

And how is a piece of gear with 2 int IV materia and something like +55 int "balanced"? If you're going to shoot down the idea, at least do so in a way that doesn't make you look like a hypocrite.




Triple Melds and higher don't take time to get, they take luck. This isn't a very good way to argue that the materia system is working in a balanced way.
As for melding on to U/U gear, I used to think it was a good idea and then Darklight/Militia came out. There are lots of gear setups that can be stat capped with only one piece of melded gear and the rest U/U. My drg and monk only need to use triple melded strength hands (two IIIs and a IV) and the rest can be either darklight or other U/U gear. If I could meld on to the other U/U gear I could probably avoid using any crafted gear and that could potentially make life a lot harder on people who craft.
I'd say its fairly balanced the way it is. Crafters get business, rich people can buy their way through life, and people can be just as good as the rich people (for a sliver of the price) and look cool at the same time (I.E. Darklight.)




The problem is melding doesn't have a direct time:benefit correlation. There is no balance when one person can spend 100x the amount of gil on 100 failed melds and another person can get it on the first try. Is that fair? Yes, by the definition of the word they both had the same chances and one got lucky. Is that balanced? No, its far from balanced.


melding is luck cant add balance to that. your a craftsman trying to make a perfect item but hey you mess up then you have to reso it. people want all this gil sink stuff but refuse to take them. well something has to suck up your gil. people also cry about spending gil but they post about how rich they are and how easy it is to make millions a day, hmmmm.The problem is melding doesn't have a direct time:benefit correlation. There is no balance when one person can spend 100x the amount of gil on 100 failed melds and another person can get it on the first try. Is that fair? Yes, by the definition of the word they both had the same chances and one got lucky. Is that balanced? No, its far from balanced.


Yes, melding is luck. Who says we have to continue to use the same system? There are plenty of other ways they could implement that has a guaranteed "time spent = progress earned" and be a gil sink at the same time.melding is luck cant add balance to that. your a craftsman trying to make a perfect item but hey you mess up then you have to reso it. people want all this gil sink stuff but refuse to take them. well something has to suck up your gil. people also cry about spending gil but they post about how rich they are and how easy it is to make millions a day, hmmmm.
Btw, just because you read people posting about both not wanting to spend gil and being able to make millions a day doesn't mean it is the same people posting both. That is one of the big mistakes people make when reading forums; they forget about the individual behind the post and just see it as another compliant by the community as a whole.
I think you need to learn your probability. Getting a successful meld is only luck, there is no way to beat the odds. You can go 0/1,000 and someone can go 1,000/1,000 on a 10% chance. Percentages mean nothing when they are on all taken on an individual basis.
Last edited by Ryans; 10-22-2012 at 12:40 AM.


back when all we had for gear was SH coffers and it seamed lie SE was scared to put decent gear in the game i would have been for something along these lines, now I don't see the point.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.

Reply With Quote



