Rune of Enlightenment (in General)


[T]Vestax April 27 2007 1:30 AM EDT

I think the RoE was the worse item ever introduced into the game. Can you guess why I would say this?

Ready. Set. I'm taking a nap. I'll get back to this at a much later time.

Enjoy.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 27 2007 1:32 AM EDT

It favors $US buyers...
It makes it possible for someone who fights less to gain more...
It's small and smells like cabbage?

QBJohnnywas April 27 2007 1:51 AM EDT

Mine smelled of fish.

richard rahl April 27 2007 1:56 AM EDT

but you sacrifice eq slots w/o getting huge advantages of tat bonuses,
my list of people i can beat while wearing RoE is smaller

QBJohnnywas April 27 2007 1:57 AM EDT

To me the RoE always seemed to make other tattoos a less thought out choice. That is, a player using a RoE had a team that was focused on minion stats, and then chucks on a tattoo almost as an afterthought. It seems to make the strategy less cohesive where tattoo placement is concerned. And it does benefit those who can spend more on BA more than a 'casual' user.

I never felt like I needed to use one personally; If I'm going to use a tattoo, like a ToA or a ToE, I'd rather build it into my strat from day one.

And, while it might seem like it helps you build a team in 'old school' style - that is CB1 style..no tattoo - you're more enslaved to using a tattoo than if you rely on a ToE or familiar.

AdminNightStrike April 27 2007 2:02 AM EDT

This is a very tattoo-centric game. The RoE is the "Don't care, let me see the results" option in the polls.

QBRanger April 27 2007 2:06 AM EDT

Personally,

I do not like an item that gives xp to minions that was not available to all characters in the game. Those characters that started before the ROE existed were not able to get the benefit of one until it came into play.

By that time, there were a lot of characters that were already set on their tattoo and could not really use a ROE. Such as a TOA character, or a character that used a familiar for its only real attack.

AdminNightStrike April 27 2007 2:44 AM EDT

Ranger,

Don't forget that the RoE came into play at a time before the NCB. It was throwing a bone to the starving wolves with no NUB that wanted to compete.

Now with the NCB..... hmm....

I never considered that the RoE was no longer needed.

QBJohnnywas April 27 2007 3:10 AM EDT

IMO the NUB/NCB should give you the chance if you want to work hard to place yourself in the upper reaches - to catch up if you will. But I think that should be it. The RoE gives you the potential to overtake the upper reaches while still getting a bonus. I'm not sure that's a fair advantage.

I've often had the thought - odd maybe given that it's a supporter item - that the RoE should not work while you have the NUB/NCB for the reason I give above.

QBOddBird April 27 2007 11:22 AM EDT

But JW, even if it could overtake them (note: I don't think it could), it was their choice not to be using a RoE themselves.

QBJohnnywas April 27 2007 11:28 AM EDT

Oh yeah, OB, I know that. It is your choice to use one or not to; and there aren't many players who can take advantage of buying all their BA while wearing a RoE, so it's probably not a fully valid point. But the potential is there. And I'm not sure that should be the case...

[T]Vestax April 27 2007 1:27 PM EDT

"The RoE gives you the potential to overtake the upper reaches while still getting a bonus." -- Johnnywas

This is almost true. You see, there is the immediate problem, which when solved leads to an ultimate problem. You are pointing out the immediate problem. A player or two might make it above the point you were meant to by using the NUB/NCB and RoE.

Ultimately, if this occurs, enough players will see this as a problem and raise a stink about it. Arguments like the one Ranger just spouted will pop up in alarming frequency. Jon's natural reaction is to downsize the NUB/NCB. In fact, he already has I believe.

Now the real problem. As I see it, the RoE works, which is why it is flawed. It is indeed better for growth then using a regular tattoo, which can be bought. After bonuses are adjusted, in order to make it to where the bonus is suppose to get you to, you now need the RoE.

This is a horrible development as there is now no other strategy for advancing in the lower to mid-high ranks other then using a RoE. This sucks and I hate it.

The RoE added zero variety to game play and took away so much more. It seemed like a boon at the time, but now we are back to advancing no faster then we were before and we are stuck with wasting away that tattoo slot in order to maintain the course.

My final conclusion: The RoE was one step forward and three steps back.

QBRanger April 27 2007 1:39 PM EDT

"Jon's natural reaction is to downsize the NUB/NCB. In fact, he already has I believe."

Jon lowered the NUB/NCB in the past because people were growing at alarming frequency. Because people with the NUB/NCB were of course, using the ROE to grow.

When the first characters began, there was no ROE, and for the top characters on whom the NUB is based, no challenge bonus. Hence we all grew as the battles we fought.

There were no higher tattoos to buy on the cheap. So the older characters did not have the benefit of using a ROE. Just like TAB.

When the NUB was made, I think, I cannot be sure, the growth of the NUBs was based on past growths. That of the beginning characters. But with the ROE that growth curve was skewed. Therefore adjustments to the NUB had to be made. And were.

But I do agree with you on why the ROE is bad. Due to the fact moderately high level tattoos are available for cheap and one can see the challenge bonus and maximize rewards, one would be foolish not to use a named ROE for most of your NUB/NCB. Then buy a decent level tattoo and supralevel it up.

One solution that I had in the past, that nobody liked, was to make tattoos like minions on a character. Permanent. You start a character with a base tattoo possibly a JKF, and it is permanently attached to your character. Whether you try to level it, or use a ROE for more minion xp is your choice.

AdminNightStrike April 27 2007 1:43 PM EDT

He lowered it (or it lowered itself) from 170 to 169.

[T]Vestax April 27 2007 1:51 PM EDT

"When the NUB was made, I think, I cannot be sure, the growth of the NUBs was based on past growths." -- <i>Ranger</i>

When the NUB was made the growth rate was generated based on the time CB had been active. This was how my NUB bonus was generated. It has since been re-tooled in a number of ways. One of which is the method you remember.

QBRanger April 27 2007 1:53 PM EDT

Yes Vestax,

But.... The growth was based upon the expected top MPR by the time a NUB was done. This had to be based on some formula of past growth. The past growth curve being without a ROE.

I had thought that was obvious.

miteke [Superheros] April 27 2007 3:05 PM EDT

I have no problem with the RoE. Your extra experience is either going towards a tattoo or your character. Sure, if you put it towards your character, your character grows faster but then you are not gaining any tattoo growth. Since tattoos sell for more than characters you are loosing out in money. For us experienced characters who want to have a little fun with a new character, and who don't need to grow a tattoo since we already have one or two or three sitting around collecting dust, the RoE is a no brainer. But for a newbie it's not. For a newbie there is a VERY real sacrifice to be made by choosing the RoE over a tattoo!

horseguy001 April 27 2007 3:09 PM EDT

Now I am not disagreeing with what anyone has said here, but from my perspective an RoE is the only reason I keep playing. As of right now it is the only way for some one who does not spend USD to gain mpr on the top ranks, since most of them are stuck using a tattoo to compete.

Mind you, this doesn't make it good for the game, but I'm sure there are other players out there who share the same opinion I do.

QBOddBird April 27 2007 3:20 PM EDT

I like the RoE. =D

Yukk April 27 2007 4:24 PM EDT

I know some people will say my opinions are rubbish, but by saying that the RoE is unfair to people who integrate a tattoo into their
strategy seems unreasonable to me.
As far as I can see, any strategy except one using a ToA or maybe a WEEE-F strat where the familiar is the only offense should also work to a lesser degree without a tattoo.
This would mean that just about anyone else can not use a tattoo and get a huge bonus advantage over those who are using a tattoo.
A major part of any non-USD team's PR is going to be their tat. Take this tattoo away and suddenly rewards are raised for teams they can beat. Is this cheating as some people would like to classify it ?
How about if this team had never had a tattoo. That's so much worse. That means they've been profiting from a lower PR all along.
I agree that it's odd that "tattoos" can be removed, replaced or recycled at any time but isn't a RoE just a choice ? Some tattoos add to the strength of a team, others MAKE the team. ToA is a strat. ToE is a choice, take the ToE away and the team will most likely still work, though possibly at a reduced competitiveness.

[T]Vestax April 27 2007 9:20 PM EDT

"I know some people will say my opinions are rubbish, but by saying that the RoE is unfair to people who integrate a tattoo into their strategy seems unreasonable to me." --Yukk

I'll agree with you there.

"As of right now it is the only way for some one who does not spend USD to gain mpr on the top ranks, since most of them are stuck using a tattoo to compete." --horseguy001

My point is that the RoE doesn't help you do this at all. Without the RoE, working hard would still give you the same likelyhood of gaining on the USD players. The point is that the existence of the RoE simply requires the RoE to do this now. It is self defeated by it's own existence the instant the NUB/NCB is adjusted for it.

Put simply, the addition of the RoE leads to a total net gain of nothing when trying to get ahead.

Underage Drinking April 27 2007 9:25 PM EDT

for once i agree with OB, i like the RoE

horseguy001 April 27 2007 10:00 PM EDT

I am talking from the standpoint that I am sticking with the Space Knights...no more NCB for me. Since I never had the $$$ to grow my NCB as a single minion and then hire on 3 more, I had to go 4 from the start. The RoE is the only thing that would save my team from some nasty exp. dilution, no hard work could have done that.

Also, 9 of the top 10 are fighting with a tattoo, which means in addition to having slightly better fight rewards, I get a 20% boost as well. Without that 20% boost I am merely getting slightly better fight rewards, which would take eons to catch up, whereas now it just might take a couple millennia :D

Karmic Mishap [Soup Ream] April 29 2007 12:09 AM EDT

I like the RoE too, but I agree with Vestax's point that once bonus rates were adjusted for it, it had a negative rather than positive effect on the game.
It doesn't work if you adjust for it, that what made it a bonus!

Flamey April 29 2007 6:17 AM EDT

Are we forgetting that at higher levels ( I believe) tattoos are more valuable? and they work effectively work better then say at 50k MPR. My point that I'm trying to make is that you lose way more with a RoE, so you are less powerful.

Using the RoE will not get you to be the most powerful player in the game, it can't you're going to need to so much more of an MPR advantage than those high level players with tattoos. Sure it can get you to the top MPR, but I think people would rather be the strongest not the highest MPR.

TheHatchetman April 29 2007 6:41 AM EDT

Not sure about that one, Flamey... Sutekh, your thoughts on the matter? ;)

Flamey April 29 2007 6:43 AM EDT

hmm, upon reading again. Let me say, I'd rather be the strongest not top MPR, if I had to choose. I can't speak on behalf of 'most of the community'. :P
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=0025sL">Rune of Enlightenment</a>