Here we go again: Update 5 Named Items

[Symar-FangofLloth]

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...9&postcount=21

[MarcusCole]

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...9&postcount=21

Now THAT is what I call twink gear

[Jiipster]

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...9&postcount=21

Dang.

[sephiroth1084]

Clearly the lack of ML is an oversight... we hope.

Yes, but the purple ioun gains an ML of 5, and is much more of an improvement upon gear available at that level than the +15 Spot...

[Eladrin]

Not according to rumors I've heard.

Looks like someone critically failed their treasure creation check to me, and rolled their face in the minimum level column.

And, uh, it certainly wasn't me. Er... Okay, maybe it was.

If I remember correctly, the intention was to make the Ioun Stones "Bound to Account on Upgrade, but Binds to a Character on Equip", but that didn't work so well (the feedback was terrible!) and... er, I apparently mashed random buttons in the minimum level column.

Let's put them into the "may be subject to change, but no rush" bucket. As noted, they're great twink items, and that was intentional (we wanted them to be great for TR's), but didn't quite hit the target exactly as intended.

[Xionanx]

Looks like someone critically failed their treasure creation check to me, and rolled their face in the minimum level column.

And, uh, it certainly wasn't me. Er... Okay, maybe it was.

If I remember correctly, the intention was to make the Ioun Stones "Bound to Account on Upgrade, but Binds to a Character on Equip", but that didn't work so well (the feedback was terrible!) and... er, I apparently mashed random buttons in the minimum level column.

Let's put them into the "may be subject to change, but no rush" bucket. As noted, they're great twink items, and that was intentional (we wanted them to be great for TR's), but didn't quite hit the target exactly as intended.

Honestly as the game continues to grow and more items and features are added, the inclusion of a ML on items IMO is just not needed.

Here is my reasoning:

A) Any "veteran" player can level a NON-TR character in less then 2 weeks of "average" play. Did preventing them from having a +5 Vorpal at level 1 really slow them down? Make them less uber? I doubt it.

B) Any player who has TR'ed their character should be allowed to use Bound to Character gear. They worked hard to get it and it should therefore should be available for use at level 1. Once again I refer to the "overpowered" argument and laugh. A TR character played by a veteran player is already overpowered, allowing them the use of the fruits of their labor earlier IMO would make TR'ing a LOT more fun then it is and may lessen the "pain" of the XP penalty.

C) If your intent by adding a ML to items is to create some kind of "power balance" so you can create new low level quests and have a general idea of the power levels of low level characters.. well once again I laugh. There are just too many variables in the abilities of builds and the players themselves to ever achieve a "balance" at a level range, its like trying to catch rain with a tennis racket. Yeah, your racket may get wet..

D) The "ultimate" form of control that can be leveraged on items and that HAS been leveraged on items is the need to quest for them. By making items "bound" to character you have already imposed the limitation of first needing to be able to run the quest, then being present when the item is pulled. Why also place a minimum level barrier? If the quest is a level 10 quest and someone completes it at 5 and gets the item dont they already have the "power" of a level 10 character? Just some food for thought.

So.. anyway, I would love to see the ML removed from any and all items that are "bound". I understand the need of unbound items to have a ML to prevent people from just buying their way to power.. Ehh

[Glenalth]

The floating rocks are looking good. I like the concept of some somewhat difficult to acquire twink items.

[Rodrak]

[sirgog]

That is - awesome.

[Auran82]

That is - awesome.

Mantle? What mantle?

[Therilith]

Honestly as the game continues to grow and more items and features are added, the inclusion of a ML on items IMO is just not needed.

What about TRs partying with new/non-TR players? They're already twinked pretty hard, but to give them full access to everything?

[Krastave]

anyone posted this item yet?

[eunucorn]

Looks like someone critically failed their treasure creation check to me, and rolled their face in the minimum level column.

And, uh, it certainly wasn't me. Er... Okay, maybe it was.

If I remember correctly, the intention was to make the Ioun Stones "Bound to Account on Upgrade, but Binds to a Character on Equip", but that didn't work so well (the feedback was terrible!) and... er, I apparently mashed random buttons in the minimum level column.

Let's put them into the "may be subject to change, but no rush" bucket. As noted, they're great twink items, and that was intentional (we wanted them to be great for TR's), but didn't quite hit the target exactly as intended.

I really like the intention. But why bind-to-account at all? These should go straight to being btc. You are twinking out your next life. IMO there should be TR only gear and this is a passable mechanism for creating that.

But honestly, I think there should be some sort of TR altar where you can craft stuff for your next life where uberness of what you can craft is based on the # of times you TR. Life 1st TR alows you to add cold touch to any random gen weapon, 2nd allows frost, 3rd icy burst, 4th TR icy blast. This would help give incentive to TRing more than 2 times and make the whole process a bit less painful.

[Maegin]

I like BtA! Saves from grinding multiple items for your toons, and just makes life easier!

[ellamonster]

I like BtA! Saves from grinding multiple items for your toons, and just makes life easier!

I do too! I kinda wish everything was BtA ( I know that won't be popular but I don't play as intensely as everyone else). I hate going out to Amrath and getting belts that no one can use because they don't have the right character there. Or everyone has pulled that beauty item with the wrong character before!

[Kale_Hagan]

anyone posted this item yet?

This looks to have the potential to be upgraded to a construct-annihilating greataxe.

[Rodrak]

This looks to have the potential to be upgraded to a construct-annihilating greataxe.

Rumour: Epic Antique Greataxe: +6 greataxe (2d12, 20/x3), metalline, force burst, empty red augment slot, empty colorless augment slot

[Oolung]

Am I the first to notice this one is bound to character and not account?

[sirgog]

Rumour: Epic Antique Greataxe: +6 greataxe (2d12, 20/x3), metalline, force burst, empty red augment slot, empty colorless augment slot

That would be weaker against Pit Fiends than a Mineral 2.

Hopefully it'd be more like 3d10 or 3d12 base damage, and one more minor DPS buff (like Maiming, or Slicing).

[Wizard_Zero]

Can anyone say: "End of PvP for casters?"

Awesome for PvE though.