Youngone31 wrote: Following this logic, I could design the entire mastercrafted weapon range using just 3 weapons. A 1 handed cruching weapon with str/sta/agi/wis/int, a 1 handed piercer with str/sta/agi/wis/int and a 2 handed crusher with str/sta/agi/wis/int. Every class has a weapon they want, with stats that they need. They also have a weapon with a large number of stats that are useless for them, or near useless, much like str is for a casting fury, or int for a melee warden. The idea of mastercrafted is not to make as few weapons as possible that fill as many roles as possible, but to seperate and define as many roles as we can within the game that are realitvly prominint and popular for a playstyle (ie, it is not worth desinging weapons for a tank spec'd mage). It is then the role of mastercrafted weapons to provide weapons with stats specifically desinged around said defined roles, without wasting any "itemisation points" that mastercrafted weapons are allocated. At least, that is the way I have always viewed mastercrafted gear in general, and to me, is the major reason for their being more than 1 set of plate armour, chain armour etc.
Noaani wrote: I agree! Because Mastercrafted can be obtained "on-demand" (as long as you have the rare and the right class with the right advanced book is available) vs through the capriciousness of a loot drop, it should be something that allows a choice for what is "right" for that character rather than taking just what you happen to get.
Rijacki wrote: This is very correct in many ways, however...this same logic can be applied to obtaining a rare needed for the weapon. So you still have to rely on the RNG for the rare. Granted T8 metal is very easy to come by, however that is not the case through all tiers. If you don't harvest you have to rely on the broker to obtain that rare, that may be severely over priced. IMO, most people would just rather adventure, gain exp, and cross their fingers the weapon they want drops. It's far less painless, and less of a burden on the coin pouch. However, thats a different discussion for a different thread... Anyways...determining the best way to go with weapons based of the clas you play is not really a good idea IMO. Since there are so many builds available to the player, it's hard to determine what is actually needed. If weapons were split in to two categories of Melee and Caster as was a suggestion I made a couple pages back, then it may be easier to generalize how the build of the weapon should go to benefit all play types. Only thing is, there would not be as many Caster based weapons as there would be melee type. The reason? Well...these are weapons, they are supposed to be used on your opponent, not just to be wielded in your hand as you sit there 10 meter's back casting off Heals or Nukes. So lets say for melee builds you have 4 slash weapons to choose from: One has STR/AGI/STA One has STR/STA/INT One has STR/STA/WIS One has STA/STR/AGI I listed this in order of importance. On 3 of the weapons you have STR as the primary stat. Everyone should know that STR is the primary focus in melee combat, so you can never have enough STR. The second and third stat are what will help define the weapon based off playstyle. I feel a three stat system will help in defining the weapons importance to the player without overpowering it. The primary stat would get the majority of the points, while the second and third are even across the board. Now lets look at a possible scenario for caster built slash weapons: One has INT/STA/AGI One has WIS/STA/AGI One has INT/STA/WIS So a caster has 3 different types to choose from depending on play style. Granted not many casters will use Slash weapons, other than Druids or Bards but you get the idea I hope. Do those suggestions above cover all different playstyles? No...however it should help give an idea on the direction that is needed in order to help crafted weapons be a viable choice when entering a new tier. Unfortunately, stats are only a small portion of what should be looked at...
This is the reason why I said earlier that there are just too many classes to design weapons for. There is no way to make everyone happy. I hate saying this but classes have to be grouped together in order to make a reasonable amount of weapons. This person wants a slashing weapon with str to melee with and a blunt weapon with int to cast with. That person wants to cast with an int slashing weapon and melee with a str blunt weapon. They are the same class but they are played differently. Most people want to keep all of their melee skills max for the one day they find that uber weapon. I am pretty sure that most people here remember the paladin mace that dropped in hate from the first EQ. People looked at it and were like "I have no skill to use this thing." We are going to end up with a thousand weapons trying to tailor make a weapon for each class according to each person's play style. I am not trying to reduce the amount of weapons we have now but there is no reason to make a weapon that one person out of a hundred is going to use. Looking at some of the previous posts, people want to make 20 different weapons for one class to use just to cover every type of situation that can be encountered. Classes do not need that many weapons nor would anyone attempt to carry that many weapons.
Noaani wrote: My mistake was my wording, in making it a challenge like if you could come up with a flaw then my point would be nullified. I incorrectly assumed people who wanted to weigh on this subject would go read what has already been said on the subject. This was my third time trying to spur the "play styles" conversation, and I was more terse than I would have been had this thread been my first post on the subject. I am quite happy to see that there are many now weighing in on the "play styles" discussion, as a discussion of such was my ultimate goal all along. I think that has to happen very first, and then a plan can be formulated based on what seems the best place to start from. And just so people are clear about my thinking with my little list, weapons with two stats allow those stats to be higher and that makes the weapon more noticeably beneficial for the few stats you're trying to hike up. I've read through every reply in this thread, and I still think my simple list covers the bases that people have brought up. It may take a bit of a shift in thinking to get anyone to agree with me, but that shift in thinking is simply that focusing weapons on the stats that help someone do DPS (or in the couple exceptions when you just don't care about DPS, such as pure tanking or mage survivability, focus on defense) then you have a simpler system that is more in reach for Domino to actually implement. Weapons are just that, they are weapons, so it seems like a nice idea to have the lineup of weapons focused on helping you keel shiz. Based on the person's reply about furies probably wanting more INT than WIS I'd now switch the Caster Priest to be INT/WIS, as that was one I waffled on from the first. This helped solidify my idea behind the thought that weapons should focus on being weapons, which I wasn't able to say in so many words until now.
Noaani wrote: As to this point in particular, can you honestly tell me that an SK wouldn't like a weapon with STR/INT on it? That this wouldn't, in fact, be the top choice for an SK?
Rashaak wrote: You're loading the question. No matter what role the SK is in, I have a pair of stats that they'll want in my lineup. But putting roles aside, SKs will almost universally say that STR & INT are the two most important stats for their class. If an SK is highly focused on tanking, then STA may supplant one of those two, but that's debatable. Most of the time STA will take third place to STR & INT, even for tank-focused SKs (raid tanking is, obviously, outside the scope here). So how did I completely miss crusaders? That's the real question.
Youngone31 wrote: It aren't as many weapons as you think. We are talking for around 60 weapons for 26 relevant wighted stat combination here, as I posted in an earlier post. That would be between 15 to 20 double handed weapons an the rest would be one handed weapons. Currently we have some 50 weapons to choose from, so this would not increase the number of available weapons by to much. Most are fine as they are, stat distribution wise. There are only a few small gaps to fill.
sliderhouserules wrote: Actually the role of the class is quite valid in your arguement on playstyles. Depending on the role the player chooses will determine the importance of stats. If an SK is going to solo a lot, then more emphasis will be placed on AGI/INT with STA or STR as a secondary priority. If an SK is going to group MT with 1h and shield, they will most likely go with STA/STR with INT secondary. If the SK is going to go with a 2h and group MT, then INT/STR is more important, with STA secondary. If an SK is going to Off-Tank with 1h and shield, they may go with WIS/STR with INT secondary. If the SK is going to Off-tank with 2h, then they'll go with STA/STR with WIS secondary. If the SK is going to MA in a raid, they may go with INT/WIS with STA secondary with a 2h. If an SK is going to DPS, STR/INT will be primary with AGI secondary. There are so many different combinations depending on playstyle, that its hard to say what a person would perfer. While on your server, the majority may say STA/INT is important for this class, and WIS/AGI is important for this class. That may not be the case everywhere. The weapons can't be made to be playstyle specific, nor can they be made to be class specific. With 24 class's, 5 different sub-class AP tree lines, and 3 different class AP tree lines to choose from, the possibilities of build variations is practically endless! Your suggestion of two stat weapons will not work for the many (as you suggest) only the few. Especially if your suggesting multiple recipes of the same weapon with different stat variations. If not, then how do you determine what weapons fit what role better to give them those two stats? Currently in Tier 8 there are 46 different weapons that can be made by either the Weaponsmith or the Woodworker. With 24 class's that can perform minimuly 2 different roles in-game thats less than 1 weapon per class role. Technically if you take Fist weapons and cudgels out (since they are monk/bruiser) only. You are stuck with 40. So...what weapons get tailor made towards you playstyle set up? With that...you have 24 weapons now tailored towards one particular play style for each class, which leave 16 weapons undefined. So where do those 16 weapons fit in? The point I'm making is while it may seem logical to gear weapons dependent on playstyle, it doesn't work. The many variations per class role will end up limiting players on how they play their toon, which means they will not use crafted weapons, because they try to define the role of the class rather than letting the player define the role.
I think this is starting to derail ;/ Firstly I will gaurentee you there is not one person/player/developer that knows all the stats and play styles of all 24 classes... No, Combineing the Classes into its counterpart is not a solution .. This Itemization View point has been butchering shadowknights and paladines in itemization in gear for a very long time now ... Also think this thread was started on Tradeskiller vs Adventurer Ideals for Weapons stats.. This is not something that is going to prove to have any decent feedback. Only the people useing the items for thier classes is going to know why and whats best and what they look for.. A tradeskiller is not going to tell the adventurer what weapon to get .. Truthfully I'm not expecting much, I think this is pretty much the last straw for many as well with the trade.. Unlike Armor, theres not this huge gap space to fill with weapons... People are clearly going KoS Fabled > EoF legendary > RoK Legendary in weapon Progression ... The only spot to hope for with This crafted revamp is to have it. KoS Fabled > EoF legendary > RoK MC weapon > RoK legendary ... and again that Gap is realy not there. Its real close in all perspectives ... That said.. Weapon wise... For shadowknights (I don't know any other classes to give decent feedback for) STR/STA/INT/AGI is our stats needed... The problem stat SK's have is AGI .. For each AGI item a shadowknight has.. Its nearly Void of INT. Hence the more AGI the SK has, the Less INT he has due to these two stats are nearly never put together unless in extremely rare cases ... AKA an Item with every stat on it. Types of weapons: 2 hander Slash/crush 1 hander Slash/crush Delays/DMG 2 handers: 4.0 - 6.0 / 110 - 120 Dmg Ratio Its a little low, but SK's are Confined to one weapon.. We do not dual Wield.. the dmg ratio keeps it under the more popular RoK legendary, that people already have and ofcourse under the epic. Going lower for this Expansion.. would just put the weapons to vendor fodder. 1 handers: 4.0 - 6.0 / 80 - 100 DMG Ratio Introduced in RoK was a slew of Long Delay 1 handers.. This actually coincides with SK's Quite well.. Why? Due to we need time to cast inbetween hits.. Unlike other classes, when we cast a spell our melee is on pause hence we loose out on more hits then a normal melee class. 4.0 delay weapons has been a good area for use to time our DPS more. Esp with alot of haste in game, The higher Delay actually helps us.. But A delay that is realy to high is also hurting as well. Still personally I believe 2handers should always due more damage then 1handers by core design.. 1handers have the added benifit to add a shield to up stats and defense. Sought out Extras for Sk's.. Threat Procs Dot/DD Procs Double attack Melee Crit Attack Speed Spell Damage Our procs as well, realy need to be spell based.. we only have 5 Combat arts altogether and are not near being used enough to justify a Proc rate.. This is also why we are not looking for CA dmg increases by itself...
You guys seem to be purposely over-complexifying the issue, and I'm not sure why. Domino has already said very clearly that she doesn't want to try to cater to all the diverse things the players will want. Keep things simple and she'll actually be able to make it happen. To say that a single person could never understand game mechanics enough to help identify major play styles, or the stats that benefit individual classes most, is ludicrous. It. Is. Not. That. Hard. We know what STR does, we know what INT does, etc. We know what stats help warriors, we know what stats help hybrids, etc. We can easily say that a simple representation of the way people play is either focus on killing stuff or focus on surviving, with a small mix where you want a little bit of both. Why is that not a valid way to approach this? Weapons are weapons, let's focus on making them more effective weapons. Your weapon either helps you kill stuff, or in the few cases when surviving is more important, it helps you survive. My stat choices may be debatable, but they don't even need to be looked at if you don't agree with the above. And I'd like cogent explanations as to why you don't agree with the above if you don't, not the dismissive retorts you're giving me. We either work together to make something good happen here, or we don't. It is in your best interest to convince not only me, but any that come along and have anything close to similar thinking as I do. You either join my bandwagon, I join your's, or we splinter and get nothing accomplished. [edit- Or find a compromise, which I've tried to be clear from the start I'm open to.]
sliderhouserules wrote: They are Simplified now, The game has changed since then. we are trying to make them more effective. provideing Playstyle feedback is productive other wise just raise the numbers and hope they are used. .. Edit.. this erked me .. Cause its fundamentaly wrong... a Stat from one class does not mean the same effect as another.. Its not clearly Spelled out to you about other classes, unless you actually do the work on learning it.. AKA. You would think a ranger would go for STR only and careless about AGI .. Because all AGI to an sk is a "nerfed"(yah added pun) Avoidence Rateing.. but i would be wrong. AGI is more then just avoidence to a ranger... INT to an SK is more then just Spell Damage as well as STR is more then just Melee Damage.. STR actually raises the Sk's Mana Pool.. As well as INT now since combat change was put in.. Before it was WIS .. I'm sorry you choosed Crusaders to make an argument on ..But the only thing we share is STR and STA .. Everything else is night and day.. might as well stick a warden and a wizard in the same group title... you'd actually see the same mess
Istar@Mistmoore wrote: My claiming to know what each stat does for each class is fundamentally wrong? I didn't make any other claims than that. Seriously, it isn't that hard. I can easily tell you what every stat does for every class. I'm sure many others can as well. The real question here is how far do we go to try to cater to all the different stat combinations that are *desirable*. There are many combinations that are *desirable* but aren't *applicable* if we decide that focusing weapons in certain ways is a good thing. Then *applicable* becomes the driving force. Istar@Mistmoore wrote: The only thing this shows is that you don't know much about Paladins, IMO. Nearly half the pally ability tree is comprised of spells, which directly benefit from INT. The *only* major difference between SK and Paladin in regards to stats, is where the 1/4 of our power pool is derived from. This is insignificant in the context of making weapons better weapons. Bards are in the same boat, and therefore it is completely appropriate to lump all four into the Hybrid designation, as we all have the same desires in these regards. Also, any scout that wants to boost their proc/poison damage also shares in these desires. We want STR and we want INT, because these two stats directly benefit our DPS. We may want other stats for other reasons, sure. But I'm purposely saying leave that out of the equation, because it helps make the realm of applicable and desirable weapons a simpler thing to realize. You can make this same claim for every play style I defined. Do I really need to do that so you all can see where I'm coming from? I've made a lot of these arguments and explanations in my previous posts.
sliderhouserules wrote: No I do not agree with you.. Furthermore this is not the thread to pro long this.. And especially to derial it further from its purpose.
Istar@Mistmoore wrote: You don't agree with what? That Paladins like INT? This thread is to talk about desirable stats for weapons. How am I derailing it?
sliderhouserules wrote: If said SK was in a group as DPS, was tanking for a group that had 2 healers, was tanking for a group that had a 'good' raid spec'd healer, was tanking for a group with 1 healer and a chanter, then yes, the str/int weapon would the the top choice for them. In any of the above situations, surivability is not much of an issue for the SK, DPS/aggro are. Since SKs get about half of their DPS from spells (a little more than that usually), then the int on the weapon is invaluable to them in such a situation. However, such situations are likely to be few and far between for the mastercrafted equipped SK, as they are more likely than not to be relying on pick up groups. As such, they need a weapon in the mastercrafted range that is desinged for what they would need said mastercrafted weapon for. This weapon would be a 1 hander with str/int/sta on it.
At the mastercrafted level for my SK a focused Sta/Int weapon would be what I would go for (because all the other gear gives the str etc as secondarys).
sliderhouserules wrote: True, she did say that. However, the example she gave was that of a tanking spec illusionists. To me, anything more common than that should be represented in the mastercrafted weapon range. There are currently 46 mastercrafted weapons in T8, and if they were filling every classes needs, we simply would not need to be having this conversation. The list in my earlier post in this thread had 55, and fills most needs people will want, and those very few needs that it does not fill are given a very close and equially desireable weapon to fulfill that roll.
