Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6163317" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Then was it a power reduction to raise the price?&nbsp; Again, would reducing the price of enchanted arrows be power creep?&nbsp; I suggest it would not, in that they move from &quot;never worth purchasing&quot; to &quot;having some value&quot;, but that still means some characters will have magical ranged weapon capacity before they otherwise would have.So they should never have suggested using some other method to price an item which provided True Strike at all times?&nbsp; ?&nbsp; And should I not also be able to buy an item which provides Expeditious Retreat at all times for the same price?&nbsp; Bet that's cheaper that Boots of Striding and Springing.&nbsp; The Cloak of Displacement change also deviates from the standard pricing guidelines, doesn't it?&nbsp; If it is possible for an item (or many items) to be inappropriately cheap at the standard pricing model, does it not stand to reason there may be other cases where the standard pricing model results in an excessive price?&nbsp; Should we fix only one of the two discrepancies, or correct both?If the &quot;big 6&quot; are so critical that they must be the priority, perhaps they are underpriced - that is, they provide an excessive benefit for their cost.&nbsp; On that basis, perhaps what MIC got wrong was lowing prices on many other items, rather than raising the price for the &quot;Big 6&quot; effects.&nbsp; Of course, that would have other repercussions, when players got these bonuses delayed, but if the +3 Sword, or the bump from +2 to +3, is more valuable than Miscellaneous Item X, should it not also cost more?Was the structure perfect before?&nbsp; If so, then a change was ill-advised.&nbsp; I agree with the designers that a huge book of items that will never be used - for whatever reason - is a waste.&nbsp; So that comes to either addressing that problem (their choice), focusing the book on items that would provide the same, or similar, benefits to the Big Six, or writing the Book of Useless Magic Items and expecting gamers to pay for things that will never be used.&nbsp; Which of the three should they have selected?&nbsp; If you consider the change made by the designers to be inappropriate, what change would you recommend instead?&nbsp; One choice, of course, is simply to stop publishing new content.&nbsp; I think the gaming community wants new content, though.&nbsp; Of course, the choice to publish no new content isn't really a choice from a business perspective, but selling &quot;Power up Coupons&quot; to players and &quot;Slap 'em Back Down Coupons&quot; to GM's could make some money too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6163317, member: 6681948"] Then was it a power reduction to raise the price? Again, would reducing the price of enchanted arrows be power creep? I suggest it would not, in that they move from "never worth purchasing" to "having some value", but that still means some characters will have magical ranged weapon capacity before they otherwise would have. So they should never have suggested using some other method to price an item which provided True Strike at all times? ? And should I not also be able to buy an item which provides Expeditious Retreat at all times for the same price? Bet that's cheaper that Boots of Striding and Springing. The Cloak of Displacement change also deviates from the standard pricing guidelines, doesn't it? If it is possible for an item (or many items) to be inappropriately cheap at the standard pricing model, does it not stand to reason there may be other cases where the standard pricing model results in an excessive price? Should we fix only one of the two discrepancies, or correct both? If the "big 6" are so critical that they must be the priority, perhaps they are underpriced - that is, they provide an excessive benefit for their cost. On that basis, perhaps what MIC got wrong was lowing prices on many other items, rather than raising the price for the "Big 6" effects. Of course, that would have other repercussions, when players got these bonuses delayed, but if the +3 Sword, or the bump from +2 to +3, is more valuable than Miscellaneous Item X, should it not also cost more? Was the structure perfect before? If so, then a change was ill-advised. I agree with the designers that a huge book of items that will never be used - for whatever reason - is a waste. So that comes to either addressing that problem (their choice), focusing the book on items that would provide the same, or similar, benefits to the Big Six, or writing the Book of Useless Magic Items and expecting gamers to pay for things that will never be used. Which of the three should they have selected? If you consider the change made by the designers to be inappropriate, what change would you recommend instead? One choice, of course, is simply to stop publishing new content. I think the gaming community wants new content, though. Of course, the choice to publish no new content isn't really a choice from a business perspective, but selling "Power up Coupons" to players and "Slap 'em Back Down Coupons" to GM's could make some money too. [/QUOTE]

Verification