Zephon | Sun 18-Jan-15 07:45 PM |
Member since 21st Mar 2007
488 posts
| |
|
#58041, "I disagree/agree to a point."
Edited on Sun 18-Jan-15 07:47 PM
|
While I would rather have "great" learning rates for all of my characters, if you had 100% in all skills almost right away it would be pretty lame/boring. I would even almost rather have int be a more important factor. Or even drive it to where the learning rate on most skills is based on int where as others like physical skills would be based on something else since it is more muscle memory anyway.
However, I'd rather see the really difficult to learn/spam abilities increased in learning rate rather than make everyone have the same flat learning rate. For example, invoker spells like create water and create spring = boring spamming. I guess it is something to do while waiting for a group once you hit that brick wall that is mageness. There are other spells that do niche things in the invoker paths that I feel should learn faster too. Mostly things like earthquake (possible bonus when hitting multiple opponents?) and things like that. Where it makes them useful to spam in combat rather than in a field alone.
Even orc/fire giant learning compared to an invoker (with high int and average affinity) really changes your perspective. But I must say, it really makes that OCD side of you be like 100% skills! But it does suck spamming certain ones. Sorry, I'm rambling again.
As a side note, I'd rather have one of the lowest level water path spells removed and replaced with something other than creating water. But that is just me.
|
|
|
Intelligence impact on learning.
[View all] , KoeKhaos, Sun 18-Jan-15 09:58 AM
I disagree/agree to a point.,
Zephon,
18-Jan-15 07:47 PM #1
Oooh! I like that! Make skills learn based off the stat...,
KoeKhaos,
19-Jan-15 09:20 AM, #2
In practice:,
Valguarnera,
19-Jan-15 03:05 PM, #3
Tsk, tsk.,
Tsunami,
19-Jan-15 02:55 PM, #4
Whoops,
Valguarnera,
19-Jan-15 03:03 PM, #5
what about something similar to what happened with orcs,
laxman,
19-Jan-15 04:39 PM, #7
The original point still stands though?,
KoeKhaos,
20-Jan-15 10:37 AM, #11
RE: The original point still stands though?,
Umiron,
20-Jan-15 11:22 AM, #12
Fair enough. nt,
KoeKhaos,
20-Jan-15 12:46 PM, #13
RE: I disagree/agree to a point.,
Tac,
19-Jan-15 04:35 PM, #6
RE: I disagree/agree to a point.,
Zephon,
19-Jan-15 08:51 PM, #8
Not so much lame/boring..,
Mendos,
20-Jan-15 05:19 AM, #9
My idea wasn't so much that any major change needed to ...,
KoeKhaos,
20-Jan-15 10:30 AM, #10
| |
|