I was wondering if the increase on FA weapon's DPS vs. that of a SA weapon w/ 3 crystals has been acknowledged as a bug or if it is working as intended? For those of you that don't know, there was a pretty significant DPS difference between First Age weapons and Second Age weapons (just as there is a big difference between Third age and Second age), but when you max out the crystals on each, that gap drastically decreases, making the crystals much more potent on the Second Age weapons vs. the First Age weapons.
I am not sure if this was supposed to be like this, which I can't imagine why, except for the fact that they wanted to lessen the difference between those that do the hardest content the game has to offer and those that don't.
This is not a discussion on should raiders deserve to get better items than those that don't, I have a strong opinion on that already, and I hope I didn't push that through my above questions and comments (too much).
Sorry to inform you but its WAI. it all comes down to the purpose of the crystals. Whether Turbine admits it or not (not sure if they have) but its their way of giving 'first ages' to everyone who wants one AND to drive more store purchases. The whole point of this last update was to generate store sales by putting a really 'hot' item in the store. Now you'll get some who give you a long explanation of the mechanics of the differences in tiers and some such things with LIs etc and that's why there's the big difference between the bump of 2A and 1A. That's all well and good but the actual purpose of it is what I outlined above.
I don't know if its been publically acknowledged as works as intended, but if you look at the items, you can see that each star-lit crystal raises the iLvl by 1. This marginal difference is because L75 FAs are already something like ilvl 80 without star-lits. The further you push them the less benefit they can have because we can't allow them to still be obscenely powerful when the level cap raises.
Compare a L65 FA with 3 crystals to some L66-70 3As to get some idea of why.
Clearly they are works as intended as far as marginal utility on First Ages, the only question is, will they ever be made to work with Burg Bags and Champ runes? And if so to what utility? (because we have almost nothing on the rune affected by iLvl)
What the heck are you two on about? Enough with acronyms, just type the entire word out if you please so those of us who can't keep up with them can join in on the conversation as well
Something to do with Star-lit Crystals I think, but I can't be sure
What the heck are you two on about? Enough with acronyms, just type the entire word out if you please so those of us who can't keep up with them can join in on the conversation as well
Something to do with Star-lit Crystals I think, but I can't be sure
It would be nice if people stuck to the convention of spelling out the acronym the first time it is used: e g. First Age (FA) and they use the acronym in subsequent references in a post or thread. I even have trouble with abbreviations of skills my own characters use frequently until I am reminded.
Or do what always do: Ask, what is FA? No one will think less of you and many will silently thank you.
My personal opinion only which has no inside information is that it is WAI.
If the FA were bumped as much there would be no reason to decon you 75 FA LI until you found a 85 FA.
Most folks I know are already planning on running with the maxed out SA lvl 75 items until they reach the new cap. I mean why spend TP and the new SoE and SoD on a item you know you are going to trash as soon as you find a 2nd age 85 item?
Right now my minny is still using a 7 major lvl 65 SA weapon. It is just not worth losing the legacies for the small improvement on on a lvl 75 weapon. Add a couple of Crystals and it is very good weapon. I am sure I will change it at 85 as it will start becoming too weak then.
So once more personal opinion is it is WAI.
BTW, I had to ask all the questions about WAI, FA, etc. when I joined this forum. This was my first MMO and I had to learn the language.
Everything that can be game breaking has diminishing returns.
If crystals had the same effect on FA weaponry as SA or TA, the existing content would become pointless. Folks could lose interest in playing if there are no challenges, and therefore no fun.
The interesting development is the disposable item with Rohan that grants a seventh legacy, which there wouldn't be points to rank up on a TA or SA. Now you have to plan your items a bit more, seventh on a first age, crystals on a SA.
The question I have is will we get Greater Star-lit Crystals come 85, of Worn Star-lit Crystals? While the existing GSoEs and Delving do 65-75, it'll be odd if the "regular" version of Crystals cover a level range ten higher.
"Sometimes survival comes down to not being hit. Actually, most times." -the chicken skill, Bob and Weave
Enough with acronyms, just type the entire word out if you please so those of us who can't keep up with them can join in on the conversation as well
Exactly! It's even worse for someone who is not native english speaker... But even when I usually understand what people are talking about, acronyms and abbreviations are irritating... For some reason I always imagine someone who is talking like "C, ur FA's beter then ur SA m8" (spelling errors intended) as a teenager with too big pants and bad posture
For all those teenagers with fitting pants, no offence meant, even if you use acronyms :-b
Exactly! It's even worse for someone who is not native english speaker... But even when I usually understand what people are talking about, acronyms and abbreviations are irritating... For some reason I always imagine someone who is talking like "C, ur FA's beter then ur SA m8" (spelling errors intended) as a teenager with too big pants and bad posture
For all those teenagers with fitting pants, no offence meant, even if you use acronyms :-b
For the Americans, and I presume there are similar publications elsewhere, using the writing style from Scientific American would be useful. Define a term the first time you use it--e.g. Second Age (2A, SA)--and after that use the abbreviation. Anyone who can't remember it can go back to look for the reference.
Alternatively, there is probably a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) somewhere with a list of common abbreviations, though some (like FAQ) are assumed to be *so* common that they don't need to be given explicitly any more. The trick is knowing which have that degree of familiarity and which don't. People deeply steeped in game mechanics tend to overestimate which abbreviations fall into the "too familiar to expand" category.
If crystals had the same effect on FA weaponry as SA or TA
Interestingly enough, they DO have the very same effect on a first age weapon they have on a second age weapon.
The effect being that the effective level of the weapon is raised by one per crystal you apply.
Now, you say 'but the DPS difference is much smaller on a first age!'. True, but that is already the case without any crystals applied. The DPS spread from rank 1 to rank 7 is way smaller than for third and second agers and it just stays that way when crystals are applied. That's really all there is to it.
Interestingly enough, they DO have the very same effect on a first age weapon they have on a second age weapon.
The effect being that the effective level of the weapon is raised by one per crystal you apply.
Eeep! Careful, I believe you just stepped in to an issue of semantics. Or more specifically, an issue with the meaning of the word "effect", which usually refers to the change that results as a consequence of something.
The crystals technically change the same underlying mechanic, but the consequence is dramatically different on FAs than others (namely less DPS increase)--which as I stated, is to be expected given the diminishing returns exhibited in most things in the game.
I only clarify this because the question of the thread is if it's a bug or not, and suggesting they might "have the very same effect" would lead others to believe it's a bug when they clearly provide different results.
"Sometimes survival comes down to not being hit. Actually, most times." -the chicken skill, Bob and Weave
I think for those who purchased them in the store there should be a paid scroll to upgrade the crystal's max target by 10 more levels, etc. They are already account bound. Otherwise, yes it is a waste of money or in my case was a waste of money speant if we cannot upgrade or even deconstruct them.
I think for those who purchased them in the store there should be a paid scroll to upgrade the crystal's max target by 10 more levels, etc. They are already account bound. Otherwise, yes it is a waste of money or in my case was a waste of money speant if we cannot upgrade or even deconstruct them.
Store star-lits are NOT level gated. Keep them for later use if you like.
It's an old programming meme. Goes with the definition of "buzz word".... Someone at the front of the room giving a lecture using an new term and a buzz goes around the room as each person turns to his neighbor and asks, "What does THAT mean?"
There used to be lists in mock assembly language instructions (and lots of the op codes are TLAs...e.g. "MVC" for MoVe Characters). Things like:
HCF Halt and Catch Fire
BST Backspace and Stretch Tape
The ones I purchased in the store said maxium target level 75. Althoiugh I did not notice that until today when I looked in the store.
Are you looking at the tooltip in the store or item you purchased? The store tool-tip is for comparison but the actual item wasn't at least on BR. Store items have never been level-tiered before.
Are you looking at the tooltip in the store or item you purchased? The store tool-tip is for comparison but the actual item wasn't at least on BR. Store items have never been level-tiered before.
Yeah I looked at the store tooltip after I made the purchase. I think you're right, I recall receiving the crystals and there was no level limit on them. The main point here is that I purchased them in the store thinking that we could use them later on and that they could be unsloted, etc. I hope that is the case. I have not tested that yet. If it is not the case, I hope that it will be. :-)
Yeah I looked at the store tooltip after I made the purchase. I think you're right, I recall receiving the crystals and there was no level limit on them. The main point here is that I purchased them in the store thinking that we could use them later on and that they could be unsloted, etc. I hope that is the case. I have not tested that yet. If it is not the case, I hope that it will be. :-)
They can't (currently) be unslotted. Nor is there reason to think they will be able to be unslotted. Relic Removal scroll wouldn't apply, as they aren't relics. You'll just have to grind or buy them again. The increasingly heavy LI game has made me stop trying to make my alt "raid ready" -- doing it on one character, not so bad, multiplying that, for me, not fun.
Even if crystals CAN be unslotted at some point, you know how the drill works. There will be better improved crystals that you will want to get...
Eeep! Careful, I believe you just stepped in to an issue of semantics. Or more specifically, an issue with the meaning of the word "effect", which usually refers to the change that results as a consequence of something.
I know full well what I wrote and I meant it exactly the way I wrote it. It has the very same effect. The magnitude is different, the effect is the same.
Crystals add the equivalent of levels. That is really all they do. Doing this of course has secondary effects that depend entirely on the type of item the crystal is applied to. Nothing more, nothing less.
Originally Posted by RJFerret
The crystals technically change the same underlying mechanic, but the consequence is dramatically different on FAs than others (namely less DPS increase)--which as I stated, is to be expected given the diminishing returns exhibited in most things in the game.
The consequence is exactly the same. You have the equivalent of one more rank of dps for a weapon. That the magnitude of said is different for a first age lvl 75 from the magnitude for a second age is, as I wrote, simply due to the fact that every rank for a first age lvl 75 is very small in comparison to each rank for a second/third age.
It also doesn't have anything to do with diminishing returns, as it happens just the same without any crystals.
Originally Posted by RJFerret
I only clarify this because the question of the thread is if it's a bug or not, and suggesting they might "have the very same effect" would lead others to believe it's a bug when they clearly provide different results.
If anything about it is a bug then that would be with the base ranks only providing a very subtle effect to begin with.
Wether or not this was intended because they wanted to level the playing field and already knew they would introduce the crystals or whatever remains speculation.
I think this was meant as a quick fix to the problem of the growing gap between 1st and 2nd Age LIs. In the future, I would predict a more reasonable gap between 1A and 2A LIs (to start with) and similar jumps in effectiveness for both 1A and 2A from applying crystals.
There really was no good reason to have 1st Age weapons do 9% more damage than 2nd Ages. They must have looked into LOTRO's gear history and realized that if a raid was fun, we'd run it for far smaller improvements. Heck, we ran the Rift 8 days a week for a 1% DPS increase and 15 Agility.
Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...
I know full well what I wrote and I meant it exactly the way I wrote it.
Cool! Little skin off our noses if your message might confuse from applying an unusual meaning of a word. I obviously wasn't disputing your view, just offering the semantic issue.
Originally Posted by Frisco
I think this was meant as a quick fix to the problem of the growing gap between 1st and 2nd Age LIs. In the future, I would predict a more reasonable gap between 1A and 2A LIs (to start with) and similar jumps in effectiveness for both 1A and 2A from applying crystals.
I'm curious, why do you perceive it as a problem they designed FA and SA DPS the way they did? The content was obviously designed along with it. If they designed FA DPS lower, the T2 encounters would simply be scaled accordingly, and there'd be less incentive to gain such items, if folks could squeak by with what they had (and less time spent building those up, so less activity for players).
I don't believe you'll ever see enhancements that add to First Age weaponry, stats, XP, or anything else without diminishing returns. If they did, you'd have some characters that "break the curve", and easily do vastly greater damage than others, would unbalance PvP, would break content, would negate the need for complete groups, etc. It's a very core part of the design that you need more to achieve smaller increments of gain as you go higher.
Worse, you can't take things away from players without the community getting upset, so you never try to let slip out anything that might do that, even accidentally.
"Sometimes survival comes down to not being hit. Actually, most times." -the chicken skill, Bob and Weave
I'm curious, why do you perceive it as a problem they designed FA and SA DPS the way they did? The content was obviously designed along with it. If they designed FA DPS lower, the T2 encounters would simply be scaled accordingly, and there'd be less incentive to gain such items, if folks could squeak by with what they had (and less time spent building those up, so less activity for players).
I think the "problem" that Frisco referred here is not with raid content versus even harder raid content: for that your reasoning is valid. But the problem is that people can run landsape (solo) content with the same 1st Age LI's as well, compared to those who have 2nd Agers, or what many soloers have: 3rd Agers. The gap is quite big there, and naturally it leads to comments like "faceroll easy solo content". Sure, solo content is not hard in general, but it's even easier for those who usually group and/or raid and have the fully levelled 1st Agers, and not THAT easy (altough still perfectly manageable) for average soloer who in theory runs now with one 2nd Ager and one 3rd Age LI. Even if that wasn't what Frisco meant, that's my point of view anyway
So I think that's why devs are trying to "fix" this ever growing gap. Now if there was some mechanic to add that extra DPS etc that 1st agers have only available when in raid but not in landscape, that would remove or at least lessen the gap in landscape and I imagine it would be easier for devs to develope new landscape content as well if all people had basically NEAR the same stats as the next guy. But I know, that solution would not be very popular amongst raiders
Last edited by Gilean-EU; Jun 22 2012 at 12:00 AM.
Poster of Note Online status:
Reputation:
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Originally Posted by Grieyls
Errr... FA? SA?.... WAI?
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
