop rate) would retain their prestigeness (if that's even a word). As for this being retroactive, how about all inscribable items being made purple. That may annoy a few folks though.

fgarvin · Aug 06, 2007, 07:13 PM // 19:13

All the dual-suffix axes were changed with an update about a year ago (anyone else miss the 2x20% enchant mods). I don't see what would be so difficult, but then again, they have yet to change the glitched unconditional weapons from the very old days.

lacasner · Aug 07, 2007, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Quote:

I don't see what would be so difficult, but then again, they have yet to change the glitched unconditional weapons from the very old days.

Obviously you don't understand what I said.

Your items are the same as they are now.

If you choose to put an inscription, they change and become inscribable forever.

If not, its still "old school leet"

Is it explained better now?

sixdartbart · Aug 07, 2007, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I'd say well over 1,000, if not 10,000.

You have to remember that this encompasses also those shields with + armor vs [blank] and a -2 damage [vs blank] as well.

I personally have three shields with dual reduction/armor bonuses...

I have 5 of these not to mention my collection of +8 vs XXX -2 shields that they rendered into soap when the +10 vs XXX came along.

That still makes me sad...

lacasner · Aug 07, 2007, 05:10 PM // 17:10

Quote:

I have 5 of these not to mention my collection of +8 vs XXX -2 shields that they rendered into soap when the +10 vs XXX came along.

That still makes me sad...

Well, lol you can still preserve them if you'd like with this idea.

MithranArkanere · Aug 07, 2007, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Neew inscriptions and modifiers could be added.

They added them, and runes too.

Try not to think from a fixed pojnt of view.

And they can always leave the properties with no Upgrade equivalent untouched.

So if a foci had two properties, one with an inscription equivalen and another with no inscription available, only the one with the equivalent would become replaced by an upgrade, until they add another one.

Harder things had been made.

Maximumraver · Aug 07, 2007, 09:39 PM // 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Herbalizer

Sounds complicated. Complicated things are usually expensive or problematic.

The best way to deal with the problem is imo either of the following: -

1. Only future drops are inscribable.

2. A high percentage of future drops are inscribable and the remaining are non-inscribable.

I also doubt Anet can change existing gold items as they have never altered white, blue, purple or gold items in the past. There were many cases when they really should have. For example, change of staffs, hex shields, al vs shields, stance shields, -3 10% shields etc.

Then i vote option 1.

makosi · Aug 07, 2007, 10:49 PM // 22:49

I vote option 1 too. It's plausable and easier to implement (like the HoH chest).

On a side note, people really need to learn that the word is Inscribable not inscripable, inscriptable, inscable, inscriptionable.

Sleeper Service · Aug 08, 2007, 01:38 AM // 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacasner

Obviously you don't understand what I said.

Your items are the same as they are now.

If you choose to put an inscription, they change and become inscribable forever.

If not, its still "old school leet"

Is it explained better now?

sounds good to me....

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

...On a side note, people really need to learn that the word is Inscribable not inscripable, inscriptable, inscable, inscriptionable.

"incribable" is not even the correct term for this. so....moot point really. -.-

Necrotic · Aug 08, 2007, 03:05 AM // 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

"incribable" is not even the correct term for this. so....moot point really. -.-

Correct....incribable is not, however....http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inscribable

makosi · Aug 08, 2007, 11:45 AM // 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

sounds good to me....

"incribable" is not even the correct term for this. so....moot point really. -.-

I said 'Inscribable'. What does moot mean?

MithranArkanere · Aug 08, 2007, 07:11 PM // 19:11

This would work as long as inscribed items in than way lose their properties.

For example, a +16AL,req9, +30HP,-5dmg(20%) would turn into a +16AL,req9, Inscription: None.
That way they could keep 'rare' combinations that you can't replicate with inscriptions and their value untouched.

Some people would be happy too if customization was also a prerequisite.