1200 fusings, no 6 link
|
Classic.
|
|
|
I once posted a suggestion: Add a vendor recipe that "locks" links, one at a time, with a fusing cost scalar to the number of links previously locked. When using a fusing orb, any result that would roll fewer links than the number of locked links would be ignored, so it wouldn't improve the odds of getting a 5L or 6L, it would only diminish the sense of dispair from failure, when the end result would be ruining an otherwise great item by going from, say, 5L to 3.
The first locking should be relatively cheap as a viable currency sink during character leveling, and then become more prohibitively expensive as the number of locks increases. The same mechanic could be applied to Jewelers (cap at 4S for obvious reasons, purpose imo is only for additional currency sinks, and normalizing item acquisition for mid level, build-centric gear while progressing a character. Not for end game godmod rolls), and Chromatics (cap at 2S, also for the same reason). These ideas wouldn't overstep the RNG as a necessity, nor would it diminish the sense of satisfaction of having won the lottery, so to speak. What it would do is diminish the sense of resentment from failed rolls... If you're willing to pay the price! Devolving Wilds Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” Last edited by CanHasPants#3515 on Dec 4, 2012, 2:45:19 PM
|
|
" I've said it before, but it bears re-reiterating. Messing with any of the psychological aspects of 6ling, will cause more 6ls to appear. They are not always the terrible horror stories of bash spending 2.5k fusings on his erqi for no 6l. I'm pretty against any changes to linking as it stands. There are both bigger issues, and no real issues with this as it stands |
|
|
My suggestion bears more significance than just 6Ling, it also helps to facilitate item development during progression. When you hit level 30-40, you start to need more specific links for appropriate dps, while at the same time need good rolls on defenses to stay alive. This is where the passive skill tree starts to fade out a bit and itemization becomes much more important. But at this stage, rerolling anything but maybe flask mods is an utter waste of time. 50 chroms so I still don't have that G-G-R combination to add reduced mana to my Lightning Arrow.. Ah screw it, I was going to toss the item in 5-10 levels anyways.
There's plenty of incentive to use orbs during progression, but they offer virtually no benefit in limited quantities because they're currently balanced around being an end game wealth sink. I don't think we should pretend the entire game is end game, there's the journey to get there, too.. Which is equally important because that's replayability right there. But this is all tangential to the main point: You say adding a safety net would remove the fear based inhibition to gamble for a 6L, I say it would still be just as hard, you'd just be spending even more currency (time) to first ensure that you don't break your omgmod item. It promotes more interaction with your collection of orbs, which is a good thing because right now I'm looking at them, and I can see them trying to flirt with me.. But what's the point? I don't play enough to get several hundred orbs all at once.. Am I destined to let them sit there until I find someone who wants to trade for them? Are you brave few the only ones who use all of the orbs I've collected? Devolving Wilds Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” Last edited by CanHasPants#3515 on Dec 4, 2012, 3:17:28 PM
|
|
|
I got a 6L str/int body armor drop last league after nearly a year of playing.
Once I got it I had no idea what to do with it since I've only ever planned on 4Ls and maybe a 5L if I ever felt like a build needed it. I remember the last time this came up most people said they put IIR/IIQ in the 5th or 6th slot. It's totally unneeded luxury gear and the game isn't balanced for it at all. Might be nice for PvP, but I'd rather drop thousands of fusings into hard-to-find uniques and/or gearing up a dozen new characters. |
|
" That verbal internal dialogue is what goes through everyone's mind, and is, from my perspective intended. As to progression pertaining to low level gear, even that would cause inflation of items. The thing that keeps people from wasting fuse/jewls etc on items is 75% fear / 25% truth, in retrospect, from both my experiences and my observations. If you can find a way to do this that doesn't indirectly hurt the "fear" aspect (I really wouldn't call it fear personally), I would love it, as I understand the pain there, but at the same time, I understand how this would affect the balancing of the game, 'specially late game. As to the entire game being balanced around end game time sink, well that's somewhat the point. This game is based off of the d2-esque experience |
|
|
I've been playing this game for awhile, I'm aware that 6 links are hard to get. The only reason I even bothered is because I had practically nothing else to dump my wealth into. It was either waste my currencies trying to 6 link an item or waste them on maps, or waste them trying to craft slightly better items which I don't really need anyway. I'm aware that all these things are currency sinks.
I didn't really expect to get one easily, I just wanted to see how many it would take. I'm still going to be dumping fusings into that chest anyway, either until I get a 6 link or until the wipe at open beta. I don't even have the mana regen to use a 6th gem, the only positive outcome that would result from a 6 link would be that I could roll 2g 2r 2b on my sockets and swap my chest between my 3 different characters without wasting chromatics every time I want to play a different character. What I did was save up 300 fusings every time before I broke my 5 link to try and 6 link, and then once I got my 5 link back I'd stop rolling and save up 300 fusings again, so I never lost my 5 link. I only need a 4 link for flicker strike anyway. I'm not angry, and I'm not complaining. I'm giving feedback. All I'm saying is that it's pretty dumb that people can potentially waste so much time and receive nothing. With other orbs, you'd generally get something after spending 1200 of them. Even if it isn't the mods you wanted, you'd still get some good items. Fusings (and jewellers too) just work differently, it doesn't make sense for them to be so random when there are so few outcomes. What I suggested in the OP wouldn't make them more common. Removing the low end and high end of RNG for fusing orbs wouldn't create more 6 links in the economy. Pretty much everyone who posted a 6 link has said that they used less then 250 fusings, if fusings worked how I suggested none of these people would even have one, except the few people who had one drop. You'd be guaranteed a 5 link before you could even try to get a 6 link, 99% of players wouldn't even bother. The current situation just seems kind of stupid to me. The other night I read in global chat that a guy had spent over 500 fusings and couldn't even get a 5 link. How does having this specific game mechanic be so random benefit anyone? How is it fun? Also, an item being 6 linked doesn't make it ''perfect'' or ''end game''. The actual mods on the item matters. Even if I 6 linked the chest I posted it wouldn't be a perfect item, and there are no perfect items in the current economy that I've seen, although there is a 1150 es chest that is pretty close. We already have maps and crafting as time sinks, both of these things are a lot more fun then rolling fusing orbs. I just don't see how having fusing orbs work the way they do benefits the game, or anyone. |
|
" Pretty much. 6th slot = MF or Cold Penetration/chaos dmg for PvP. The 5th link I consider mandatory for me though. That's my mana leech slot. Allows me to switch to diamond flasks. |
|
|
I know it is a tad tangential to the topic at hand, but I also feel the mid game needs a little bit of love, instead of being totally disregarded for end game balance. The same problems that exist mid game also permeate throughout the end game, at least to a slight degree. It all stems from itemization and RNG being the primary contributors to the character's identity, which is far too elitist for my liking. For comparison: See D2, where skills were entirely separate from itemization, and a character could find and maintain its identity throughout progression, even with shit items. Here, too many of a character's identifying features fall on itemization, and there exists too much reliance on luck to maintain what should be a constant. Even into the end game, before we even reach the point of vanity.
I find my suggestion to be a fair compromise, offering a solution that normalizes itemization enough to develop a character's RNG-centric identity, without impeding upon the necessity of the RNG for prolonged vanity-driven gameplay. If resultant inflation would imbalance the economy, I contend that it is only because a total disregard from midgame content has imbalanced it from the start. I can see this resulting in more people investing in rolling a 6L, and I can also see this inflating the value of orbs. I cannot see how this would lead to more 6L being made; only making it more expensive to try (as people would be rightfully using orbs for lesser means). If vanity is the motivating factor here, I can only foresee it becoming even more significant. Devolving Wilds
Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” |
|
" Any "Safety net" type mechanic with linking would create a psychological effect, basically making MORE people attempt the hurdle and succeed. It REALLY REALLY REALLY isn't as bad as many people THINK. THINKTHINKTHINK. Notice I am NOT in favor of the current system, I simply disagree with your fixes. I would like to see something implemented, but I would not like to see any guarantees. It simply destroys the psychological "fear" aspect of the linking game. Removing this fear alone would cause more 6ls because people who COULD make them, who WOULDN'T otherwise, would try for it, get them, gg. You all seem fixated on the worst case scenarios and hard numbers, rather then the fact that there's a variable that can't really be quantified, which is the psychological aspect of the "No safety net' |
|
