Curse

generik · Oct 01, 2005, 01:39 AM // 01:39

I suspect the current system is to make superior worthwhile of getting

dont feel no pain · Oct 01, 2005, 12:44 PM // 12:44

THIS WOULD BE MUCH BETTER
minor -0 health
major -25 health
supiror -50 health
and even though this is nothing to do with it we need a suprior mana, major mana,minor mana rune that works like vigor

thejynxed · Oct 01, 2005, 01:41 PM // 13:41

I agree with the energy runes. We have absorption that affects armor/dam received, we have vigor that affects health, we need energy runes now. Superior Vigor runes just seem to be there so spellcasters can counter the effects of using that Superior Smiting/Domination/Fire, etc -.-

Mr Wolfmaster · Oct 01, 2005, 03:39 PM // 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejynxed

I agree with the energy runes. We have absorption that affects armor/dam received, we have vigor that affects health, we need energy runes now. Superior Vigor runes just seem to be there so spellcasters can counter the effects of using that Superior Smiting/Domination/Fire, etc -.-

I agree. What I think is unfair is that worriers have an extra rune! They should make one for everybody: e.g. Ranger rune of minor/major/sup evasion. And give like a 5/10/15 chance to edvade or something like that.

Felbryn · Oct 01, 2005, 08:24 PM // 20:24

At least two people said that a linear system of penalties (e.g. -0/-25/-50) would work "better." Would one of you care to specify why?

As I already pointed out, attributes normally function on diminishing returns. Raising an attribute from 0 to 1 costs 1 pt., from 11 to 12 costs 20 ts. True, the runes operate on an independent system not involving attribute points, but if the general principle of diminishing returns is a good one--and I think it is--I don't see any reason to make an exception to that rule. If you see a reason, please point it out for me.

On the same topic, 5/10/15% evasion is absolutely insane. That's escalating returns. First level dodges 5% (1 in 20), second level dodges 5.3% of the remaining attacks (1 in 19), the third 5.6% (1 in 18). If you don't see the problem, just look at what happens if you continue the pattern for another 20 levels (I realize that there aren't that many grades of runes, but the fact that the pattern tends in that direction should be a clear indicator that you're doing something badly wrong). If you were going to supply evasion, something closer to 8/12/15% would make much more sense (it may still be excessively powerful, but that's more the kind of progression you'd want).

As for warriors having an extra rune, they really don't. Warriors get 5 attributes, but they can only make any realistic use of 3 of them, whereas every other profession can use 4-5 (it takes skill slots, but they can still use them with a single build--warriors need completely different weapon sets for axe, sword, and hammer attributes, and need to meet minimum prerequisites to use good weapons). The Warrior Absorption rune is nothing short of being *part* of the class bonus to their armor, anyway. Giving other professions similar runes would be a direct nerf to warriors, and thus should only be done if they need a nerf.

lord_shar · Oct 01, 2005, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felbryn

At least two people said that a linear system of penalties (e.g. -0/-25/-50) would work "better." Would one of you care to specify why?

As I already pointed out, attributes normally function on diminishing returns. Raising an attribute from 0 to 1 costs 1 pt., from 11 to 12 costs 20 ts. True, the runes operate on an independent system not involving attribute points, but if the general principle of diminishing returns is a good one--and I think it is--I don't see any reason to make an exception to that rule. If you see a reason, please point it out for me.

...<SNIP>...

Attribute diminishing returns is already built into GW's character point-allocation system. Also, diminishing attribute returns is a GW "trend," not a "rule."

There's no sound reason why the hit-point penalties should be so radically pronounced at the major + superior rune levels, especially when minor runes get none. The present rune system makes major and superior runes pretty much non-viable unless you exploit the 55/105 monk build concepts, or are a caster/ranger lobbing spells from a distance.

The present rune/health penalty system also puts an unnecessary burden on front-line warrior tanks, which have to pretty much settle for all-minor runes to maximize health.

A linear returns set-up would allow more character build creativity, improving all classes while diminishing the 55/105 exploits. Sounds like a good way to level the playing field...

KelvinC · Oct 03, 2005, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Agree, the penality/bonus ratio is not linear.

Ollj · Oct 21, 2005, 08:07 PM // 20:07

To justify mayor runes and the -health system imagine you use a superior rune and ask yourself:
Can -25 health for +1 attribute (mayor to superior) be worse than +50 health for -1 attribute (mayor to minor)

Yes, because the attribute point costs grow faster than the triangular numbers, its all exponential.
But you have to be VERY in dept in optimizing builds, and i bet noone is as enough to prove the bold text above with an example.

Warriors with 16 weapon mastery and 13 strength will never understand the above.

Ristaron · Oct 21, 2005, 08:18 PM // 20:18

My PvP monk uses three superiors (prot, heal, divine) because I am too lazy to remake the character to get the bonus for healing or protection (depending on what the team wants, I go that build).

And I have to say that even when I used two superiors (my superior vigor not counting in either case) the 150 hp drop was quite substantial. The +50 hp that the superior vigor gives me is nothing compared to the -75 the other superiors take away.

For reducing rune penalties on HP to -0/-25/-50, I /sign in the most beautiful handwriting ever.

Carinae · Oct 21, 2005, 09:08 PM // 21:08

I have seens several suggestions to lower the Superior rune costs to 50. (the 10/30/50 and the 0/25/50 suggestions)

I disagree with this. The game is currently balanced in regards to Superior rune usage. People are discouraged from running multiple Superior runes, because the Superior Vigor only balances the 2/3 of the costs of one Superior attribute rune. (The 55 monk build is a special case.)

The values of the Superior attributes runes and the Superior Vigor runes are carefully chosen.

The real problem is that there is no penalty for minor runes. This is done to encourage their use, but I think it's too much of a discount.

There are other suggestions to use a linear 25/50/75 formula for runes, but I think this penalizes Minor runes too MUCH. There is a CLEAR intention to encourage Minor runes, so how about a compromise solution:

Penalize runes with either a 15/45/75, or a 10/40/70 formula.

The advantage of this technique, is that it provides a linear 30 point spread between runes, and still encourages Minor runes with a discount. It doesn't disturb the balance of the Superior runes vis-a-vis Superior Vigor runes, but it DOES allow builds to use two Major runes with nearly the same penalty as one Superior attribute rune.

4 Minors + Superior Vigor = +/-10 hp (balanced)
2 Majors + Superior Vigor = -30/-40 hp (balanced)
1 Superior + Superior Vigor = -20/-25 hp (balanced)

Tarot Ribos · Oct 21, 2005, 09:38 PM // 21:38

I don't really have an issue with Minor runes... they act as a small money sink for the economy with no drawback. Say you're an air spiker. You obviously need your superior Air and Sup Vigor runes. But that leaves three more slots of armor! Why not just equip minor Earth, Fire, and Water runes for the heck of it? The cost is still less than dye...

Major runes, though, definitely get hosed. Seriously, give them -25 health instead.

Clearly, there is a design at hand in which it costs more to get up another attribute. That much is obvious in the attribute point distributions. Yet the runes don't follow this: Each attribute point is penalized the same amount for Major and Sup runes: 25 HP/Attribute level.

My theory of runes:

Minor = no change
Major = -25 health
Superior = -75 health.

That way, first point up is not penalized, second costs 25 health, and third costs 50. Increased cost for linear benefit.

Goonter · Oct 22, 2005, 12:03 AM // 00:03

I agree with only bringing major runes down 10 hit points.
Id rock 2 major runes at -40 hp each.

I think -80 for +4 attrubute points vs. -75 for +3 is a good trade off.

Right now I do the usaully all minors and one superior.
My monk rolls with all minors because i cant afford or cant find a superior and i wont wear majors.

Nighteye · Oct 22, 2005, 09:39 PM // 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felbryn

At least two people said that a linear system of penalties (e.g. -0/-25/-50) would work "better." Would one of you care to specify why?

As I already pointed out, attributes normally function on diminishing returns. Raising an attribute from 0 to 1 costs 1 pt., from 11 to 12 costs 20 ts. True, the runes operate on an independent system not involving attribute points, but if the general principle of diminishing returns is a good one--and I think it is--I don't see any reason to make an exception to that rule. If you see a reason, please point it out for me.

From none to minor, -0 health and +1 point
From minor to major, -50 health and +1 point
From major to superior, -25 health and +1 point

That's not diminishing, not even linear, but escalating returns in the current system. (above minor, anyway)

It makes no sense for the first attribute point above minor to be more expensive in terms of health penalty than the second attribute point above minor.

nightrunner · Oct 22, 2005, 09:56 PM // 21:56

I hate doing a rune run and getting 6 majors, and they merchanting them as armors because the armor is worth more than the rune

Former Ruling · Oct 23, 2005, 07:32 PM // 19:32

I dont think there is ONE attribute Major worth more than the base 100ea...

Popular class Minors I've seen at 700ea..

It would make more sense to me if the THIRD extra attribute point costed more per point than the second.

Right now Like everyone said:
Minor - 0 penality (-0)
major - 50 penality (-50)
sup - 25 penality (-75)

If it were:
Minor - 0 penality (-0)
major - 25 penality (-25)
sup - 50 penality (-75)
It would make more sense..

It also would keep the equation the same,and keep low hp monks from ranting (if their sup's stopped taking -75).

Krazax · Oct 24, 2005, 08:31 AM // 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by dont feel no pain

THIS WOULD BE MUCH BETTER
minor -0 health
major -25 health
supiror -50 health
and even though this is nothing to do with it we need a suprior mana, major mana,minor mana rune that works like vigor

I used to think the same thing, because this leads to the reasoning of "What's wrong with giving players more HPs?" Because:
If players have more hps, they last longer -> If players last longer battles take longer. -> If battles take longer you need more strategy to win. -> If you need more strategy to win, the game would be more in synch with what Anet wants... right?

Yes... and a really big No.

When Yes? In PvP. It could be a lot more interesting... maybe. Either it would or matches would drag on and on and on.
When No? In PvE. Why? Because the game designers would need to completely rebalance the ENTIRE GAME. Lowering the HP cost of superior runes would lead to everyone using multiple superiors. This combined with more hps, results in DRAMATICLY more personal player power. Power over the computer more precisely.

Yeah so what, right? Let players be more powerful, that's good, we want that right?

Wrong again.

Why wrong?

If player power is dramaticaly more then it should be, you loose balance. A game that is too easy becomes boring at warp speed Mr. Scotty. That's bad. Bad bad bad bad.

Remember, mobs in the game don't use runes. They have their set HPs. So by allowing players to increase their hps, and at the same time their powers, you run into the same EXACT problem as allowing additional levels into the Guildwars Game. You loose balance. It would be as absurd as allowing vigor runes to stack. (Sure we'd all want that initially, but when we got bored even faster of the game because every zone became like killing Charr outside Ascalon as a level 20... you'd agree then.)

As it stands now, you can increase your personal power, but at the risk of increasing your death factor. That's balance.

Now, as for Major Attribute Runes being lowered. Yes, I agree with that and think it needs to be done. How much? I say reduce them so that they only reduce you by -40hps. This way 2 major's (+4 to attributes) costs -80 health. Where as +3 from a superior is still -75. Then if you think about it, you'd only be loosing an additional 5 hps for another skill point.

This would make for some real tuff decision calls by players and would put majors as desireable as superiors, and hopefully to ultimately spread that money around.

Charcoal Ann · Oct 24, 2005, 09:06 AM // 09:06

well i use major runes on my characters.

why? bacause i'm a cheap ass. i'm not going to pay an extra 13k for a superior healing rune.

i use a maximum of 2 majors on any character. (usually one). i love em. i don't care about -50hp. i DO however care about -75hp. don't know why. i just do. :P

Daegul Mistweaver · Nov 15, 2005, 01:42 AM // 01:42

I'll sign the petition to lower the health penalty of major runes. I don't feel the need to agrue for a specific number or even bring up logical reasons to reduce...the bottemed-out value on ALL major runes with a health penalty should be evidence enough that something needs tweaking.

Findariel · Nov 15, 2005, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nighteye

Major runes should have a -37 penalty, instead of -50, so that the penalty of 2 major runes equals the penalty of 1 superior rune.

Agreed upon this. As it is now, NO-ONE uses major runes; most sups are extremely cheap anyway, why not take a sup for only -25 extra anyway?

Majors are useless, the penalty and availability of sups has rendered them redundant.

The only way to make them used again would indeed be something like a -35 or -40 penalty.

Greygon · Dec 12, 2005, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Major Runes are worthless with 2 exceptions... They sell for less or the same as minors in most cases. Very few people use them. I say either make them viable or remove them from the game. Can't they be changed in some way to make them at least useable?

Ideas?

Suggestions?