Don't Remove MF from the Game; Just Cut it in Half

"

Kranyum wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Lets just make the game super casual and remove MF from the game and raise the drop rates. That still isn't enough so lets play big brother and limit the amount of hours someone can play to 5 hours per day so they don't have too much of an advantage over the ones with lives. Lets make a game for people with lives, and screw the people with no lives!!

And lets make a hello kitty farming level in the game where the people with shit gear can farm without risk of getting oneshotted with negative resists. Hello kitty land has no reflect mobs, no lightning thorns, no exiles, no chaos damage, no elemental damage, and no big damage attacks, and the giant kitty boss just stands there and lets you pound it for loot like a pinata.

Go fick yourself you retard. Only proper answer i can think of.

If you're looking for hello kitty adventure island, then go play it.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

And lets make a hello kitty farming level

I guess even when attempting to be bipartisan, you can't please all the people all of the time.

wtf cutting in half, are u crazy. I will stop mfing if that happen...... everyone will.

"Don't Remove MF from the Game; Just Cut it in Half"
Thats telling how op are MF Builds. They shall remove this and increase just a little drop ratio. Thats mine opinion.

"

Mainoffender wrote:

wtf cutting in half, are u crazy. I will stop mfing if that happen...... everyone will.

... Because it's only 4x as effective as no-MF instead of 16x?
That seems silly.

"

pneuma wrote:

"

Mainoffender wrote:

wtf cutting in half, are u crazy. I will stop mfing if that happen...... everyone will.

... Because it's only 4x as effective as no-MF instead of 16x?
That seems silly.

To those who invested time and effort into getting those MF numbers, visibly cutting them in half has a significantly more demoralizing effect than buffing numbers elsewhere or changing how MF works (specifically IIQ) in order to achieve the same end-goal of balancing MF.

The MF problem is there, GGG recognized it and it will be addressed. The only question is how, and I hope they go for the more elegant solution over this one.

"

Novalisk wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

"

Mainoffender wrote:

wtf cutting in half, are u crazy. I will stop mfing if that happen...... everyone will.

... Because it's only 4x as effective as no-MF instead of 16x?
That seems silly.

To those who invested time and effort into getting those MF numbers, visibly cutting them in half has a significantly more demoralizing effect than buffing numbers elsewhere or changing how MF works (specifically IIQ) in order to achieve the same end-goal of balancing MF.

The MF problem is there, GGG recognized it and it will be addressed. The only question is how, and I hope they go for the more elegant solution over this one.

Imagine GGG introduced a new skill that took a while to make use of but it did 16x the damage of every other build in the game.

Later they realize that they've made a horrible mistake, and they need to reduce that number to 4x. It's still way stronger than everyone else and it's still worth building for, but at least it's not better than a whole team of non-users. It brings it back down to a reasonable level where people can talk about not using that skill once in a while.

Parts of the game may be balanced around needing to do X damage. It's not good to expect people to either play with the skill or spend 16x longer with anything else. If X takes 100 hours to achieve, then expecting people to twiddle their thumbs for 1600 hours of gameplay without that skill is unrealistic.

Would you get demoralized or would you realize that it needed to happen for the betterment of the game?

More to the point, what more elegant solution can you provide?

"

pneuma wrote:

Imagine GGG introduced a new skill that took a while to make use of, and it did 16x the damage of every other build in the game.

Later they realize that they've made a horrible mistake, and they need to reduce that number to 4x. It's still way stronger than everyone else and it's still worth build for, but at least it's not better than a whole team of non-users.

Would you get demoralized or would you realize that it needed to happen for the betterment of the game?

Of course that logically it's the same outcome and I support that outcome. It's the visible effect that could be an issue. I'm not an MF player, but I can say without a doubt that if GGG nerfed my weapon's damage I would be more upset than if they buffed the damage of weaker weapons. Not outraged mind you, but I can see certain other people outraged. If there is a more elegant and indirect solution out there, it's always better.

"

More to the point, what more elegant solution can you provide?

Cutting MF values on gear by half is something I originally suggested back when Scrotie was hung up on eliminating MF entirely. Since then I realized there are superior alternatives, such as:

1. Changing IIQ from gear and maps to Increased Orb Quantity. This will solve screen clutter as well.

2. Making map MF additive with gear instead of multiplicative, while also giving maps IIR alongside IIQ (1 IIQ = 2 IIR).

"

Novalisk wrote:

1. Changing IIQ from gear and maps to Increased Orb Quantity. This will solve screen clutter as well.

2. Making map MF additive with gear instead of multiplicative, while also giving maps IIR alongside IIQ (1 IIQ = 2 IIR).

1 isn't a horrible idea, but it's not required, either. You can have generalist mods (+% Spell Damage) and/or specialist mods (+% Lightning Damage). The thing is to make generalist mods balanced appropriately to reflect that they help with everything, with specialist mods (IIR in this case) also balanced appropriate to reflect taht they only help with specific things. Since IIR numbers are generally higher than IIQ numbers, I feel that we don't necessarily have a problem here, except that all of the numbers, both IIQ and IIR, are currently too high.

That said, currency-specific MF would be kind of neat.

2, on the other hand, is a horrible idea. Wretched. Foul. It's basically saying, "Hey you, MF stacker guy? Right now you've focused so much on MF stacking that you're basically running Docks over and over instead of actually trying out end-game maps, and so far you're fine with this because you're hauling in huge stacks of loot. Well, now we want you to stay there. Forever. Don't try maps, because we'll burn you." Which is an extremely stupid-ass thing for mechanics to say. No, no, and no again.

"

Novalisk wrote:

I'm not an MF player, but I can say without a doubt that if GGG nerfed my weapon's damage I would be more upset than if they buffed the damage of weaker weapons.

I don't understand this mentality since the effect is the exact same, but I'll have to take your word for it. I hear it often and it always strikes me as too narrow of an outlook on the game. I've been playing for so long that all of my builds have been nerfed into the ground and then buffed into the heavens and then nerfed again. The sky did not fall and the game did not suddenly become not worth playing.

"

Novalisk wrote:

If there is a more elegant and indirect solution out there, it's always better.

Indirect is not better. Indirect is trying to hide what you're trying to accomplish. "X is too strong, we must do something" is the purpose. "X was weakened" is a lot better than "[^X] was buffed" which is better than "Z was buffed which indirectly buffs Y which competes with X, making X a worse option".

---

"

Novalisk wrote:

1. Changing IIQ from gear and maps to Increased Orb Quantity. This will solve screen clutter as well.

2. Making map MF additive with gear instead of multiplicative, while also giving maps IIR alongside IIQ (1 IIQ = 2 IIR).

1) Sure, that can help in a roundabout way. The simpler fix is "lower IIQ, increase orb drop rate". This is less total change, the same result, and the patch is explicit about its intentions.

2) This seems bad. Agree with Scrotie's reasoning above.