Making Backpacks Unsoulbound/Daily rewards rant


#42

Fair warning I’m drunk off my ass

But no those items are not worth gold. They cost gold but they are n9t WORTH gold

Is what I was trying to get at


#43

Not anymore, deca got rid of backpacks from calendar


#44

You don’t know that… It’s been here for 3 months, just because there has been no backpacks for 2 months doesn’t mean they got rid of it.


#45

Oh come on. This has to be a troll.

You’d rather have an item that can be used once on one character and will be lost upon death than an item that will strengthen your immortal pet which can be equipped on all of your characters at once?

Sure, money does have an impact on your play. But with this level of decision-making skills, you could have a 3,000 US $ monthly RotMG budget and you’d still be going nowhere.


#46

Exactly I don’t see his logic.


#47

tbh i prefer backpack than ambrosia, because my pet is good enough for now. but i don’t complain since i still have a few backpack left


#48

I think there is a strong argument for a backpack being more beneficial than an ambrosia.

The opportunity cost of having a backpack is greater than that of having an ambrosia. A backpack’s effect is linear and cannot be replicated. Having 8 extra inventory slots is always a significant and constant benefit whose lackthereof cannot be alleviated or mitigated with other items or consumables. Having more backpacks will not lessen the explicit effect of each subsequent backpack.

The opportunity cost of an ambrosia is more easily bridged - players naturally acquire fame to spend and items to feed. It’s not like a pet will refuse to be fed anything except ambrosias, your pet will gradually gain levels regardless. This fact, combined with feed power scaling at higher levels, strengthens my point even more. Having more feed power does lessen the effect of each subsequent feed power item.

Basically, it is entirely reasonable to value backpacks more than ambrosias, especially if you have a decent-leveled pet, play frequently on a few characters, and can keep those characters alive.


#49

You have not been playing for long. On my older account which I barely use but keep logging on to for rewards I have eight backpacks, equipped and in gift chests, none of which I paid for. I can’t recall how I got them, but they were all free.

Wait for MOTMG. I have no idea what they have planned, but I suspect it will be more generous than the monthly rewards, so could include backpacks.


#50

Well I’ll be damned. You actually convinced me a bit that backpacks > ambrosias.

But I’d put forward a counter arguement. Ambrosias are of a more permanent nature than backpacks. You die, you’ve lost the backpack. Ambrosias on the other hand will endure for the rest of your time playing.

What say you to that?


#51

As you progress in the game, deaths become less frequent and pets advance less more slowly. As a result, backpacks last longer while Ambrosias cause a smaller improvement on your pet. (Example: my pet is 82/77/60, and all an Ambrosia will do is barely improve its third ability by one level—a permanent improvement, true, but it’s negligible.)

If I didn’t already have enough backpacks for all my characters, I’d rather have a backpack than an Ambrosia.

 

edit: a word (oopsie!)


#52

:frowning: you’re actually right.

But you’d need to have a pet over say, maxed rare for this logic to hold true, right?


#53

Is it really though? Abyss farming isn’t really a thing anymore (or at least it’s not as broken as it used to be) and not everyone puts all the swap-out equips on their characters.

This doesn’t make any sense.

The Ambrosia is unmatched in terms of feed power. This means that getting one free Ambrosia can not only save you hours of farming, but also a lot of fame and/or money in quantities that grow with each new rarity rank.

As your pet levels up, the feeding cost grows as well. For example, feeding one Ambrosia to my Legendary pet costs me 350 fame. If I tried replicating that amount with 500-fp treasures, I’d need to spend 3500 fame.

There is no mathematical reasoning that would make Ambrosia not worth it for your pet. Maybe if you don’t have a pet, or want to keep it low-level, or already have it maxed; but if you’re still leveling it up and plan on going all the way, there is no reason not to feed Ambrosias to it.

Your pet is immortal. Your characters aren’t.

More specifically I’d say this line doesn’t apply to OP, since he’s apparently struggling to make it past 1k base on most of his characters. Deca would need to put about 10 backpacks as daily login rewards each month to keep up with this kind of consumption rate.


#54

Yeah… take that you backpack lovers! Rmg’s logic is flawless :smiley:


#55

There is a logical reason to favor backpacks over Ambrosia however. (Rather than mathematical.)

I have a 70/70 pet. I need to fuse it with my other 70/70 pet. I do not have the fame to upgrade my pet yard and fuse the pets.
What do I do?
Well, I get backpacks over ambrosia. I can’t use ambrosia as of now but the backpacks can help me farm more efficiently, thus allowing me to rebuild fast when my characters die to get the fame I need. (It is easier to farm fame with a fully built character~)


This problem mainly stems from me refusing to fame train, but thats another topic.

Oh, and this bit only applies to me. (And anyone else in my position.)


#56

The Ambrosias from the daily login rewards are stored in your gift chests and can be kept there indefinitely. And you’re going to need them for your Legendary pet, especially if you’re still low on account fame and thus can’t feed your pet dozens of lower-fp items.

Or you can do what I do and have the new characters farm their own pots (other characters can give them a bit of a headstart, but afterwards they are self-sufficient).

Remember: you don’t need backpacks when you’re drinking everything right away.


#57

I’d put pack on my 6/8 Mystic because it is my current godland farmer. I’d be able to put up another 6/8 farmer ready with a pack if she dies.

As for prepping for the future? Meh. I really don’t think that feedpower will be my issue. Fame is a big deal to me.


Also, I don’t play enough to get the daily rewards. Maybe I will in the future tho.

(I might do what my brother did and buy the pet yard upgrade with real money, not sure if it is worth it tho.)


I’m stubborn on this topic when it comes to my method of doing things. The amount that ambrosia had done for my pet before was so minimal that I don’t even want to imagine what it would do for above 70/70.
(It’d be pretty good for a 70/70/0 to get that third ability up, but right now I do not want Attack Far, electric, decoy, hell I don’t even want a third ability. Give me savage, lol.)


#58

I still enjoy farming abysses, but regardless there are still plenty of other dungeons to farm. I use swap-outs when relevant. I have basically no vault space and two characters, so I may have overestimated the benefit of a backpack for the average player. However, I still maintain that if you fit the criteria I outlined (have decent pet, play frequently on few characters, keep those characters alive), you should take a backpack over an ambrosia if given the choice (assuming you already have equal amounts of both).

It is true that ambrosias are always powerful compared to other feed items, but in my original reply I mainly focus on the immediate benefit (which is at best, a fraction of a level for my pet). I think that if you have a specific end goal for your pet (eg. max legendary, max divine), you may value ambrosias more on account of satisfaction of reaching that goal. I have already accepted that I’m not going to get a divine pet, which devalues feed power slightly for me. An ambrosia only “saves” you hours of farming if you already decided to dedicate those hours to farming had you not obtained an ambrosia.

For me anecdotally, I have an abundance of fame and lack items to feed, so I should have added that to my criteria above. Again, I’m not saying backpacks are better on average, just that there are there are lots of players in similar situations and it is reasonable for those players to prefer backpacks.

Once again, I value a significant boost in a long-living character than I do a slight boost on a permanent pet. It is just the conclusion reached by I and many others based on a certain playstyle. Your conclusions based on your playstyle may be different.

I was not addressing OP but rather the discussion of backpack vs ambrosia taken place inside the thread; I think everyone agrees that DECA should not follow through with OP’s suggestion.


#59

Yes, I would rather have an item like that. It increases my pet ONE LEVEL, okay, ONE LEVEL.


#60

The cost of an anbrosia is equivalent to 12 backpacks, which will last through the playthrough of 12 characters. 1 ambrosia literally increases my pet level by 1, which is basically having +1 hitpoint healed through each heal, which is worthless; its not gonna help save my character, while having 11 backup backpacks will be more beneficial.


#61

You guys know what long term is?

It usually pays out a lot more then things in the short term.

Anyway what’s worth what aside. Quit your begging