1. Hello!

    First of all, welcome to MapleLegends! You are currently viewing the forums as a guest, so you can only view the first post of every topic. We highly recommend registering so you can be part of our community.

    By registering to our forums you can introduce yourself and make your first friends, talk in the shoutbox, contribute, and much more!

    This process only takes a few minutes and you can always decide to lurk even after!

    - MapleLegends Administration-
  2. Experiencing disconnecting after inserting your login info? Make sure you are on the latest MapleLegends version. The current latest version is found by clicking here.
    Dismiss Notice

Weapon Attack potion/buff Discussion [onyx apple]

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by akashsky, Apr 19, 2023.

Are onyx apples currently balanced in maplelegends?

  1. Yes

    27 vote(s)
    29.3%
  2. No

    65 vote(s)
    70.7%
  1. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    Somehow you are implying that my proposal is going to be more drastic than untradeability? If i read the other arguments correctly, there are many factors countering the increase in price to unsellable rates.
     
  2. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    As previously mentioned, untradeability does not give the ability to bypass restrictions as runners would have to farm directly on the character they will be running with. They cannot make mules to bypass the issue.
     
  3. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    This is the exact point ovv is arguing against. You are then forcing content onto players, which I do not think is good too. I am simply providong an option to buy, trading cost for convenience.
     
  4. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    I think the primary purpose of the op was to address the balance of attack potions like apples, not the economics. Attacking apples through supply to address balance issues only works if there’s no workarounds.

    Forcing content on to players is only an issue if it’s the path to circumventing a balance change.
     
  5. -ovv
    Offline

    -ovv Horntail

    2,320
    925
    500
    Feb 23, 2020
    Male
    4:32 AM
    -ovv
    Beginner
    200
    Honor
    Nobody's arguing for untradeability here. You didn't even make that point in your own posts. My favored suggestion is the nerf to the attack pots as that has the most direct impact to the imbalance.

    Again, if any of these changes are implemented, people would either farm the apples themselves or stop running apple-required content altogether. This applies to both scenarios.
     
  6. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    My point is to provide an alternative to reducing apple accessibility i.e. suggestion 2. Seems like your only reason for the hard disagreement is that my suggestion and suggestion 2 will lead to the exact same outcome?
    We can agree to disagree then. I think forcing content by going the untradeability route is not the same since theres always people willing to pay for convenience.
     
  7. -ovv
    Offline

    -ovv Horntail

    2,320
    925
    500
    Feb 23, 2020
    Male
    4:32 AM
    -ovv
    Beginner
    200
    Honor
    There’s no disagreement here. You’re just misinterpreting my words for when I said virtually no change to mean no change on the economy and how people spend their time when I was talking about the effects it would have on apple imbalance.

    Both your suggestion and making apples untradeable would simply create more roadblocks to using apples while ignoring the issue which is apple imbalance.
     
  8. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    OP made more than 1 suggestion, with #2 and #3 directly affecting economics.
     
  9. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    affecting the economics of the market is a side effect. With these suggestions there is no way to circumvent the restrictions on availability, whereas your suggestion it’s quite trivial for an end game player to circumvent the supply restrictions. All of this has been explained multiple times in previous replies.

    the effect on apple prices and the economy is not the priority; the priority is adjusting the strength disparity between classes at endgame
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. GooBeR
    Offline

    GooBeR Timer

    101
    47
    125
    Aug 29, 2021
    4:32 AM
    It should be a priority, if you tailor the game for only endgame content not enough people will reach it and we wont have enough fresh players moving up.
     
  11. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    Sorry let me reiterate, it's not a priority for this thread* It may be a priority for the Balance Team. The main purpose of this thread was to assess how high attack pots affect different classes and if there is an easy solution to any discrepancies.
     
  12. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    Side effect that affects many players. Non endgame players do not really care about suggestion 1, but if suggestions 2 or 3 implemented there are huge repercussions.

    I'm proposing something less drastic. If u are an endgame player and so caught up by my suggestion, doesn't seem like it is trivial at all.
     
  13. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    Less drastic but less effective. I think most posts in this thread are not supportive of 2 or 3 anyways.
     
  14. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    Of course less drastic would be less effective, are u expecting otherwise? If u want max effective why are u in favor of #1. Suggestion #3 full removal is most drastic and effective.
     
  15. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    I never indicated which one I was in favor of, afaik.
     
  16. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    Then maybe its better to state your opinion and add something to the thread instead of arguing for the sake of arguing, on a side suggestion no less.
     
  17. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    Is it really that weird to point out what's wrong with a suggestion in a discussion thread?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Great Work Great Work x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  18. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    What's wrong then with it then? Quite hard to gather since you have then stated you have no opinion.
     
  19. beegoratto
    Offline

    beegoratto Zakum

    1,394
    392
    455
    Sep 22, 2021
    Male
    4:32 AM
    leetoratto
    Bowmaster
    1
    Nimbus
    You can’t be serious I’ve already commented multiple times what’s problematic about increasing APQ cooldown
     
  20. brunandes
    Offline

    brunandes Windraider

    466
    38
    296
    Aug 29, 2021
    7:32 PM
    Not really, because the points you made can easily be applied to suggestions in the main thread, which you quoted to have no opinion against.
     

Share This Page