Jump to content
Sadie ツ

The Dramatic Change

Recommended Posts

I'd like to take a few minutes to further explain the latest changes that haven't been supported by the community. It appears that most people are unaware of the reason behind the change, which may or may not be because of people jumping to their own conclusions, as I wasn't perfectly clear when stating the change's on the update log. 

First of all, I've noticed that some people have been bashing the staff members of the server for putting these updates out. And by bashing, I don't mean that they're just generally disappointed or giving any valid/useful information, they're just instead calling out the server's staff and how badly they execute. This is extremely unnecessary and of course is against the rules as well. If you disagree with an update, please referr to the administration team rather than calling out/disrespecting the member's who are simply here for the server's moderation. I can assure you that the only staff members that had any control of these important game changes were the ones head of administration, and the reason behind them? Well, continue reading.

 

Jad not dropping shards and Armour Degradation:
Now, this is an important point. Whether you like it or not, jad dropping shards are lethal to the server's health. It gives people access to jump from the worst of the tiers, to the end-game tiers. This has been a problem ever since the Tzhaar-Jad was officially released back on EradicationX. All of the people in the administration excluding the Owner, have been playing this source for many many years, and by that amount of time, whether we've been staff or not, we've seen how the Jad boss affects the economy and server health.

Removing the Obsidian Shard's from the Tzhaar-Jad drop-table was necessary, to prevent the shard's from getting overflooded and of course to prevent people having a doing a HUGE gap between tiers. By this I mean, going from Vesta's to Obsidian, when there's tons of tiers inbetween (which you are supposed to get, but if no one does, this affects those item prices and the value of doing other bosses, which just makes them dead content if no one needs them, right?). Jad is easily killed, even with chaotics and Vesta's, there's no denial in that. If we'd raise the drop-rate, the problem would still be a viable option, if we buffed the boss people would get furious due to the boss already being click-intensive, and well, no one in the EradicationX community truly likes difficulty, if we're being completely honest. Therefore we can conclude, that Jad dropping the Shard doesn't just affect the tiers, but it also affects the value in doing other bosses and the economical side of the Shards and other bosses, thus making this a necessary change. 
And to make Jad have a usage still after the removal of this, we made Jad strictly for the Enchanting Potion and Obsidian Champion strictly for the Shards. This also puts an economical value on the Enchanting Potion, thus making Jad useful (not to mention the price per eradicator potion). 

When it comes to armour degradation, i'm of course talking about the Elite Obsidian. The reason behind making this armour degrade isn't that we're just trying to be a bunch of assholes who loves to see you suffer. It's because we need a sink for the Obsidian Shards. Although the Jad change would help make them harder to obtain in terms of tiers, it doesn't prevent the shard's from getting overflooded once people get to the stage where they're able to fight the Obsidian Champion. Therefore, since the Elite Obsidian Armour is the current end-game gear, we decided that it'd be best to force the end-game people to have some sort of impact on the Shard's economy, of course in a good way. Forcing them to obtain three enchanted shards to sucessfully repair their armour. And because we're expecting people not to like this change, we made it fairly good rates, 3 enchanted shards (+2 more for each helm) for each 144 hours in-combat time you spend using them, that's VERY GOOD rates. Because the plan wasn't to make you suffer, it was to add some sort of sink to the shard without punishing anyone, and this was the conclusion. It's not difficult to obtain when you have the end-game armour as well. And to make this even less of a hassle, we also buffed the Elite Obsidian Armoury. 
 

Spoiler

 

These two updates are both linked to eachother as you might've figured out by now. 

 

Annihilation, Decimation and Obliteration Special Attack nerf:
I've explained this one several times before, but just since it's still a critical point, I'd like to further explain it. 

The changes we did with these special attacks is because of how over-powered they were, not to mention that they also were free once you obtained one of the Weapons. Just to make an example of how powerful they were:

I don't have actual footage of this since it's already been nerfed, but this is approximately the hit changes:
Melee max hit was nerfed by 300.
Ranged max hit was nerfed by 600.
Magic max hit was nerfed by 1050. 

My memory is a bit grey since this change was done a while ago, but obviously increasing the max hit damage by this much after simply getting weapons that are fairly cheap in the economy, not to mention that you simply use an overload to use it, is INCREDIBLY OVERPOWERED. Keeping this would prevent us from being able to add new tiers after the end-game, without getting to insanely high max hits. At that point, these special attacks would be better than any armoury and weapons combined. 
To make room for future tiers we decided to nerf these to what they currently are:
 

Spoiler

Max Hits:

  • Melee:
    With Overload: 1429
    With Eradicator Potion: 1503
    With Annihilation Special Attack: 1564

    [Overload = 125]
    [Eradicator Potion = 132]
    [Annihilation Special Attack = 138]

     
  • Ranged:
    With Overload: 1116
    With Eradicator Potion: 1161
    With Decimation Special Attack: 1231

    [Overload = 122]
    [Eradicator Potion = 128]
    [Decimation Special Attack = 138]

     
  • Magic:
    With Overload: 998
    With Eradicator Potion: 1073
    With Obliteration Special Attack: 1295
    
    [Overload = 106]
    [Eradicator potion = 109]
    [Obliteration Special Attack = 118]


Note: this is with the BIS setup for each style.
 

 

 

Rule #17:
Rule 17 is the one which prevents you from lending donator ranks below their respective price at the rank lender. People haven't been too happy regarding this change either but again, it's necessary. The thing people tend to forget, is to look at the bigger picture, and not be selfish about this whole situation. The comments we get are "It's my rank, my money, I should get to do whatever I want with it". And yes, that's a fairly good point, and it's true. But not when it doesn't only affect you, not when it affects everyone who has ANY rank. Which is what this whole rule is about, to prevent the rank from getting de-valued. 

What do I mean by the rank getting devalued? Surely the rank's are only raising in price? Yes, I don't mean the rank's actual price, I mean the rank's lending price, as that's the context in this matter.

Here's an example;
if someone would have 10 Eradicator Ranks, and would publically announce and constantly lend each rank out for 100m/hr, NO ONE would lend the rank for it's original price at 800m/hr, which was put there for a reason (to prevent people from basically getting free ranks). People would be waiting in line to lend this dude's rank and if people who donated for their ranks also want to lend theirs, they'll have to undercut/lend it out for the exact same price as this guy does, to even have a chance. 


Lending a donator rank is also a donator benefit, as you lend it out to gain money, but if everyone is practically getting them for free, this is no longer a benefit, thus devaluing a point on getting a rank. And to prevent people from again, basically getting free ranks, we've added this rule to make sure the Rank's minimum lending prices are followed.

If the lending prices are too cheap, no one would pay the full price to achieve the rank either, devaluing it even more.

 

Why are people that don't even play the game making game changes?
Every single member of the administration (excluding Era - the Owner), has been playing this source for YEARS. We have A LOT of knowledge and information about this server, from all kind of different perspectives. We can give you a damn server tour without even being online on the server, we can bring you information on everything, you say it, we have it. 
We've all played this server, we're all knowledged about the game mechanics, the way it functions and everything else. We aren't updating a game we know nothing about, I can assure you we have some of the most server knowledgable member's in our Administration. We know what we're doing, we've done it before and we just need people to see it from the perspective they need to - the longevity of the server. 

 

Who's to blame for these sudden changes?
Sadie


Note: Depending on the feedback to this thread, we'll consider reverting the updates made. But if we do, you'll have to blame yourself for the consequences - we will not be able to control the economy, because of how easily everything will be obtained. 
 

Thanks, and hopefully you'll have a better understanding of why what's been done has been done. 
Sadie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the updates that have been done to Jad and the King.  Being a previous player on erad I would tend to agree that being able to kill jad for shards was overpowered.  However, with hat being said it would be nice to see a minor tweak to the shard drop rate.  Thanks as always 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I see that every update has a good point for doing it except rule 17, it’s completely illogical, you’ve done things that no one in server want it, this example you gave is completely mistaken too, players won’t wait the specific person to borrow Eradicator from him, the prices were known for everyone about lending so everyone was able to lend his rank. I see that this rule must be deleted, you must do a vote before adding such a rule because this isn’t harming the server in any point, but it makes players stay in the server and play longer time when they have an Eradicator borrowed for 24 hours ir so. You’ve done the harm to server by adding this rule. Try to do a poll and see how all want it to be deleted even if you see it as a necessary rule but it’s completely shit. Sorry for offensive language. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though Sadie has adressed most of the things, I'd still like to explain the rank lending update in detail to clear futher confusion. 

I originally made my own curve, but I figured I'd be too hard to understand if you hadn't followed any statistic classes. The curve below is pretty self explanatory, Price and Quality are not always proportional. It depends of various situations, what type of product it is, etc... Obviously we'll keep it only at erad ranks, because that's what the discussion is about.

Now the main goal here is to keep the cost as LOW as possible why keeping the quality as HIGH as possible. If we'd let people lend their ranks out for 200m/hr, it wouldn't have any value of quality. Eradbosses would have no value along with the things on their droptable (mainly Obsidian shard). Gold would not have value because erad bones can be grinded for 15m each. Talking about ruining the eco, the people that lend their ranks for cheap and undercut eachother are devaluating their $150. Seriously running around with an eradicator rank would be the most normal thing ever. This would cause people to not buy ranks AT ALL. I mean why would you, when you can borrow it for that cheap? It's safe to say that this server runs on donations. And advertising on the most popular rsps websites IS NOT cheap. But it's the only way we can get new players in.

How about if we raise the price to 2b/hour? We'll here's my point about it not being proportional. The quality doesn't raise infinitely if you raise the costs. It doesn't work that way. If the price would be too high, the quality would be even lower than when it was cheap, because people simply wouldn't borrow ranks anymore.

The 800m/hr cap is really reasonable, where we keep the quality as high as possible, while keeping the costs as low as possible. I've already mentioned this before, you can make back your 800m easily with erad bones by killing 54 brutals. That is 2 full inventories and you're good to go do some erad bosses to finish off the rest. 

To finish it off, we offer people something that I've never seen before in my rsps career; lending ranks for ingame gp. Which literally prevents people from donating. If we were greedy/only cared about donations, we wouldn't have this service up and running in the first place.

Thank you for reading.

829f6644e05902546bba371605810a78.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ This dude made a graph, he deserves some love. 

I've played Erad for years and I hated the jad/degradation update at first. I hated it to the point I didn't care to play for like a week. Once I got over my initial disappointment (and forgave sadie for making my obby grind harder) I realized it was for the best. It will ultimately keep the server going longer and allow players to not get bored as fast. The older players that are complaining a lot are upset because its being changed after so long of being the way it was, if we want the server that we know and love to last there have to be some sacrifices. 

I have no strong feelings on the rule 17 update. I don't see how people are complaining about having to pay 800m/hr for a rank that allows several billion gp to be made in that hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dain I appreciate your attempt to show the logic behind the lending changes but statistic classes don't mean anything to economic arguments. I just got finished with an economic class and i can say that the entire approach to the worth of the rank is incorrect. The topic can be easily simplified to the law of supply and demand (which uses an entirely different type of graph than the one you provided). The concept is that as the price of a good increases the demand will decrease because the INCENTIVE and BENEFITS provided to the CONSUMER (player) decrease. That is why when something costs too little there is a shortage of the good in question. Markets have ways to balance themselves out because the consumers have the final say in what the item in question is worth. Placing the price floor will create a surplus if players are unwilling to lend ranks at 800m. This means that ranks will ultimately lose their "lending value" anyways because people won't do it.

Benefits of the rank: The benefits will not change based on the price of the rank or the lending price. The only way the benefits have changed is due to the changes with jad. The benefits of lending are ultimately determined by the person buying the lend anyways and not the "management" (government) trying to tell the person what its worth. 

The price: Players currently set the prices for every item ingame that does not have a shop value/cost assigned to it (trio items/obsidian). The ranks are subject to the same price changes as the items are when a player sells them. The lending price should not be the only limitation in the market set by a rule. 

I care not what happens with this rule but if it stays the rank prices need to be fixed just like the lending prices to keep the "value" steady on the ranks. If not, then remove the limitation and allow the players to decide their own damn prices like they do with everything else.

Edited by Napalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in short words in my opinion the update for me personally needed to happen i agree and understand every update that saide has put out there it is better for the long run for the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Napalm I appreciate you getting back to me.

 

13 minutes ago, Napalm said:

The topic can be easily simplified to the law of supply and demand (which uses an entirely different type of graph than the one you provided). The concept is that as the price of a good increases the demand will decrease because the INCENTIVE and BENEFITS provided to the CONSUMER (player) decrease.

I literally said people won't be borrowing ranks at all if the price were too high. Incentive and beliefs prodived to the customer decreases? Lol. We offer you to make it back in minutes as a rank borrower and we offer you higher value for your rank as a rank lender. How are we decreasing 'incentive and beliefs provided to the customer?' Because less people will borrow your ranks? Well, they're going to have to eventually if they want to do eradbosses. Not everyone is allowed to pay $150 in one go. Eradzone is the key to reach endgame on this server, not the mention the xp and droprate boost. So it's a pretty good deal to skip a $150 payment for 800m cash in game, which AGAIN can be made back in minutes. ALSO. You have to understand that BOTH sides are customers here. The borrower & lender. There were people protesting because they were being undercut by greedy players.

 

21 minutes ago, Napalm said:

That is why when something costs too little there is a shortage of the good in question.

If a good is sold at a too small price, there will be a shortage in supply of said good, and therefore the producer can (and will) sell the good for a higher price. This basic principle of the invisible hand shows how it would efficiently allocate the markets resources.

And that is exactly what we did.

 

 

53 minutes ago, Napalm said:

Benefits of the rank: The benefits will not change based on the price of the rank or the lending price. The only way the benefits have changed is due to the changes with jad. The benefits of lending are ultimately determined by the person buying the lend anyways and not the "management" (government) trying to tell the person what its worth. 

The price: Players currently set the prices for every item ingame that does not have a shop value/cost assigned to it (trio items/obsidian). The ranks are subject to the same price changes as the items are when a player sells them. The lending price should not be the only limitation in the market set by a rule

First of all, you cannot compare an item ingame such as trio items/obby shard with any ranks. Those items can be dropped directly without spending a penny. On the other side, you have ranks that can ONLY be purchased with IRL money. Sure, you can sell your rank to a price you want because there aren't that many offers ingame. The prices mostly overpriced. But there is a big difference between overpricing and undercutting. I feel like as a mathematician I shouldn't be telling this to an economist. But anyhow when you want to lend out your rank, which means making use of our additional service that we offer you, you follow our price guides. 
 

57 minutes ago, Napalm said:

I care not what happens with this rule but if it stays the rank prices need to be fixed just like the lending prices to keep the "value" steady on the ranks. If not, then remove the limitation and allow the players to decide their own damn prices like they do with everything else.

Changing the rank prices are out of the question, because people would brag about them paying more for a service that's now cheaper. Yes if we were Blizzard we maybe could get away with it, but we aren't. Changing lending prices? It's already cheap enough for a top notch rank and I hate to repeat myself; we offer you to make it back in minutes. So I don't see the problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Last i checked lent ranks don't get the drop rate bonus.

2. I said to make a set price for the ranks so they don't change when the players decide to sell $1 for 1b or $1 for 10b 

3. Sounds to me the server has a problem if a donation is "required" to get to endgame especially one as big as eradicator.

4. You quote the invisible hand and yet do something contrary to it by imposing a limit on the people that removes the ability for lending price to decrease.

5. You can compare the ranks to ingame items because the ranks can be boxed and sold and if I remember correctly a lot of staff hosted events have spawned donation ranks as prizes so not all ranks are donated for.

6. If you want to handcuff the eco of the server then handcuff all ingame items as well or else this logical argument falls apart entirely. There is no logic in imposing a limit to a singular part of the game that can simply be evaded anyways.

Edit: 7:

 If a good is sold at a too small price, there will be a shortage in supply of said good, and therefore the producer can (and will) sell the good for a higher price. This basic principle of the invisible hand shows how it would efficiently allocate the markets resources.

And that is exactly what we did.

No what you did was set a price floor which causes problems in the market equilibrium that will likely cause a shortage of demand since people wanted to lend less than 800m an hour. The so called damage you speak of being caused to other players is false since they are subject to changes in the market just like everyone else. That means if the market wants 500m/hr then ALL lenders are forced into that or they don't make money. Their own choice if they want it to damage them or not because they choose their lending rate.

Edited by Napalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yall letting 1 person make you look like fools. Dick riders unite and get stuck down by the mighty hand of Napalm. Fucking great lmfao. Dont talk about something you legit have no knowledge about. All of your creationdates combined dont come close to Napalms.  Stop making yourselves look stupid. Should be more reqs to be staff tbf. Unneeded as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That means if the market wants 500m/hr then ALL lenders are forced into that or they don't make money. Their own choice if they want it to damage them or not because they choose their lending rate."

That's basically the reason the rule exists. You don't need 500 people to set a price, one person is enough, you should know that. If someone decided to say fuck it and lend out eradicator ranks for 100m/hr, that would be the price if the person has enough ranks and consistency. 
Not to mention, there's limited spaces in the rank lender, which again, if they have enough ranks, it makes them able to control the lending prices entirely on their own (not that it's going to happen anytime soon but yes it's a factor). 
Meaning, one person could make a decision that affects every single person wanting to lend their rank.

If we're looking at the benefits of the erad rank, if you're able to get a rank for essentially 100m/hr or even 100m for 24 hours, why in the world would anyone want to purchase the rank for its full benefits, when the only thing not included is the drop-rate? (Yes, the end-game, but that argument isn't valid due to the current state) Especially when it's super easy to get 10B with an erad rank, and when you do, you'll get 1.35x instead of 1.3x. And well, that's the only difference from lending and having the actual rank, right?

And well, donators being needed for people to get to the end-game, has always been a thing, and would require us to re-work the eradicator benefits and how the game works to change. Which again... you already know. Unless you'd play as an ironman of course. This however, is bigger than anything mentioned on the thread, and really only holds relevance to the rank lending price if there's a limited amount of ranks in-game, few supporters, but as it seems to be, there's too many ranks to use this as an argument. 

I'm no mathematician and i've also not studied economics to a deeper value, but this definitely don't require such advanced thinking.  
I'm not 100% sure what you guys were discussing about since some of those words were out of my vocabulary but I figure this is relevant to the topic, as this is why rule #17 exists, and well, can you really say that this is wrong? Because last I checked, if someone could set the lending price to 500m/hr, then they could also set it to 100m/hr, or any price they desire. But once you set it low, it'll be hard to get it back up. <- One person is enough, there's no denial in that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sadie ツ said:

"That means if the market wants 500m/hr then ALL lenders are forced into that or they don't make money. Their own choice if they want it to damage them or not because they choose their lending rate."

That's basically the reason the rule exists. You don't need 500 people to set a price, one person is enough, you should know that. If someone decided to say fuck it and lend out eradicator ranks for 100m/hr, that would be the price if the person has enough ranks and consistency. 
Not to mention, there's limited spaces in the rank lender, which again, if they have enough ranks, it makes them able to control the lending prices entirely on their own (not that it's going to happen anytime soon but yes it's a factor). 
Meaning, one person could make a decision that affects every single person wanting to lend their rank.

If we're looking at the benefits of the erad rank, if you're able to get a rank for essentially 100m/hr or even 100m for 24 hours, why in the world would anyone want to purchase the rank for its full benefits, when the only thing not included is the drop-rate? (Yes, the end-game, but that argument isn't valid due to the current state) Especially when it's super easy to get 10B with an erad rank, and when you do, you'll get 1.35x instead of 1.3x. And well, that's the only difference from lending and having the actual rank, right?

And well, donators being needed for people to get to the end-game, has always been a thing, and would require us to re-work the eradicator benefits and how the game works to change. Which again... you already know. Unless you'd play as an ironman of course. This however, is bigger than anything mentioned on the thread, and really only holds relevance to the rank lending price if there's a limited amount of ranks in-game, few supporters, but as it seems to be, there's too many ranks to use this as an argument. 

I'm no mathematician and i've also not studied economics to a deeper value, but this definitely don't require such advanced thinking.  
I'm not 100% sure what you guys were discussing about since some of those words were out of my vocabulary but I figure this is relevant to the topic, as this is why rule #17 exists, and well, can you really say that this is wrong? Because last I checked, if someone could set the lending price to 500m/hr, then they could also set it to 100m/hr, or any price they desire. But once you set it low, it'll be hard to get it back up. <- One person is enough, there's no denial in that. 

Well, this actually what must happen, the richest rule. However, You know all rich guys in the game are completely in-active even when they are playing like Axiz or those who has 10 ranks you talking about, there is always a place for 1 - 3 eradicator rank owners to lend there ranks to people and you can see it in the server. This rule was meant to make the server better but it makes it worse than you think. I don't actually mind it at all since I'm not willing to borrow eradicator rank at all, but I see that the worse thing to happen is this update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×