DeletedUser
so u can equip more than 1 animal? course if not than i'm really mixed up
DeletedUser
I don't think we're going to get faster speed EVER... apparently travel times used to be faster, but that got changed just prior to the "English" worlds opening up.
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
I really like this idea, but I'm going to be the odd one out here.
Firstly I think we don't need new horses. The current ones are good enough as is and don't need changing.
Secondly I think the backpack addition and speed should both scale up. Doing otherwise might add strategy but it would upset the game. More people would want a Mule or Donkey over a Quarter Horse!
So assuming the default backpack limit is 20 (stacks counting as 1)
Donkey: +25% Speed and Backpack Limit (25)
Pony: +50% Speed and Backpack Limit (30)
Mustang: +75% Speed and Backpack Limit (35)
White Horse: +100% Speed and Backpack Limit (40)
Arabian: +125% Speed and Backpack Limit (45)
Quarter Horse: +150% Speed and Backpack Limit (50)
Secret Quest Animal: +200% Speed and NO Backpack Limit
[Note: The above animal doesn't exist... yet]
Firstly I think we don't need new horses. The current ones are good enough as is and don't need changing.
Secondly I think the backpack addition and speed should both scale up. Doing otherwise might add strategy but it would upset the game. More people would want a Mule or Donkey over a Quarter Horse!
So assuming the default backpack limit is 20 (stacks counting as 1)
Donkey: +25% Speed and Backpack Limit (25)
Pony: +50% Speed and Backpack Limit (30)
Mustang: +75% Speed and Backpack Limit (35)
White Horse: +100% Speed and Backpack Limit (40)
Arabian: +125% Speed and Backpack Limit (45)
Quarter Horse: +150% Speed and Backpack Limit (50)
Secret Quest Animal: +200% Speed and NO Backpack Limit
[Note: The above animal doesn't exist... yet]
Last edited:
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
Rockin' on the roo since 1882!
(You can have that. I just made it up, and stuff.)
(You can have that. I just made it up, and stuff.)
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
Haha do you live under a rock - everyone has a kangaroo these daysEh wat? there's a secret animal?
Nah I want them to make a secret animal, but the're yet to do so. It should come in a secret quest such as the toolbox one, or found by very low luck like Piece of a note Part 1.
DeletedUser
Diggo,
Your suggestion would just break everything down to the simple linear system we have now. My suggestion was intended to give people choice, while you fall back to the game choosing for us. You complain that with my idea, almost anyone would wat a donkey or a mule. With your idea, EVERYONE would want the quarter horse.
I think my idea would add at least SOME variation, while yours takes it all away again.
I still think the easiest option is to use my suggestion. Equip an animal, and the number of spaces expand. Remove it, and the spaces will dissappear. If you used more than 20 spaces, you can't remove the animal. Very simple to implement, while it makes the game more interesting, because it allows us another choice (we need way more choices than just always chasing after the best thing).
Your suggestion would just break everything down to the simple linear system we have now. My suggestion was intended to give people choice, while you fall back to the game choosing for us. You complain that with my idea, almost anyone would wat a donkey or a mule. With your idea, EVERYONE would want the quarter horse.
I think my idea would add at least SOME variation, while yours takes it all away again.
I still think the easiest option is to use my suggestion. Equip an animal, and the number of spaces expand. Remove it, and the spaces will dissappear. If you used more than 20 spaces, you can't remove the animal. Very simple to implement, while it makes the game more interesting, because it allows us another choice (we need way more choices than just always chasing after the best thing).
DeletedUser1105
I agree with Vin. The idea is to make it an interesting choice.
DeletedUser5046
interesting choice eh..
so will there be a special horse for te classes?
so will there be a special horse for te classes?
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
And its so balanced people want a $250 Donkey over a $2800 Quarter Horse. Its so cool that a now top of the line Donkey can be purchased at like Level 2 General Store compared to Level 10 General Store for Quarter Horses. Its so great that a basic quest now demands you own a now top of the line Donkey. Its so fair to those who have sold their Donkey for a Quarter Horse already.
I agree we need more gameplay strategy here but this is just plain stupid.
I agree we need more gameplay strategy here but this is just plain stupid.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
Diggo has a point.
DeletedUser
Has he?
He is basically suggesting we should never ever change any of the existing game mechanics, simply because players already invested in the old ones. That will allow a lot of room for future improvements. Then we should close this forum-section, because it will lose it's use.
I think we hit some sore spot with Diggo...
Who said that the mentioned prices and merchant levels could not be discussed? That's what this thread is for. There will ALWAYS be loss involved when you change existing mechanics. But it's for the good of the game. And people will get over it. Who is still complaining about the old jobs? People adapt and enjoy a newer system. Maybe the top-class of the speed-horses, the quarter horse, will cost 1000$. People will only lose $1800. Top of the line donkey? Maybe reread my first post, becuase the mule was top of the line, and only in the "hauler" class. Maybe we should change the quest as well, so that any animal is required, not just the donkey. Also, if you again reread my first post, you'll see that the prices I suggested are different than the ones you mention here. The "new" quarter horse will NOT cost 2800, so people won't prefer a donkey over a quarter horse that's much more expensive. The difference between them will be smoothed out, and people will not always prefer a cheaper option, because cheaper options aren't better.
I don't really see the issue here, as people that are able to afford 2800 can also make up for any form of loss.
Again, how can we change anything about this game if you won't accept any loss to players?
He is basically suggesting we should never ever change any of the existing game mechanics, simply because players already invested in the old ones. That will allow a lot of room for future improvements. Then we should close this forum-section, because it will lose it's use.
I think we hit some sore spot with Diggo...
Who said that the mentioned prices and merchant levels could not be discussed? That's what this thread is for. There will ALWAYS be loss involved when you change existing mechanics. But it's for the good of the game. And people will get over it. Who is still complaining about the old jobs? People adapt and enjoy a newer system. Maybe the top-class of the speed-horses, the quarter horse, will cost 1000$. People will only lose $1800. Top of the line donkey? Maybe reread my first post, becuase the mule was top of the line, and only in the "hauler" class. Maybe we should change the quest as well, so that any animal is required, not just the donkey. Also, if you again reread my first post, you'll see that the prices I suggested are different than the ones you mention here. The "new" quarter horse will NOT cost 2800, so people won't prefer a donkey over a quarter horse that's much more expensive. The difference between them will be smoothed out, and people will not always prefer a cheaper option, because cheaper options aren't better.
I don't really see the issue here, as people that are able to afford 2800 can also make up for any form of loss.
Again, how can we change anything about this game if you won't accept any loss to players?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Nice. exhange speed with back pack limit is interesting. More choices of horses
DeletedUser
As much as this horse idea appeals, it only really benefits lower level players, and myself not being a low level player, I stand to lose a lot... if this were ever to be implemented. Have some of you seen a inventory worth tens of thousands... with in excess of 200 item/products.... a quarter horse with your 50 slot limit is not really inspiring me...
So what I propose is a Iron horse (train)
or a stage coach
Buy price 12000K (current banking limit)
speed upgrade 300%+
carry upgrade 200 slots...
So what I propose is a Iron horse (train)
or a stage coach
Buy price 12000K (current banking limit)
speed upgrade 300%+
carry upgrade 200 slots...
DeletedUser
Then you are in trouble anyway, because the backpack limitation was mentioned with the 2009 changes if I remember correctly. It will come, no matter what you do with this idea.
You should start selling stuff before that confirmed update hits us in the near future. This idea serves to save us from a permanent 30 spaces limit, plus add some choice as a bonus.
You should start selling stuff before that confirmed update hits us in the near future. This idea serves to save us from a permanent 30 spaces limit, plus add some choice as a bonus.
DeletedUser
The possibly pending backpack limit is already upgradable, 30 is the max for a basic backpack. Your mount is also supposed to be a factor. Really, this suggestion is kind of pointless, because your animal is already going to affect your capacity.
This isn't for certain as we know it will trigger a lot of controversy. We would like to limit the number of items that can fit in a backpack. For example, a basic backpack would only be able to hold 30 items. Depending on your horse and other items you would be able to carry more.
http://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=10464
DeletedUser
Having a proposed change doesn't mean it'll happen. Remember the proposed builder nerf that is now discarded?
I don't know why they want to limit backpack, what's the reason? It cuts down the "fun" factor of this game and save the game developer some hard drive space to store our inventory?
If space is such a huge issue (I suspect there is some, remember now some items stack?), solution is simple
NORMALIZE your database by a lot. This raise the problem of joining tables for other operation but you can easily minimize your storage space issue.
I suspect this game uses mysql as database, if not, apologies.
What's stopping the game developers from declaring compact database? Is item name taking up too much space?
You can easily do the following, normalize your database to 3rd degree or more.
Item ID | Item Name
1 | wheat
2 | oranges
Table player inventory
Player ID | Item ID | quantity
You have to rejoin tables for operation but as you can see, by splitting up the tables and keep the minimum amount of space necessary to store the item, you can cut down on the storage space needed. You can use smallint, or 3 bytes to store item ID if you wish. Item name can be varchar, quantity, I dunno, smallint perhaps?
I see no good reason to change it, if you do change it, allow player some advantages, I see nothing but disadvantages aka NERF.
I don't know why they want to limit backpack, what's the reason? It cuts down the "fun" factor of this game and save the game developer some hard drive space to store our inventory?
If space is such a huge issue (I suspect there is some, remember now some items stack?), solution is simple
NORMALIZE your database by a lot. This raise the problem of joining tables for other operation but you can easily minimize your storage space issue.
I suspect this game uses mysql as database, if not, apologies.
What's stopping the game developers from declaring compact database? Is item name taking up too much space?
You can easily do the following, normalize your database to 3rd degree or more.
Item ID | Item Name
1 | wheat
2 | oranges
Table player inventory
Player ID | Item ID | quantity
You have to rejoin tables for operation but as you can see, by splitting up the tables and keep the minimum amount of space necessary to store the item, you can cut down on the storage space needed. You can use smallint, or 3 bytes to store item ID if you wish. Item name can be varchar, quantity, I dunno, smallint perhaps?
I see no good reason to change it, if you do change it, allow player some advantages, I see nothing but disadvantages aka NERF.
DeletedUser
Nerfing is only bad from one perspective. A nerf is usually about game balance, not screwing everybody. My point is that this whole suggestion covers one element that is already included in an officially proposed change.