(Helping GGG in) Creating a unique item: a breakdown of the breakdown

"

Charan wrote:

I'm totally happy to believe that. I've never seen proof either way, but with the...odd impetus you have to post about fishing pretty much left and right, it was merely an assumption. I can't find which item you did do, so...I suppose that puts us back to square one regarding your contentment of how it all turned out.

There is actually proof:

"

Daniel_GGG wrote:

In case anyone wants to know, the two supporter uniques were Bino's Kitchen Knife and Veil of the Night.

Bino and Veil were introduced in 1.0.4, the same patch as Song.

By the way, I'm really having trouble understanding GGG's view when they say a "Movement Speed while Cursed" mod would interact badly with self-cursing. You're giving up two slots (one of which is a weapon) and inflicting yourself with a curse to obtain a nice MS bonus, perhaps indefinitely, yes. Seems fair to me.

"

ephetat wrote:

By the way, I'm really having trouble understanding GGG's view when they say a "Movement Speed while Cursed" mod would interact badly with self-cursing. You're giving up two slots (one of which is a weapon) and inflicting yourself with a curse to obtain a nice MS bonus, perhaps indefinitely, yes. Seems fair to me.

Curses can be permanent, meaning you could probably swap the weapon out and still have the move speed boost while you are in the map. Though I think it would be possible for them to fix this, a similar fix to how snapshotting works, it would probably result in a permanent ms boost per instance for the current versions of the game.

(Though I still think its a good idea, I think it should be fixed rather than disregarded as an idea)

Cheers for that, ephetat. Monsta's item shall remain a mystery for now it seems.

As for the movement speed thing? I dunno. Would have liked it myself, since Scorned has no IAS either. I gave up arguing GGG's rationale long ago. I will accept (do not read that as 'be happy') if my remaining items are thematically sound. Stat-wise, there's just no point in being anything but vague, for reasons already given.

Personally, I prefer a few dozen unsatisfied supporters to the unbalanced mess of a meta that would come about from having everyone's first ideas appeased.

Though I agree this point could have been communicated better before the designs were purchased.

False dichotomy.

"

Batemizoor wrote:

Is it though?

You could not have picked a worse example.
duolc had no part in those stats -- those were a GGG masterpiece (alongside Shav's and Acuity).

Happy to see that others are having some joy from their uniques :)

It's making me jelly given how my second one is coming along. The more I think about it, the more frustrated I'm getting. Process was:

- I propose a unique that has high increased damage but causes a stackable damage debuff for each attack (rewarding you for slow big hits since the debuff doesn't stack as much if you have fewer attacks).
- GGG says ok
- GGG then comes back to say they don't want buffs/debuffs on uniques (that didnt' stop Death's Oath though...)
- GGG suggests having that idea as a support gem instead, which excited me to no end that my work would produce a support gem
- I spend hours researching into gems and how this would work and propose it to GGG as they've suggested
- they reject it saying that's "not the route they want to take"
- They then suggest character takes damage for each attack you do, encouraging you to reduce your attack speed
- I point out the flaws in that as all it does is encourage damage mitigation (immortal call, resistances, CI etc) instead of reducing attack speed
- I counterpropose just limiting character attack speed outright
- GGG then comes back to say "we're pretty limited in our options" because they're already producing a skill gem that rewards slow big hits (wasn't that what you told me in the start couldn't be done?!)
- GGG then adds that all the prior suggestions were unworkable: (1) limiting attack speed has "too many horrible implications" and (2) short duration buffs/debuffs are "dangerous for other reasons". So all the prior work down the drain
- They then counter propose a damage-over-time per hit item which would work like puncture in not rewarding fast attacks... but that goes entirely against the flavour I was looking for.

So in the end I went back to square one and a proposed a very simple item. Increased fire damage for each endurance charge and increased cold damage for each frenzy charge. In so doing, I feel like I've copped out and taken the path of least resistance. Despite that, affixes were agreed 4 months ago and nothing has moved since.

-RANT OVER-

Sorry Charan for despoiling the thread with the above negativity. I guess the thread just brought about negative feelings of how my second item has been coming along so far. I'm perfectly fine having my ideas rejected, but I feel like I was lead down a number of routes by GGG only to be told by GGG that the route they led me down was not allowed.

Ah well, I'm sure the item will turn out fine?

"

Batemizoor wrote:

Is it though?

I think the diaternals on this thread would hundred percent agree to having their items made properly and not crazily OP.

I don't speak for others, but my angst is coming from having ideas rejected for what at times seems like GGG's convenience.

EG: I had previously asked for a helm that allows one to ignore party member auras so that one could still go elemental equilibrium in parties with hatred/wrath/anger around. The answer I got was "no, we're already making another supporter unique 2H sword that ignores auras as well, as a downside for being powerful". But I don't see how that should stop my idea, since the purpose of my unique is to allow EE usage and a 2H weapon can't possibly be used for EE...

"

Batemizoor wrote:

Is it though?

Neonspyder aka Mark2 designed Soul Taker. I took him to task about it *in person* when I visited the offices. Ultimate justification? A rare can roll much better than Soul Taker.

I was having a good time that trip and so left it at that, but it's a bullshit justification for the basic reason that a unique is a unique is a unique. You trade for a Soul Taker, you know what you're getting. Trading for a rare? MUCH more troublesome.

It IS a false dichotomy because no one here is expressing displeasure at the unique design process because we didn't get 'what we wanted first time'. If that's what you think, you didn't read the original post and shouldn't be commenting.