Doctor Archive
Thread: Enhance Constitution D
beyowulf wrote:
Marrow1 wrote:
There is a harm.
Just ask your self one question after you have rubberbanded 5 times in 5 minutes: Do the devs alway make changes smooth?
Even without considering the possible harm of a bad patch why ask for something that waters down the skill needed to make good packs? The harm in doing that is that it removes some of the challenge from being a crafting doc. Let's just all make sure that everyone can do exactly the same thing and not reward either skill or effort. There is a real risk to this kind of thinking....
....it means that the differences in packs would level out, reducing the rewards for those docs that craft to a higher standard of craftsmanship. Where then is their incentive to keep crafting or perhaps being a doc? Let's penalize them for their skill! Bravo!
....it makes being a doc more attractive to people who are not interested in being a doc but are interested in making credits. I know that resources are a challenge for buff packs-I've been at this long enough to know-but if they "dumb-down" the schems, then resources are the only barrier. Let's further water down our profession. Woot!
This is, of course, just my opinion.
MasterNerfSlayer wrote:
I figured as much... we need to get it on the issues list!
Calling Dr Griggs...
heck, if we have to bring something "in line" with others then why not make em all take 2 ABEC's?
beyowulf wrote:
Even without considering the possible harm of a bad patch why ask for something that waters down the skill needed to make good packs? The harm in doing that is that it removes some of the challenge from being a crafting doc. Let's just all make sure that everyone can do exactly the same thing and not reward either skill or effort. There is a real risk to this kind of thinking....
....it means that the differences in packs would level out, reducing the rewards for those docs that craft to a higher standard of craftsmanship. Where then is their incentive to keep crafting or perhaps being a doc? Let's penalize them for their skill! Bravo!
....it makes being a doc more attractive to people who are not interested in being a doc but are interested in making credits. I know that resources are a challenge for buff packs-I've been at this long enough to know-but if they "dumb-down" the schems, then resources are the only barrier. Let's further water down our profession. Woot!
This is, of course, just my opinion.
beyowulf wrote:
Marrow1 wrote:
Agree
Anything the Devs might do to change things would only make it worse.
I agree with you...in part. It's easy to beat on the Devs-heaven only knows we've had some excellent opportunities lately to experience the hind end of complex development projects, but I don't think the reason to avoid this is because the Devs will botch it.
I don't care how the Devs would execute it-I disagree with the principle of the idea.
I did not mean they would botch it in some unintended way. Let look at the most likely options.
1. All packs use 22avian/gas and 3 ABEC. The average avian/gas for a set goes up and our flexability goes down. There is no reward in working to match the Action pack and the one interesting thing in the doc lineup goes byby.
2. All packs use 28avian/gas and 3 ABEC. Same as (1) only worse.
3. All packs use 22avian/gas and 2 ABEC. Same as (1) but we get a small break on wheat/fiber.
4. All packs use org/inorg like Action. All the avian goes down the tubes. Very unlikely to happen.
5. As part of the CU the crafting in general changes. Oh boy, that will get ugly fast.
So in the end there really are great fixes to be had.
nikko11 wrote:
As I said, this has always been.
There is no reason for it to be changed. This enables easier creation of packs with the leftover in the set of ABECs.
Please focus on true issues, this is NOT a true issue.
I'm noticing a trend of people feeling like we're trying to take the challenge in the game away from them. This really isn't the case. There is no rhyme or reason to the current pack requirements at all.Four packs require the same resources, andtwo differ from each other and the rest. If that were Health and Action, and those packs had the same requirements as each other, I'd see it as intended (ie. they buff the same type of stat: pool size). But it is Action and Constitution.
I don't blame people for liking the challenge, and heck, if you'd prefer that Health and Action be different from the subs, sure, or even make pool size buffs take resource set x, pool cost buffs take resource set y and pool regen buffs take resource set z then fine! I can see that being just as legit as what I believe is intended (all the same resource set), but I don't see why it should be left as Action and Constitution. There is no pattern to that. No logic.
Message Edited by MasterNerfSlayer on 02-02-2005 02:01 PM
MasterNerfSlayer wrote:
I'm noticing a trend of people feeling like we're trying to take the challenge in the game away from them. This really isn't the case. There is no rhyme or reason to the current pack requirements at all.Four packs require the same resources, andtwo differ from each other and the rest. If that were Health and Action, and those packs had the same requirements as each other, I'd see it as intended (ie. they buff the same type of stat: pool size). But it is Action and Constitution.
I don't blame people for liking the challenge, and heck, if you'd prefer that Health and Action be different from the subs, sure, or even make pool size buffs take resource set x, pool cost buffs take resource set y and pool regen buffs take resource set z then fine! I can see that being just as legit as what I believe is intended (all the same resource set), but I don't see why it should be left as Action and Constitution. There is no pattern to that. No logic.
-
Primary stats are critical on the buffs, so let's make the pack composition as different as is practical on the Action and Health packs. How do we do that....hrm.....change the component mix and change the resource requirements.....yeah that works. -
Okay, now the primaries are differentiated.....is that enough? Well....let's just take one more pack that has the same resource requirements and give it a different component mix. Which one?...hrm....let's just do Constitution.
nikko11 wrote:
>I so rarely get to make a good comment, but here goes. I think this is working as intended for another reason. This makes the one buff a dancer/musician/entertainer >really needs a little easier to make. So it works out well for them, and well for doctors. I see no reason to change it either, as you not only hurt doctors, but hurt >entertainers a bit.
Good point. This is my most used pack.
HUH? one quickness buff and entertainers never use any action at all.
KDenelor wrote:
nikko11 wrote:
>I so rarely get to make a good comment, but here goes. I think this is working as intended for another reason. This makes the one buff a dancer/musician/entertainer >really needs a little easier to make. So it works out well for them, and well for doctors. I see no reason to change it either, as you not only hurt doctors, but hurt >entertainers a bit.
Good point. This is my most used pack.
HUH? one quickness buff and entertainers never use any action at all.
KDenelor wrote:
nikko11 wrote:
>I so rarely get to make a good comment, but here goes. I think this is working as intended for another reason. This makes the one buff a dancer/musician/entertainer >really needs a little easier to make. So it works out well for them, and well for doctors. I see no reason to change it either, as you not only hurt doctors, but hurt >entertainers a bit.
Good point. This is my most used pack.
HUH? one quickness buff and entertainers never use any action at all.
Exactly. There is no need at all to buff an entertainer's action or stamina. With a quickness buff the flourishes don't burn any action.