My Wishlist

[BAgate]

I've mentioned most of these in other places, but I thought I'd consolidate in one place. I know many of these ideas will be controversial, but I think they will all improve gameplay, increase replayability, and increase diversity (and most are fairly trivial from a programming perspective). I know crafting and 'hometown' are coming so I won't talk about them, other than to say I hope jewelry is included in the crafting remake.

1) Reforging - make the first 2 tries (even for legendary) only cost gold (would provide a gold sink and encourage reforging) and allow choosing of damage/armor as what to reforge

2) Rarity - categorically prevent the dropping of Epic and Legendary items in Normal and Trials 1-10 and Legendary items in Heroic and Trials 11-30. Save the good stuff for the harder areas and make the 'more glorious rewards' and such actually mean something.

3) Gems - RENAME THE PREMIUM CURRENCY. Too easy to confuse with gemstones.

4) Gemstones - have all gemstones dropped in normal be rough, in heroic 65/35 rough/common, and in legendary 20/70/10 rough/common/teardrop. This makes it worth playing higher difficulties when farming gemstones.

5) Unlocked Chests - have them drop 1 gemstone and 1 item, with the item having the same rarity chances (rare/epic/legendary) as a gemstone for the difficulty and a 10% chance of being set/named (exception for chests near start positions if desired). This way, they are actually worth getting.

6) Locked Chests - no preview, flat 200 gem opening price. Drop 2 gemstones and 1 item, with the item having the same rarity as unlocked chests, but always being set/named. Now people might actually spend gems on them.

7) Named items - make them for staves and pistols.

8) Mage Weapons - prohibit mages from using weapons other than staves. Not only is the aesthetic better (IMO), but keeping class weapons separate makes balancing damage between classes easier.

9) Changing Level - once changing monster level is allowed, let it be raised to whatever trial level equivalent desired. This would effect monster difficulty and experience/gold drops only.

10) HP Recovery - nerf LoH and boost life regen. Being able to fully replenish hp in 2 secs via attacking screws up gameplay as it means you only need enough life to avoid being 1-shot. Recovery should take longer. Would make potions more useful as well.

11) Minions - A) massive boost. Personally, I think they should contribute 10-20% of your damage and actually have decent survivability. In short, they should matter as something other than auras. B) boost their specials' damage. i.e. using them should matter. C) allow abilities you don't control to be turned off (people shouldn't be afraid to use Xagan because they don't like him scattering everyone).

12) Alacrity - needs to be inverted. Instead of a chance (increasing with AB) to reduce cooldowns with each attack, it should be a chance (decreasing with AB) to increase cooldowns with each attack. Make it a choice between more attacks and more specials. In other words, make us think and not just mash buttons.

13) Gauntlet - increase the reward so it is actually worth playing and give it its own leaderboard.

[Coldet]

While I don't agree with some of the points (especially the cost of opening chests) the one point you probably forgot was adding a log to trials to reflect the number of runs.
in fact I'd like to see it as: 200 completed/1200 failed runs.

Also the ability to set monster level could very well be allowed from Normal level 1 all the way through to Legendary.

[osoviejo]

...keeping class weapons separate makes balancing damage between classes easier.

I'm in agreement on much of your list, but don't understand this statement. Are you suggesting that the current "same maximum average damage for all weapons" approach be changed? What are the issues with balancing class damage today?

[BAgate]

Lets say the devs decide that because mages have ranged attacks they should do less damage (a paradigm most games follow but this one doesn't). How would you implement that? Currently the only way would be to change the damage of each skill (or mess with passive bonuses which isn't really the same thing). If each class used a unique weapon (or set of weapons) you just change the weapon damage and you're done. That seems easier to me. But if you don't mind controlling this through skills then it doesn't matter.

[BAgate]

While I don't agree with some of the points (especially the cost of opening chests) the one point you probably forgot was adding a log to trials to reflect the number of runs.
in fact I'd like to see it as: 200 completed/1200 failed runs.

Also the ability to set monster level could very well be allowed from Normal level 1 all the way through to Legendary.

I don't understand the comment on setting levels. Once you complete normal you can (under my proposal) play normal at any level 1 through trial infinity, but you have to wait until you finish heroic to change levels on heroic, etc. How would you do it?

And what would you set the price for chests at? It can't be to generous or it isn't fair (pay to win), but the current model is so lame no one uses it. I think 200 gems for 2 gemstones (so you get something no matter what) and a set/named item that (in legendary) has a 10% chance to be legendary strikes a nice balance. What do you think would be better?

And nice idea about logs.

[Eso]

200 gems for 2 gemstones and 10% chance in getting a leg set piece? My gosh, might as well just run trials a few times...

[Humus]

200 gems for 2 gemstones and 10% chance in getting a leg set piece? My gosh, might as well just run trials a few times...

At least that's better than what it is now...

[adjacentengels]

Lets say the devs decide that because mages have ranged attacks they should do less damage (a paradigm most games follow but this one doesn't). How would you implement that? Currently the only way would be to change the damage of each skill (or mess with passive bonuses which isn't really the same thing). If each class used a unique weapon (or set of weapons) you just change the weapon damage and you're done. That seems easier to me. But if you don't mind controlling this through skills then it doesn't matter.

But you never attack with just a weapon, you always attack with a skill (Lightning, Arcane, Frostbolt for mage; Scatter, Lethal, Explosive for BH, etc). So there is no reason to set the weapon damages to different scales for each class, just modify the % damage of the class skills and you're done. And the damage done by those standard attack skills are already lower for mages using this mechanic. So the weapon damage doesn't need to be different.

[BAgate]

But you never attack with just a weapon, you always attack with a skill (Lightning, Arcane, Frostbolt for mage; Scatter, Lethal, Explosive for BH, etc). So there is no reason to set the weapon damages to different scales for each class, just modify the % damage of the class skills and you're done. And the damage done by those standard attack skills are already lower for mages using this mechanic. So the weapon damage doesn't need to be different.

But every skill is based off weapon damage. So if you adjust by changing skills as you suggest you have to do it for each skill. It is, in my experience, always better to have to change something in one place rather than in 10. But this is a very minor point.

[Rytrik]

6) Locked Chests - no preview, flat 200 gem opening price. Drop 2 gemstones and 1 item, with the item having the same rarity as unlocked chests, but always being set/named. Now people might actually spend gems on them.

Ehh.... i like knowing what's in the box.

8) Mage Weapons - prohibit mages from using weapons other than staves. Not only is the aesthetic better (IMO), but keeping class weapons separate makes balancing damage between classes easier.

Except the aesthetic isn't better. Mages have always been able to use swords and maces across all RPGs. Both are completely in line with the character. As are shields to a degree (battle mage)

10) HP Recovery - nerf LoH and boost life regen. Being able to fully replenish hp in 2 secs via attacking screws up gameplay as it means you only need enough life to avoid being 1-shot. Recovery should take longer. Would make potions more useful as well.

Unless life regen is seriously improved, no. I've played enough games where i have to stand around and wait for my life to regen. LoH works here because it gets you back into action faster, and because things are timed. Having to wait for life to regen is a waste of time & LIFE, and isn't fun. I want to be in on the action, and stand toe to toe with enemies.

12) Alacrity - needs to be inverted. Instead of a chance (increasing with AB) to reduce cooldowns with each attack, it should be a chance (decreasing with AB) to increase cooldowns with each attack. Make it a choice between more attacks and more specials. In other words, make us think and not just mash buttons.

I am vehemently against this suggestion. It is always counter-intuitive to penalize your customers when they're attacking.
So what.. i have to stand around doing nothing and wait for my specials to cool down... or regular attack and never have specials available? That sounds like the least fun thing ever to do.

I really hope the developers do not listen to most of your suggesstions. Some are ok, but the ones i highlighted are really really bad.

[Rytrik]

Lets say the devs decide that because mages have ranged attacks they should do less damage (a paradigm most games follow but this one doesn't). How would you implement that? Currently the only way would be to change the damage of each skill (or mess with passive bonuses which isn't really the same thing). If each class used a unique weapon (or set of weapons) you just change the weapon damage and you're done. That seems easier to me. But if you don't mind controlling this through skills then it doesn't matter.

Err... mages in most games are glass cannons. They hit as hard as nuclear trucks (as they gain levels), but they crumple when a monster pokes them.

[BAgate]

Rytrik-

1) But do you know what is in the box? And even if you do, when was the last time you opened one? If the cost was modest enough, wouldn't you sometimes take a chance?

2) As for aesthetics, if mages whacked bad guys with the sword, I'd agree with you. But in this game they don't. Every attack is at distance. So yes, I think a staff looks better when compared to a guy holding a sword while throwing a fireball.

3) If you re-read, I do call for a boost to life regen, but that isn't really the issue. I think we will have to agree to disagree here, because what you consider 'getting back in the action faster' I consider lame no trade-off button mashing. Where is the strategy if you take a hit and then are instantly healed (which is pretty much the status quo)? I would prefer players either having to a) have reserves of life so they can take multiple hits and survive, or B) have to withdraw and either wait or use potions to heal. Introduce some stakes and not make the game just about surviving one-shots.

4) Again, we'll agree to disagree, but you appear to like the button mashing, all-attack all the time, no thinking or strategy, no trade-off, old school arcade game, while I prefer a thinking game where there are trade-offs (with either way being viable). If alacrity is as it is now, yes, you can do more things faster. Great, you can be a god. How is that fun? Add to attack speed and you increase damage, life regeneration and cool downs. Where's the downside? Under my plan, you would have a *gasp* choice to make. More attacks (and the life on hit) or step away (rely more on life regen) and use more specials. OPTIONS! DIFFERENCES! REPLAYABILITY! Not just the same thing over and over. And as to it being counter-intuitive to penalize attacking, have you met a reflecting monster yet? Besides, it isn't penalizing, it is introducing a choice. Just as having vitality on an item instead of power is a choice, not a penalty. To make the obvious comparison, I still play D2 to this day because thee are still builds I haven't run into the ground. In eternium, tell me how many viable builds are there? Answer, one, glass cannon, which can be mathematically optimized. If that is all there is, how long are people going to stay interested? There have already been posts about how even trying to use a shield is not viable because it isn't glass-cannony enough.

5) We've played different games. Yes, mages tend to be fragile, but since they attack at a distance (and so are 'safe') they usually get a penalty, either limited number of attacks (ammo/mana) or less damage. But this was only a hypothetical as I have no idea if the devs are happy with relative damage, I just think of it as good design practice.

[Faelyn]

BAgate, I respect your arguments, but a lot of what you're suggesting does not match the objectives of this game. I actually would agree with some of your arguments if it was for a different game with very a different design than this game... but

1 - We don't know what gears are in the box, but we do know what pieces are inside. With your suggestion, its pretty much a higher gamble with a lower price. Yes, lower prices could potentially be more enticing, but the bigger risk of not even knowing what piece of equipment is a turn off... unless all gears in the locked chests are of medium to top quality. Maybe a better option is just to lower the price to open chests because as it is now, opening them are out of the question.

2 - There really is no right of wrong answer here, just different opinions and preferences. For me personally, I think that swords are fine for mages. This is because it is commonly accepted that elves are a race proficient in magic, and most of them are either equipped with bows or swords. I do agree with the point that staves give a more classic mage feel though.

3 - What you say isn't wrong, but for this game in general I would be inclined to disagree due to two specific things. The first one is that would put mobile players at an even bigger disadvantage than they are already at now. Completing high trials and farmig exp are already noticeably different between pc and mobile. I would prefer not to have this incorporated in the mix. The second is how it would make the warrior class.. I kinda don't want to start on how much this will impact warriors.

4 - I think you're overlooking some things.. The way it is now is more beneficial to players. If you want a change here, other game designs need to change first. Designs such as only being able to only use 3 skills, diminishing returns on haste, and all characters themselves as well. Before revision on those three aspects, the options to be an auto attacker, caster, or a balance of both are stiff, especially if ability power is truly coming. And again, how will this affect warriors?.. Look, builds in this game actually have variety. The problem with only one being viable is because of the timer on trials.

5 - I don't think it should be called class penalties. It should be more like the strengths and weaknesses of each class. The weaknesses of mages in all games are generally the same. Low physical resistance is the most common as cd/mana is gone about differently in games. Damage from auto attack is gone about differently as well. Mages excel in magic, so if the game devs give them a magic aa, then their damage from it should not be 'penalized' for not being a spell. If a mage can cast a firestorm, then I'm sure he could make a simple fireball be very destructive. If devs, however, gave them a non magic aa, then things should be different. Anything is possible with creativity and imagination in a fantasy rpg game - it really just depends what the devs want.

Anyways man I understand and acknowledge you as my senior in this forum, and I am not trying to argue, but I think you might be overlooking a few things. Everything is easier said than done, especially when calling changes to game designs. Many aspects are connected, not alone, so tweaking one thing might escalate to needing to tweak others as in some examples I have given earlier. Giving one called change will also create room for others to call, maybe even demand changes. For example, devs followed your call to 'penalize' mage auto attacks. Well hey, I can say I want BH to be penalized as well because they already own the top LB but its the mage getting nerfed? Guns use gunpowder and ammo, no? I want BH to *insert idea for nerf*.

Then again, I know this is just your wishlist.. so don't take my opinions the wrong way. I am only trying to point out potential flaws in some of your ideology, so if anything, take this with an open mind.

[BAgate]

Faelyn, I don't take anything you said as bad. I started this thread hoping for discussion and you actually made points. So let me address out of order.

5) I don't get why this is the point most discussed. I didn't actually say mage damage should be nerfed (although I'd be ok with that), I said it would allow the devs to do that easier IF THEY WANTED TO. It is a matter of good game design to allow changes to be made in one place rather than 10. If devs are happy with balance, great, leave it.

4) Yes, the trial timer is the main problem with this game, but most of these suggestions are for making story mode viable. So, ignoring trials for the moment, thee was a post recently (can't remember by who, sorry) that did the math and found shield wielders couldn't even get higher toughness that dual wielders due to the massive synergies of attack speed and the trade offs it permits. So if trying to make a tank build can't make you tankier than a non tank build, then no, it isn't viable even without timers. But I'd love some more detail on the other viable builds (meaning by play style, not specific skills/items).

As for the warrior, again, different opinions, but I think being able to walk into a crowd and stay alive simply because you heal so much so quickly you are never in danger unless you are one shot isn't fun/challenging/whatever. There should be times when you have to withdraw because your life is getting low and you need to heal. I would consider that a feature, not a bug. Might this require buffing the warrior's passive bonus, yes.

As to unintended effects, could you please elaborate? Yes, what I am proposing would weaken characters (that is sort of the point). But why does restriction to 3 specials, diminishing returns to haste and 'all characters themselves' (and I don't know what this means) need to be addressed first?

And I won't comment on mobile play since I don't play it that way.

[Faelyn]

5 - I think it seems that way because the explanations were longer lol, but things are pretty balanced the way it is now so I think we should just leave this. With the way things are, mages take a huge hit should their weapon damage get nerfed.

4 - Alright, let's ignore trials and focus on story.

Assuming that the person who made the post is true, then it's just a design that could be improved on, unless we go by something like 'the best defence is a good offense'. Your point that it is silly having shield warriors lose in toughness to DW warriors is very agreeable, but that does not necessarily mean that it's not viable. I'm sorry but, 'So if trying to make a tank build can't make you tankier than a non tank build, then no, it isn't viable even without timers' is really bad logic. I can use this and say 'if dps warriors lose to dps mage and bh, then there is no point playing warriors'. The use of 'viability' usually comes to play under a competitive environment, which story mode is not. Unless changes are made to story mode increasing difficulty(which I am not against) first, everything is 'viable' in said story mode. Playstyles minus skills and items? Simple, 3. Mage(caster), BH(kiter), and warrior(fighter). Yeah that's not a lot, but by your definition, the problem lies in classes and not playstyle.


What I meant in my earlier post is not unintended effects. It's more like collateral effects. I don't need to elaborate too much as you have already mentioned something like that in 'Might this require buffing the warrior's passive bonus, yes'. Your own statement is already a testament for changes needed to 'all characters themselves' if designs changed to what you suggested. I guess better words to express this would be that character designs need to be reworked should devs follow your idea to invert alacrity. If spell cooldowns are to be penalised by auto attacking, then wouldn't it be more efficient to focus only on either casting or auto attacking? This theory would further be supported by the coming release of ability power.

Your suggestion would crash with a lot of the current designs. BH passives are pretty much for auto attacking. With the speed they attack, your cooldowns will be through the roof.. so good bye to assault6. Stalker2 and 4 emphasize auto attacking as well so what happens BH spells? Warriors would pick auto attacking over casting as well due to them needing to be in the fray attacking monsters, thus take the most damage out of all classes. This in return would require them to heal more, but that comes from auto attacking. Spellcasting will also be something that warriors can only dream of, no? Then we have mages who have emphasis on casting, which means auto attacking is not recommended for mage.. so what? Run until cooldowns are off? Good bye mage leaderboards because bosses.

Having only 3 spells at 15+ second cooldown to be able to be casted at one time really limits the definition of a caster. Having diminishing returns on haste, which I don't think will be put on the future ability power, would penalise warriors and bh even further for auto attacks when they have already given up spellcasting. Mages would not have to choose between haste or power, only AP. Warrior and BH would still need to, with one getting hit hard by diminishing returns, and even a cap. The problem is that they still need to stack both, while mages only need to stack one. It wouldn't be as big of a problem if the diminishing returns on haste were lowered. It is fine as it is now as all classes are affected the same way, but not if it was only one or two being affected.