Unknown2007-03-24 12:06:45
The Great Runes are meant to be expensive. 40, 80, and 160 credits? Someone's dreaming.
Ashteru2007-03-24 12:16:57
I like that suggestion too. <.<
Ceren2007-03-24 17:24:06
A +5 rune is 150 credits, so I made the +6 160 and went from there.
Ildaudid2007-03-24 17:29:02
QUOTE(ceren @ Mar 24 2007, 01:24 PM) 393050
A +5 rune is 150 credits, so I made the +6 160 and went from there.
But take into account that it would be like a +2.5 per 150 credits on a two handed weapon too. Which would be weak.
Ceren2007-03-24 17:31:51
The two-hander cap would be raised accordingly and it'd be the same deal as one-handers.
Unknown2007-03-24 18:53:09
You know it's not going to happen, so arguing it is a futile exercise.
Besides, I don't think that the artifacts are the problem. The scale of damage from a warrior or a mage versus the cost invested in each was more the gist of the discussion.
The number of months a blacksmith spends forging his weapons and armor is almost irrelevant to the value placed on those items. There is nothing forcing these people to spend that immense amount of time at the forge. It is their choice to do so, knowing very well the cost.
Besides, I don't think that the artifacts are the problem. The scale of damage from a warrior or a mage versus the cost invested in each was more the gist of the discussion.
The number of months a blacksmith spends forging his weapons and armor is almost irrelevant to the value placed on those items. There is nothing forcing these people to spend that immense amount of time at the forge. It is their choice to do so, knowing very well the cost.
Ildaudid2007-03-24 18:58:02
QUOTE(Zarquan @ Mar 24 2007, 02:53 PM) 393066
You know it's not going to happen, so arguing it is a futile exercise.
Besides, I don't think that the artifacts are the problem. The scale of damage from a warrior or a mage versus the cost invested in each was more the gist of the discussion.
The number of months a blacksmith spends forging his weapons and armor is almost irrelevant to the value placed on those items. There is nothing forcing these people to spend that immense amount of time at the forge. It is their choice to do so, knowing very well the cost.
Besides, I don't think that the artifacts are the problem. The scale of damage from a warrior or a mage versus the cost invested in each was more the gist of the discussion.
The number of months a blacksmith spends forging his weapons and armor is almost irrelevant to the value placed on those items. There is nothing forcing these people to spend that immense amount of time at the forge. It is their choice to do so, knowing very well the cost.
QFT - Give this man a cookie!!! He knows!!
Geb2007-03-24 19:13:00
QUOTE(ceren @ Mar 24 2007, 03:44 AM) 392934
How about this. Raise the stat cap to 490, change lvl 1 stat runes to 2+ stats for 40 credits, lvl 2 stat runes to 4+ stats for 80 credits, and lvl 3 stat runes to 6+ for 160 credits. Owners of already existing stat runes would find their runes nerfed, but they would be allowed to add 30 points of stats to their weapons appropiately (as in, not violating caps). This means they lose absolutely nothing, and owners of lvl 1 and 2 stat runes would actually be gaining some stats. They probably should receive some credit compensation as well so they don't regret not waiting for the cheap runes.
Anyway, this would keep the cap for artifact weapons at 508, allow people to keep more of the stats they forged for hours/days to get, restore tempered stats more cheaply, and allow people to make their weapons non-decay for much less. However, as a non-forger I may be overestimating a forger's ability to create a 490 stat total weapon.
Anyway, this would keep the cap for artifact weapons at 508, allow people to keep more of the stats they forged for hours/days to get, restore tempered stats more cheaply, and allow people to make their weapons non-decay for much less. However, as a non-forger I may be overestimating a forger's ability to create a 490 stat total weapon.
Some credit compensation? They would need to receive full credit compensation for the loss, for it to be a fair change. 1480 credits is an extreme amount to lose.
Theomar2007-03-24 21:26:31
I think you are all forgetting that IRE will almost certainly not refund your credits.
/derail
On a personal note, I don't think the problem lies in the scaling of warrior damage, but in the scaling of the other archtypal damage. What the admin should do to fix this is do what Achaea did: Add in diminishing returns.
All this means is that a 15 int mugwump's staff (for example) won't do as much damage as an 18 int Imperial Merian's staff. Instead of the Merian doing +3 int more damage, it'd do something like +1.75 int. Sure, that'd piss off a lot of mage/guardian/etc, but have it work only after 18 int (or whatever is the cutoff for unbuffed int). So, 18int does 100% of 1200, 19 does 115% of 1200 damage, 20 does 125% (I'm using examples off the top of my head, and in no way do they reflect the actual damage of the increase in int.
/derail
On a personal note, I don't think the problem lies in the scaling of warrior damage, but in the scaling of the other archtypal damage. What the admin should do to fix this is do what Achaea did: Add in diminishing returns.
All this means is that a 15 int mugwump's staff (for example) won't do as much damage as an 18 int Imperial Merian's staff. Instead of the Merian doing +3 int more damage, it'd do something like +1.75 int. Sure, that'd piss off a lot of mage/guardian/etc, but have it work only after 18 int (or whatever is the cutoff for unbuffed int). So, 18int does 100% of 1200, 19 does 115% of 1200 damage, 20 does 125% (I'm using examples off the top of my head, and in no way do they reflect the actual damage of the increase in int.