So we have the RoE... (in General)
December 28 2007 2:49 PM EST
and it gives no beneficial effect in battle, in exchange for more XP on its wearer... Great, sounds fair enough. Now let's think in the OTHER direction for a sec ;) I present to you:
The Enlightened Rune! A tattoo that gives no positive benefit in battle in exchange for leveling 20% faster than other tats. You can ink to/from it (so it woudn't be a suppoter item...), so for 800k, you could switch to it, power level your tat for a while, then switch back when its big enough to suit you.
Before people try pointing out that another tradeoff with the RoE is that you can't level a tat, I counter that by the fact that a leveling tat will also be contributing a pretty bit to your PR. Wins and losses for both of them, both designed to get the edge in future combat, at the cost of current ability.
What d ya think?
December 28 2007 2:53 PM EST
My mean man, I think that's a great idea.
Honestly, I'm surprised nobody else hasn't thought about that earlier.
Brilliant and very simple.
December 28 2007 2:59 PM EST
I'd think naming your tattoo / rune / familiar would be good enough already.
I'd be more interrested in another piece of armor perhaps. :)
I like it. Nice one, Hatch!
December 28 2007 3:20 PM EST
I think it is one of the most positive Idea's in a while.
Shade, naming your tattoo doesn't make it level faster. It only makes it act as if it was 4% bigger.
December 28 2007 3:29 PM EST
...which means for every 100 exp your tattoo gained, it actually gained 104 exp, hence growing faster.
Great idea hatch, don't know about 20% though. Since the new tatt caps are so high, you can theoretically power level a tatt to ridiculous extent running ncb.
Ranger could finally hit his max tat...
December 28 2007 11:25 PM EST
So then this wouldn't be a supporter item, but an ordinary tattoo?
Good idea though! I like how you think! ;'D
December 29 2007 12:17 AM EST
This went over a lot better than i thought it would... I posted it half asleep, only thinking of each sentence as i typed the one preceding it :P
I like this idea (only because I am currently running a NCB and would be able to get my tat well over 3 mil). hooray :)
Seriously though, it is an interesting idea.
December 29 2007 10:23 AM EST
A really good idea! I love it!
December 29 2007 11:19 AM EST
Max tattoo: 8,829,814
I personally would enjoy it, however, I have my reservation on whether it is good for the game.
This would put a lot more emphasis on tattoos and less on characters.
December 29 2007 11:45 AM EST
At a lvl 6.5m tattoo I'd imagine there's not many people that could (or would want to) actually raise your tattoo Ranger given that only a small % of players would have an MTL > Steeds of the Apocalypse.
You'd have to pretty much do it yourself which would mean sacrificing some XP gain and MPR as you would have to compromise on your fightlist - no?
This might not be a bad idea for early to mid range players and is certainly worth the post imo Hatch.
It may even create another "business" aspect to the game with users power leveling tats for others as they progress through NCB.
I'm assuming that you could only "power level" a tat if your MTL was above the actual level of the tat of course.
Good idea. And I think it goes without saying your max tat would have to exceed the tattoo, power levelling or not.
December 29 2007 11:59 AM EST
I can beat my fight list with a ROE, so this idea would do nothing more then let me raise Steeds to my MTL.
You are right in that it can stimulate another business in the game.
I like the idea, but as I stated, it will make characters far more reliant on tattoos then actual minions.
Right now there are a few very high level familiars casting very high level DD spells. Far more then the AMF's of the game can handle. Imagine all those familars at the MTL. Compared to the AMF's in the game it will be little contest.
Imagine most people, in time, with a TOE at their MTL.
I have no idea if that is Jon's idea for the game.
And before the obvious discussion about how I have the highest tattoo so I do not want it, I will be happy to have a "rescale" of tattoos. Right now there are quite a few characters more reliant on their tattoos then their actual characters. Which is both good and bad.
December 29 2007 12:28 PM EST
Didn't realise you could beat your entire list with only a RoE Ranger. :/ That said, you'd still be in a place where you had to consider XP over Tat increase if this item were available.
However, this suggestion is more applicable to the other 99.99% of users who would have more options as a result of such an item being introduced.
N*B was introduced to help new users close the gap on whomever sets the benchmark in CB. A tat such as Hatch is proposing would perhaps allow the more general populace an opportunity to challenge too. I don't think it would be a bad idea if everyone was able to equip a tat to their MTL - why not..?
As ideas go I've certainly seen many that are worse. This is worth a thread and the discussion that follows :)
December 29 2007 12:34 PM EST
If this came out, of course I would use it to get Steeds to my MTL.
The only reason I do not use the ROE all the time is the loss of leveling Steeds.
This gives me and a lot of people the best of all worlds. Getting xp and gaining advanced xp for our tattoos.
It can make the ROE obsolete in most cases. Or use the ROE for a while, then this new tattoo/idea to your MTL, then switch back and forth.
It is a good idea, no doubt, well worth discussion.
while i like the gist of the idea, i think i am going to have to agree with ranger on this one in that it might not be best for the game. it really seems to me like one of those, "it would be great if i could do it to catch up" but we have to remember that it would be open to everyone.
it would also be one more reason not to use the robf though as with the roe now, unless you are willing to lose mpr in the retrains.
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=002JKG">So we have the RoE...</a>