Sapphire
Banned
|
If we meet the goal, here's battleseige's suggestion. quote:
Random Axe of Kindness «A shifting-element weapon that deals less damage to boost Pet/Guest damage. The special can boost CHA.» Level: 150G, MC Location: Aria's Shop (She needs more CHA-based weapons >_____<) Type: Melee Element: Shifts randomly between elements Weapon Lean: Base Heavy BTH Lean: -5 BTH SPECIAL Rate: 20% Damage: N/A Effect: Gives the player +x* CHA Pays MC and 20% of weapon damage (so 25% weapon damage total) to boost damage dealt by pet/guest attacks by +25%. The weapon forgoes the *132/109 bonus for shifting elements to give an additional +21% damage to pets/guests. The damage penalty still applies regardless of whether you have an active guest or not (just to keep things simple). *x = (Standard 20% Melee special damage converted into equivalent stat boost)*0.85 (for auto-hit) for 1 turn. If it is triggered twice (Celerity), then the CHA boost is increased accordingly and only lasts for 1 turn. Design: An axe that looks very regal and dignified. Up to the artist's interpretation! Special Animation: Just a bright swirl of rainbow colors on the player's side of the field. Brighten someone's day with a Random Axe of Kindness because after all, one of the best ways to treat your enemies is by ~killing them with kindness~ UwU I have concerns. Hollow put a disclaimer that the item would be based on this suggestion, and I get that maybe it might be viewed that battleseige15's suggestion isn't perfectly balanced, so the disclaimer is fine. However, I don't think one can actually in good faith ask players to donate bookoo gold if the item's numbers ended up a far cry from what the suggestion is portraying. For example, this suggestion has up to +46% damage boost for pets and guests. If the stretch goal is met, but the end result was actually say, +35%...that's unacceptable to me. While the "basic idea" may have been fulfilled, that's pretty much less relevant to most players than the nuts and bolts, and so I sort of feel like staff should make some assurances here of some sort w/o it being set in stone. I kind of think the cutlass argument should be in play, kind of.... meaning you need to get to those numbers even if it means paying more to get there...something like that... I just would hate for a bad taste to be left , ruining the spirit of the stretch goal if the concern I laid out came to fruition. Plus, it would possibly increase motivation to meet the goal.
< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 1/14/2023 23:18:51 >
|