Blue wrote:If Mythic would have agreed with Goa then there would have been 100 charge barrels in US too.

They agreed on multiple charge aspect. By the way, there's 30 charges buff potions now.
It's true that 100 charges is very high, it reduces too much the frequency of trade between players and crafters. But on the opposite 1 charge is just... well, Mythic has done a wise choice by choosing 3/6/9 charges, nice compromise. It's nice for everyone when you choice to do compromise

Blue wrote:If Mythic would have agreed with Goa then there would have been 100 charge barrels in US too.

Actually Mythic was planning to introduce the barrels to us as well. However, GOA didn't allow them to do so, with the base of the contract they had (license of running the server and doing EU specific events). GOA had by this contract the right to sell the events back to Mythic. In this case GOA wanted to charge mythic such huge amount which Mythic did not agree on and disallowed GOA to keep the barrels (official reason unknown to me) and introduced as a compromise the 3/6/9 charges with reduced crafting costs. Last year they even increased the charges further with an additional reduction of the crafting costs.

I think this summarizes the story behind the barrels pretty good and shows also why Mythic did NOT introduce the barrels on their (US) Servers. However, the player request for potions with more charges per inventory slot was an old issue when GOA introduced the barrels and a already long requested feature.

Since this is a custom server and will never be live like with the desired patch *wave to old RAs, Tajendi, custom skins, Savages, Dragon zones, DF (graphic AND monster abilities),…* my proposal to the barrel issue is:
* Reactivate the barrel quests and give us back the old alchemist. It was lots of work to design the quest and make it available – why waste that effort and players loved it.
* Keep the new quest to split the barrels.
* Keep the barrels timer at 3 min.

This allows players to:
* Use the pots with the designed reuse timer (Blue’s live like interpretation)
*Be able to stock some potions to not disrupt the RVR experience due to the requirement to craft ne potions but rather be able to just split a bottle and get 10 potions with the designed reuse timer
* Players who want to keep barrels can with the downside and customization of 3 min timers
*Make alchemy a useful trade again by being able to sell a useful amount of pots within reasonable time and amount (specially housing).
* Makes all happy – I guess - or?

Thx for your time!

HulkGris wrote:

Blue wrote:If Mythic would have agreed with Goa then there would have been 100 charge barrels in US too.

They agreed on multiple charge aspect. By the way, there's 30 charges buff potions now.
It's true that 100 charges is very high, it reduces too much the frequency of trade between players and crafters. But on the opposite 1 charge is just... well, Mythic has done a wise choice by choosing 3/6/9 charges, nice compromise. It's nice for everyone when you choice to do compromise

There is also nearly insta-50 insta-template on live now. What is your point?

Even having 3 charge potions instead of 1 would be a great addition that would make us all happy, but it's your server

npc in mid down, plz rezz

Fixed, sorry.

thx

HulkGris wrote:

Blue wrote:If Mythic would have agreed with Goa then there would have been 100 charge barrels in US too.

They agreed on multiple charge aspect. By the way, there's 30 charges buff potions now.

You miss that Mythics devs are not the original ones which were a lot more restrictive.

@Arinmir: We are not open for barrel reintroduction. They will not come back.

Blue wrote:
@Arinmir: We are not open for barrel reintroduction. They will not come back.

Would you consider 10 charge bottles with 2 min reuse timer? Custom, I know, but it would help alchemists make a living and save space in my rangers backpack.

Adianne wrote:

Blue wrote:
@Arinmir: We are not open for barrel reintroduction. They will not come back.

Would you consider 10 charge bottles with 2 min reuse timer? Custom, I know, but it would help alchemists make a living and save space in my rangers backpack.

No

Blue wrote:

HulkGris wrote:They agreed on multiple charge aspect. By the way, there's 30 charges buff potions now.

You miss that Mythics devs are not the original ones which were a lot more restrictive.

And you miss the first and main part of what you are answering.

Abydos wrote:There is also nearly insta-50 insta-template on live now. What is your point?

My point is that is not the topic. I don't understand why you and Blue are talking only about recent change on live, while i was just pointing the fact that Mythic (and that's really Mythic) has understood that multiple charge are a nice improvement on gameplay. It was between 2005 and 2006, clearly out of 1.69 target, but clearly part of this improvement that don't really affect balance, but improve game experience.
Just open a survey to gather player opinion. I know you won't take any decision according to player wish, but I bet on a 90%+ would say yes to multiple charge

100% would.

Even if would be just the mana Barrels lols.

How can you GM's be so unbelievably stubborn, and refuse to make some sort of compromise with this buff pot issue. You all KNOW that 100% of people would rather have at least stacks of 5-10 pots so we can have some room in our inventories for something else, but you refuse. I know as an assassin most have 5-10 weapons in their inventories, as well as multiple stacks of poisons, so its even more annoying for us. You are the most ignorant and selfish GM's on any game I have ever seen. Make the changes that need to be made, in other words, when 90-100% of people would vote one way, dont go the other. Don't you want this server to flourish and survive for as long as it can? This is just a total no brainer, regardless of you 'targeting for the 1.69 patch'. Take a vote

mcnasty wrote:I know as an assassin most have 5-10 weapons in their inventories, as well as multiple stacks of poisons, so its even more annoying for us.

Intended. We are not open for further discussion of this.