Curse

Deathwingg00 · Apr 14, 2006, 10:54 AM // 10:54

If the prices and the use of major runes has been so small compared to minor and major runes is because of the great health penalty they inflinge and the smaller benefit they provide. (Sacrifiing 75 instead of 50 and you get a major one)

If arenanet wants players to use major runes as often as the others, they should consider reducing the health penalty to -25/-30, so that it becomes affordable to be used by players.

Mordakai · Apr 14, 2006, 11:00 AM // 11:00

I think most people agree, the question is how much?

If a sup rune is +3 for -75 HP, then wouldn't two +2 maj runes be better for a net +4 att at -50/-60 HP?

Of course, +3 in a single att is more useful than +4 accross two att, so I think -50 HP for a maj is too much.

But I'm thinking -35 Hp for major.

Deathwingg00 · Apr 14, 2006, 11:15 AM // 11:15

That's the idea.

Currently:
+1 -> -0
+2 -> -50
+3 -> -75 (I sacrifice only 25 more and get full rune)
+1+1 -> -0
+1+2 -> -50
+1+3 -> -75
+2+2 -> -100
+2+3 -> -125
+3+3 -> -150

If we reduce it to -30 we would have:
+1 -> -0
+2 -> -30
+3 -> -75 (I sacrifice over the double, maybe not so interesting)
+1+1 -> -0
+1+2 -> -30
+1+3 -> -75
+2+2 -> -60
+2+3 -> -105
+3+3 -> -150

We have to keep in mind that the +3 rune allows you to get benefits of having 16 points on an attribute, whereas the +2 rune does not.

In conclusion, the power a +3 rune gives you is much greater than the +2 rune, still the penalty of a +2 rune is as bad. And definitely, if people don't use major runes is because of that big health penaly

quickmonty · Apr 14, 2006, 11:47 AM // 11:47

Sounds like a good idea. I would like to see the cost of major runes increase.

Sevanyr · Apr 14, 2006, 12:05 PM // 12:05

35hp would be enough to peak my interest in using these runes.

/signed

Mentalmdc · Apr 14, 2006, 12:13 PM // 12:13

If you imagine runes as a number of attribute points saved to get to level 12 then we find that a major runes saves 36 points (20+16) with a 50 penalty, and a superior saves saves 49 (20+16+13) with a 75 penalty

Ratio of - Points Saved : Health Lost

Major - 36:50 / 18:25
Superior - 49:75 / 16:25 (its actually 16.3 however u cant spen a third of a point, can you!?!)

Therefore a Major actually gives you more spare attribute ponts per health point lost than a superior does. Maybe people are just under-estimating the usefulness of a major rune.

Now a minor rune beats both the major and superior if calculated in the same way, giving a wopping 20 points saved for no health loss making it a ratio of 20:0 (which i think calculates as oo:25 but i'm not really sure what happens with ratios of zero

)

I have always used a superior and a major or two majors on the 2 main attributes that i am using and i dont seem to have health issues.

I suppose its really down to opinion, but if your not trying to max out (16 points) an attribute line then majors are the way to go.

-THE M-

P.S. I hope my calculations are correct

jummeth · Apr 14, 2006, 02:44 PM // 14:44

conversely when you go over 12 attribs, does that mean the attribute cost becomes infinite there for the cost:health ratio is infinite?

30-35 is a decent figure. I'd go for it.
Atm, the only class I'd consider getting maj runes for is a monk since the sups are stupid prices.

Deathwingg00 · Apr 14, 2006, 02:49 PM // 14:49

The problem imho is that minor runes do not have health penaly. The only way to make major runes be somewhat worthy is either by having minor runes with -25 health or major runes with -25/-30/-35 health.

Now look at this:
+1+1+1+1 = +4 (+0) -> -0
+1+1+1+2 = +5 (+1) -> -50
+1+1+1+3 = +6 (+2) -> -75 (One attribute at 16)
+1+1+2+2 = +6 (+2) -> -100 (Why -100 instead of -75? No attribute at 16)
+1+1+2+3 = +7 (+3) -> -125
+1+1+3+3 = +8 (+4) -> -150 (One attribute at 16 and another at 15)
+1+2+2+2 = +8 (+4) -> -150 (Why? No attribute at 16, maximum one at 15)

Please remember that the +3 rune allows you to reach 16 points on your attribute which gives you the best results, whereas +2 rune does not.

Mentalmdc · Apr 14, 2006, 02:55 PM // 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by jummeth

conversely when you go over 12 attribs, does that mean the attribute cost becomes infinite there for the cost:health ratio is infinite?

No!
It is impossible to have more than 12 points without runes/hat, which does not mean an infinate cost if we were able to use points for more than 12 attribs then their cost would increase by more and more each time e.g,

Attrib Level 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16
Point Difference 13 - 16 - 20 - 25 - 31 - 37
Point Increase 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7

This would further reinforce my point.
-THE M-

Mentalmdc · Apr 14, 2006, 03:08 PM // 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathwingg00

The problem imho is that minor runes do not have health penaly. The only way to make major runes be somewhat worthy is either by having minor runes with -25 health or major runes with -25/-30/-35 health.

True

Major runes seem like they are worse off because minor runes are astoundingly better than Major or superior if health is a key issue. If health is not a issue then there is no point in even arguing about it on this thread as the best results would obviously be obtained from all superior runes.

The key here is to get a balance between health loss and attribute gain and it is because minor runes allow an attribute gain with no health loss that people are loadthed to pay a 50hp penalty for one extra attrib. If minor runes were increased to 25hp penalty then nobody would ever think that majors had anything wrong with them. It is therefore not majors that need a buff, but minors that need a nerf, and as most people are opposed to nerfing skills/items, they do not notice the unfair advantage that a minor gives, and believe that it is major that bears the problem.

hopefully this will make people reconsider.

-THE M-

NatalieD · Apr 14, 2006, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mentalmdc

If you imagine runes as a number of attribute points saved to get to level 12

Why would you imagine that? That's not what superior runes are typically used for.

Quote:

but i'm not really sure what happens with ratios of zero

Nothing. They're undefined.

quickmonty · Apr 14, 2006, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mentalmdc

The key here is to get a balance between health loss and attribute gain and it is because minor runes allow an attribute gain with no health loss that people are loadthed to pay a 50hp penalty for one extra attrib. If minor runes were increased to 25hp penalty then nobody would ever think that majors had anything wrong with them. It is therefore not majors that need a buff, but minors that need a nerf, and as most people are opposed to nerfing skills/items, they do not notice the unfair advantage that a minor gives, and believe that it is major that bears the problem.

hopefully this will make people reconsider.

-THE M-

Interesting. Never looked at it that way before.

Deathwingg00 · Apr 14, 2006, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Now from the player's view (and considering the PvP issue) minor runes might not be able to get nerfed, though it would be considerable, nerfing them right now would also damage the PvE economy, really badly, because runes pre-nerfed would be worth a lot and they are all around everywhere. So the best solution afaik is to decrease health penalty on major runes.

Hunter Sharparrow · Apr 14, 2006, 04:52 PM // 16:52

Not sure what this 1+1+3+1 stuff is for. Runes of the same kind don't stack so you can't have four minor runes of swordsmanship to get +4 in it at 0hp loss while a +3 rune gives -75hp. I agree that the -hp for a major is too high and should be a number in between 0 and 75 so either 37 or 38. How about giving the minor a -25hp. +1/-25hp, +2/-50hp, +3/-75hp so for every increase in the attribute there is a 25hp drop this way too the vigor runes could provide the amount of hp the other runes take away so minor +25hp, major +50hp and superior +75hp.

Deathwingg00 · Apr 14, 2006, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter Sharparrow

Not sure what this 1+1+3+1 stuff is for. Runes of the same kind don't stack so you can't have four minor runes of swordsmanship to get +4 in it at 0hp loss while a +3 rune gives -75hp.

Simply think on it a little more. For example, imagine a ranger with +1 beast mastery, +1 expertise, +1 wilderness survival and +3 marksmanship. The result is +1+1+1+3 = +6 (+2) extra points.

Mentalmdc · Apr 14, 2006, 05:08 PM // 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathwingg00

Now from the player's view (and considering the PvP issue) minor runes might not be able to get nerfed, though it would be considerable, nerfing them right now would also damage the PvE economy, really badly, because runes pre-nerfed would be worth a lot and they are all around everywhere. So the best solution afaik is to decrease health penalty on major runes.

Do you remeber how they nerfed the leutenents helm from denravi??

They changed all the items that had allready been bought, i'm sure they could do this with minor runes too

Plague · Apr 14, 2006, 05:11 PM // 17:11

I personally still wouldn't use them. 20 HP doesn't go much of a way. I'd still use Sup runes.

Really, you either have to look at it in a way that Sup runes are always better (superior, in the case of vigors and absorbtion - why use anything else?) or look at runes as a ladder. Minors have no negatives, Superiors have heavy downsides, and Majors... well, are crappy Superiors.

Make them have another affect, such as reducing energy or damage dealt or increasing points of damage dealt when hit. -2 maximum energy, -3 damage from all attacks, +2 damage when hit.

Mr D J · Apr 14, 2006, 05:14 PM // 17:14

/signed

Mandy Memory · Apr 14, 2006, 05:19 PM // 17:19

I suggest -40 for major. (Just my idea)

M3lk0r · Apr 14, 2006, 05:21 PM // 17:21

/signed

Would really help rangers with utility builds. I would imagince damage (wars and air/earth eles) classes still need +3.