Shattered Kingdoms

You're making a lot of assumptions.

Giving more people enchant does not mean more people will enchant for others, or even themselves. Plenty of priests and sorcerers already don't; who is to say others will?

If you have to impose on others, it doesn't matter whether you spread the oppression around or not, you're still trying to overcome an oppressive mechanic.

Your idea is not guaranteed to accomplish much, even if it does have low overhead, and to make it worse, the risks are debatable as well.

It is good that you're coming up with one, though. Better than just telling people to play another game.

Just because something requires time does not make it oppressive. It's strategy and investment. To any who are trying to make enchant easy, I'm done making logical extensions and I'm going to leave it at: deal with it. You have to roll the dice to get properties in monopoly, you have to enchant to resist magic in SK. Deal.



Exactly my point in the argument against any measure this has on balance. The fact this is the truth is case-in-point material.



It allows a larger segment of the population to roll their own dice instead of making other people do it for them. It accomplishes all it needs to.

I'm not one for quotestorms. You can figure this out: no it doesn't, I don't think balance works that way, no it doesn't.

As said, I do not think you realize a lot of your supporting claims are, in fact, assumptions instead of reliable facts.

If you instead said "This might very likely improve the situations because these things have a good chance of happening," I would probably be more in your corner instead of a "We must do this because this will absolutely follow from it" bandwagon.

For just as you are hoping to make things better by magnifying the likelihood of a positive outcome, so too does your solution magnify all the possibilities of negative results. There are no error checks, corrective measures, nothing, in what you have proposed. It is reckless.

So we agree on the first point.

The second point - the only proposed balance issue is that the status quo of enchant levels goes up. What I said addressed that. It's a very simple concept that is being proposed - availability equals improvement. We have availability and classes that have the spells don't always even enchant their own gear. Simple point disproved. Explain to me how the "availibility raises the status quo" when we have availability and the status quo simply isn't raised doesn't quash that point in its tracks? If that isn't the point against balance you're making, it's very imprudent to tell people balance doesn't work the way their suggesting without telling them what you see as balance-affecting. The only change I've heard suggested that would affect balance, are true changes to the entire dynamic of enchanting (making it targettble, changing mana/cast time, etc) that is entering the debate that would affect all those things. This doesn't.

I can't address balance issues that don't exist, and if more exist, someone needs to say them...because none others with it have come up. There really aren't any. This isn't that impacting a change, and I've been defying people to bring up how it impacts in a way other than this alleged status quo adjustment. It hasn't happened. If you can't, either, there's no further reason to delve into it.

Third point, the idea is to let more people roll the dice for themselves. The concept is simple, and courteous to the players and those willing to work for themselves. At a point in the game where the playerbase and environment don't provide enough worthwhile time, changing the number of enchanters will help stretch that time farther. I'm not arguing enchanting isn't worthwhile time, either - I'm not arguing against enchanting. I'm arguing against so few people being able to do it. There's casters that can't, that have the same reasoning behind being able to do as the classes that can. There's just absolutely no reason for multiplying that worthwhile enchanting time by two for 11 classes. Not in the game's current way.

Can you advise me how the change doesn't resolve that? 11 out of 13 classes can't enchant for themselves or others. 6 of those classes can easily be explained to being able to enchant. This changes that number to 5 out of 13. It's simple and straight-forward. A lot of this is random buzzwords without explaining how in a way that holds up to scrutiny. I want to address balance issues. I'm sure at this point jhorleb/baldric and I will have to agree to disagree. I see the current situation as disproving their point, they don't. I'm cool with that. It's a point, not one I agree with in any measure or believe has a leg to stand on, but that's probably why I don't agree with it.

What is the point of error checks, corrective measures? Error checks are irrelevant and the proposition itself is a corrective measure. Conversations don't go far with "yes, no, yes, no." If people don't like it, say it and leave it there, but don't bring up wide-affecting issues that don't exist. Because I'm going to try to disprove them, and I can't disprove hot air.

I stopped reading after the first thing I fundamentally disagreed with. Availability does nothing more than imply or encourage improvement. Just look around the world today, bro, for evidence of that. I skimmed the rest.

As for error checks, what I mean is, what if this somehow goes out of control? What if something unexpected happens? Would enchant just be taken away from people afterwards, if it didn't work out? That would leave an even larger, gaping wound than the one we're agreeing exists and debating the best immediate care for.

I'd say make a quest NPC who is willing to put an enchantment on a piece of gear in exchange for some moderately-difficult-to-acquire condition, like slaying 10 whatevers or snatching up 5 piles of creeper ichor, I dunno. Something that can be tweaked without having to change the character sheets of so many people.

I'm not the one who's proposing that availability = improved status quo. I'm the one arguing against that as hard as I can, and making your same point if I interpret your statement right. You should have read the rest of what I said. I'm not sure we're disagreeing on as much as you think.

That whole "what if this somehow goes out of control" is why there's a thread here. I refuse to simply put a blanket statement out there saying "it's going to go out of control" if there's absolutely no one who can even come up with a way it can go out of control that isn't blatantly squashed by precedence in game/life. It's that simple. Until anyone can come up with a real tangible way this can, and there's reasons to put it in, there's no reason to stop in the face of a bogey man. Not doing something because there's always a chance it'll fail is a bad way to approach gaming. The point is to address any ways it can fail with as many minds as possible and reduce the chance it does so. The only thing anyone has that isn't an argument against necromancers having MR at all has been the raised status quo, and availability has always been there, so it was disproved before it was made.

But if you aren't going to make any points or even read my posts, why are you here?

I'll be honest: the only reason I'm here is so I can enchant my own #$*&ing gear and not feel like crap making other people do it when I play a class that should be able to. I can't be the only one who feels that way, and all casters deserve it. I mean, Players found: 20, come on. Really? You're making me waste one of their time when I should be able to do it myself?

oh

my bad

sorry man

That was such a confusing exchange to read. I'm glad you guys finally realized you were in agreement, though.

Yeah, I thought it was kind of funny actually.

For my response, if you don't believe that increasing access to the enchant armor spell will increase average suit quality (i.e., enchantments), we'll have to agree to disagree.

As one (admitted anecdotal) data point, I personally feel bad asking people to enchant my gear, knowing how mind-numbingly boring it is. If I played a warlock, I'd therefore stick to a suit that had just over the average enchants (probably 75 or so total) unless I could just kill other people for it. If I played a warlock in your proposed SK world, he would have 120-130 enchants, no question.

Same here.