Make Supers Super Again!

[Aegis]

considering that there are weapons and armour out there now that have been customised to be SO much better than supers ever were. And that customizing is easier to do than finding a super. It seems that one of the games biggest goals is now pointless. And it makes me sad 

[TenaciousD]

I agree, it's easier to mine jewels for 2 weeks and make a super better than a super than it is to find one.

Maybe have supers become something else to adjust to the jeweling aspect... I don't know what though. :p

[fingolfin]

Having gone over this a few times with dlorak, he seems to be of the mind to nerf jeweling in some way before making supers stronger. I liked mighty's idea of having them not break when being jeweled, but instead lose their mods. That would create a big demand again for the supers that have already been found and help create a demand for jewels. Having said all of this... A Noslin or Thorold super hasn't been found yet, so we have no idea what kind of mods they will have, maybe they really are "super".

[Dlorak]

its a risk reward issue. If you are willing to jewel your level9 rares, you have to be willing to jewel your super. If not, then the super is just a level 12 unmodded rare.

Jeweling has pushed the mods on items (at considerable cost, I admit) up to 1000+ total mods, (anyone with a 2000+ mod item?) and that breaks the balance of the supers.

[Eragon]

u mean 2k plus in one stat? cause ohric has +1kstr and like +1k def or sumtin on his de

[Dlorak]

total mods, so yeah, ohric's is exactly what I mean.

Yikes! 2000+!

[fingolfin]

well to answer the first part, there are weps with over 3k mods, not sure on 4k though. I think the thing with supers is that they are over 50x more rare then a lvl 9, but have the mods of what would be a lvl 10 wep. Being that rare people just want their super to be a lil better then a 9, and the only way to mod a super successfully would be to have many many supers to break before you got a good one. I think people should get some sort of reward for hitting a 1-500k lottery with supers, mighty's idea would fix that issue imo

[Ohric]

ok my 2c on the topic of jeweling.

This is my method for jeweling (and for the record i have 2 maybe 3 de's with over 3k mods on them, how do you factor quality jewels in this reduction i wonder?)

Have 2 items of the same type (i have reacently upped this to as many items of a partictular type you may have) and start adding jewels one at a time to each of these items. yes jeweling this way is expensive and time consuming, but it greatly increases your odds of creating a truly awe inspiring weapon or armor.

A trick i have learnt from Mighty, is to then use each item for lvling a bit till its durability goes down to 99 then repair it before you add a jewel. This seems to improve the chance of it succeeding (dlor can you confirm if this is the case?)

With this in mind it becomes quite a trivial matter to make and lvl 9 rare better than a super. and given the much greater ease of finding lvl 9 rares (compared with supers)

In my opinion a super losing its mods but still retaing it as an item would make them something worth having. and given the cost of jeweling if you did break one and had to start over... well thats a lot of money gone up in shards. (i wonder when the blacksmith is going to retire, he must have a kings fortune by now)

[Dlorak]

I think people should get some sort of reward for hitting a 1-500k lottery with supers,

I think that is a good word... Lottery... Supers are insanely rare drops, and its a huge jump in rarity but not an equally huge jump in power.
However, lvl 9 weapons are 180 and supers are 200-205...  +20% damage from weapons is a BIG gain! 20 jewels of quality!
So you can't say they suck, because base compared to base, they don't.

1/500k isnt an attainable drop... The old days of 100k made them difficult to get, but eventually everyone had a set! But the new jeweling reality should prevent that ubiquity... I'm usually really hesitant to give boosts to things or up drop rates but this makes a lot of sense... 1/90k super drop rates next version.

And about Mighty's idea, hell no jeweling destroys items for a reason.

(i wonder when the blacksmith is going to retire, he must have a kings fortune by now)

haha, he's a shrewd business man, abusing that monopoly!... perhaps a jewelAdding skill should give him some competition...

A trick i have learnt from Mighty, is to then use each item for lvling a bit till its durability goes down to 99 then repair it before you add a jewel. This seems to improve the chance of it succeeding (dlor can you confirm if this is the case?)

I'm afraid that is coinicidence only.

[fingolfin]

Well this solution solves any issues I had. I had said either make supers more powerful and hard to find or less powerful and easier to find. 1-90k is indeed easier to find, so i cant complain, well except for the fact i have never found a super in any version so i doubt ill find one even after a change.

[TenaciousD]

+1. I think those odds are much more fitting given the power of supers compared to some of the modded weapons out there.

[Eragon]

wooooo!!!! dlorak!!!

[Ohric]

(i wonder when the blacksmith is going to retire, he must have a kings fortune by now)

haha, he's a shrewd business man, abusing that monopoly!... perhaps a jewelAdding skill should give him some competition...

**BIG, BIG SMILES*** This i like!

A trick i have learnt from Mighty, is to then use each item for lvling a bit till its durability goes down to 99 then repair it before you add a jewel. This seems to improve the chance of it succeeding (dlor can you confirm if this is the case?)

I'm afraid that is coinicidence only.

Does the durability of an item make any difference to the chance of success?

[JonnyMonroe]

Rarity and power should -roughly- scale linearly, so that the number of normal weapons jewel'd up to super status in the game should roughly be equal to the number of supers (which would make them about equal in value). Hopefully the new drop chance will hit that sweet spot.

Also, dlor; going from power 180 to power 200 is not at 20% increase, its closer to 10%

...just because I don't like having +ve karma.

[Dlorak]

Ohric, durability does not affect chance of success.

Jonny, weapon power maps to a percentage gain. So a 50 weapon gives 50% of your strength as damage so a 70 weapon gives 20 more percentage points of your strength... However, its not +20% overall damage, you are precisely correct

Rarity and power should -roughly- scale linearly, so that the number of normal weapons jewel'd up to super status in the game should roughly be equal to the number of supers (which would make them about equal in value). Hopefully the new drop chance will hit that sweet spot.

Not neccessarily. Supers are a slightly different beast. Higher "power" stats put them almost in a different category than the 9 weapons. I won't give rigourous math, but as your base strength gets higher that extra %ofSTR damage becomes more significant than if you had a level9 (180power) with +STR on it. However, early on, jeweled +STR weapons are more valuable. Choices...
The inflection point (when it is more valuable to use a high POWER weapon over one with lots of STRmods) depends on %'s and STR, and the costs (gold and risk) of jeweling with +STR or +Quality.
EDIT: Wow that is abstract stuff... basically 2000+ base STR, chances are you want a super.

[JonnyMonroe]

Ohric, durability does not affect chance of success.

Jonny, weapon power maps to a percentage gain. So a 50 weapon gives 50% of your strength as damage so a 70 weapon gives 20 more percentage points of your strength... However, its not +20% overall damage, you are precisely correct

Rarity and power should -roughly- scale linearly, so that the number of normal weapons jewel'd up to super status in the game should roughly be equal to the number of supers (which would make them about equal in value). Hopefully the new drop chance will hit that sweet spot.

Not neccessarily. Supers are a slightly different beast. Higher "power" stats put them almost in a different category than the 9 weapons. I won't give rigourous math, but as your base strength gets higher that extra %ofSTR damage becomes more significant than if you had a level9 (180power) with +STR on it. However, early on, jeweled +STR weapons are more valuable. Choices...
The inflection point (when it is more valuable to use a high POWER weapon over one with lots of STRmods) depends on %'s and STR, and the costs (gold and risk) of jeweling with +STR or +Quality.
EDIT: Wow that is abstract stuff... basically 2000+ base STR, chances are you want a super.

First of all, lets say you have 1000str and a 180 weapon, your hits before mods are 1800. same str with a 200 power weapon gives you 2000 hits. That is NOT a 20% increase. 1800*1.2 != 2000.

Second, when I say power in the line you quoted I dan't mean weapon power. My bad for using a term thats already used in game. I meant the overall relative strength of the weapon, all mods and powers included. The value of strength increases with weapon power and the value of weapon power increases with strength, I'm not arguing against that its the same in a lot of other games. But at any point where a super and a gemed item have relevent stats to both give the same increase (more str on the gemmed item, more power on the super normally), then those items should in a good economy be about the same rarity and, hence, value.

[Dlorak]

Yeah we 'get' eachother and we're both tripping over the semantics! Lets agree to agree 

But at any point where a super and a gemed item have relevent stats to both give the same increase (more str on the gemmed item, more power on the super normally), then those items should in a good economy be about the same rarity and, hence, value.

specifically...

both give the same increase (more str on the gemmed item, more power on the super normally)

This is where choices come into play. The items are inherently different because of the way they draw their power.
For BigBadPlayer, ItemA > ItemB
For NewGuy, ItemA < ItemB

The items don't change, but their relative value to each player does... So the fixed rarity can't map to some value... (because the value is a moving target).

[JonnyMonroe]

Yeah we 'get' eachother and we're both tripping over the semantics! Lets agree to agree 

But at any point where a super and a gemed item have relevent stats to both give the same increase (more str on the gemmed item, more power on the super normally), then those items should in a good economy be about the same rarity and, hence, value.

specifically...

both give the same increase (more str on the gemmed item, more power on the super normally)

This is where choices come into play. The items are inherently different because of the way they draw their power.
For BigBadPlayer, ItemA > ItemB
For NewGuy, ItemA < ItemB

The items don't change, but their relative value to each player does... So the fixed rarity can't map to some value... (because the value is a moving target).

Certainly the value of an item differs depending on the stats from player to player, thats just good design. But you surely have some formula behind the scenes that you can use to work out a relative value of 1 point in any given stat versus another? (in this case str versus power). We often come back to making comparisons to WoW because, frankly, its one of the most transparent games in the genre and pretty much every background formula is well known. I their case a fixed value stat (strength) and a multiplicative stat (say crit for example). Whilst the values of those stats can change from player to player the stat itself still has a fixed 'item budget'. For 2 items of the same budget, whether its spent on crit or strength (or strength or power), will have the same rarity. Thats the point I'm getting at here - that 2 items of the same 'budget' (however the hell you calculate that in quest) would have the same rarity.

Or maybe I'm way off bat and you don't calculate item values, strengths and rarities. Maybe you just get really drunk and start mashing items blindly into a database while giggling to yourself. Either of those are good design methods.

[Dlorak]

For 2 items of the same budget, whether its spent on crit or strength (or strength or power), will have the same rarity. Thats the point I'm getting at here - that 2 items of the same 'budget' (however the hell you calculate that in quest) would have the same rarity.

Right. The 'buget' is the 'rare level' in quest. Item power, however, is not part of the interchangability. In terms more familiar to me "power has no exchange rate". The fixed power is a relic of the prior system, we simply don't have a fully matured "buget" model. Its a price we have to pay, but all new item abilities enter-in with 'exchange rates' for stats... new item abilities like crit%+ (like you mention), dodge%+, drains, burns, DOTs, etc will be able to arise in exchange of stats at the predetermined 'exchange rate'.

So you notice the conservative use of higher power weapons and armor: once we go to that point, weaker power'd weapons and armor are at a %-based disadvantage.

Maybe you just get really drunk and start mashing items blindly into a database while giggling to yourself.

If Shiris was here she'd have an argument that without some element of 'giggly' database mashing items would be "boring". *shrug*

[JonnyMonroe]

I greatly look forward to those wider variety abilities. Individual builds totally need a feel of individuality.

If Shiris was here she'd have an argument that without some element of 'giggly' database mashing items would be "boring". *shrug*

She'd be right. I can't remember who said it but 'You can't have good choices without bad choices' - and you need good and bad choices to make any distinction between good and bad players.