so you guys didnt even poll LS and listened to minorities in reddit who have no idea what lootshare or how it works and concluded OSRS community dont want LS?
since GE we are expecting LS. Taking down this most popular pvm system without even poll is big disappointment.
09-Feb-2016 12:41:36
- Last edited on
09-Feb-2016 13:32:11
by
Joe Maxpayne
Mod Ronan
said
:
Meric
said
:
Removing the issues of trust? People keep the drop when they get it with lootshare that's the whole point of it. You could go pvm with people you've never met before and not have to worry about not splitting because you either get a drop or you get LSP. Dissapointed how the whole LS idea was just thrown out of the window.
We saw essentially no positive responses to the idea of LootShare. The negative far outweighed the positive.
Shard Share removes the issue of trust in an immediate way - there is no need to PvM for x more days to see a return on the LSP you earned.
i guess u never did pvm before rs3. lootshare was more popular than other methods. will be voting no if there is no lootshare.
Lotta salt here...guess this too will fail, and NO LOOTSHARING SYSTEM WILL BE ENABLED.
That works too
'Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.'
T. Pratchett, 1948-2015 RIP, you are missed
Spoice
said
:
You seem upset, Vinyl Dj***3, not sure why, after all this whole polling-thing is opinion based. I'm just letting the JMods know theres also RS-players who do support shard-share.
I'm not upset, I'm confused.
I'm sharing my opinions on the presented methods as well, and stating why I disagree with yours, and others, opinion in support of it.
I'm just letting the JMods know that they are incorrect that players weren't in support of their originally proposed ideas.
The main problem with the Shardshare is that the Shards WON'T be 1/300th of the original value, because why would anyone bother buying them when they could just buy the complete item.
Probably the only item in the game that Shardshare makes sense for is the Elysian.
Everything else is Sold in a high enough Frequency that buying 300 shards to get the item would just be pointless.
So now you have a bunch of players with a bunch of shards that aren't selling for the correct values because people aren't buying them. So now the only solution for those players is to Accept less than they should be getting....Or just save the shards until they have 300 to make the item and sell that.
But....then why bother with Shardshare, if the solution was to just make the item and sell that? In the end, all you've done is Split 3 items to 3 players, but it took longer.
The previously proposed Method of Instant Share removes the problems of the items being less than their value, gives the people Bossing the money they wanted in the first place directly, and skips the steps of having to get those Drops again just to actually sell their loot.
Stuff being sold directly to the highest offer makes sense because that means the item is being sold for how much players are willing to pay literally.
Which is how much the item is worth, because that's how the market works.
If the people getting the drops don't agree on that price....then they don't need to use it.
Everything's an integrity issue if you troll enough.
09-Feb-2016 12:50:29
- Last edited on
09-Feb-2016 12:52:38
by
Vinyl DjPon3
Not supporting you on this. I didn't like the ShardShare system on RS3. Basically it ruined the concept of CoinShare where as you received items which are hardly sellable rather than plain cash. Also, I believe such system would have influence on current item prices, which I wouldn't seek of. Let it be polled, although I doubt such an idea would pass.
The main problem with the Shardshare is that the Shards WON'T be 1/300th of the original value, because why would anyone bother buying them when they could just buy the complete item.
Probably the only item in the game that Shardshare makes sense for is the Elysian.
Everything else is Sold in a high enough Frequency that buying 300 shards to get the item would just be pointless.
So now you have a bunch of players with a bunch of shards that aren't selling for the correct values because people aren't buying them. So now the only solution for those players is to Accept less than they should be getting....Or just save the shards until they have 300 to make the item and sell that.
But....then why bother with Shardshare, if the solution was to just make the item and sell that? In the end, all you've done is Split 3 items to 3 players, but it took longer.
The previously proposed Method of Instant Share removes the problems of the items being less than their value, gives the people Bossing the money they wanted in the first place directly, and skips the steps of having to get those Drops again just to actually sell their loot.
Stuff being sold directly to the highest offer makes sense because that means the item is being sold for how much players are willing to play literally.
Which is how much the item is worth, because that's how the market works.
If the people getting the drops
Totally agree
The main problem with the Shardshare is that the Shards WON'T be 1/300th of the original value, because why would anyone bother buying them when they could just buy the complete item.
Probably the only item in the game that Shardshare makes sense for is the Elysian.
Everything else is Sold in a high enough Frequency that buying 300 shards to get the item would just be pointless.
So now you have a bunch of players with a bunch of shards that aren't selling for the correct values because people aren't buying them. So now the only solution for those players is to Accept less than they should be getting....Or just save the shards until they have 300 to make the item and sell that.
So the ones who buy them for cheaper will get a complete item...and sell it for a profit, or end up getting what they wanted a bit cheaper...
...the market will sort that out m8....so what's the
real
problem you have with SS? Saying 'this will work just like it did/does on RS3' is bunk, because that's demonstrably not true.
'Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.'
T. Pratchett, 1948-2015 RIP, you are missed
09-Feb-2016 12:54:51
- Last edited on
09-Feb-2016 12:56:54
by
Avid Sparx