[.98][GAMEPLAY] Rings / Amulets / Packs

from Elemental Forums

I wouldn't be surprised if they have already decided on some major rebalancing, but here's my 2 cents....

1:  I can understand why heroes get to carry lots of amulets & rings, at least if you have lots of pockets and get creative about all the places you can wear rings (that's earrings -- get you mind out of the gutter).

2:  But multiple packs seen inintuitive -- too large, heavy, etc.  Why not limit each hero to just one?  Then, since they wouldn't be stacked/abused like rings & amulets, they could remain pretty powerful for the price without being too much of an exploit.

3:  Also, since amulets are (currently) a bit more valuable than rings, why not have them cost a bit more (in the item shop that is, they already cost more in unit design).

4:  But, wouldn't it be better to have rings (or at least some of them) better and more expensive than rings ???  After all, there's precedent.  Lord of the Rings wasn't about the Amulet of Power   :)

2,849 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

I think we'd be better off limiting to two rings, 1 amulet, 1 pack for both heroes and built units.

Together with either 2 handed weapon or shield AND arm-bands.

Some kind of simplified paper-doll model might be required.

I see no reason for rings to be superior to amulets.  LotR isn't the only fantasy source.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting _Scooter_, reply 1
I think we'd be better off limiting to two rings..
End of _Scooter_'s quote

Why? I always wondered why fantasy games make it so that you can only wear two rings. I had ten fingers last time I checked, and I can fit multiple rings on the same finger...

A better way would be to limit the use of magical rings based on essence or something. For example, if the character doesnt have very strong magical ability it is unlikely he/she could handle so many magical rings at once. Or just increase the wearable ring slots by level.  Or just make rings weaker so wearing a bunch doesnt really matter.  Just some ideas....I personally LIKE being able to wear as many rings as possible. If I were really there I would have rings on all fingers, toes, and slung on a necklace! :)

;)

Sara

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

I agree with Sara here.. ten fingers ten rings is not to much.. I also support multiple amulets.. packs, cloaks, and boots not so much.. I can deal with what ever mechanic we end with but the multiple ring thing i like...

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

The packs is a bug reading from one of frogboys posts, though can't remember which, so i guess the next release we'll only be able to do one of those

Besides... many rings arn't that OP.  Think of the forces you could have created with that 800gold, your sacrificing building a small army with multiple attacks per turn for a 3ish increase to your personal attack.  In multiplayer, i can guess who would win a battle ^^

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

another thought.. I am not against only one ring of type I posted this in another ring discussion thread..(some where heh), essentially allow us many rings but only get benefit of one of type, then make more rings like ring of +1 fire damage and so on to add more variety while applying a minor sanity check... however I can live with out this heh heh.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

4-10 rings (w/e) ... 1-2 amulets, 1 pack

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

Why two rings?

Gameplay, balance, and clutter reduction.

Most of the abilities for a hero should come from their stats, not from magic items.

You shouldn't just be able to boost a hero to endless heights by weighing them down with basic level magic items.  If you want a bigger boost, you should have to research a magic tech that lets you get a superior item.

Otherwise, all you ever need is 1-2 basic magic techs, and you can get all the magic items you need.

Where is the incentive for pursuing powerful artifacts, if I can just get the same effect by stacking up minor ones?

Its also more interesting to think about what kinds of stat boosts I want from magic items if I only have a few limited slots, rather than if I can just wear everything I can afford.  Make me think about which magic items I'm going to use, rather than just using "all of them".

There's also much more of a balance risk if some item happens to be too powerful; suppose I get a bow, and then just stack up on ridiculous numbers of attack and combat speed items, which together let me assassinate your entire army on the first turn of combat.

Plus, the item UI is already messy enough (only displaying half a dozen items at a time, having to manually scroll through this tiny screen to be able to select/equip items).   Letting heroes have 15+ items would lead to horrible clutter.

* * *

Basically, think of all the reasons that Dungeons & Dragons has, since forever, prevented you from having more than two rings at once.  They all still apply.

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

I agree entirely with Scooter's post. :thumbsup:  Frogboy, what do you think? :wc:

Best regards,
Steven.