Curse

Mayar third Keeper · Dec 15, 2005, 07:06 PM // 19:06

/not signed

reason:

+1 -0
+2 -50
+3 -75
+4 -100
+5 -125
+6 -150

make sense!?

Epinephrine · Dec 15, 2005, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayar third Keeper

/not signed

reason:

+1 -0
+2 -50
+3 -75
+4 -100
+5 -125
+6 -150

make sense!?

No, it doesn't.

+1 = -0
+2 = -50
+3 = -75 makes some sense, but then you are clearly talking about 2 attributes, as +4 can't be done with runes on a single attribute, so
+4 = -75 (a +3 and a +1)
+5 = -125
+6 = -150

Everyone who is suggesting 0/-25/-50 is just trying to get free health. You can't alter the end point (0 and -75) without really skewing balance. The middle cost (-50) can be altered without changing balance, especially if it is kept marginally inefficient. Going to -40 would retain a marginal inefficiency for 2* +2, making +3/+1 better, but makes it not as steeply penalised - possibly increasing the number of Majors being used without really devaluing the end points. Evn at -38 you are doing slightly better with +3/+1, but if you drop to 37 you cactually can benefit by using cheaper runes - which will change things. -40 is a nice point for it I think - disincentive, keeps the Majors a bit cheaper, but it's only a 5 health hit.

Chilly Ress · Dec 16, 2005, 03:26 PM // 15:26

i dunno of anyone has mentioned this, but the first few posts here on this thread were saying major runes only give +1 attribute point, well, whoever said that is soo damn wrong, they give +2, and as a matter of fact, i use major runes.

ghezbora · Dec 16, 2005, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Ress

i dunno of anyone has mentioned this, but the first few posts here on this thread were saying major runes only give +1 attribute point, well, whoever said that is soo damn wrong, they give +2, and as a matter of fact, i use major runes.

they only give +1 over minor runes, which are essentially free. since there's no reason not to use minors, the consideration is +1 more for -50 (major) or +2 for -75 (superior).

Greygon · Dec 16, 2005, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Ress

i dunno of anyone has mentioned this, but the first few posts here on this thread were saying major runes only give +1 attribute point, well, whoever said that is soo damn wrong, they give +2, and as a matter of fact, i use major runes.

What is your reasoning behind using Major Runes? Do you use 2 Majors instead of 1 Superior? Is it something specific to your build?

+1 = -50hp
+2 = -75hp (Superior) or +1 +1 = -100hp (2 Majors)

Is the cost factor of the particular Runes you use the difference? Even the prices of the Monk Superiors have tanked recently, so I still just don't understand..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eur0b0y69

I use Majors alot in PvE, i dont see why take them out. Im a W/Mo and i have many different farming spots, for each i use either sword/axe or hammer, buying superior runes each time will cost a lot of money, but majors cost 100gp each , saves me a lot of money. If u dont like them dont use them, but dont take them out of the game.

Other than Vig's and Absorb's which don't get switched out for different builds and have no hp hit, major warrior runes cost the SAME as majors and LESS than minors. Someone check the Rune Trader and correct me if I am wrong...

Former Ruling · Dec 16, 2005, 06:16 PM // 18:16

How it is now - I can see why they did it like it is. It IS the most logical when you think of it. (I know I posted earlier something different - But I thought about it)

I think the classic:
Minor - 0
Major - 25
Superior - 75

argument is a good argument (you are paying more for each additional attribute lvl, so its like how it is with attribute pts). I even agreed with it til I thought. But it is flawed.

People using this one..dont think about bumping up more than 1 skill. Yea..your thoery only works when you are bumping up ONE skill and using minors on the others.

Because think about it - for that same 75 hp your losing for a +3 to 1 skill under this system - You can be raising THREE skills by +2.

I dont know about your builds...But most of mine - I'd love to raise almost every stat by +2 as opposed to ONE skill by +3..for the same health cost.

It would cause Majors to go up, and superiors to go down (they wouldn't tank to 100gp though). And that logic defy's the games principles that Superiors are suppsoed to be the best runes.

Age · Dec 16, 2005, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Maybe make it -60 then they would be more marketable.

Gophurt · Dec 21, 2005, 05:28 AM // 05:28

/signed

Chev of Hardass · Dec 21, 2005, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Former Ruling

How it is now - I can see why they did it like it is. It IS the most logical when you think of it. (I know I posted earlier something different - But I thought about it)

I think the classic:
Minor - 0
Major - 25
Superior - 75

argument is a good argument (you are paying more for each additional attribute lvl, so its like how it is with attribute pts). I even agreed with it til I thought. But it is flawed.

People using this one..dont think about bumping up more than 1 skill. Yea..your thoery only works when you are bumping up ONE skill and using minors on the others.

Because think about it - for that same 75 hp your losing for a +3 to 1 skill under this system - You can be raising THREE skills by +2.

I dont know about your builds...But most of mine - I'd love to raise almost every stat by +2 as opposed to ONE skill by +3..for the same health cost.

It would cause Majors to go up, and superiors to go down (they wouldn't tank to 100gp though). And that logic defy's the games principles that Superiors are suppsoed to be the best runes.

You are right, 25 health majors would be unbalancing. I suggest 40 health majors, or 38, not 25.

BrandonIT · Dec 21, 2005, 10:53 PM // 22:53

/signed.

I still believe to maintain diminishing returns on specific stats the Majors should be between -30 and -35 health. But I could be happy I suppose if it were between -35 and -40.

Leave the health cost of the Superiors alone, they deserve to be -75.

================================================== ======

Let me brainstorm here in the thread a bit about health costs and runes and attribute points. Let's see:

** First let's assume a 200-point attribute character, with 3 attributes, spread evenly:
Attribute 1 - 11
Attribute 2 - 10
Attribute 3 - 10

** We know how many attribute points it would take to raise the levels up:
16 to go from 10 to 11
20 to go from 11 to 12
and, well, you can't go higher than 12 without runes, so we'll call the cost for going higher than 12 "rune levels" since you can't get there without runes.

** Now, we assume minor runes on all stats, let's see the health cost versus attribute point gain:
Attribute 1 - 11 + 1 = 12
Attribute 2 - 10 + 1 = 11
Attribute 3 - 10 + 1 = 11

## Total Health Cost = 0 ## Total Attribute Gain = 72 + 0 rune levels ##

** Now, we assume major runes on all stats, let's see the health cost versus attribute point gain:
Attribute 1 - 11 + 2 = 13
Attribute 2 - 10 + 2 = 12
Attribute 3 - 10 + 2 = 12

## Total Health Cost = 150 ## Total Attribute Gain = 92 + 1 rune level ##

** Now, we assume superior runes on all stats, let's see the health cost versus attribute point gain:
Attribute 1 - 11 + 3 = 14
Attribute 2 - 10 + 3 = 13
Attribute 3 - 10 + 3 = 13

## Total Health Cost = 225 ## Total Attribute Gain = 92 + 4 rune levels ##

So, our totals are for:

Minors: Total Health Cost = 0 :::: Total Attribute Gain = 72 + 0 rune level
Majors: Total Health Cost = 150 : Total Attribute Gain = 92 + 1 rune level
Sup's : Total Health Cost = 225 :: Total Attribute Gain = 92 + 4 rune level

Bah, I still think the Majors have too much of a health penalty for what you get. Cut them back 10 points each and that would make more sense.