swils

Whoops.. put the wrong number. Time to retcon. Thormanil realizes he made a mistake and removes his name from #88, then signs again under #87. "Aye, Benji, meet Arx."

Oh, bother. Of course I get a break down here at the conference, but I left my "Arx's Personality" cheat sheet that I rolled back in Fairbanks.

Thormanil pokes his head into the Hall and, noticing that the quest board is filled with listings, strides over, Arx perched on his shoulder. Thormanil perused the listings, eventually settling on the first. "A simple investigation", he thought to himself, "this should be perfect." He looked at the tiny hatchling on his shoulder. "I don't wanna risk this li'l guy yet, not til I get a chance to know him first." As Thormanil signed his name under Quest #88, Arx puffed his chest and let out a snort, as if to say he believed he could handle conflict. Thormanil didn't seem to notice it; he was too busy seeing who else had signed up. "Mmm.. lotta names I don't recog--wait, Althior? Didn't I carry him back after that mess with the Ma'ari? I'd thought he was a goner..." Thormanil began to search around the Hall for the mage.

The classics are always a solid option to temper power creep: gold, consumables, and vendor-trash.

Sounds like a great chance for Thothy and Thormy to catch up on old times! I'll bring Thormy back to life in the Hall sometime this weekend. *If Thothwick is in the Hall. Haven't been keeping up on peoples' whereabouts lately

Before I raid Elphaba's wagon, does anyone have any gems they'd be willing to sell at a discount? Question is extended to players in the hall and on quests.

Sooo... Q80'ers... anyone want to grab me one of those tridents?

It was the day/night mechanic, mostly. While traveling, there was a chance we'd get attacked. This sounds like it'd be an interesting spin off of the idea.

Hopping back in is really tempting, but I've been holding out for Elphaba for this long, I'm gonna just wait it out. Plus, I'd rather get into a real quest and get a chance to bring Arx into the mix.

Thormy's in the market for gems, if you're selling low.

Balanced and fair artifacts are not part of the problem, I wholly agree. An artifact that grants a permanent buff and a permanent debuff is balanced, I'd also agree. But at the cost of an artifact slot and a mere 40 gold, the downside it was balanced with is removed from the equation. It's true, though, that the artifact slot has some fancy alternatives that you're passing up, Medal of Glory included, so the value of that slot is up for debate. I guess we could go in circles about it, though, so I'll let it be.

To be fair, JimB, you originally proposed that all the buffing consumables be removed from the marketplace on the basis that it was too easy to stack buffs. This still seems hypocritical to me given that you defend the existence and continued use of your permanent haste. The fact remains that if the price of any of the consumables, even just Nostrums, is increased, it will only serve to keep them out of the hands of anyone without a secondary income flow. Look at the currents quests. The average gold reward listed (not factoring in any dropped from battles) is about 200 per person. When there are plenty of instances where boss fights are balanced around having a buffed up party, it's unreasonable to say something like 'Well, you don't have to buy a Nostrum." Speaking as someone who has used nostrums/salts/meads regularly, and as someone who (if I switched classes) wouldn't be terribly affected by the price hike, I still think that a price hike is the wrong approach and doesn't solve any problems that can be attributed to the items.

But... that requires people to change their attitudes/play style. The last time I suggested such a hands-off approach, well, refer to previous post.

It's like I said before, I foresee a change coming (and judging by responses so far, there seems to be at least some call for it) and I want to influence a change in the right direction. The last time I came late to a discussion, gold income got backhanded because of a select few.

I'll refer you to Endgame's post just above about how he scales enemies based on buffs. The more I talk about this, the more my view changes to thinking this really would be a good direction. Removing them from the marketplace only serves to curb the supply. It's a band-aid at best and does nothing to change the problem of stacked consumables being exceedingly strong. It doesn't address the fact that there's no strategy behind choosing to buff up except the choice itself. You don't have to determine which buff is best suited for the occasion--they all are. Limiting the availability of consumables will only reduce the number of times we see those consumables used, not make for more interesting/strategic choices regarding their use. If I can attempt to make an analogy, it's like if you're playing League of Legends and you pick Karma. You've got a kit at your disposal and you've got your ultimate which, when used, powers up your next ability cast. Each boosted spell has its role to serve and when used properly can make for some powerful AND interesting plays. It's got a decent cooldown though, so you have to be smart about what you boost and when. The power of each is limited by the fact that they can't be boosted simultaneously. Cutting the supply of buffing consumables without doing anything to address stacking would be like giving Karma's ultimate the ability to boost all three spells, but increasing the cooldown to the point that you can only use it every 10 minutes. You've got all that power and utility and even though you can't use it very often, when you do, it makes things laughably easy. *Addendum: ...laughably easy, while removing all decision making from it. There's no longer a strategy behind which boosted spell to use, which is most appropriate for this situation (or which can make the most game-changing play).

*ABL=Above the Baseline *BBL=Below the Baseline See, but that's an example of what I'm talking about: You're balancing around buffs so that they're not buffs anymore, they're basically just the hero's stats. Buffs should make a fight easier, lowering the difficulty BBL. If the buff is then removed, difficulty goes back to baseline. The buff can be reapplied to go BBL again. If a negative effect is applied, the difficulty rises ABL, but that can be remedied to return to baseline. If, instead, an encounter is scaled to a party's maximum/buffed potential, then there is no way for them to drop the challenge BBL.

Ah, but a hero doesn't have to waste his consumables to make them a consideration and thus a problem for the QM. Simply having them available creates the possibility that a hero could trivialize any encounter, boss fights included. If the QM chooses to scale an enemy due to the possibility of a buff-stacked hero, then the buffed hero isn't rewarded for stacking, the other heroes are just punished for not stacking.

What does that do to address the actual concern, though? QMs will still have to face the possibility that for any given encounter (especially while we wait for stockpiles to wear out which could take a while), a hero could pop all their consumables and wipe the floor with non-compensated enemies, or the QM could proactively buff the enemies and heroes who don't/can't buff up would be at a serious disadvantage. By limiting buff-stacking, QM's can design encounters where everyone can useful without buffs, not feel like they're getting carried by the hero(es) who caused the enemy to have to be so strong in the first place.

Honestly, I don't see it as a problem. If I wanted to continue to take advantage of it, I'd ditch Arx, go back to Raider, laugh about the increased price of consumables, and continue to buy as needed (even if Nostrums weren't readily available). I could be a 'have'. I'm only proposing a solution because I foresee something changing here, and I don't want it to simply be 'jack the prices up' or 'limit availability'. Neither of those address the root issue at hand (as I perceive it) of the sheer power of stacked consumables. Okay, maybe I lied. I guess I do see it as a problem because I think it would be healthier for the game if consumable stacking were eliminated. Battles could be balanced around the party and heroes as they stand, with some tweaks for power or twists or what-have you. Consumables could then be used as (I believe) originally intended, a buff to tip the scales in the heroes' favor, not as a "If we don't use 'em, we're all going to die."

Jacking the prices up hurts classes who can't pull gold out of thin air (as always, this assumes that rogues don't start dividing their hauls). Limiting availability but not changing the mechanics doesn't do anything to address the issue of having to account for a literal superhero in any given battle. Plus there's plenty of heroes who already have enough stockpiled to keep the issue in play for plenty of quests to come. Limiting the effects available at any given time promotes strategy and decision making rather than "I'm going to pop all these potions and become a god for a day". QMs won't have to worry about their boss getting taken down by a single hero that can deal double damage, twice a turn, with very little chance of taking damage. The power gap between haves and have-nots in battle would be hugely reduced because enemies won't have to have huge defenses and HP pools and damage capabilities to pose a threat to a few heroes, while completely dominating/bullying out others in the party. Buffing up would still have a noticeable effect and be a significant power increase for any hero, so the items won't feel useless, you'll just have to pick and choose which particular advantage you want to use in a given scenario. Buffs aren't buffs if they're a requirement. Battles shouldn't be designed around a buff-stacked party. They have been, though, because that's what players are bringing to the table. Without creating impossibly hard challenges, buff-stacked heroes would be able to make a joke out of any quest now.

Transcended is restorative, so I'd put it under defensive. I know that the buffs were meant to be used in conjunction, but like many things, the times have changed. I doubt it was ever intended for some heroes to be almost constantly under the effect of all three (not to mention other effects), rather a rare scenario where a hero might dig deep into their pouch and really pull out the big guns for a really tough fight. Aye, I made note of that in my revised post. Some considerations would have to be made for roll-granted effects, but I'm not sure how to approach that.

Quite the opposite! Now you won't have to worry about Hero A taking two actions, each action requiring two rolls, and then calculating the doubled power of any successful attacks!

Slight revision to previous idea: Two positive effect slots: Offensive and Defensive. Each hero can only have one effect active in each slot. Effects from items would count towards filling each slot. As new effects are created/introduced, they should be classified as one or the other. Special consideration might have to be made for classes that have shield rolls that buff their party. Offensive: Mead, Salts, Nostrum Defensive: Wine, Ambrosia, Soma A squishy class might opt for Wine's doubled health as a cushion against attacks while a tank with higher SP might find the Ambrosia more useful. A beefy enemy with strong defenses would be a good target for a mead buffed hero, while a nostrum-buffed hero could keep the baddie with the nasty AoE special busy at less risk of rolling SD. In a horde type situation, salts would be the go-to choice for limiting free hits and an attrition battle might call for lots of Soma use to take some burden off of the healer's ether pool.

I guess I just don't understand how 'hero being permanently buffed with X effect' is somehow not part of the 'heroes are too easily able to buff up with positive effects' problem. Yes, sure, you had to give up an artifact slot to cancel the effect... but that's such a little cost. I don't think you should be able to trivialize the intended downside of your perma-Haste artifact so easily. I don't think anyone should. It's the balancing factor that the item was designed with. I'd argue that you shouldn't be able to immunize yourself against an inherent effect of an item you're carrying. I prefer the idea of limiting the number of positive effects a player can have, or perhaps some exclusion. Mead OR Soma: Extra damage or healing over time? Salts OR Nostrum: Two rolls or one reroll? Wine OR Ambrosia: Extra health or less damage taken?

@JimB, but you've immunized yourself to cursed, it's hardly a draw back (and being a rogue class, the cost of doing so was hardly prohibitive). The fact that it's a 'pretty rare type of artifact' isn't the issue. It grants permanent haste and that's exactly the issue you're trying to address in your suggestion. I've had a similar post ready to go since last night. I'm contemplating whether to just post it now or see how Sandy's feeling after giving it some more thought.