0 registered
and 11 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
#100 - 11/29/07 12:23 AM
Re: phase 1 - Tinker guild updates
[Re: MacTORG]
|
Cerberus
addict
Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
|
I'd like to throw in at least two of my cents.
1) The rune names do not follow old rune naming schemes, they follow old naming patterns. The rune scheme "inscribe malsa sen zora" doesn't tell you what exactly the rune is in any way. -sen zora- is the rune's name, but not what it does. -plasmar- is both the rune's name AND the type of effect it creates. This is not at all in line with Darke, and while I don't find it to be a deal breaker it should never have seen the light of live as it currently stands.
2) I think the biggest question here is should all guilds be earning xp at the same rates. This question isn't addressed in the slightest in any of the news posts or replies I've seen, and it seems to be the elephant in the room. If the answer is yes, the way CMS gives out xp should be tweaked to account for that rather than individual guilds being given new skills/spells/gadgets simply to up their earning potential. If the answer is no, then there should be compensatory results for those in lower earning brackets. I would like to see this issue addressed in depth, as it's been one that has occured since CMS was implemented.
3)I'm not particularly convinced that there needs to be an even number of runes for weapons and armour. I don't think it matters either way though, so will ignore the rest of what this is talking point says.
4) While long-terms give xp every tick of their clock it doesn't pay to lower the amount of time you spend on the long term appreciably in terms of xp or raw materials. It only does in terms of getting back to your "real xp" skill/spell, which is another issue entirely.
5) I'm concerned that the line between fighters and tinkers is non-existant, or near enough to gone that there are no reasons to be a fighter over a tinker. Tinkers have whirlwind, I hear. Balance weapon. A full compliment of combat devs. It seems to me that there should be extreme distinctions between someone who is supposed to be a tinker/blacksmith and someone who is supposed to be a fighter/blacksmith. Maybe I'm off base here, but are tinkers the new fighters? Arguments can be made (fairly easily, I might add) that balance weapon is very tinker-esque, but why on earth are the concerns of what "helped out" in combat even being considered? If tinkers are the new fighters, that makes sense just fine though.
6) Fire and ice runes are in no way comprable to locks on weapons. Adding them has not made it any more viable to pk with fire or ice, specifically because there are so many protections from those common elements. It has served primarily (in my experience) to make enchanter's spells redundant, as they not only require more skill to wield, but also appear to add less damage than their runic counterparts (the latter half of that statement may be completely wrong, as I probably use lower * spells and full skill % runes).
7) As Drey was kind enough to point out, the distinction between the types of tinker within a guild was useful. No one could be a one-stop-shop for all your equipment needs, but with the addition of these new runes and homogenization of tinkers this effectively means that any group or individual need only interact with one tinker - the 40s level friend - who can do anything and everything other than put a TW/TA on their eq. I don't have a problem personally with this, as I happen to know (a) tinker(s) who can now serve in every way, but it streamlines who you must know even further.
All in all, these changes seem to have been well-planned, poorly screened, and then atrociously implemented. Are there no focus groups held about the potential impact of changes like these outside the guild in question? Sure, the guild to be changed will have the most imput on what the changes will mean for themselves (their xp, their business, their friends, etc) but the mud as a whole should be giving their thoughts to temper this sort of sweeping alteration. It seems clear that the names of the new runes, while cosmetic, are easily identifiable as obscene with regard to how those of us who DO pay attention to things like flavor of a place interact within their home. Even such a juvenile trick as making an anagram of the type - inscribe malsa plasmar becomes inscribe malsa alsamp - would have kept the flavor alive.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#132 - 11/29/07 04:21 PM
Re: phase 1 - Tinker guild updates
[Re: Kim]
|
Kim
enthusiast
Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
|
"5) I'm concerned that the line between fighters and tinkers is non-existant, or near enough to gone that there are no reasons to be a fighter over a tinker. Tinkers have whirlwind, I hear. Balance weapon. A full compliment of combat devs."
Fighters still get more combat devs than tinkers though. 125 vs 100, I think. And fighters have several skills that tinkers don't, in addition to being able to spend many more devs on balance. When it comes to combat, a tinker and fighter of the same level are nowhere near the same power.
"2) I think the biggest question here is should all guilds be earning xp at the same rates. This question isn't addressed in the slightest in any of the news posts or replies I've seen, and it seems to be the elephant in the room. If the answer is yes, the way CMS gives out xp should be tweaked to account for that rather than individual guilds being given new skills/spells/gadgets simply to up their earning potential."
I agree. And yes, all guilds should have the same XP earning potential. Since level is the essential factor in resisting spells, not having it that way is quite unbalancing.
"3)I'm not particularly convinced that there needs to be an even number of runes for weapons and armour."
I agree. Though I am convinced that if you are going to revamp a guild knowing how many runes of a certain kind there are is good to know... Especially if your goal is an equal number of runes...
"All in all, these changes seem to have been well-planned, poorly screened, and then atrociously implemented."
I am not sure about well planned... The organic section of the guild was forgotten completely. That very few used it before is an argument FOR devoting some energy to that...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#143 - 11/29/07 07:55 PM
Re: phase 1 - Tinker guild updates
[Re: Muod]
|
Cerberus
addict
Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
|
I'd like to know why it was thought individual damage types should get runes to protect against them, but not all individual damage types did so.
How much protection is added via these runes?
How many runes can be put on armour now?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83 Members
33 Forums
335 Topics
2543 Posts
Max Online: 339 @ 01/06/25 01:04 AM
|
|
|
