Sorry to tell you buddy. But you already lose 1 potential when you buy off the auction house 
I know. It was an intentional mistake.
It will be traded, then soul bound after a few trades. Once soul bound, it is removed from circulation and paves way for new items to be made. The removal of items is important for the in game economy so there will always be demand for various new items. You canât sell new cars when everyone has unbreakable cars (assuming no upgrade possible).
RO had refine breakage to slow the effects of item inflation, but ultimately +10 / 20 items will always be there and traded in the market, until someone holding it quits the game. This is detrimental for the market as eventually the +10 will be saturated and they either have to raise the limit to +20 or see the demand of said base item drop to 0.
The potential system is a much better way to handle this problem. A bit like 2nd hand stuff will eventually become useless and have no more market value.
Examples and specific economic conditions please. Claiming without proof is just empty words.
Then you do not understand the importance of controlling item inflation, instead just stamping a âanti-funâ label on it.
Once you have say 100~1000 (whatever number that sets an equilibrium on player usage / available in market) +20 items floating in the market, there will be no more reason to farm said item so the price will drop to npc price.
Regardless of your opinions. I know for a 100% fact that the potential system will stay (at least the trade reduces potential aspect). There will be no debates or change possible. Discard any hope you have for this changing, it will not happen.
Now silver trade and token benefits⌠that may be re-worked.
You donât. They could just as easily swap out potential for a trade count. Item can only be traded x amount of times before it is bound. No need to make your items crappier. If youâre worried about circulation then bind items upon buying them on the Auction House and give drops from enemies a trade count.
Which doesnât change the initial hopes of the OP.
The trade count you suggested is essentially the same thing. And since thereâs no added benefit to that implementation I will say there is 0% chance devs will pick that up and fix something that isnât broken.
Still 100% sure it wonât go way. (okay maybe 99.9% since you can never be 100% sure about something)
But mathematically it is the same thing.
Thatâs just your opinion. The 99.9% was pulled out of nowhere. Thatâs bordering on false information.
Sure itâs my opinion, that Iâm 100% sure on.
Sorry, but you canât attribute true / false to opinions.
And keep arguing with semantics and derail the topic, seems like only thing you know how to do in a forum debate.
Pretty much this to be honest.
And this.
1 Like
Stay on topic. I have not provided wrong (factual) information thus far.
And it is still irrefutable beyond doubt that the potential system will stay.
Honestly, I donât know why their solution to RMT includes punishing innocent players in the process when they havenât done anything. Itâs just really bad.
I knew that in advance⌠but underestimated itâs impact. I think eventually they will loosen the restrictions (i hope).
The problem is you can never have security without inconvenience. They are on the same spectrum.
You guys are derailing the issue, bring the psuedo intellectual debate to PMs. This post is about the multiple issues with why trading in its current state is undesired.
More Bottom Lines from Jonathansilva,
Community doesnât like it, no matter how much you try to justify it and make it rational. This should be the last post about this about this little sub-discussion within the post.
I apologize. I couldnât resist the urge to play the game he all but mastered during the Founderâs Server debacle. He still never explained how you were bordering on false information, but I suppose it isnât important for him to back up his claims.
On topic, I am not sure why a trade counter wouldnât be a solution to the potential problem. It would keep items out of circulation after a certain number of passes and if you had a trade left, you could sell and buy items with full confidence.
As for trading itself, it should be unlimited. It seriously punishes party play and I havenât even heard of an MMO which puts such a basic feature behind a paywall and also restricts all parties involved in such a way where they both had to have paid. If security was their issue, theyâd have done like Black Desert and disabled all 1:1 trading of gear. When itâs selective like this, it feels more like⌠they just want you to pay for the basics.
His claim:
So I requested to know what else you lose for trading.
He backed off and said:
Which is inconsistent with his initial claim that you lose something else other than potential for trading.
So the misinformation here would be falsely believe that a player lose more than potential for trading.
Does that make it clear to you now @Rubiss?
It will, but the potential system does the same thing currently.
I agree. However that will greatly diminish the value of the Token and make it much less âessentialâ to have.
Yea they do. They wanted to Token to be a subscription substitute. Youâre not supposed to be able to play the game without it (at least without a lot of frustration).
I believe that silver should be shared among your team. Just as simple as that, after all, they are your alts.
Trading is indeed to restricted. Iâll +1 your topic.
Not entirely true. Potential also affects your ability to refine something does it not? That sucks. Why must an item be crappier because I happened to get the drop and my friend or hell just anyone interested wants it? That adds a level of RNG on top of having the drop appear to begin with. And considering ToS does not even have a loot system worth a damn (Need, Greed, Pass) itâs just crappy design once more.
Theyâre charging far too much for that and itâs honestly incredibly stupid to begin with. Itâs reasoning and logic like that which has caused a lot of their problems. If a cash shop itemâs existence is to take a rather standard feature away from the user then itâs poor design.
1 Like
Yea it does. Itâs their game and their design choice though. 
I see where the confusion occured, CookyKim is reading too much into that sentence, and comprehended differently than I intended.
âyou donât only lose potential for tradingâ
I intended it to mean
âYou can lose potential for refining, adding gem sockets, etcâ.
Now please, stop with the semantics and nonsense over tiny little details and look at the big picture.
1 Like
Okay fine, Runescape. Admittedly I havenât played it in a while but as far as I remember the game has trading and an auction house like system (grand exchange) where itemâs arenât degraded once traded. There also isnât any âsoul bindingâ aspect.
Fine then in my opinion it is an anti-fun mechanic, I would like to know what you find so fun about it, please enlighten me.
In regards to inflation, the system they have now artificially inflates the prices of items. I donât see a need for this.
I donât really understand if an npc is selling the item for X silver that should already be the base price on the market. Of course people should be allowed to sell items for higher than npc price, it would just be foolish of the buyer to do so.
In regards to items becoming cheaper and not needed to be farmed any more, I donât see the problem. The item will just become a commodity, its easy to get, therefore not worth much. Basic supply and demand, whatâs the problem?
Finally I will tell you how I know this will work. These limitations donât really exist in the real world (well I guess in some cases they kind of do in a legal sense) and we have a functioning economy.
If I buy a painting and sell it to you, you are free to sell it to someone else without the painting losing some arbitrary value. It will just slowly degrade as time passes (much like how items will lose potential in this game naturally), and only ever be worth as much as there is a demand for it.
Sure you are entitled to your opinion. But the reason the potential system is in place, is to control item inflation.
Iâm not talking about price inflation. Item inflation is a different thing.
I donât understand the point of this⌠
The problem is then lvl 1-599 is completely pointless. And people will have to be lvl 600 to just "begin the game. Everything you farmed from lvl 1-599 should just be sold to npc, because thereâs a +20 version out there for cheap.
Can you be more specific? Do you mean that removing potential system will work?
Painting is a very bad example for this case as it is a luxury product, is unique, and has no utility, and generally do not degrade (if taken good care of).
Try selling a car that had 10 user history behind it (not antique cars). Also losing potential doesnât make the item has less value. It doesnât reduce any of its stat, besides the number of times you can resell, and putting a hard cap on how many times you can fail a refine.
I have to do some research on Runscape to understand how they control item inflation in that game. I never played that game.
Edit:
Runscape info has just been made available to me through our own community and here is what he thinks about Runescapes so called functional economy:
Nope, not any better than Potential system. And not likely an example for ToS to emulate.