(Read on) Lend button/Option to lend Items

[MrGamer]

And if you don't have something 'valuable for the system to take' n let's say u did, how would the system decide the value of an item since prices are constantly changing plus there's awakenings and jewels etc...

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

Another reason why sts wont bring that to the game
Just too complicated for such a thing. Trust is their personal opinion weather they can or can't trust a person.

Poslano z mojega SM-G950F z uporabo Tapatalk

[Tippertwo]

And if you don't have something 'valuable for the system to take' n let's say u did, how would the system decide the value of an item since prices are constantly changing plus there's awakenings and jewels etc...

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

Ill admit I have thought of this when I was typing that.
There are just too many risks involved if sts were to implement this. Even if it were "safe," I still wouldn't trust it.

[TipsyLife]

No offense but this is stupid lol just don't lend items if you don't trust the person, the whole point of lending is because you trust the person and consider them to be a trustworthy friend, furthermore this is just gonna make people beg even more "sir please can I borrow your sword just for Tonight" etc etc. I don't want this

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

Ok marsu

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

[MrGamer]

Ok marsu

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Feel the same lol

Poslano z mojega SM-G950F z uporabo Tapatalk

[Azerothraven]

Unfortunately you are not be first to think of this. I suggested this 2 years ago and there was also another suggestion like this but never happened.

We had thought of lot of conditions but most of them are really difficult e.g

1. Make it untradeable/unstashable and undeletable so they can’t be sold,gifted, traded or transferable.

But then more complicated steps came like

1. What if hey change ign
2. What if they get banned?
3. What if they delete char?
4. What if the person who gifted want it back before the timer?
5. It creates social awkwardness if you are really close to someone but set timer so u don’t trust. Some may think it’s insulting.
6. What if they delete their account
7. Dinosaur eating it

[MrGamer]

Unfortunately you are not be first to think of this. I suggested this 2 years ago and there was also another suggestion like this but never happened.

We had thought of lot of conditions but most of them are really difficult e.g

1. Make it untradeable/unstashable and undeletable so they can’t be sold,gifted, traded or transferable.

But then more complicated steps came like

1. What if hey change ign
2. What if they get banned?
3. What if they delete char?
4. What if the person who gifted want it back before the timer?
5. It creates social awkwardness if you are really close to someone but set timer so u don’t trust. Some may think it’s insulting.
6. What if they delete their account
7. Dinosaur eating it

I am the most concidered about 7...
It protects your virginity good 🤣
Jk.

Poslano z mojega SM-G950F z uporabo Tapatalk

[Iluminista]

Unfortunately you are not be first to think of this. I suggested this 2 years ago and there was also another suggestion like this but never happened.

We had thought of lot of conditions but most of them are really difficult e.g

1. Make it untradeable/unstashable and undeletable so they can’t be sold,gifted, traded or transferable.

But then more complicated steps came like

1. What if hey change ign
2. What if they get banned?
3. What if they delete char?
4. What if the person who gifted want it back before the timer?
5. It creates social awkwardness if you are really close to someone but set timer so u don’t trust. Some may think it’s insulting.
6. What if they delete their account
7. Dinosaur eating it

Answers to all these questions (or most) are in the comment for this post. Doing this is not impossible, it would just work hard.

Enviado de meu LG-K430 usando o Tapatalk

[Cashews]

RuneScape has this and the way they have it set up really doesn't seem that complicated. I feel like it would reduce the amount of scamming and trust trading, thus putting a lot of repeat scammers out of business.

[Ucamaeben]

They should put paint security tube on anything you lend out. If they don’t give it back within a reasonable amount of time it blows up and turns your toon a funky color that stays until you give it back. Haha!

[Jeoraseo]

Awesome idea uca 👍👍👍

[BRYBE]

The lended items only can be equip or uneqquip and if the lenders delete the char the items will instantly return to the owner's(same if the acc got device ban) or you can set time how many days the items can be lended and if the time end the items will automatically return back to the owner

[BRYBE]

The lended items only can be equip or uneqquip and if the lenders delete the char the items will instantly return to the owner's(same if the acc got device ban) or you can set time how many days the items can be lended and if the time end the items will automatically return back to the owner

Ohh i forgot if the item cant be equip(e.g eggs crates elite awake gems etc...) Just simply put these items as unlendable
Also for untradeable items e.g lb banners, forebearer set, bounded vanities, JETPACK and more
Or make a thread whats can be lend or not. Community perspective is what makes the game balanced(except untradeable lb vanity set)

[swoutttt]

Bad idea.. lending items is no part of this game, and should not be stimulated.

[Spices]

Let's see,

1. Suppose at the beginning any item has owner column so that they will called up and appear in owner inventory when said owner logged in.
2. To have an item lend-able, dev must add another column to item database, borrower
   
   1. If owner and lender borrower has same value, item will appear in owner inventory, with their original attribute (tradability/stashability/etc)
   2. If owner and lender borrower has different value, item will only be called if the borrower log in, with it applied lender attribute (egg hatching script can't run, tradability disabled, so on). Uh oh, seems like a lot of work.
3. To apply that special attribute, it's easier to create new item with new classes attributes than slapping on those special attributes through a rewrite. So that whenever somebody lend something, a new item is actually created, while old item has a column rewritten so that they're disabled. This effectively doubled the item classes.

So, this is your game client do to server when logging in.

1. Pull list of item owned by this player,
2. Check if owner === borrower, to see whether this item available to owner to be used
3. Pull list of item lent to this player,

so far so good.

This is your game client do when player initiate lending scenario,

1. Check if owner === borrower, to see whether said item can be lent.
2. Initiate lending window, so that system can establish from and to which player an item will be lent.
3. Upon hitting lending button,
   
   1. disable the item on owner inventory
   2. rewrite borrower column so that it's different than owner column
   3. create new row on item table. This item will appear on borrower inventory.

Starting to look like database inefficiency. But let's move on.

This is your game client do when borrower want to return an item.

1. Upon hitting return button,
   
   1. seek original item row
   2. enable that original item
   3. write so that that item owner === borrower once again
   4. destroy lent item from database.

It's still doable.

This is your game client do when lender want to recall an item.

1. Upon hitting recall button,
   
   1. seek lent item row
   2. check whether said item is in use,
   3. do stuffs so that item is free to be deleted, comprise of many steps.
   4. enable original item
   5. write so that that item owner === borrower once again
   6. destroy lent item row from database.

OMG.

I'm sure I missed about 90% of the steps (excluding steps I intentionally omitted), but all in all, it can be done from programming point of view. From game economy point of view, it still need a review. From game return of value, it also still need a review. Will this feature lead players playing the game more? Will this feature entice new player to start playing the game? The proponent must appeal to game designer so that it can be kicked up on their priority list (and so that the game executive can give a green light to do it).

[TipsyLife]

Let's see,

1. Suppose at the beginning any item has owner column so that they will called up and appear in owner inventory when said owner logged in.
2. To have an item lend-able, dev must add another column to item database, borrower
   
   1. If owner and lender borrower has same value, item will appear in owner inventory, with their original attribute (tradability/stashability/etc)
   2. If owner and lender borrower has different value, item will only be called if the borrower log in, with it applied lender attribute (egg hatching script can't run, tradability disabled, so on). Uh oh, seems like a lot of work.
3. To apply that special attribute, it's easier to create new item with new classes attributes than slapping on those special attributes through a rewrite. So that whenever somebody lend something, a new item is actually created, while old item has a column rewritten so that they're disabled. This effectively doubled the item classes.

So, this is your game client do to server when logging in.

1. Pull list of item owned by this player,
2. Check if owner === borrower, to see whether this item available to owner to be used
3. Pull list of item lent to this player,

so far so good.

This is your game client do when player initiate lending scenario,

1. Check if owner === borrower, to see whether said item can be lent.
2. Initiate lending window, so that system can establish from and to which player an item will be lent.
3. Upon hitting lending button,
   
   1. disable the item on owner inventory
   2. rewrite borrower column so that it's different than owner column
   3. create new row on item table. This item will appear on borrower inventory.

Starting to look like database inefficiency. But let's move on.

This is your game client do when borrower want to return an item.

1. Upon hitting return button,
   
   1. seek original item row
   2. enable that original item
   3. write so that that item owner === borrower once again
   4. destroy lent item from database.

It's still doable.

This is your game client do when lender want to recall an item.

1. Upon hitting recall button,
   
   1. seek lent item row
   2. check whether said item is in use,
   3. do stuffs so that item is free to be deleted, comprise of many steps.
   4. enable original item
   5. write so that that item owner === borrower once again
   6. destroy lent item row from database.

OMG.

I'm sure I missed about 90% of the steps (excluding steps I intentionally omitted), but all in all, it can be done from programming point of view. From game economy point of view, it still need a review. From game return of value, it also still need a review. Will this feature lead players playing the game more? Will this feature entice new player to start playing the game? The proponent must appeal to game designer so that it can be kicked up on their priority list (and so that the game executive can give a green light to do it).

Can someone summarize?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

[Lojack]

Moved to Suggestions forum to keep them all in one place, carry on

[Spices]

Can someone summarize?
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

It was exercise to see whether the proposed feature will put strain on the game. Because, y'know, we hate lag. Noticed slight lag when player enter a map? Or loading screen is a bit longer when entering town populated by merchers (possibly hoarder)?

So far, it resulted in doubling item class, doubling inventory pull request, a new "trading" window, well you can read on. All the cost of lowering the risk of lending items.

[marsu4u]

Let's see,

1. Suppose at the beginning any item has owner column so that they will called up and appear in owner inventory when said owner logged in.
2. To have an item lend-able, dev must add another column to item database, borrower
   
   1. If owner and lender borrower has same value, item will appear in owner inventory, with their original attribute (tradability/stashability/etc)
   2. If owner and lender borrower has different value, item will only be called if the borrower log in, with it applied lender attribute (egg hatching script can't run, tradability disabled, so on). Uh oh, seems like a lot of work.
3. To apply that special attribute, it's easier to create new item with new classes attributes than slapping on those special attributes through a rewrite. So that whenever somebody lend something, a new item is actually created, while old item has a column rewritten so that they're disabled. This effectively doubled the item classes.

So, this is your game client do to server when logging in.

1. Pull list of item owned by this player,
2. Check if owner === borrower, to see whether this item available to owner to be used
3. Pull list of item lent to this player,

so far so good.

This is your game client do when player initiate lending scenario,

1. Check if owner === borrower, to see whether said item can be lent.
2. Initiate lending window, so that system can establish from and to which player an item will be lent.
3. Upon hitting lending button,
   
   1. disable the item on owner inventory
   2. rewrite borrower column so that it's different than owner column
   3. create new row on item table. This item will appear on borrower inventory.

Starting to look like database inefficiency. But let's move on.

This is your game client do when borrower want to return an item.

1. Upon hitting return button,
   
   1. seek original item row
   2. enable that original item
   3. write so that that item owner === borrower once again
   4. destroy lent item from database.

It's still doable.

This is your game client do when lender want to recall an item.

1. Upon hitting recall button,
   
   1. seek lent item row
   2. check whether said item is in use,
   3. do stuffs so that item is free to be deleted, comprise of many steps.
   4. enable original item
   5. write so that that item owner === borrower once again
   6. destroy lent item row from database.

OMG.

I'm sure I missed about 90% of the steps (excluding steps I intentionally omitted), but all in all, it can be done from programming point of view. From game economy point of view, it still need a review. From game return of value, it also still need a review. Will this feature lead players playing the game more? Will this feature entice new player to start playing the game? The proponent must appeal to game designer so that it can be kicked up on their priority list (and so that the game executive can give a green light to do it).

Tbh it will just cause people to share gears instead of buying their own and crash the already bad economy, and pretty much reduce the need for platinum use and etc n etc

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk