Curse

MithranArkanere · Feb 18, 2008, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Crafter and collector are not Common drop blues.
They have blue names and are common, but they are not drops.

Collector weapons should have dar blue names (like the dark blue of people inside parties in outposts) and Crafter weapons should have yellow names.

You can't see me · Feb 18, 2008, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Crafter and collector are not Common drop blues.
They have blue names and are common, but they are not drops.

Collector weapons should have dar blue names (like the dark blue of people inside parties in outposts) and Crafter weapons should have yellow names.

I agree that the weapons should be more separated like that example, but when someone says blue weapons, they ascociate it with every weapon that is blue.

Kanyatta · Feb 18, 2008, 01:44 AM // 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

You fail at metaphors... just...don't... you kill it.

And I think you read something wrong. The bulk of your post says you're not an E-peener in argument to me saying that if blues should not be equal to golds, what about crafter weapons?

A. My metaphor fit in perfectly with the argument, so nice try.

B. You can not be an e-peener and still know that rare > common.

You can't see me · Feb 18, 2008, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

A. My metaphor fit in perfectly with the argument, so nice try.

B. You can not be an e-peener and still know that rare > common.

Your metaphor was poorly done and insults the better metaphors of made on these forums, so nice try.

B-

Duh, so what does claiming not to be an E-Peener have to do with that fact that rare > common if everyone knows it? All your post says is that you're not one.

Kanyatta · Feb 18, 2008, 01:51 AM // 01:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

Your metaphor was poorly done and insults the better metaphors of made on these forums, so nice try.

B-

Duh, so what does claiming not to be an E-Peener have to do with that fact that rare > common if everyone knows it? All your post says is that you're not one.

I would love for you to explain how my metaphor doesn't work.

You said I am an e-peener because I think golds are better than blues. Hence, my explanation.

Learn2Thesauraus

You can't see me · Feb 18, 2008, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

I would love for you to explain how my metaphor doesn't work.

You said I am an e-peener because I think golds are better than blues. Hence, my explanation.

Learn2Thesauraus

I don't know where you got that out of anything that I wrote, but that's not the message I was trying to send, so your argument seemed a tad irrelavent. Maybe quote where you got it from so I can explain better?

Kanyatta · Feb 18, 2008, 02:51 AM // 02:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

Gold is a vanity color, but it doesn't mean they have to be inconveniant, or should be more valued for being so.

Call me crazy, but when you say something to the effect of "Gold doesn't mean they have to be more valued for being so" I take it as "Gold shouldn't be more valued because of the vanity."

You can't see me · Feb 18, 2008, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

Call me crazy, but when you say something to the effect of "Gold doesn't mean they have to be more valued for being so" I take it as "Gold shouldn't be more valued because of the vanity."

There's the rub. What I mean is that while both non inscribable and inscribable gold are vanity compared to greens or collector/crafter, I don't believe that non inscribables, standing as inferior in the definition of conveniance, should be valued for it. IMO, non inscribables were the wrong way to go from the start.

As I thought, inturpretted wrong.

MithranArkanere · Feb 18, 2008, 06:27 PM // 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

Call me crazy, but when you say something to the effect of "Gold doesn't mean they have to be more valued for being so" I take it as "Gold shouldn't be more valued because of the vanity."

Gold are more valued when drop because they are the ones that hold some upgrades and some maxed upgrades and have higher chances to hold more upgrades.

It's like in Diablo II with the yellow-named and gold-name items. They have more properties.

Once they have already dropped and they are in people's inventories, that extra value is partially lost thanks to upgrades, and only the 'vanity' value remains. The extra value then exist only in that golds drop less.

To help with that, we have more skins and skins that drop much less than others.
That's the vanity and rarity. Finally separated from battle mechanics by inscriptions.

In the same way you can't pretend GW lose all other weapon and armor upgrades, you can't sacrifice the very essence of GW to scrap a little more rarity. That's not the way. Others should be found if they are really needed.

Kanyatta · Feb 18, 2008, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

you can't sacrifice the very essence of GW to scrap a little more rarity.

I would have to say "you can't sacrifice the very essence of GW to scrap a little price off the top"

The essence of GW, in my opinion was back during Prophecies, back when the game was at it's height, it was the best MMORPG back then, by far, PvP was as fun as it was ever going to get, the term "balanced" had some meaning, and PvE was not all that boring. Now, with all the expansions, and the player base becoming more and more "stupid", shall we say, the game has lost a lot of its playability, and inscriptions are partly to blame.

That's my "essence of GW".

MithranArkanere · Feb 18, 2008, 07:21 PM // 19:21

Back in those days there were no PvP-only characters and no PvP item creation panel.
Players had to fight in PvP only with PvE weapons.
Thats a mistake I hope they fix in GW2.

The essence of GW it's 'all the same, independently of time spent playing'.

Inscriptions make PvE items get close to PvP items, but since we cannot right now separate that, we must put insriptions worldwide.

In GW2 they could make so your characters have to use different equipmente in both modes, but in GW we can't.

Jetdoc · Feb 18, 2008, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

That's why skin rarity must be increased while decreasing different rarity between items of the same skin. And that's precisely what Inscriptions do. You cannot increase rarity sacrificing usefulness.

The flaw in this thinking is that A-Net will spend the resources to introduce a whole series of new skins into the game that are exceptionally difficult to get (i.e. probably either a HoH drop or a Zaishen Chest drop).

Since A-Net is full steam ahead in developing GW2, I doubt they would take away resources to introduce a series of new weapon skins into the game.

So, what you have is a one-sided proposal - decreasing rarity without the corresponding increase in rarity you need to counterbalance it.

MithranArkanere · Feb 18, 2008, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Rarity can also be increased with decrease of drop rates of existing items.

And rememver that they have actually planed the addition of new items (if they are ot already inside)

Jetdoc · Feb 18, 2008, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Rarity can also be increased with decrease of drop rates of existing items.

And rememver that they have actually planed the addition of new items (if they are ot already inside)

Because many of these items already exist, decreasing their drop rate would minimally impact their rarity (as the only way to take the items out of the population would be via customization or attrition of the playerbase).

Regarding the new items, unless they made them solely available in the hardest of places (e.g. the chest at the end of FoW, as a HoH chest drop or a very rare Zaishen chest drop), this would have little impact on rarity either. Introducing new items that come from those very rare places may not be the most popular of choices, either.

Cherng Butter · Feb 18, 2008, 08:14 PM // 20:14

I want my inscribable Str. Diamond Aegis. It's not that I can't afford one, it's that I can't...find a perfect one.

MithranArkanere · Feb 18, 2008, 08:55 PM // 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherng Butter

I want my inscribable Str. Diamond Aegis. It's not that I can't afford one, it's that I can't...find a perfect one.

Off-hands are the worst case.

In weapons with the old system you still have two mods. But off-hands? Yikes. Horrible. Out of the mod.

Kanyatta · Feb 19, 2008, 12:20 AM // 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Back in those days there were no PvP-only characters

Lolwut?

You obviously never played back then, I take it

Div · Feb 19, 2008, 08:35 AM // 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Back in those days there were no PvP-only characters

My memory may be failing me, but I always remember there was the option to create PvP-only characters with those completely shitty templates from day 1 onwards.

MithranArkanere · Feb 19, 2008, 01:56 PM // 13:56

Hm... in beta too...?
Hm... I have bad memory...

Anyways, that's not the point. The points are that both fixed variable modifiers are wrong in this game and they must be finally removed (Insignia removed them from armor, and inscription partially removed them from weapons and off-hands) and that the same game mechanics should be worldwide.

Daan Is Cool · Feb 19, 2008, 04:26 PM // 16:26

/signed duuuh

inscriptions FTW!