0 registered
and 137 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
#145 - 11/29/07 08:19 PM
Re: phase 1 - Tinker guild updates
[Re: Cerberus]
|
Kim
enthusiast
Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
|
"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."
Who knows...? Personally I think adding a rune/protection type is very... boring. It makes the game seem too much like an excercise in numbers, and feels like one step away from just calling the damage types "Damage type 1", "Damage type 2" and so forth.
"How much protection is added via these runes?"
It's... slightly weird... First of the new runes add about 24 to all crit types, and 75 or so to the special crit type... Subsequent specialized runes add 61 or so to the specified crit type I guess? I'm not totally certain, but it is something in that neighbourhood....
"How many runes can be put on armour now?"
A 150% rune is about 13.5% skill... Full fortification is 46%, True armour 55%... So it depends on the skill of the enchanter  To have all runes and fortification and true armour would need... upwards of 300% enchantment skill?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150 - 11/30/07 08:21 AM
Re: phase 1 - Tinker guild updates
[Re: sabu]
|
Cerberus
addict
Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
|
While I'm all for no limits (or at least lax limits), it seems strange to me that there's no drawback to having 10 runes on an item. Were there ever any ways to mediate the change discussed? Just a few possibilities off the top of my head here:
1) Perhaps a size restriction?
Rings can only have 2 runes but breastplates can have 8.
b) Or an interaction restriction?
The fire rune cools if an ice rune is added, but the latter rune retains its original strength.
3) Or a scaled rather than static skill bump?
The first through third runes each add 13.5% to the requirement, but the fourth through sixth adds 13.5%+(small random amount) for each previous rune.
4) Or only full combat guilds have the affinity to wield/wear any number of runes?
Full combat can use any number of runes, semi-spellcaster can use up to six, full caster can use three or fewer.
This change might not actually have much impact at all, and so doesn't need mediation, but I'm concerned that these changes weren't made with very much user-level feedback, numbers running, or usage testing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#173 - 11/30/07 01:43 PM
Re: phase 1 - Tinker guild updates
[Re: Kim]
|
Cerberus
addict
Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
|
"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.
Is this the general consensus? It doesn't appear to be true at all in terms of combat, as that is related mostly to whether or not you have haste, so I imagine we'd be looking at specialized and magic levels. In terms of each of these the formula for xp gain would have to be based on the relative number of sources for xp gain in the guild in question of that type earned as well as the level of the player instead of the level of the spell/skill in question.
That would level the playing field, so to speak, but would also punish players who are simply better at maximizing their potential. I am no fan of equalized xp gain: note that what I stated above isn't designed equalize the rate at which one gains xp but the earning potential per unit time. To clarify, in equalizing the rate of gain, each person would gain the same amount of xp for doing any action at all whereas in equalizing earning potential the person with more available actions is gaining less for each completed action and the person with fewer available actions is gaining more for each completed action. This might be splitting hairs, but it seems to be a distinction that will have to be drawn if it is determined that every guild should be capable of earning the same amount rather than every guild actually earning the same amounts.
What this would mean is that pure magic guilds would have to expend more energy (in terms of typing) to earn the same amount of magic experience as semi-casters. This seems completely wrong to me, so how might something like an equalized earning even begin to be approached?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#174 - 11/30/07 02:03 PM
Re: phase 1 - Tinker guild updates
[Re: Cerberus]
|
Kim
enthusiast
Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
|
"That would level the playing field, so to speak, but would also punish players who are simply better at maximizing their potential."
The problem is that, no matter how good you are, and how perfectly you play, the one big deciding factor in how much XP, Combat, magic, or special, you gain is your guild. And the differences are atrocious, really. Low end for S/M is less than half the high end, and low end for c is less than 1/6 of the high end.
How exactly to resolve it is open to debate, but I feel it should be. As is, for example an enchanter and arch-mage, both playing equally much, and both being equally skilled, the Arch-mage will be considerably higher level, and thus able to scry and cast whatever spells he likes on the enchanter. I think that's... not quite right.
"This might be splitting hairs, but it seems to be a distinction that will have to be drawn if it is determined that every guild should be capable of earning the same amount rather than every guild actually earning the same amounts."
I thought it was a quite obvious distinction... That's why I said "potential". How exactly to achieve it would take some... thinking.
"This seems completely wrong to me, so how might something like an equalized earning even begin to be approached?"
Well, Darke used to have buffers, for a start... that also prevented people from reaching Highmortal in one week, real time...
|
|
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
|
|
|
