Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

Rings, as most of you know, really aren't worth it in terms of bang-for-your-buck. With the typical knight's+ health orb or int robes + mana orb setup, they just don't stand a chance. Yes, they are stackable, but that is rather petty in comparison.

So, I think some sort of reward or bonus ought to be applied when stacking rings, and I think they should be several choices, this would make item buying (if that's your cup of tea) more unique, fun, and diverse.

Warrior's Rings:

Bonus: gives a 1% HP regen per ring, and an additional 1 for every added ring.

Or...

Bonus: Grants the wearer a 10% (per strike) to hit for 25% more dmg, but takes 25% AS away.

INT Ring:

Gives the wearer 25% additional Int for every ring bought.

Or...

Grants a 25% mana regen for every ring bought.

AGI Ring:

Gives the wearer 7 attack dmg, 7 AS/MS, and 7 armor for every ring bought.

STR Ring:

Gives 10 armor and a 10% spell reduction for every ring bought.

Feel free to coment or add your own suggestions. I realize these could be a little potent in terms of bonuses, but...

I don't think this is necessary. Rings are a last resort item for specific stat focusers. Most heroes should and will be satisfied with armor/orbs but if they really want that stat above and beyond the ordinary then they should be ready to pay for it.

I like this idea, but it shouldn't be so much. something like an extra 10% or something would be fair.

Rings really don't need anything at all added to them.

Rings are designed for people who want specific stat increases, they're not meant to be fillers and aren't supposed to just be bought for the sake of buying items. In most non-pub games you probably won't even have the cash to buy rings.

I don't think this is necessary. Rings are a last resort item for specific stat focusers. Most heroes should and will be satisfied with armor/orbs but if they really want that stat above and beyond the ordinary then they should be ready to pay for it.

I think you completely missed what I posted. Reread what I said plz.

And no, utlimates should be (are) the last resort. And you know what is really the sad thing? I acutally purchase ults LONG before I ever get a ring. That is just me, I know. Warrior's may be an exception, I actually buy those quite often, but that's for their diversity.

Let's look that the price/effectiveness:

For 3.5 k gold I can buy the following:

A +5 Ring of Wisom. Which is:

30 Int

With that same amount, I also can get a:

A +2 mana orb
A +5 Int robe

Which is:

35 int
15 armor
80% mana regen
150 extra mana

I left out the extra mana/mana regen gained from just the standard int, but that only adds to my point.

Oh, and I still have 200 gold to pocket afterwards.

Add up? I think not.

Rings are designed for people who want specific stat increases,

Like the int robe, skill orb, knight's armor, and agi gloves aren't specific stat increases?

* sorry, double post

I don't even want to reply. You are so dumb. But look. Focus.

They aren't as good because they arent meant to be as good. As in it is a punishment to item whorers that the more they item whore the less worth it their gold is. They are for people who want max in one stat at the expense of all else. And no int rings are not even nearly as good as wizard robes, and that is because armor is p much the best item type in the game. You should probably always have an armor. Armor is not designed to be balanced against rings, it is balanced against other armor.

Also [ultimates? I assume you mean the artifacts] are not a last resort item by any means. They have unique properties that make them potentially infinitely more desirable than any given stat. That said things like the demon horn in terms of only whoring STR are certainly last resort and you are almost certainly better off with rings.

I don't even want to reply. You are so dumb. But look. Focus.

Keep it up.

They aren't as good because they arent meant to be as good.

They are just suppose to cost twice as much, got it

Its called balance. Less restrictions, more cost.

Huh?

I missed something here.

How does having a +5 int ring over a +5 int robe signify less restrictions? If anything, it's the other way around: you're loosing 5 int, 15 armor, and 1.5 k gold.

Elreth u need to actually give it a chance, he has a very good point. your basically saying its not balanced and should not be simply because its for item whores. then whats the point of the item at all?
why not make it something u can get as one of your first items if you wish to? why limit the game to a set design of robe/orb/ect? Your making it so getting stronger basically has a cap on it. Honestly i think he has a very good idea on it.

And i can tell from being here.. a couple days.. most of you dont like nemesis but you can at least give his ideas a little thought before dismissing them. I would bet 100$ thats if Yak had said this you would have been like "ya dude thats a good idea!"
just had to get that in there.

It costs more and gives less because IT IS STACKABLE. Each of the other items you can only get ONE of and rings allow you to get MULTIPLE. You get less bang for your buck because of this. If this isn't good enough for you, then it is because they are made with the best of metal and it costs more to refine/upgrade them then other items.

why not make it something u can get as one of your first items if you wish to? why limit the game to a set design of robe/orb/ect? Your making it so getting stronger basically has a cap on it.

This is another great point I forget to expand upon. Thanks Matt!

It costs more and gives less because IT IS STACKABLE. Each of the other items you can only get ONE of and rings allow you to get MULTIPLE. You get less bang for your buck because of this. If this isn't good enough for you, then it is because they are made with the best of metal and it costs more to refine/upgrade them then other items.

Normally, your point would hold up Jamn, and I can understand where your coming from. But really, items are not highly liked by alot of people in pubies, and most sure as hell aren't going to be "stacking" anything.

And really, your last sentence is really stupid. I would have expected something a bit more mature from someone who has been a vetern EotA'er for so long...

They are the only way to maximize a certain stat, because you cant fill up all slots with "restricted" items. Because of this they are more expensive to slow down massive spell values.

If this isn't good enough for you, then it is because they are made with the best of metal and it costs more to refine/upgrade them then other items.

*shakes head in disbeleif* adding lore.. does not.. in any way shape or form affect the game balance or gameplay...

It costs more and gives less because IT IS STACKABLE

this is neither a valid point because i have yet to ever reach a full inventory in Eota.

It costs more and gives less because IT IS STACKABLE

this is neither a valid point because i have yet to ever reach a full inventory in Eota.

You can stack rings without having a full inventory. I've been seeing inventories filled with rings for a very long time, just because you haven't seen it doesn't make the point invalid!

and have you ever seen that outside a pub game?...

I would bet...












No.

Yes I have, actually. A lot of times.

Matt1965 wrote:this is neither a valid point because i have yet to ever reach a full inventory in Eota.

Just 'cause you haven't done it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

The issue is, if rings are cheaper, you'll start seeing things like a Divine Wizard with all 6 slots with +5 Int rings, because that would give him ridiculous coefficients on his spells, not to mention the ability to cast a LOT more spells. Let me boot up the game, do some math real quick. . .

Level 1 Divine Wizard, Holy Strike: 84 damage.

Level 1 Divine Wizard, Holy Strike (w/ 6 +5 Int rings): 318 damage

While it's exaggerated at that point in the game (Level 1 with enough money to buy 6 +5 rings? Impossible), if rings were cheaper, there would be a point where stacking them would be a great move, 'cause of the 100% return value. Get 'em while they're good, sell 'em when you can upgrade.

Making them expensive makes it so you really can't get that good, unless you're annihilating the other team anyway.

Also, I really need to type faster.

CryptLord1234 wrote:

Matt1965 wrote:this is neither a valid point because i have yet to ever reach a full inventory in Eota.

Just 'cause you haven't done it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

The issue is, if rings are cheaper, you'll start seeing things like a Divine Wizard with all 6 slots with +5 Int rings, because that would give him ridiculous coefficients on his spells, not to mention the ability to cast a LOT more spells. Let me boot up the game, do some math real quick. . .

Level 1 Divine Wizard, Holy Strike: 84 damage.

Level 1 Divine Wizard, Holy Strike (w/ 6 +5 Int rings): 318 damage

While it's exaggerated at that point in the game (Level 1 with enough money to buy 6 +5 rings? Impossible), if rings were cheaper, there would be a point where stacking them would be a great move, 'cause of the 100% return value. Get 'em while they're good, sell 'em when you can upgrade.

Making them expensive makes it so you really can't get that good, unless you're annihilating the other team anyway.

Also, I really need to type faster.

Not that I think you're wrong, but 6 +5 int rings would be pretty damn strong even without this buff while using divine wizard.

Arent low upgraded items more cost efficiant than high upgraded ones, resulting on more stats for your gold when you buy many +0 rings instead of upgrading a single one?

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.

if rings were cheaper,

Did you read my post? I never said make them cheaper.

I have many times gotten 5 +6 str rings on fenris for the hell of it.

for the hell of it.

This is where you lost me...

And just for the hell of it, I go Warrior's on Fenny.