CH4OT1C!
Member
|
quote:
This doesn't seem relevant. I'm not sure how to explain why in a way that isn't just reiterating my previous points.
I acknowledge your argument; you argue on the basis that spells and spell-type skills attached to an armour should not receive damage compensation for the lean because they are lean independent. Under these circumstances, you denounce my counterargument as irrelevant, since my argument focuses primarily around the attachment itself rather than the components of it. I respectfully disagree on this for a number of reasons.
Your justification revolves around the idea that independent spells do not account for lean. I want to emphasise that this stance is primarily a matter of opinion. This matters due to the general purpose of the GBI section as a place to propose a solution with mathematical evidence. This isn't a problem associated with balance because, mathematically both solutions are balanced. There are just different winners and losers. Which prevails (lean dependent or independent) depends on the player.
One could reasonably argue that, of the two states, lean independent makes more sense. I disagree for several reasons. Firstly, because these spells and spell-type skills are explicitly attached to an armour, the player must accept the attributes of that armour to use the skill. We know what armour lean the player will be using, so we should factor it into calculations. Secondly, it is no small feat to rework elecomp for every armour with a spell-type skill and spell in the game (elecomp is calculated individually for each). This makes for a lot of work for relatively little payoff. Thirdly, even if we did decide to push forward, you'd substantially hinder the use of spells and spell-type skills on offensive armours because they don't receive that lean compensation. Finally, you might argue that this is a good thing, because it improves the position of FD players. However, attached spells and spell-type skills aren't the primary damage type for min-maxing players because they're less effective, versatile and more costly than weapon-based alternatives. By nature, FD players are also less concerned about dealing large amounts of damage as well. This further dissuades the use of these skills.
On Discord, I'm often asked why I like nerfing so much. The answer is I don't; the goal is to fix outlying items to better conform to modern assumptions. This makes items more competitive and promotes item diversity. This proposal is the perfect example of an unnecessary nerf. Spell-type skills already find it difficult to compete with weapon-based alternatives, and this would only make that problem worse. Moreover, this doesn't solve any major problem. Nerfing spell-type skills offensively won't suddenly and substantially weaken FO player setups. Even if such a nerf is justified (and I stress that it's not a clear-cut case), there are much bigger problems to deal with right now.
|
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
