dizzle
Member
|
Just some thoughts on what’s been discussed so far -
I think the whole premise of this thread is a little silly tbh. Mages, or more specifically spell casters, are treated differently from warriors and rangers because they *are* different. I deduce spell casters from mages because the discussion is based on spellcaster items specifically. It’s not that mages are treated differently than warriors and rangers, it’s that spell caster weapons specifically are treated differently than non-spellcaster weapons. And I think this is fair. If you like the Sanuinomancer Arsenal and want a magic weapon to operate identical to the melee/ranged ones, then I think that’s definitely fair. But for the spell casting weapon to operate identical to standard attacking weapons I dont agree with. To be completely honest I’ve had more fun on my mage recently than any other char so I can’t really relate to the whole feelsbad feeling surrounding these caster weapons. I think they’re incredibly strong and also have absolutely ridiculous synergy when coupling them with a spell with the same or an adjacent effect (like a burn caster weapon with a burn spell, or panic caster weapon with a choke spell etc) and I think the devs have an opportunity to really flesh this idea out over a period of time (as long as they start releasing new spells to use with the new caster weapons)
Even though the devs say Warcasters effects working with any spell was *not* intentional, I have seen precisely 0 good arguments as to why this “any spell” idea is a balance issue. Silas staff and adventurer figure have been around for ages and neither are breaking the game. As usual my stance is: if implemented properly, I see no reason why we shouldn’t/can’t get more caster weapons that work with any damaging spell.
In regards to the call for nerfing Warcaster so it doesn’t work with any spell -
quote:
@Lorekeeper has answered this pretty perfectly: "That bugs or standards-breaking omissions can linger isn't reflective of intent. It means that we're overwhelmed to the point of having to focus on the biggest fish to fry". The Warcaster bug lingers because it isn't the most important issue, not because it isn't one.
You know what’s the most important issue to me? Making sure I get what I pay for dude! This incessant urge to call for wholesale changes on (literally at this point) dozens of premium items is tasteless and has become tiresome over the years. If the devs saw this as an issue then they would’ve changed it right away, as they have been so good at doing to potentially game breaking items. And I appreciate that. But Warcaster was already evaluated and determined that it won’t change because it’s not game breaking. Months ago. We have unfortunately had to cope with the fact that on release it is not wise to spend our money on newly released premium items. What am I to make of you calling for a nerf to an item like Warcaster, when the any spell idea doesn’t even break any standards to begin with. So not only is not wise to spend on new items, it’s also not wise to spend money on any items? Yea yea I get it staff have the ability to alter anything in the game that they want, but you’re tiptoeing the bad faith line. Thankfully, I’m almost certain the actual developers do not have this same mindset and have been good at not implementing some of your more radical proposals.
The main selling point for Warcaster has become its versatility. To nerf it and take away the main selling point is not something I support. However, I can understand why an always useful penalty should be tacked onto it. See this is certainly a nerf, but it’s a change in standards in accordance to balance. This is different from cherry picking and calling for changes to items that takeaway the original selling point and I can get behind these types of changes if they produce consistency. For example if they changed the assumptions abused when talking about caster weapons, that’s perfectly acceptable imo as long as the devs think it’s a good idea and they are consistent with how they are applied. While I can see an argument for it getting the Omni penalty, I think it’s a bit of a stretch and the always useful penalty just seems like it fits better. If you use Aerins paramters for when and where always useful vs Omni elemental penalties are applied:
quote:
AQ has several penalties that are applied to effects in these situations:
The always-useful penalty, which is applied to effects use non-standard elements, such as Harm or Heal. This penalty either reduces effect power by x0.9 effect power or increase effect cost by x1.1.
The omni-elemental penalty, which is applied to effects that apply to all elements. This penalty either reduces effect power by x0.6, or reduces effect power by x0.8 and increases effect cost by x1.2
then I can understand why you could argue for Warcaster getting the Omni ele penalty. However, as Aerin goes onto say later in this post, these penalties are just so inconsistently applied that I think it’s impossible to declare for certain which one Warcaster should get. I see both sides but you cannot definitively say it must go one way or another. Always useful penalty is not *only* applied to non standard element effects, and the Omni penalty isn’t always applied to effects that apply to all elements. At the end of Aerins post he says “All effects which apply to all elements should receive an equivalent of the omni-elemental penalty.” I think if you just tweak his proposal and turn it into “All effects which apply to all elements simultaneously should receive an equivalent of the omni-elemental penalty.” it would be a better baseline just because it makes more sense to me at least. Then stuff that’s questionable like space gauntlet, invincible star etc would fall into the same category, because the effect works with all elements simultaneously whereas something like Warcaster just has the versatility of working with any element, not all elements at the same time.
Edit: Admittedly after thinking for a minute, this puts stuff like UDSoE into a weird spot. I suppose more accurately it could be “All effects which apply to all elements simultaneously or All items which have unlimited to access to using All elements should receive an equivalent of the omni-elemental penalty.” Idk I’m not dead set on this I kind of got to rambling at the end. It’s murky
< Message edited by dizzle -- 12/11/2024 16:26:53 >
|
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
