Poll: opinions on the transfer idea.

[Eizaix]

[QUOTE=pelozo;1897287]Why, then, is Adrian saying they may need to bound items?



I believe it was a question to us players asking about our opinion of such a possibility, not a statement claiming that it is actually necessary for X reasons.

Still think this idea has been created only to get back at certain player/players because of personal antipathy against them for "having too much of something" or "not being my friend'', but that's just my opinion.

[Roseythorns]

Originally Posted by Lebeau

...butButBUT, if so, ALL such items on ALL servers should henceforth be account-bound. Fair's fair. What affects one rightfully should affect all. As is, the vote tally so far clearly indicates that these unrealistic restrictions are unacceptable to most. In my opinion, rightly so. There's no real need; if ppl $ell or trade or gift their gears, what of it? It's THEIR stuff, isn't it?

As Eizaix rightly points out, this has never once been a (mentioned) consideration before now: not for Tyr/Horus, not for Niflheim/Muspell, not for Piranha/Ra, not for Raven/Horus, not for Haven/Nemon, not mentioned even once in almost a 1/2 dozen mergers over almost a dozen years, so why THIS time? What's so entirely different, special, or unique here? Anything?

Honestly, Lebeau, I don't know. However, NGD is obviously a bit leary of character transfers from Haven to Ra. Perhaps they're not sure they caught all the gear duplicates (I'm pretty sure they haven't); perhaps they're unsure if boss gear was truly earned, given that GMs often helped realms beat certain bosses (saw that several times); perhaps they're just a little bit antsy about the idea because of the forum behavior of some of the residents of Haven.

They've not given any indication as to why (which you know). Just that they're a bit leary of it.

I, too, would like to know why. But I'm not holding my breath until they tell us.

[Lebeau]

Originally Posted by halvdan

...Haven players get shit service on Haven already, so transferring to RA even with some restrictions would be actually a huge improvement.

So is chopping off an offending appendage that is literally paining the living hell outa' ya', yet that's not my 1st choice, or the right way at all to go about fixing what's f-ed up.

Like I said before tho: To make the very best of all possible deals overall, you should never ever demand too much, but also, you should never ever demand too little either....

[ieti]

Results of the poll are biased - this should be a single selection poll, but instead it was made multiselect. And now we have alot ppl who voted multiple things which are pretty not compatible with one another.

Why it was created like that? Maybe creator made a mistake or intentionally wanted to have such results...

[Loque]

This whole thread is invalid.

• I'm okay with an account-bound restriction on transfer.

• No. I will not transfer my character under those conditions.

These two directly contradict each other and it's a multi-poll. I can just select every option in the poll and it doesn't make any sense. Also it should be a public poll.

[Anunnaki]

Objective of this thread is to make those 2 options on the same levels :

• I'm okay with an account-bound restriction on transfer.
• No. I will not transfer my character under those conditions.

Good luck

[usuario_del_foro]

Originally Posted by halvdan

But oh, Haven players get shit service on Haven already, so transferring to RA even with some restrictions would be actually a huge improvement.

Thats exactly what I think. Will have to sacrifice some stuff (have warriors in different accounts, wont be able to share stuff), but at least I will log and have something to do. Haven is unplayable.

[Eizaix]

Originally Posted by usuario_del_foro

Thats exactly what I think. Will have to sacrifice some stuff (have warriors in different accounts, wont be able to share stuff), but at least I will log and have something to do. Haven is unplayable.

Well I don't understand why any such or similar restrictions would be necessary in any circumstances.
To be real the people from smaller servers have suffered enough already, would be like punishing us even more by creating such unfair conditions

[Lebeau]

Originally Posted by usuario_del_foro

...Will have to sacrifice some stuff (have warriors in different accounts, wont be able to share stuff), but at least I will log and have something to do. Haven is unplayable.

Ah, but will you? Only if NGD insists on making it so. It doesn't have to be this way. If they wanted, they could freely allow transfers, or commit to future server merges without any restrictions at all. What many have been asking (in several threads now) is the exact what & why? Sure, players have offered various opinions (& many valid), but NGD has remained utterly silent on these particulars. It's high time they ponied up, to get it all out there & on display, allowing all of us to freely discuss the merits & flaws of each possible scenario....

[halvdan]

Originally Posted by Eizaix

Well I don't understand why any such or similar restrictions would be necessary in any circumstances.

It's probably just that NGD wants to prevent huge influx of decent/op stuff to Ra. They're probably afraid it could cut their revenues from boxes.
Besides that

• Boss item trade
• crossrealm trade - while probably not prohibited, NGD will certainly not support this for the reason mentioned above

I'm not saying I agree with these reasons, just they may see these as an obstacle.