How come tats aren't rentable ? (in General)

Sickone January 26 2008 10:11 PM EST

Not the "affordable" or "profitable" meaning, but "able to be placed into rentals".

It would make a lot of sense to rent out your low(er) level tat to somebody who's in the bottom range of the PR, that way they could experience the benefits of various tats relatively cheap, you get rent cash plus the added benefit of perhaps leveling your tats.

I see it as a win-win situation, how come it's not possible ?
Or, is there any other "hidden drawback" to this I haven't thought of ?

QBOddBird January 26 2008 10:23 PM EST

Previously, when there was no max tattoo level, you could just let a newbie level your higher-level tattoo for you without any added PR to yourself...and they could just equip a lvl 500k FF on a 20 HP 4 minion team and have an easily large mage with 4 small kill slots getting them a perfect challenge bonus. There was good reason for tattoos not to be rentable then.

I suppose the RoE argument could be made now, where a player got someone to level their tattoo while they used RoE to grow at a faster rate....but that's about all I can think of.

Sickone January 26 2008 10:32 PM EST

Ah, so basically, it's a historical thing, and nobody thought about it again until now ?

[RX3]Cotillion January 26 2008 10:47 PM EST

I remember someone telling me that tattoos are not rental-able for the straight fact of it being able to be leveled extremely fast with little effort. If rentals were possible, or xfers were small, you can get a group of people to loan it for an hour to each other and have 3 or 4 people all leveling it at the same time. I don't know why someone would want to do this, aside from trying to help a friend/clan mate, but it'd be possible.

miteke [Superheros] January 26 2008 10:56 PM EST

Another rational was, as I remember it, that allowing someone to rent a tattoo is kind of like having them pay YOU to forge your item! Unlike the other items, tattoos increase in NW as others use them. That was before the RoE of course and often wondered why an exception wasn't made for this tattoo. I would still be opposed to tattoo rentals, but would like to see RoE rentals.

Sickone January 26 2008 11:31 PM EST

Considering most people would be renting tats over their "max tat" level anyway, that part of the issue should be pretty much auto-solvable.
Indeed, if back in the day "max tat" was not there at all, the argument against tat rental would have been overwhelming.

Ulord[NK] January 26 2008 11:38 PM EST

Most people who plays actively have tatts way below max level since the rescale. It makes more sense to pay the rentee for renting the tatt than other way around. That does bring up troubling possibilities, since some people think that the current MTL is too high.

The current tatt system is fairly balanced imo. You either get sacrifice tatt growth and use RoE or vice versa. It is one more dimension of strategy for anyone who want to compete at a high level. It's not broken, let's not fix it. Renting out RoE should be doable. Then again, RoE's xfer cost is non existent and private market has been dealing in their rental for ages at very accessible costs. Again, not an important fix.

[P]Mitt January 27 2008 2:14 AM EST

How about....

we make tattoos rentable, but if they ARE rented, they will not level?

This will allow a far easier way for RoEs to be rented out.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] January 27 2008 2:53 AM EST

Make them free to be rented (as they gain levels). And make it so they cant rent it unless it is under their MTL. Grey out all others above the MTL.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Krt">How come tats aren't rentable ?</a>