Rings

A place to talk about general WC3 and EotA related stuff.
Message
Author
User avatar
BustroQuick
#4
Posts: 200
Joined: August 7th, 2006, 11:37 pm
Realm: Azeroth (U.S. East)
Battle.net name: googlypoo

Re: Rings

#26 Post by BustroQuick »

DarkNemesis wrote:
Yes I have, actually. A lot of times.
Couple points here.

One: I've watched several games with you in them, QuickSmuggler, right? And I didn't see you buy an item the whole game.

Two: You said 'I', which is one person.
What points? You certainly haven't formed any semblance of logical argument.
Matt1965 wrote:and have you ever seen that outside a pub game?...
"I" refers to the subject, me, who is doing the action of seeing. Not me buying the item.

I typically don't buy permanent items. Why? They're not necessary. Spending money on things like repairs, consumables, and mercenaries gives you much more bang for your buck.

User avatar
DarkNemesis
Retired
Retired
Posts: 993
Joined: November 10th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Dark_Nemesis

Re: Rings

#27 Post by DarkNemesis »

"
I" refers to the subject, me, who is doing the action of seeing. Not me buying the item.

I typically don't buy permanent items. Why? They're not necessary. Spending money on things like repairs, consumables, and mercenaries gives you much more bang for your buck.
Haha...

I stand correct.
Reaper: If you seriously think America is the best country ever you are brainwashed. Fact.
DarkNemesis: Reaper, you're an idiot.

Elreth
Resident
Resident
Posts: 142
Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm

Re: Rings

#28 Post by Elreth »

I feel like you guys are somehow missing the point. This is how it works on p much everything in eota. The more you pay into any one thing the less you get out of it. This is to encourage diversity and complex strategies that involve multiple elements and to reward the time/effort spent arranging these different elements. Thus someone who is less good at microing their hero might be able to invest less of their time in their hero and more of their time doing these other things.

Now imagine this.

Two heroes have +5 Wizard Robes. One hero decides that he has enough armor and int and is satisfied. The other craves further damage on his spells because he wants to slaughter entire waves of troops (thus increasing his income). Now we could make it so that you can wear as many robes as you want and thus make it super cheap to have amazing stats or we could limit the amount of robes you can wear and offer a more expensive alternative. The first way will result in everyone having 6 +5 Wizard Robes, the second way will result in some heroes having +5 Wizard Robes and a few rings, some heroes having just the Wizard Robes and some heroes who really love mercs etc having no equipment at all.

Basically it works like this
>Decent Stats - Free
>Good Stats - Affordable (2000g)
>Amazing Stats - Expensive (10000g)

What you seem to want is
>Decent Stats - Free
>Good Stats - Affordable (2000g)
>Amazing Stats - Affordable (4000g)

Besides encouraging diversity and providing an alternative form of time investment, there are other reasons why higher stats become increasingly expensive. Once your stats get high enough, you become increasingly more powerful and more able to gain money. For instance while the difference between a Divine Wizard killing a wave of troops and almost killing them may be a mere 30int, its the difference between getting bounty for every unit or the caster unit on your push doing its AE and finishing them all off.

I am not certain why you would expect anything else. Just look at crystal costs for stat upgrades or even the stupid stat transmuting shrines. In both cases the more they are used the more it costs.

You seem to be unable to understand Armor is more important than Rings. I would think their SIZE would be an indication but I guess not. Furthermore, one is furnished by your base whereas another is bought from a god damn mercenary elder tree who sells to both sides of the war.

Lastly, if you rarely have a full inventory you are not playing as well as you could be.

User avatar
BustroQuick
#4
Posts: 200
Joined: August 7th, 2006, 11:37 pm
Realm: Azeroth (U.S. East)
Battle.net name: googlypoo

Re: Rings

#29 Post by BustroQuick »

DarkNemesis wrote:
"I" refers to the subject, me, who is doing the action of seeing. Not me buying the item.

I typically don't buy permanent items. Why? They're not necessary. Spending money on things like repairs, consumables, and mercenaries gives you much more bang for your buck.
Haha...

I stand correct.
Correct in that I don't buy rings? Absolutely. Correct in that other people don't buy full inventories of rings? Absolutely not.

Your argument was about rings. Mine was about permanent items as a whole. Straw man fallacy.

There are still people who stat-stack. Different heroes have different roles; you might see an item-stacked swashy player-killing left and right. He's doing his job. I stat stack when it's beneficial.

Not everyone has to repair. Not everyone has to merc. There's still enough money to go around.

Mills
Addict
Addict
Posts: 244
Joined: August 13th, 2006, 1:26 pm

Re: Rings

#30 Post by Mills »

DarkNemesis wrote:One: I've watched several games with you in them, QuickSmuggler, right? And I didn't see you buy an item the whole game.
He was saying he has seen other people in games stack rings, not that he himself did it.

User avatar
Matt1965
Visitor
Visitor
Posts: 27
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Matt1965
Location: arizona

Re: Rings

#31 Post by Matt1965 »

Will people please get it OUT of their heads that we want to lower the cost of items?! we dont!
Image

User avatar
Dekar
Jelly Doughnut
Posts: 1433
Joined: May 27th, 2006, 8:13 am
Realm: Northrend (Europe)
Battle.net name: Dekar
Location: Germany

Re: Rings

#32 Post by Dekar »

You just want to buff them. :roll:
<EotA@Azeroth> YAKS GO MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Dekar: the ultimate ocean themed hero should buff and depend on spawn waves!
DarnYak: why is that
Dekar: WAVES
Dekar: :D
DarnYak: i was afraid that was the answer

User avatar
Tehw00tz
Corpse
Corpse
Posts: 1520
Joined: August 13th, 2006, 3:14 pm
Realm: Azeroth (U.S. East)
Battle.net name: ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP
Location: New Orleans, ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP, ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP

Re: Rings

#33 Post by Tehw00tz »

Who is this "we"?
ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP

User avatar
Cokemonkey11
Addict
Addict
Posts: 306
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:04 am
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Cokemonkey11

Re: Rings

#34 Post by Cokemonkey11 »

I think he means the people arguing "for" the suggested ring change.

And they/we don't want them buffed so they are fair priced by comparison to the other equipments. We get it, they're more important. But it would be interesting if the rings had some kind of stacking effect multiplyer
Image
I miss EotA :(

User avatar
DarnYak
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2364
Joined: August 12th, 2006, 2:54 pm

Re: Rings

#35 Post by DarnYak »

Just to clarify, as people have said rings are intentionally the least efficient items because they are stackable. You may argue its too inefficient, but they'll always remain a bit above other items.

Elreth's post is pretty accurate.

DarnYak

User avatar
DarkNemesis
Retired
Retired
Posts: 993
Joined: November 10th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Dark_Nemesis

Re: Rings

#36 Post by DarkNemesis »

but they'll always remain a bit above other items.
Again, I really don't get this theology. How can something be above something else when it rewards you the same amount yet costs 1.5x times as much? Yes there is the stacking arguement, but you can stack agi gloves+helm+orb, or int robe+orb+evo gloves. The idea that only rings give you huge amounts of one stat or large boosts in spell dmg is simply untrue.

I would be willing to retract my points if Yak decreased the price of rings some (say 500-700 more gold instead of 1000-1700). I understand they have to me more, but when you can buy nearly two items for the price and power of one, why buy the one?
Reaper: If you seriously think America is the best country ever you are brainwashed. Fact.
DarkNemesis: Reaper, you're an idiot.

Elreth
Resident
Resident
Posts: 142
Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm

Re: Rings

#37 Post by Elreth »

You buy the one after you have bought the others.

User avatar
Matt1965
Visitor
Visitor
Posts: 27
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Matt1965
Location: arizona

Re: Rings

#38 Post by Matt1965 »

This is redundant... Yak will not change it simply because that is how he made the map and everyone seems to be against having an open mind. your only arguement is the fact that he intended it to be that way instead of wanting to possibly change it for the better. you guys are impossible
Image

Elreth
Resident
Resident
Posts: 142
Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm

Re: Rings

#39 Post by Elreth »

It is not changing it for the better unless you also increase the cost of rings to match this added bonus. And even then im not sure stat whores will appreciate having their costs upped for a bonus they may or may not want.

User avatar
Matt1965
Visitor
Visitor
Posts: 27
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Matt1965
Location: arizona

Re: Rings

#40 Post by Matt1965 »

im Done, can we close this thread? all my respect for members of this forum is gone.
Image

User avatar
Cokemonkey11
Addict
Addict
Posts: 306
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:04 am
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Cokemonkey11

Re: Rings

#41 Post by Cokemonkey11 »

A little too serious are we?
Image
I miss EotA :(

User avatar
Matt1965
Visitor
Visitor
Posts: 27
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Matt1965
Location: arizona

Re: Rings

#42 Post by Matt1965 »

yes... but i cant stand how close minded they are
Image

User avatar
DarkNemesis
Retired
Retired
Posts: 993
Joined: November 10th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Dark_Nemesis

Re: Rings

#43 Post by DarkNemesis »

Welcome to the forums, Matt...

My name is Dark_Nemesis.

(Seriously though, don't leave, we need more people like you--and Cokemonkey).
Reaper: If you seriously think America is the best country ever you are brainwashed. Fact.
DarkNemesis: Reaper, you're an idiot.

User avatar
Cokemonkey11
Addict
Addict
Posts: 306
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:04 am
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Cokemonkey11

Re: Rings

#44 Post by Cokemonkey11 »

I won't leave :)

I've been here awhile, though it might not seem like it because I don't post a lot.
Image
I miss EotA :(

Mills
Addict
Addict
Posts: 244
Joined: August 13th, 2006, 1:26 pm

Re: Rings

#45 Post by Mills »

Matt1965 wrote:This is redundant... Yak will not change it simply because that is how he made the map and everyone seems to be against having an open mind. your only arguement is the fact that he intended it to be that way instead of wanting to possibly change it for the better. you guys are impossible
Matt1965 wrote:im Done, can we close this thread? all my respect for members of this forum is gone.
The game is not an item centralized game and as such there should no be bonuses for items when they are not a crucial part. The main orientation of the game is to be diverse and use multiple ideas or objects to win the game. Stacking items, let alone a certain type of item goes against this goal and encourages people to be more single task minded.

Do we not have an open mind or we prefer to keep playing the map that we have played it and enjoyed playing it? Keep in mind that you are talking to some of the people that have played since it was first released (5 years ago?). You are being just as 'impossible' for trying to push for something that clearly won't happen, just as much as we are being impossible for shooting it down. You say you have lost all respect for the members of this forum, but to me it never sounded like you had any to begin with.

How about this: We've been here for 5 years and we've also been trying to improve the map for 5 years. We both know more about the map and have most likely played the map more often. Maybe you should develop that respect you have said you lost before you start judging us.

User avatar
DarkNemesis
Retired
Retired
Posts: 993
Joined: November 10th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Realm: Lordaeron (U.S. West)
Battle.net name: Dark_Nemesis

Re: Rings

#46 Post by DarkNemesis »

How about this: We've been here for 5 years and we've also been trying to improve the map for 5 years. We both know more about the map and have most likely played the map more often. Maybe you should develop that respect you have said you lost before you start judging us.
You say you have lost all respect for the members of this forum, but to me it never sounded like you had any to begin with.
Lol, you make it sound as though that until you become a forum member you are somehow totally unable to play EotA. Your 5 years mean shit to me.

You are such an idiot.

Go jack off.
Reaper: If you seriously think America is the best country ever you are brainwashed. Fact.
DarkNemesis: Reaper, you're an idiot.

Mills
Addict
Addict
Posts: 244
Joined: August 13th, 2006, 1:26 pm

Re: Rings

#47 Post by Mills »

DarkNemesis wrote:Your 5 years mean shit to me.
So trying to help out the map by giving ideas and talking in the channel and forums for the past 5 years means shit to you? Well I'm glad I stuck around and wasted all my time when it means absolutely shit to the community. Thanks Dark, people like you make me realize why so many people stop caring and give up.

On this note I'm done with the game (EotA). If the map is going to have this type of community there is no reason even worth playing it anymore.

Go fuck yourself DarkNemsis.

Elreth
Resident
Resident
Posts: 142
Joined: July 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm

Re: Rings

#48 Post by Elreth »

It has been more than 5 years hasnt it. P sure I was playing this in middle school, although I guess that might have been exodus. And that would have been...6-8ish years.

User avatar
Tehw00tz
Corpse
Corpse
Posts: 1520
Joined: August 13th, 2006, 3:14 pm
Realm: Azeroth (U.S. East)
Battle.net name: ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP
Location: New Orleans, ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP, ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP

Re: Rings

#49 Post by Tehw00tz »

Oh Jesus it has been 5 years. I remember playing EotA before hurricane Katrina hit.
ДɷϣRØLEɷӟP

User avatar
DarnYak
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2364
Joined: August 12th, 2006, 2:54 pm

Re: Rings

#50 Post by DarnYak »

Rings are intended to be a filler, second priority item. They're more expensive because they're both stackable and they're very focused. I won't deny they may be too expensive, but going over items will be something i need to do for the balancing version coming up anyway.

Note that I would like to add new items, but I see little reason to make rings stronger. I realize you're trying to argue in favor of an alternative so that an all ring build is possible, but that's just not where I want to go.

This thread is now locked due to excessive bitching and unnecessary insults.

DarnYak

Locked