Item recharging is an exploit of game mechanics

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Brinkman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never said the fix to vendor recharging was easy.

It was VERY easy, though. You're taking it for sarcasm when it's not. They gave separate database IDs for each amount of charges. I have no idea how they were keeping track of charges before, and apparently, neither did venders.

[Brinkman]

Im done for the day, I came on to post a few poignant responses to yendor and few others and here I go getting trolled again.

[Brinkman]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It was VERY easy, though. You're taking it for sarcasm when it's not. They gave separate database IDs for each amount of charges. I have no idea how they were keeping track of charges before, and apparently, neither did venders.

Oh im sure it was very easy once they were able to do it. Whether it was a coding issue not allowing them to, or memory restrictions preventing them to do it, I cannot say, Nor can you really.

To answer the second part, its simple.. they werent keeping track. They intended items with charges to be used once ( or for how many charges ) and then that was it. Go farm another.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Brinkman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im done for the day, I came on to post a few poignant responses to yendor and few others and here I go getting trolled again.

Apparently (easily) defeating someone in a debate on a discussion board qualifies you as a troll now [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Brinkman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They intended items with charges to be used once ( or for how many charges ) and then that was it. Go farm another.

Sorry, insignificant proof.

[mokfarg]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry, insignificant proof.

Would the items not be unlimited use if this was the intention? I think they should be rechargeable just because they are classic like that but I think you are wrong.

That is why they have the charges in the first place so they are not unlimited and probably didn't realize they would be sold and bought back like that as they didn't realize people would kite.

[Hamahakki]

The way items recharged in classic WAS A BUG.

In a world where different item instances with the same ID are identical, merchants can keep track of their inventories with just IDs.

In Everquest, items are ALMOST identical. There is no item durability, enchantment, augmentation, or other mechanics which can differentiate one Shield of the Slain Unicorn from another. The only exception is charged items. Either charged items were added after merchants and the merchant code was never updated, or the merchant code was broken when it was written.

For better or worse, Everquest went live with a ton of bugs. Those unintended features were part of what made the game appealing for many of us.

Item recharging was classic, so one of the following is true:
A) Item recharging through merchants was one of the hundreds of unintentional features in EQ1.
OR
B) They wanted items to be rechargeable AND the way they wanted players to recharge them was by having multiple copies of the item, one of which was charged, and the rest of which were not charged, then to find a merchant which has room for player-sold items, then sell the charged item to the vendor, then sell all the uncharged items to the vendor, then buy back all of the items, and if another player buys it while you are using the vendor then they now own your items, and if you want to recharge multiple lore items you need one character per item you are trying to recharge, plus one to hold the charged version.

Obviously, A) is true. People arguing for B) (i.e. Samoht) are either trolling or really, really stupid.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Hamahakki [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Obviously, A) is true. People arguing for B) (i.e. Samoht) are either trolling or really, really stupid.

Obviously you're wrong about A) being true or it wouldn't have taken them 4 years to fix it and you would have proof!

You have no proof. I can prove that recharging was classic.

Calling people names doesn't make you any more wrong or right, whatever the case may be.

[Hamahakki]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Obviously you're wrong about A) being true or it wouldn't have taken them 4 years to fix it or you would have proof!

It could be unintentional and still not get fixed for 4 years if they didn't think it was a big enough deal to warrant fixing.

To say something is wrong just because there is "no proof" makes no sense. I believe you are a human being with two eyes and a mouth. I don't have proof, but I am still correct.

There is not going to be any "proof" for A) OR B), but A) makes sense and B) is ridiculous.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Hamahakki [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It could be unintentional and still not get fixed for 4 years if they didn't think it was a big enough deal to warrant fixing.

... and it still isn't, now! Discussion over!

[Hamahakki]

Item recharging is classic and should stay, I didn't say otherwise. But it was a bug in classic and that anyone thinks it was intentional is mind-boggling.