ranks and masteries.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:58:16 GMT

David D replies to Christian

> > I agree,that edges and ranks are more or less worthless and
> > underrated,maybe a doubling,like Wulf suggests,is a good
> > idea-also,it would relate to the average RQ-weapon-damage.
>
> They'd still frequently cancel out, but that's not the only problem...
>
> In my experience, they slow down the game if used frequently.

In what way is this a a problem with equipments ranks, that isn't a _bigger_ problem with augmentations? (Often cited as an example of "why magic matters in high-level games", so surely not insignificant.)

> I love mastery and bumps too, I'd just prefer that mastery be
> something rare and impressive. And I didn't say it was hard, only
> that too many masteries floating around slows down play a bit.

It does create (or exacerbate) niggles with masteries, but personally I'd prefera more "squished" scale mainly for aesthetic purposes. Firstly, that one mastery have a meaning more readily explicable in game world terms; and secondly it seems a "waste" of the scale, if the difference between adjacent points is so trivial that the "give me a +10 (or better yet +20) or give me death" mentality sets in. Inflation from the Pendragon "standard +5", Mr. Stafford. ;-)

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail