Anything Forums

This may be a "sensitive" subject for some of you, hence why I created a poll. Instead of just fixing an item and upsetting the players, I will let you decide instead. Please answer truthfully.

I'm sure some of you have noticed the "Owned By Nobody" property on talismans and aren't really sure what it's actual use is. Neither did we in the beginning. However, we realize now that the "owned by nobody" tag causes the talisman to auto-bless upon being worn by a person. This talisman binds to the person and blesses once it is equipped.

Now here's the kicker: That property is special because it adds the "blessed" property and binds to that one person, making it unique and valuable before it is worn. This leads me to believe that normal talismans that do not have this property, are meant to be insured (If somebody can find an accurate, citeable source that states otherwise, I'm all ears).

Therefore, we may need to bring life into this property and change to that system (Only talismans to be blessed will be artifact talismans and talismans with the "owned by nobody" tag).

If we change it:

-We will increase the odds of getting an "owned by nobody" tag on a talisman (right now it's really uncommon). We could make it as high as 50% chance per talisman find.

-Increase the rate of talisman drops

-All previously blessed talismans will remain blessed, but new ones may not.

-Artifact talismans will be blessed (vanquisher, totem of the void, etc).

PROS: Giving a use to the otherwise useless "owned by nobody" tag. Increasing the value of a good "owned by nobody" tag talisman for trades and sales. Increasing the likelyhood of getting talismans in general, as well as with the "owned by nobody" tag

CONS: Not every talisman will be blessed but can still be insured. Potential angry mob outside gate library, wealding pitchforks.

If we keep it as is:

-We will keep the bless tag on talismans

-Drop rates will remain the same

-We will remove the "owned by nobody" tag as it does not serve a purpose (Unless somebody can give us a good use for that property).

PROS: Things remain as is and talismans are auto-blessed (Which can be nice)

CONS: Need to remove "owned by nobody" property or find another use for it (Ideas accepted in this thread).

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10735

I abstain.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10736

As a player, I'd say leave em. As admin, I say we should up their weight to 5-10 stones.

The reason behind this is that someone can carry like 100 talismans and have them macroed to abuse the remove curse properties and such. So by making them 10 stones (or even 5) it would be harder to carry as many.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10737

Hmm, well you could remove the blessed tag, but create a special type of NPC that will bless a talisman for you for a modest sum. Or you could just leave them in.

I personally would trade the blessed tag for more frequent drops. But then again, not everyone has enough spare change to keep lots of items auto-insured. Especially if they carry more than one talisman at a time.

So I vote to remove the tag. Just because I like the idea of more frequent drops as well as the higher chance to actually get an "owned by nobody" talisman.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10740

Well... something I would have to test again is that if you use an owned by nobidy and then become the owner, can other players still wear it and it just not be blessed for them? This is important, because I have a collection of slayer talismans that I swap between a couple of my characters, and don't want them being limited to the one character that used them first.

As far as having to insure them intead of them all being blessed, that's not a big deal to me. It's just one more item on the suit to insure. It would be cool to see item bless deeds that can be used on a lot of types of items given as event rewards or available somewhere to bless stuff though.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10753

Owned by nobody equips to that one person. Once it's been used, it becomes blessed but at the price that only that one person can wear it. This is a slight downfall to the property but that's the way it works. Keep in mind though that to make up for this, all artifact talismans will be "blessed" (Not with the "owned by" property). Therefore that inconvenience will only really pertain to new talismans you have found with the "owned by nobody" tag. If you find a slayer talisman without the property, you get the benefit of having a talisman you can swap around characters with the sacrifice of having to pay more insurance on it per death. If it has the "owned by nobody" flag, you get the benefit of having it blessed but only available for that one person who equips it first.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10758

WIth that said then, I would say it still sounds ok with one exception. Don't increase the chances of getting and "owned by nobody talisman". I rather insure my talisman and be able to share it than not.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10772

i voted yes but agree with dumples

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10773

Dumples wrote:WIth that said then, I would say it still sounds ok with one exception. Don't increase the chances of getting and "owned by nobody talisman". I rather insure my talisman and be able to share it than not.

We'll increase it a chunk in that respect as it really is a rare find (I tiled like 100 of them and didn't find 1. Also, the summoning talismans will probably be upped a bit.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10778

I like the idea of the bless quest too, so you can get any blessed one but just have to work extra for it. Instead of a quest I could make it an item that is crafted, maybe even a recipe.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10782

I'm actually quite surprised and pleased that the players who voted are in favor of the change.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10790

Seer Death wrote:I'm actually quite surprised and pleased that the players who voted are in favor of the change.

It's not like you are saying you are changing the intensity of the talismans or taking them away, so it's not that big a deal.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10795

Yes, but you will have to insure new talismans unless you have that property. Figured people would object to that.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10796

I think most people are voting yes because of the increase in talisman drops. This is like a bill that's trying to pass into law, there are other things tagged to it

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10797

I voted no and i agree with altar.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10798

Like this?

Canada Goverment: "We will decrease GST (by 1%) BUT income tax will go up (by 5%)"

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10799

Red Squirrel wrote:Like this?

Canada Goverment: "We will decrease GST (by 1%) BUT income tax will go up (by 5%)"

Yes, in fact it's precisely like that

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:10806

Majority voted in favor. Thanks all who voted. The talismans will be fixed in the future.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:11157

I want it to be noted that I abstained.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:11160

Actually given it was rather close I still want to rethink this and there will most likely be another poll with different things we can do, a few things were brought up such as making a way to bless them, such as a quest or item you buy. Personally I just want to make them heavier to prevent carrying 100+ of em to abuse the abilities, and be done with, but we'll see what happens in the end, this is not a big issue right now.

I can also just use a hash table and have remove curse and such have a time out value regardless of talisman. Lot of other options, so later on we'll look at those further.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:11162

Yes, that's a good idea. It's very close to 50/50 so implementing one way or another might not be the best option right now.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:1681, old post ID:11168