Branl
Member
|
Weapon, Shield, and Pet, infosubs are out. So the changes from the original proposal are as followed:
Weapon: Def Loss Potency on MC was ommitted for the MC to (presumably) pay for the weapon toggles. Reactor Drive does an extra fixed hit of sp damage instead of being a full on SP attack that overflows into HP. Magic weapon doesn't toggle to 0 proc ranged.
Shield: No listed infosub changes, but the infosubs might need more clarity.
Pet: The Pet refunding it's charges when it hits it's charged attack (with a partial refund if it autohits), was removed. The Def Loss save is Cha/Luk vs Dex/Luk rather than the proposed Cha/Luk vs Cha/Luk.
However, despite the changes, I've been liking the items so far, and the staff did an excellent job translating an admittedly complicated proposal into the game.
Unfortunately, there's another potential issue with the popular vote format:
It would have been fair for everyone who voted, to believe that anything not listed directly as an issue with the dev notes, were greenlit. However, further analysis of proposed items and changing minds within the AQ team, mean that it's impossible for the dev notes to fully reflect the scope of changes. Anyone, who, for example, voted for Dardiel's set for the Def Loss Potency or the Pet Charged Skill refund, voted based off of mechanics later found to be problematic, and no longer exist. This very much means voting for a theme was better advice than people initially realized. But it does mean people that voted based off of mechanics not initially raised as issues, voted based off a mistaken assumption that the effects are okay simply because they weren't initially considered an issue.
It makes it even harder for popular votes to be a true reflection of player interest. While encouraging players to vote based off of theme and not effects does help a bit, players could fairly claim they didn't realize that extended to even parts of the suggestion not initially bought up as issues.
I think this makes (Staff chooses player suggestion based off of feasibility, theming, and potential good the suggestion proposes for future items), a even more attractive prospect over choosing a suggestion based off of popularity. It removes the potential for judging by player support, which realistically, will be partially contingent on proposed effects, rather than just theming. It would additionally allow for staff to choose suggestions that have the potential to also jumpstart much needed work on the game itself. This would also make these contests more helpful to all players, rather than just donors. My personal preference would still lie with staff made suggestions (People can't be disappointed with items not making it in as proposed if staff make the suggestions, along with fully removing the potential for community infighting, rather than partially like with staff choosing a suggestion). I would prefer to keep player suggestions if it's possible to do so without all the community infighting.
Also, kindly requesting the Melee Weapon carry a 0 proc ranged weapon toggle. And for Def Loss Potency to be somewhere on the set.
EDIT: At risk of potential jumping the gun, requesting a 0 proc ranged toggle for the 100 proc Fungibushi Weapon, and a potential additional FO toggle on the Fungibushi armor. I think it's a shame that FD/FO Rangers have to fight each other for weapon support, and the FO toggle would just be neat.
< Message edited by Branl -- 9/8/2024 1:58:04 >
_____________________________
IGN: Teryle
There's a method to my madness.
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
