Potential Fixes to Underused/Useless Items (in General)


Solare August 5 2010 11:56 AM EDT

I was bored, so I decided to think of potential fixes to the junk that exists currently.

I'd like to hear feedback, but if you wish to create fixes of your own, please do so in a different thread, so we don't get too far off topic.

Personally, I think these kinds of fixes would allow great diversity in the game.

ARMOR
Small Wooden Shield: No Negative attributes to anything, +5 to unarmed combat
Kite Shield: +0.5% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills, and no negative attributes when equipped with an hafted type weapon
Buckler: has a (per +)% chance to reflect (10%) of damage received
Tower Shield: has a 0.5*(per +)% chance to nullify physical damage received

Hard Leather Cap: Bonus +5 to unarmed combat; remove current unarmed combat penalties
Cabasset: (per +)% chance to nullify magical damage received
Heaume: (per +)% chance to deflect (per +)% damage received (different from reflect as it nullifies the %)
Armet: 0.5% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills, and no negative attributes when equipped with an hafted type weapon

Leather Gloves: +1% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills when equipped with a short edged weapon.
Leather Gauntlets: +2% bonus (per +) to skills when equipped with an amulet of invisibility
Cesti: 0.5% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills, and no negative attributes when equipped with an hafted type weapon

Leather Boots: +1% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills when equipped with a short edged weapon.
Greaves: 0.5% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills, and no negative attributes when equipped with an hafted type weapon
Steel-shod Boots: 0.5*(per +)% chance to deflect (per +)% damaged received

Cloak: Reduces +0.5*(per +) PTH
Robe: Increases ED, EO by 0.5*(per +)%

Leather Armor: 0.5% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills when equipped with a short edged weapon.
Leather Scale Mail: 1% bonus (per +) to skills when equipped with an amulet of invisibility
Ring Mail: has a 0.5*(per +)% chance to nullify magical damage received
Chain Mail: (per +)% chance to deflect (per +)% damage received
Banded Mail: 3% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills, and no negative attributes when equipped with a polearm type weapon
Steel Breastplate: has a (per +)% chance to reflect (15%) of damage received
Steel Brigandine: 0.5% bonus (per +) to Str, Dex, and Skills, and no negative attributes when equipped with an hafted type weapon
Steel Cuirass: has a 0.5*(per +)% chance to nullify physical damage received

WEAPONS
*any chance above 100%, affects the chance of the effect happening twice (i.e. 200% means it happens twice always)

Short Edge

Dagger: Base damage x19 when equipped with a Cloak AND Amulet of Invisibility
Main Gauche: has a 0.5*(per +)% chance per blow to attack 10 more times (effected next attacks not counted towards this effect)
Rapier: has a (per +)% chance per blow to attack 3 more times (effected next attacks not counted towards this effect)
Sabre: 0.002*(per x)% to ignore enemy AC
Cutlass: Base damage x5.5 when equipped with a Ring Mail (Ring Mail gives no penalties to Str/Dex/Skills)
Tulwar: Base damage x4.5 when equipped with a Chain Mail (Chain Mail gives no penalties to Str/Dex/Skills)
Long Sword: has a (per +)% chance per blow to attack another time (effected next attack not counted towards this effect)
Broad Sword: Base damage x2.5 when equipped with a Steel Cuirass (Steel Cuirass gives no penalties to Str/Dex/Skills)
Claymore: 0.25*(per +)% chance to do double damage
Bastard Sword: has a 0.25*(per +)% chance to tripple the affect of Bloodlust

Long Edge

Executioner's Sword: 0.001*(per x)% chance to do double damage

Hammer

Mace: has a (per +)% chance per blow to attack 3 more times (effected next attacks not counted towards this effect)
War Hammer: 0.001*(per x)% to ignore enemy AC
Lucerne Hammer: 0.002*(per x)% extra return on Shield of Capacity damage
Morning Star: (per +)% chance to do double damage

Hafted

Whip: has a (per +)% chance per blow to attack 5 more times (effected next attacks not counted towards this effect)
Beaked Axe: has a 0.25*(per +)% chance to tripple the affect of Bloodlust
Great Axe: has a 0.10*(per +)% chance to tripple the affect of Bloodlust
Lochaber Axe: 0.25*(per +)% chance to do double damage
Scythe: 0.001*(per x)% to ignore enemy AC

Polearm

Glaive: 0.001*(per x)% to ignore enemy AC
Awl-Pike: has a (per +)% chance per blow to attack 3 more times (effected next attacks not counted towards this effect)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 5 2010 12:11 PM EDT

Why? Great Diversity? Seriously?

The weapons you list would all require a complete rework since they do almost no damage, and if you upped the damage, then the abilities you gave them would be insanely powerful.

Every armor thing I read (I admit I couldn't read the rest because of the rage blindness) was just more freaking random bonuses (aside from armor being arbitrarily linked to weapons, which I almost like) which would make everyones fightlists smaller without really making the game more nuanced or interesting.

I really like that people want to offer suggestions, it's great. But good gravy it'd be nice to have them make sense. In the time it took you to put this together you could have helped clean up the wiki or written a tutorial for new folks.

Womp August 5 2010 12:12 PM EDT

First of all, massive props for coming up with all this stuff. Some ideas are really interesting, and I definitely support having fewer useless items.
That said, a few flaws:
So you get your awl-pike (or any weapon using that effect) to +100 and then it hits for quadruple damage? Seems broken to me. +200 isn't out of reach, and hitting for 7x damage each normal hit, no matter how piddly the base damage is, seems absurd, especially assuming that the + still adds PTH like a normal weapon.
Perhaps most of these weapon effects would be better off (more balanced) not scaling with upgrades? Base damage could be boosted to put all weapons more on par with the "big six".
Also, many of these effects (i.e. chance to nullify magic damage, etc) strike me as too RNG-dependent to see much use- no one wants to lose 10% of their battles because they had an unlucky streak, and no one wants to get beaten by some low-down team that happened to shrug off 5 SGs in a row.

Demigod August 5 2010 12:57 PM EDT

I'm at work and don't have time to evaluate the massive details, but it seems like it's quite complex and could open the doors to a major amount of tweaking down the road.

Since the main problem is that elite gear is now obtainable within a week of playing, the only way I see to regain the beloved gear ladder (using common items and slowly working up to better) is to make them MPR-dependent. In other words, you can't equip elven gear until you reach X MPR.

If that's done, then we would have to look at improving crappy items enough so that people can beat the low- and mid-level targets.

AdminNightStrike August 5 2010 1:56 PM EDT

There's no way a wooden shield is going to give 0 to UC, let alone +5. Sorry.

For the rest of this, it looks like you are trying to make everything be rare.

Solare August 5 2010 2:38 PM EDT

For those making harsh criticisms based on the names of the items, change them to make them make more sense. I am simply trying to rework them to make them usable.

I don't see any of these as overpowered, at least not more so than any other items out there.
The rare items would still be the overall best, but these items could be conditionally good with the revamps.

My argument is this: if you want these items in the game, make them usable otherwise they'll simply be taking up space.

As far as making bonuses to UC, there are currently very few items that do so; I was simply giving UC some attention.

Otherwise thanks for the the comments, I could use more intelligent criticism as to how these items could be better tweaked or potential flaws within.

Solare August 5 2010 2:45 PM EDT

Sorry for the double post, but I simply forgot to include another response to the apparent venomously angry troll-like post I received from novice.

I'm not concerned with the wiki. Nor anything having to do with the stasis of the game. I'm attempting to help the community with creative new ideas. This game needs vast improvement, and in order for it to achieve better status, it needs creativity. I was merely touching on the matter of pathetically useless items. To beat down the suggestions mercilessly rather than to include any potential corrections or improvements, was simply rude and unnecessary. I honestly thought you had more maturity than that. If you want to bitterly, but intelligently, break down my suggestions by making them better, you'd be doing me, and the community, a huge favor. Please do analyze them, and include your own suggestions.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 5 2010 2:45 PM EDT

Ahh... I must have misunderstood.

You're using existing names for new items, that make a heap more sense than attaching abilities to the existing non-rares.

Lord Bob August 5 2010 3:00 PM EDT

I don't like the armor suggestions for the reasons stated.

I don't like any of the "attack x more times" because I feel that is insanely overpowered, even for low end weapons (10 more times? Really?).

Let's see... High end weapons need no buff. Hammers already benefit from a rare shield. Moving on.

Dagger - I've always advocated adding a poison effect to this. This makes it a good supporting weapon for enchanters.

Whip - Should do splash damage, exactly like a Sling of Death. Again, this makes it a good starting weapon, or an enchanter's (or wall's) supporting weapon. Also, add more whips.

Pole arms - have them hit the second minion in line, bypassing front walls.

Lord Bob August 5 2010 3:05 PM EDT

Oh, and make rare items RARE again.

Solare August 5 2010 8:19 PM EDT

Bob, the reason why I added abilities to hammers is because if your going to own a hammer with your shield it will likely be the one with the highest damage output. Why would you ever choose one lower? I gave reason to choosing a lesser hammer.

The poison idea sounds good in theory, but I can see it becoming largely overpowered. I'd probably place a limit of a certain amount of poison damage per a set amount of damage inflicted. If the damage is low, then I believe there should be no poison damage. This would prevent minions with high + daggers and little dex or str from abusing it.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 5 2010 8:27 PM EDT

All the '% chance to deal extra attacks' stuff is redundant. As CB has no 'per hit' abilities, all these do is increase damage.

You might just as well increase the weapons base damage, as it would be an accurate representation, without spamming 1 to 10 extra lines in the post fight log per round.

In which case, all we're doing is bumping weapons up damage categories until either;

1) They surpase the damage of thier Rare counterparts, and the Rares are made redundant, so we either scrap them or give them extra bonuses.

2) They still don't do as much damage as thier Rare counterparts, and they still aren't used.

Either way,something's redundant, and should just be culled.

The same for the Armour Pen (Either better, or worse than a VB or ES), and Double Damage, tripple BL, etc.

Linking Weapons and Armour is a nice touch, there have been suggestions for 'sets' since D2 I think. ;)

Solare August 5 2010 8:36 PM EDT

As far as the % to whatever thing, it has the possibility of reaching 100% even higher to increase the odds of it occurring twice. I was simply trying to add a bit of 'flavor' the game. To simply increase the base damage without giving them some ability would be pointless, because the higher-end weapons would always be chosen anyways. I tried to recreate the set idea, but make it more expandable and more versatile.
It appears some people don't like randomness, but its no longer random once it happens 100% of the time right? The same could be said about SoC, which seems to proc at random sometimes.
Justified point of view though, thanks for the suggestions.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 5 2010 8:44 PM EDT

Dex and PTH based hits can reach 100% and higher, but all they are are damage multipliers.

Same as the extra hits.

If at 100PTH a Whip with it's automatic 5 extra attacks doesn't do (in total) the same damage as an ELS at 100 PTH, why would anyone use it?

That's the issue.

And if the Whip does more, why would you ever use the ELS?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 5 2010 8:46 PM EDT

And if they both do the same damage, you would only ever use the cheapest one to upgrade...

BadFish August 5 2010 8:46 PM EDT

And if the Whip does more, why would you ever use the ELS?

This is an obvious issue of rarity; with nothing rare anymore, only the most premium items are worthy of use as you can pick them up for next to nothing.

with a larger player base this could be remedied.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 5 2010 8:48 PM EDT

Rarity is the worst reason posible to base item power on.

Would you like a Weapon that kills everone in the game in one round, but was balanced by there being only one of them in the game?

Demigod August 5 2010 8:49 PM EDT

I has a lot to do with the sheer availability of money when starting out. Since new players make more than regular players, the market is in their favor.

Solare August 5 2010 9:08 PM EDT

I disagree with the whole rarity thing. This is a strategy game; where does rarity fit into strategy development?
As far as the whip thing goes. The base damage is very low, so having the chance to hit 5 times can be good or bad. If you miss, you miss once and perhaps don't hit at all that turn. But, if you hit, you have guaranteed 5 additional chances to hit. The base damage is low, so its not like its going to be racking out insane amounts of damage, but it does nicely gives chances low dex tanks and increase their ability to hit multiple times. If all 5 hits hit then its damage potential can be high, but each individual chance has a chance to miss. Whereas a high output weapon just needs one hit to deal massive damage. Therefore it aids in the dex game and gives the weapon better usability.
Hitting 10 times with the Main Gauche.. is it really that OP? It has crap base damage anyways.

Lord Bob August 5 2010 9:46 PM EDT

Bob, the reason why I added abilities to hammers is because if your going to own a hammer with your shield it will likely be the one with the highest damage output. Why would you ever choose one lower?
You wouldn't, given the availability of a bigger one. That's why I think rares need to be rare, rather than buffing every last mid-range item.


The poison idea sounds good in theory, but I can see it becoming largely overpowered.
That all depends on the implementation, which I intentionally did not discuss.


I disagree with the whole rarity thing. This is a strategy game; where does rarity fit into strategy development?
This is a strategy RPG. You do not start out with the Ultima Weapon at the beginning of every Final Fantasy. Nor are you given the Battlecruiser in the first level of Starcraft.

There has to be something to work toward. And this doesn't just mean MPR. We have items in this game as well, and it only goes to reason that there would be a progression through equipment on the way up as well.

Buffing selected items is a neat idea that can add some variety without disrupting balance. But the real solution to the items economy is to make rares like they were in CB 1, not to put every item on equal footing.

Womp August 5 2010 9:51 PM EDT

Lord Bob: I would support making rare items rarer if there were more of a gradual transition between the next-to-useless gear you can buy in the shops and the rare gear. For example, mages go straight from leather gloves to AGs/NSCs- one is useless, the rares are great. Not having the rares gimps you, no doubt. If there were more intermediate items, truly rare rare items would be good.

AdminNightStrike August 5 2010 10:00 PM EDT

elite gear

Demi, you're playing too much Dark Orbit :)

Vaynard [Fees Dirt Cheap] August 5 2010 10:01 PM EDT

More rares? Sure, would be nice to see new items, particularly new supporter items. Making the old extra or junk weapons unique? Unnecessary work that would wear out our developer.

Honestly we need less worries about the weapons and armor that no one uses and more concern about new player attraction and retention. CB won't lose one person because their awl-pike has low base damage and isn't much good at all.

AdminNightStrike August 5 2010 10:18 PM EDT

Also, add more whips.

That a joke?

Ankou August 5 2010 11:32 PM EDT

I must agree with vaynard on this one. While making all items useful again would be cool, I don't see it as being a critical part of new player retention and that should be out main focus at the moment.

New things are worthless if no one is here to use them.

Solare August 5 2010 11:35 PM EDT

It seems to me, most people like the idea of rares being 'special.' I don't really get this feeling, but even so, the rare items in this game would still be better overall. Under certain conditions, I was making these items 'useful.' I do agree its not perfect, but I could certainly use more good ideas.

I would like to understand, though, why people like to see a worst to best step ladder? I'd rather see a relatively balanced bundle of items; the lesser of which are good under certain circumstances. Even if you earn the items in stages, it still makes them utterly useless. You can still have rarity with the best-in-all-situations items, but why not give the other items in the game a fighting chance?

Anyways, thanks everyone for their input so far.

Additionally,
The idea of polearms hitting the second in line was a good idea, Bob. I forgot to mention that previously. I know you stated it in an earlier post, and it would certainly add more strategy to the game and make polearms more desirable.

Solare August 5 2010 11:42 PM EDT

Sorry for the double post.

To address player retention: it is not the purpose of my thread, but diversity does allow creative minds to come up with interesting ideas, and new diversity would allow for new players to find more interest in the game. In order to address player retention see my post in the retention thread, I pretty much summed it up there.

The purpose of this thread was to simply fix some of the dead items in the game, and perhaps make them more interesting. The result, indirectly, will lead to player retention, but certainly not directly.

Lord Bob August 6 2010 12:35 AM EDT

Lord Bob: I would support making rare items rarer if there were more of a gradual transition between the next-to-useless gear you can buy in the shops and the rare gear.
Optimally, this would come with the harsh and remorseless termination of the N*B. Also, a partial return to upgrade curves on weapon damage upgrades.


If there were more intermediate items,
That's just it: there are LOTS of intermediate items. Tons. Way too many under the current system. So, it's either weed out all the useless items or slow the progress of new characters. You all know which one I'm for.


That a joke?
Someone didn't read the first part of that paragraph. As a weapon class with special properties, it deserves representation at the low to mid-high levels.


I would like to understand, though, why people like to see a worst to best step ladder? I'd rather see a relatively balanced bundle of items;
For the reasons I stated earlier. New players should start with low end weapons (like the Cutlass), save up for better items (Like a Scythe), and eventually work up to the Big Five after lots of saving and dedication. Right now we have "Welcome to CB, here's your Big Five weapon which is readily available for ~$50,000, and a rocket ride to 6/20." I long for the older days of CB 1, where there was a real climb to the upper ranks.

On the issue of player retention, how many people quit once the NUB runs out?

Ankou August 6 2010 1:01 AM EDT

I thinks the VAST majority of new players quit within the first few days, if even that.

subucni August 6 2010 1:27 AM EDT

Just get rid of whip, rapier, sabre, cutlass, awl-pike, tulwar, glaive, beaked axe, main gauche, scythe, claymore, broad sword, lochaber axe and elven stiletto.

subucni August 6 2010 1:32 AM EDT

and for the armor get rid of banded mail, stell breastplate, leather scale, ring mail, greaves, leather gauntlets, heaumes, armets and bucklers.

Lord Bob August 6 2010 1:50 AM EDT

I thinks the VAST majority of new players quit within the first few days, if even that.
That's another issue entirely. I'm not asking about the people who join, decide they don't like the game, then promptly leave. I'm asking about those who play through the NUB and leave once it's over. I seem to remember a thread on the issue a while back.

But anyway, this isn't about useless equipment, so maybe we should discuss it elsewhere.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 6 2010 5:03 AM EDT

If people want an RPG 'step up' of item use, then don't do this by rarity, but by 'leveling'.

Have the abilitiy to use diferent Weapons unlock by MPR size. This would also give people goals, semi-achievements, and with stuff to work towards, could help with retention.

There's a reason you can buy anything you want form the Tourny Store guys...

Solare August 6 2010 6:57 AM EDT

Though I like the idea of items earned in stages, I think they should come already upgraded. Otherwise it becomes a waste of money. I know I wouldn't spend money on gear I would just throw away within another time frame, unless I could still use it for some purpose. Maybe have a trade-in scheme that allows for upgrades to be given at a certain point with the same + or x values as the previous gear. I could see it useful then.

Wraithlin August 6 2010 8:11 AM EDT

If you get rid of the N*B you'll take this game from a 160 player base to a 40 in about 4 months. So good luck with that.

Also, make all the items useful is not a bad idea or unbalanced or anything. It's an outstanding idea and would add alot to this game. Giving people choices is what keeps them happy. Wanting to build a team with an archer so you go look at the weapons and...well I guess i'm using an ELB or I'll just lose. That makes the game boring and people lose interest.

Rares shouldn't be made more rare again, they should all be the same rarity, because this is a 99.5% strategy game and a 00.5% RPG. Either you have to embrace the fact that this is so, or you have to rework the game and actually make it an RPG so it makes sense for there to be rares.

Too many things wrong with too many posts in this thread to address them all without rambling. Great idea to make alot more items viable, sorry it got such a negative turnback on you, but I guess that's a good intro to the CB community, prepare for negativity anytime you suggest a change.

Solare August 6 2010 8:32 AM EDT

Wraith, you pretty much summed it up for me, and put it a lot better. Its good to see at least one person can see what I'm trying to do.
Nevertheless, I welcome negativity, as long as its constructive and well thought out.

Need more input!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 6 2010 10:07 AM EDT

solare that.s why the salvage yard and tattoo artist were introduced

Lord Bob August 6 2010 12:43 PM EDT

If you get rid of the N*B you'll take this game from a 160 player base to a 40 in about 4 months. So good luck with that.
Support for this? We had a higher player base back in the old days where there was no N*B.


Also, make all the items useful is not a bad idea or unbalanced or anything. It's an outstanding idea and would add alot to this game.
It would just further the "rush to the top" mentality that we have had here recently, and that is a bad idea. Now I'm not saying that Solare wasn't on to something. I think a few items out there could use a wee boost to make them stand out as viable alternatives, especially in niche situations. But putting every single weapon in this game on equal footing with the Big Five is just the wrong direction for this game.


Rares shouldn't be made more rare again, they should all be the same rarity, because this is a 99.5% strategy game and a 00.5% RPG.
Even in strategy games, you don't start out with the best unit. Giving everyone the best items in the game from the start, like we do now, is a mistake that I feel is damaging this game.


Either you have to embrace the fact that this is so, or you have to rework the game and actually make it an RPG so it makes sense for there to be rares.
That is the way it was back in CB1, and during the early periods of this game. I'm simply advocating a return to this game's glory years.

Womp August 6 2010 12:56 PM EDT

What's wrong with a "rush to the top" mentality? It's a multiplayer, PVP game- competition is the driving force. Certainly, for me, competing with other players and the prospect claiming a place high on the MPR rankings is what keeps me interested in this game.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 6 2010 12:57 PM EDT

Like the t store lb?

Womp August 6 2010 1:00 PM EDT

Also, LB- I wouldn't say we (the new players) are "given" the best items in the game. Rares are standard equipment; the "best" items are the weapons that people have spend months, if not years, infusing with NW.

Lord Bob August 6 2010 1:17 PM EDT

What's wrong with a "rush to the top" mentality?
Everything.


Like the t store lb?
What? The tournament store is available to tournament players.


Also, LB- I wouldn't say we (the new players) are "given" the best items in the game.
http://www.carnageblender.com/gc/search-2.tcl?category=weapons&only_expired_p=1&only_with_bids_p=1&one_line=Elven+Long+Bow&sort=expires

$50,000 for a base ELB is pretty much a give away compared to what they used to go for.


Rares are standard equipment;
That's exactly what I'm complaining about. It wasn't always this way.

Womp August 6 2010 1:20 PM EDT

Of course base weapons are cheap. They're base- next to useless, not good at all. Zen's ELB, on the other hand... well, we all know how good that is, and it's taken him an appropriate amount of work to get it to where it is.
Also "everything" isn't really a proper rebuttal... would you mind clarifying?

Lord Bob August 6 2010 1:28 PM EDT

Of course base weapons are cheap. They're base- next to useless, not good at all.
Rare base weapons used to sell in the millions, like Cornuthaums do now. I remember back in the day paying nearly a million for an Executioner's sword, and at the time that was considered quite a step up!

Now they're useless. Just like the Katana. It's sole purpose seems to be for Shade and I to buy them low, disenchant, and sell the base piece of junk back to the store for a few grand in profit. It's a pathetic item stuck in a broken economy.

Womp August 6 2010 1:31 PM EDT

So they used to sell for millions. What of it? The game's economy has changed since then, and I really don't see how letting a NUB have a base ELB/BoNE is a problem.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 6 2010 1:42 PM EDT

[quote]Even in strategy games, you don't start out with the best unit. Giving everyone the best items in the game from the start, like we do now, is a mistake that I feel is damaging this game.[/quote]

My point, is that the strategy game that is CB Tournaments does in fact give everyone access to the best units in the game to start with.

And there's a very good reason for it.

The strategy of general CB wouldn't suffer a jot if the normal store was exactly the same as the T Store. The only thing that would be impacted would be CBs economy. But's that seperate topic. ;)

Lord Bob August 6 2010 1:48 PM EDT

Also "everything" isn't really a proper rebuttal... would you mind clarifying?
There used to be a slow crawl to the top. It wasn't quick and messy, but you got there eventually, and it gave you a real sense of accomplishment. I came in late to CB 1, with many players already in the millions of PR (today's MPR), and I worked my rear off to get close to the top ranks before Jon pulled the plug. I worked my way up the item ranks, starting with rapiers and cutlasses, them moving up to maces and Katanas, then to my main goal: an Executioner's Sword. The top item at the time, the Lochaber Axe (no, really) was so rare and expensive that I had never even set it as a goal.. until the very end of CB 1, where I finally, after months of saving, was able to get lucky and find one in auctions.

There was a real sense of accomplishment back then; of working toward a long term goal, then growing your team over the long haul. Teams gave you a sense of ownership, of long term commitment, unlike the disposeable NCBs we have today. It was fun. Much more fun than the rush to 6/20 with a $50,000 "rare" that you didn't really earn. Disposeable teams have no appeal to me.

Lord Bob August 6 2010 1:53 PM EDT

My point, is that the strategy game that is CB Tournaments does in fact give everyone access to the best units in the game to start with.
I'm not talking about tournaments. That's a completely different story.

Womp August 6 2010 1:54 PM EDT

I'd say six months of careful, dedicated fighting hardly results in a "disposable" character. It's also not at all impossible to do the long, slow slog towards the top if that's the playing style you prefer- but you have to still fight carefully, planning your targets and maximizing your bonuses.

Lord Bob August 6 2010 1:58 PM EDT

I'd say six months of careful, dedicated fighting hardly results in a "disposable" character.
It does. If you didn't make your goal with your NCB, you retire it and start a new one. Disposeable characters. Lots of players here run only NCBs, then retire them and start over once the bonus period ends. I have no love for that style of play.

It's also not at all impossible to do the long, slow slog towards the top if that's the playing style you prefer
It actually is impossible, but that doesn't stop me from playing that way.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 6 2010 2:04 PM EDT

I'm not talking about tournaments. That's a completely different story.

Not really. It's the same game, and the same strategy. Sure Tounraments can have thier own funky rules, but the basics hold.

The T Store is there becuase a Competitive Tournament would be detrimental if the balance of it is based around hard to obtain items. No one would like to play in a Tournament where you couldn't win if you weren't lucky enough to snag the rare item required.

The exact same ideology holds to CB itself. It's a competitive game, and no one likes not being able to compete only becuase they can't snag the rare item they need.

That's not strategy, and does CB a disservice. The last best exmaple is the AoJ fiasco, where overnight people who were running a Familiar based stratgey had that ripped form them, and they were utterly unable ot carry on with thier chosen Strategy if there weren't one of the lucky/rich 10-20 who were able to snag one of the new AoJ.

That was a bad time for CB. And detracts from the Strategy of the game itself.

Balancing an item by it's rarity is sheer folly. Again, you wouldn't want there to be an item in CB that could kill any opponents team, in a single round, no matter what, with the balance being there was only ever 1 of them in the game...

Womp August 6 2010 2:08 PM EDT

Good (full BA) NCBs are extremely expensive and not something to be taken lightly.
Also, I would bet that if you tailored your strategy to beating top-level (7mil+ score) characters and fought for every scrap of clan and challenge bonus, you could move up, but you aren't even in a clan- you can't expect to compete or gain ground against people earning 0-15% more rewards than you, even if they aren't fighting for challenge bonus.

BadFish August 6 2010 2:13 PM EDT

GL: I agree to some extent that using an item's rarity to balance its effectiveness is undesirable. But it would be nice to have some of the demand put back into "supply and demand".

Lord Bob August 6 2010 2:24 PM EDT

Good (full BA) NCBs are extremely expensive
Irrelevant.


Also, I would bet that if you ... but you aren't even in a clan ... you can't expect
What does the items economy have to do with me moving up? Now we're just hijacking.


But it would be nice to have some of the demand put back into "supply and demand".
Very nice Badfish!

Womp August 6 2010 2:31 PM EDT

Apologies to Solare for hijacking his post.
LB, I made a new thread to continue this conversation on NCBs and character growth potential.
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=0034zr">Potential Fixes to Underused/Useless Items</a>