RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion



Message

Korriban Gaming -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 10:30:11)

quote:

so it very much changed its whole appeal to those original buyers

typically I'd agree as I've been one of the more vocal ones regarding this in the past.

HOWEVER, I think a blanket like or dislike over certain changes would be unfair to said items. Alot of times I think it's highly dependent on whether or not said change makes the items better. not so much of whether or not it makes it different.

The Tribal Shaman package was one of the best Earth armors back in the day when it first came out (I should know cos that's when I bought it) but it did slowly fall out of meta over the years. This was at a time when builds weren't exactly fleshed out. To say that you bought it back in the day as a Warrior/Ranger/Mage wouldn't exactly make sense, it was widely used by just about anyone. I think it's safe to say that no one is using it in the current meta, so it essentially became a useless item regardless of build or playstyle. With the introduction of build identities, I don't think it would have been possible to make it great for every single build, because if the staff did that, it would be a whole different complaint we'll be seeing today. This change made it strictly better, even if it made it completely different from what it used to do. I think that's the redeeming factor of why some players are happy with the changes despite it being wildly different from the original.



The Hollow -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 13:24:35)

I understand that not everyone may be as pleased with the significant alteration to the original armor. If you wish to exchange your Tribal Shaman Armor for another package bonus, please send me a pm with your account name and character ID#, and I'll be happy to replace your armor with another 12k package bonus of your preference.



kreem -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 14:24:59)

The Tribal Shaman skills should probably work like an armor only effect and/or preferably be once per battle instead of once per turn. They'll be nuts either way but at least more balanced. Currently I believe the buffs not only stack but work in other armors but I don't own it so I can't check.

EDIT: Someone just told me they can switch armors so that confirms the theory. This is like bag of nuts, it should have some limits.



Sapphire -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 14:32:48)

Yeah let's reduce the desirability of the armor's skills so we can sell less of the package.



Aura Knight -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 14:40:16)

Once per battle effects on premium items offering effects you can get elsewhere for free would be a terrible change. I appreciate you're not part of the decision making process for item updating. The idea you prefer kills the item in question. Maybe I'm alone here but once per battle effects are awful. They likely assume use of a nuke strategy. The limit to tribal shaman is it's resource heavy. Your pets see benefits but you're using half your sp bar.



Sapphire -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 14:47:31)

If the armor were a quest reward or something non-premium, I could see some more restrictions. But considering the entire premise is to have AQ make money, those details to make the armor (or any item) not have as much bubblewrap is perfectly OK.

There is no mathematical or otherwise balance standard for QC's and so this decision IMO makes it more attractive. The result here, despite a few sentiments being negative in regards to the changes, overall will be that the package now looks desirable compared to before and they'll see a rather large uptick in the purchasing of that package. I think the lack of understanding of the business side of many decisions will only continue to create a situation for some people where they're just going to be disappointed ...and that foundation has come up in several aspects of this game. It would do a person well to attempt to understand the deeper why's I think.



legendd -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 19:15:24)

You love to see how certain playerbase randomly calling for nerfs [:D]



Korriban Gaming -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/29/2024 22:58:06)

Nerfing it after giving it a new lease of life is the silliest things you can do to a premium item you're trying to sell



Aura Knight -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (1/30/2024 1:39:03)

I'm disappointed at the reactions favoring the change like it's a shock dead content is revived and people can be happy it was. Nearly no one used the armor, it was not in active inventories and did nothing special. Damage boosts can come from other items, accuracy assist wasn't necessary and a fear skill during a time where freedom exists in nearly all relevant bosses meant the armor was worthless. It did well when released but the game changed, while the armor did not. In a game that still sees updates it's not supposed to be a shock whenever items see changes regardless of how they're obtained. Premium items are no exception to this. Be grateful the opportunity to swap the package is offered. For others who see the benefit to the update, keep having fun.



choas312 -> RE: AQClassic: Updated and Returning Z-Token Packages (2/2/2024 2:50:03)

Howdy! I'm unsure if it's pending or not; but the description of the package in the Account Manager isn't reflecting the current iteration, and refers to the prior selfish buffing iteration still.

Is this just a missed line of text or is a duplicate of the Neutral armor possible?
Personally I have a nefarious use for this current iteration, but could have used the prior iteration as well, ironically;

This current version is "better" but I have zero desire for my Unga Bunga characters to actually stay inside a spellcaster armor, but while the older version is "worse" on average, I'd actually pass a turn wearing it!
What a conundrum! [X(]

Would it be possible to separate the masks on the M/F version from the armor and use those to differentiate two theoretical interpretations of the armor?
Then the 'angry' mask could be about selfishly using the Spirits' powers for yourself while the 'comparitively-more-pleasant' female mask could be using it for their allies?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
9.179688E-02