Item Suggestion (in General)


[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 7:22 PM EDT

Mithril Dagger
Base: 12
Upgrade costs: Similar to Dagger except with slightly lower 'x' upgrade costs.
Reasons why it would be cool:
People use daggers/short swords in close combat all the time.
Daggers/short swords are far more effective against unarmored opponents(mages) than bastard/long-swords.
Garner uses daggers. :)

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 7:25 PM EDT

also, tank teams need a defense against high dex+evasion strats.

slurpz April 10 2005 8:19 PM EDT

...explain why jon would be bothered to even consider this idea?

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 9:04 PM EDT

why wouldn't he consider it? We should consider everything, than selectively dismiss what is baloney.
If I told you the Sun was orbiting the Earth, would you consider it before concluding 'no'? Lets hope so. If I wanted, I could argue points for either side.

Anyways. If you think Mithril Dagger would just end up as another trashy item, we could always up the base to 18 or something. The dagger's extremely low '+' enchantment cost would drive some people to use it. I would definetly consider it.
This is all just a different twist on weaponry. Silly how we all think "the bigger the weapon, the better" when many of the legendary warriors in the past used shortswords. Look at CB2's 'leet' weaponry. It consists of nothing but clumsy 2-handed swords, long swords, bastard swords, and axes.

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 9:04 PM EDT

*then.

BrandonLP April 10 2005 9:08 PM EDT

Okay, you finally clarified what you wanted this object to do. You simply said in the first post that it would be similar to a dagger with slightly lower 'x' upgrade costs. Now you're mentioning significantly lower pth upgrade costs. You need to provide numbers more than ideas and saying that someone from a video game uses a dagger.

LumpBot April 10 2005 9:08 PM EDT

I'm sure Jon will put this on his list of weapons to make right next to Mage Staff ;)
He wouldn't make it because:
1) 18 base is poor, those "clumsy" weapons had base no less than 73
2) they aren't too clumsy if your str is 900K
3) This is just a novelty item at best

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 9:19 PM EDT

think about it. If you have lower than normal dexterity, and you can't hit anybody, do you
a.) continue using the 20 pound long sword
b.) buy a smaller sword.

BrandonLP April 10 2005 9:24 PM EDT

Considering there are no ST/DX requirements for any weapon, you'd use the biggest weapon possible and upgrade the pth.

salt3d April 10 2005 9:24 PM EDT

c.) train more DX.

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 9:40 PM EDT

1. This is more of a suggestion for a second weapon 'type' A good analogy would be that we had short-bows versus composite/compound bows. Feel free to adjust the base value and cost to upgrade as you will.
2. Is it easier to stab a fly with a tooth-pick, or with a yard-stick? Both items are extremely light. Daggers are shorter than swords. When you stab you're opponent, you are right next to them. How can you miss? When you swing a 4 foot long something, the chance of missing jumps up dramatically.

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 9:41 PM EDT

*your

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 9:55 PM EDT

Yes, you could train more dex, but you would end up in a endless dex competition with the other tanks while the mages beat you down. This item is simply another check that opposing tanks can use to prevent a never-ending dex competition.
In other words. The only way right now to hit an extremely high dexterity + evasion tank right now is with a mage. Opposing tank teams without a mage need some kind of counter against these types of characters.

LumpBot April 10 2005 10:00 PM EDT

This is absolutely silly. This is a game, it would be easier to hit a fly with a 5 foot wide fireball than a yard stick.

deathwake April 10 2005 10:14 PM EDT

"1. This is more of a suggestion for a second weapon 'type' A good analogy would be that we had short-bows versus composite/compound bows. Feel free to adjust the base value and cost to upgrade as you will. "

Who even cares about short bows anymore...

Evil April 10 2005 10:24 PM EDT

chicken... I love this idea... these people in my opinion just do not have open minds enough to see how this idea would work out to be a great balancing scale for CB.. only as long as the "+" cost was extremely low

Sacredpeanut April 10 2005 10:24 PM EDT

I think a weapon with very low + upgrade costs and say a base damage of 70 would make a good addition to the game. It would work well for Tank minions with low or no dex (similar to Spid on CB1).

I would also like to see a new Ranged weapon in the game (possibly some sort of sling) with a base damage of say 5 and damage upgrade costs similar to the Elven Long Bow - giving BL Tanks a Ranged weapon that is capable of dealing reasonable damage.

The downside to this weapon would be it would have extremely high + upgrade costs making it only viable for minions with very high Dex.

LumpBot April 10 2005 10:28 PM EDT

You guys are talking like you want the CB1 Short Bow was back. And no tank choose a short bow over a compound or elbow.

Mythology [The Knighthood] April 10 2005 10:29 PM EDT

Yeah I like it, well, what it is now, the original post didnt really say what it was :p

Sacredpeanut April 10 2005 10:30 PM EDT

Well it would certainly add a new strategy element to the game - the no Dexterity tank, in which case a Weapon with a low + upgrade cost would be very valuable.

salt3d April 10 2005 10:42 PM EDT

Until the high DX tanks start getting four or more hits per round out of them and everyone else starts crying for a nerf.

Sacredpeanut April 10 2005 11:00 PM EDT

Yes but it would be balanced so that a high dex tank would get more damage from using say a BoNE than the new weapon.
For example - 2 weapons with similar NW - one 92x100(+50)
the other 70x50(+250).

A high Dex tank may get on average 2 hits with the first weapon and 4 hits with the second weapon but since the first does more than twice the damage he will choose the first weapon.

A low/no Dex tank will only get on average 0.5 hits with the first weapon but 2.5 hits with the second weapon - he hits on average 5x more so will choose the second weapon. Despite the fact the first weapon does more damage per hit.

LumpBot April 10 2005 11:07 PM EDT

Base is now 70?! That is only 3 less than the BoTh.

Sacredpeanut April 10 2005 11:11 PM EDT

Well it doesn't necessarily have to be 70 but it would have to be more than 12 to make it a viable weapon for high PR characters.

[Banned]Monty April 10 2005 11:23 PM EDT

BOLOGNA! :) not boloney DONT U KNOW THE SONG!

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 11:35 PM EDT

rofl.

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 11:42 PM EDT

The base value would really depend on how the upgrade curve of the '+' enchantment would look like. If the '+' is only a little bit less expensive than the BoTH, I would say 70 is a fitting value. However, if you want the '+' upgrade cost ot be about that of a dagger, I recommend a value much lower.

We should argue about the little stuff, i.e. balancing the item so it isn't over-powered/under-powered, later.

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 11:55 PM EDT

One thing you need to keep in mind when balancing the item however, would be that a low dex tank would have much higher strength when compared with the average tank.

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 10 2005 11:59 PM EDT

Another possibility would be to decrease 'x' enchantment upgrade costs for all 2-handed weapons, and decrease all '+' enchantment upgrade costs for all 1-handed weapons.

Also, shortbow was somewhat popular in CB1 before the big '+' nerf.

Maelstrom April 11 2005 10:02 AM EDT

"Another possibility would be to decrease 'x' enchantment upgrade costs for all 2-handed weapons, and decrease all '+' enchantment upgrade costs for all 1-handed weapons. "

Yep, we should completely readjust the game so that we can fit in a new, pointless item...

Grant April 11 2005 10:49 AM EDT

I've already pitched ideas like this to Jon and he thought they were stupid. Just FYI.

LumpBot April 11 2005 11:13 AM EDT

Like I said before, we can put this right next to the Mage Staff idea.

Undertow April 11 2005 11:29 AM EDT

Wow, spaceman, do you just go from post to post knocking peoples ideas? :p

/me hears the chorus in regards to the mithril dagger idea of "RETARDO, RETARDO!"

Maelstrom April 11 2005 11:43 AM EDT

Actually Spaceman, the mage staff has the advantage of providing some benefit. This dagger idea doesn't seem to have any benefit at all. I mean, you have a better chance to hit a person, but it doesn't do much damage. Seems to me like a weapon-version of the Double Chain Mail: the disadvantages far outweigh the minor advantages, and there are other much better options.

The element of realism is correct: if you're standing next to someone, it's hard to miss them with a dagger. With a long sword, it takes a bit of time to swing it, during which time the person could move. But it only works if you're standing next to someone. The thing about long swords is, they're long - you can hit someone from further away.

Think about it: in the middle of battle, can you really see a mage calmly strolling up to the giant warrior, and pricking him in the belly with his little dagger? He wouldn't be able to get that close! And another thing, in reality, daggers are useless against anything but leather armour.

LumpBot April 11 2005 11:57 AM EDT

Lol, undertow, I figured you were going to make some comment. But I don't normally knock ideas down, just super daggers.

As for maelstrom, I was just pointing out if Jon frowns on Mage Staff he'd have to be drunk to make a mithril dagger that hits every time for 35 damage.

Caedmon [Revenge of the Forgers] April 11 2005 12:26 PM EDT

Now there's an idea...get Jonathan drunk during change month and watch what happens. Hilarity ensues!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] April 11 2005 12:48 PM EDT

Then there's half swording.

Or, "how to turn your nice long sword into a dagger".

;)

Sacredpeanut April 11 2005 7:40 PM EDT

Spaceman - you miss the point in entirely, this would not need to be just another useless weapon if it was balanced correctly and would certainly do more damage than 35.

Evil April 11 2005 8:45 PM EDT

and then and then and then... wow we could even make a dagger artist where one would upgrade their normal dagger to a mithril one! It could be called Dagger Artist! I mean.. that is just about as good an idea as the Tattoo artist... go dagger artist...

/me grumbles

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 11 2005 8:51 PM EDT

To Maelstrom and Spaceman, I already discussed the issue that the
balance of this item can not yet be discussed, given that we don't
know just what the upgrade cost curve of this weapon would would look
like.

From above:
1. This is more of a suggestion for a second weapon 'type' A good
analogy would be that we had short-bows versus composite/compound
bows. Feel free to adjust the base value and
cost to upgrade as you will.

and

The base value would really depend on how the upgrade curve of the
'+' enchantment would look like. If the '+' is only a little bit less
expensive than the BoTH, I would say 70 is a fitting value. However,
if you want the '+' upgrade cost ot be about that of a dagger, I recommend
a value much lower.

We should argue about the little stuff, i.e. balancing the item so it
isn't over-powered/under-powered, later.

Maelstrom April 11 2005 8:54 PM EDT

Why not just bring back the Mace of Disruption? Is +200 (or whatever) good enough for you?

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 11 2005 8:56 PM EDT

As for Spaceman, you are acting quite the hypocrite. Nonetheless, you're presence is quite entertaining.

From: Spaceman[CB2BankForger] Sent: April 9 2005 4:46 AM EDT Delivered: April 9 2005 12:51 PM EDT
Please just stay out of my thread. You made your point, the whole world knows you don't approve. Good for you, but as of late you have not only posted needlessly by overly-negatively. Almost like a vicous attack to bring my thread down. I will let the post die the second people stop replying =D

(I have no idea why he included the =D at the end.)

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 11 2005 9:06 PM EDT

Why not just bring back the Mace of Disruption? Is +200 (or whatever) good enough for you?

I'm sorry, I don't understand Maelstrom. How does the the Mace of Disruption [205x13] (+40) relate to this in any way?

Maelstrom April 11 2005 9:10 PM EDT

err...yeah, those were the stats. I thought it was +200 to hit, in which case it might be what you're looking for. But it's not, and I'm wrong ;)

Don't take it personally, I just don't find the idea of a fancy dagger to be useful or interesting.

Chargerz-Back April 11 2005 9:15 PM EDT

maybe throwing knives or ninja stars or lawn darts to use in place of bows, xbows, or slings. =)

Nightmare [NewNightmares] April 11 2005 9:16 PM EDT

Possibly because he (mistakenly) thought it was +200?

Chicken.. honestly, this isn't that great an idea. It would do horribly subpar damage at all but the lower PRs (thats assuming it would be a 35 base). Even at a base of 70 with a + of 300, with its X upgrade costs being so high, it would never reach anywhere near the amount of total damage (with multi hits) as a 73x100 (+100). How about this. Explain what type of minion or team would benefit from this? If you want any of us to buy the idea of a super-dagger, you gotta sell it right.

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 11 2005 9:20 PM EDT

Rofl.. such strange posts we're getting in this thread.

and then and then and then... wow we could even make a dagger artist where one would upgrade their normal dagger to a mithril one! It could be called Dagger Artist! I mean.. that is just about as good an idea as the Tattoo artist... go dagger artist... /me grumbles



First of all, why do you have so many ellipses? If you were attempting to mock me, read the changelogs first, Evil. The tattoo artist was implemented a while back. Obviously it can't be that bad of an idea. And please don't tell me you were not trying to mock me, I would be offended by your truly sincere stupidity.

Mythology [The Knighthood] April 11 2005 9:24 PM EDT

Just because something's been around a long time does not proove it isnt a bad idea, take the republican party...

I for one think the Tattoo artist *is* that bad of an idea, voted in by the masses not looking very far into the future (wanting a ToA or ToE while looking at their Jigs) , wow, the similarities keep on coming :p

[FireBreathing]Chicken April 11 2005 9:34 PM EDT

Possibly because he (mistakenly) thought it was +200? Yes, I know, I was rubbing it in. And I am (truly) sorry for doing so.

Anyways, If you want me to sell the dagger itself.. +Consistent hits, even against high dex/evasion strategies. +Dexterity will become slightly less important for tanks. More hp/strength = better chance against mages. +Ideal for heavy armor donners. +Provides an alternative route in fighting style.

LumpBot April 11 2005 9:57 PM EDT

Err..Chicken please post at any time where I attacked you or said anything rude that had nothing to do with the posts. Everytime I posted, it was for a reason or had a point to make.

Maelstrom April 11 2005 10:14 PM EDT

Maybe it's just the name "dagger" that puts me off the idea. What you want is some sort of "heat-seeking missiles" that always hit, regardless of dexterity and evasion. Phrased that way, they sound too powerful!

LumpBot April 11 2005 10:18 PM EDT

This reminds me of IAs in CB1 weak arrows 7X2+65 right before they were deleted. Now at that level they hit always, and for such small damage. But through the genius of Elbow and huge str, they became to a point where Jon just couldn't make them weak enough. So he deleted them. A Mithril Dagger would be a Melee IA. Please, no insults, just debate that fact.

BrandonLP April 11 2005 11:08 PM EDT

Seeing as you've encountered quite a bit of opposition and handled it with such lovely remarks, FBC, it's a small wonder you haven't created your own game.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Hid">Item Suggestion</a>