It all began with the forging of the Great Rings...

Sloth9230 wrote:It's not that I don't care for them, however they are completely unbalanced and that can't be changed. It's in their nature. Use Great Combustion with +5 Acended pyromancy flame on another SL1 chacter, It's a 1HKO. Same goes for most elemental weapons.

Well me and you have different ideas on what's unbalanced. If this had no PvP or was Co-op only I'm sure everyone would be singing a different tune about rings and elemental weapons. 1HKO are part of what makes a Souls game, playing smart is what's needed to avoid these. Maybe second chance could do with a return, probably as a ring that breaks.

Sloth9230 wrote:Tanks are perfectly viable in PVP, it's mostly in PVE where they fall short. However that's mostly for bosses, for everything else it's called a "shield".

The only possible way to Tank in PVP is Iron Flesh, which isn't exactly something you have to spec for.

As to your defense ring suggestion Forum, that pleases me greatly

Steveswede: You can certainly take advantage of w/e From implements in the game, but you shouldn't expect them to implement things for the sole purpose of helping you do a low level run.

That's a challenge you've placed on yourself, not From. Therefore, they have no obligation to provide you with the equipment necessary to do it. What would you do if Havels or FaP were only available during the end game?

Anyways, the nerf I suggested for Havels would mostly help people with low END i.e. people doing low level runs.

Slarg232 wrote:

The only possible way to Tank in PVP is Iron Flesh, which isn't exactly something you have to spec for.

Dafuq?Never run into a guy with full Havels and a Zweihander have you?

Sloth9230 wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

The only possible way to Tank in PVP is Iron Flesh, which isn't exactly something you have to spec for.

Dafuq?Never run into a guy with full Havels and a Zweihander have you?

I've been the guy with Havel's and 1H Grant. Armor doesn't cut it, and you can't say sheilds due to Dead Angling (not complaining about such, everything needs a counter, just saying).

You might want to start by 2 handing it, and focus on punishing and predicting your opponents moves instead of being the first to attack. Or take a hit and in order to hit them back. With the Zwei, the stunlock usually takes care of the rest. I have no experience with great hammers, but I've been killed by enough tanks to tell you that they are perfectly viable.

.... I know how to play a heavy hitter.... But when they hit me just as hard as I hit them and can hit me twice as much as I can, tis no good.

steveswede wrote:

Sloth9230 wrote:It's not that I don't care for them, however they are completely unbalanced and that can't be changed. It's in their nature. Use Great Combustion with +5 Acended pyromancy flame on another SL1 chacter, It's a 1HKO. Same goes for most elemental weapons.

Well me and you have different ideas on what's unbalanced. If this had no PvP or was Co-op only I'm sure everyone would be singing a different tune about rings and elemental weapons. 1HKO are part of what makes a Souls game, playing smart is what's needed to avoid these. Maybe second chance could do with a return, probably as a ring that breaks.

Not really, I'd still be saying its unbalanced, more so at low sls.

If 1hko's are part of the souls game, then why should you not be forced to accept that fast roll=crap defense at a low sl?

Thsts what I meant by circumstantial. Its dependant on something you can't actually know, and so the same evidence also supports many other arguments

@sloth, a person can see the zweihander start a swing, land a leo ring claymore roll r1 for the same 4-500 damage the zweihander does and avoid the blow at the same time.

Its problematic.

It's funny you should say that, I've just started using the claymore and have been doing that to people in the forest. I forgot about the Leo Ring though, it hadn't even crossed my mind.

I can see why it would be a problem.

Yeah. Mein purr tanks need a buff.

I personally would love to see dodging weakened and blocking strengthened. My main character was one (originally) devoted to heavy armor and weapons. Even with everything built defensively, I was still better off to roll to avoid attacks rather than block. As such, I would love to see some rings that improve blocking at the very least. Nothing against dodging, it should definitely still be effective; I just find it ridiculous that blocking is almost useless.


As for rings as a whole, I would love to see the ring system shifted more to, say, the D&D style, where rings are more about general bonuses. For instance:

Give the Rusted Iron Ring fall prevention.
Make a ring that gives all NPC/phantoms a slight "outline" (life detect).
Make a ring that heals you for a certain amount (%'ge or static) when you go below 20% HP.
Make a ring that makes it appear to your enemies that your health is lower than it is.

Make a ring that halves the animations for dodge, turning it into a sidestep or a lean instead of a roll. Keep this ring from working on "big attacks" (Seath's tails, for instance). This increases the risk of mistiming the dodge, but enhances the reward as well.

Only the strongest rings should have a downside. For instance, if you were using the pre nerf-DWGR, make the rolls cost twice as much stamina. But really, having every ring have a detriment makes the rings less "magic" and more "cursed."

Like I said, thats just the principle being shown, not it actually in action

For example, I wouldn't attach a negative to the leo ring because its very specific, I would attach a negative to havels because its not.

Try to look past my examples, and see the idea behind them guys. Thats whats important, the numbers I've shown were just so you see the concept.

Shkar: Considering how some of those rings are made, I wouldn't be surprised if they were lol

Sloth9230 wrote:Shkar: Considering how some of those rings are made, I wouldn't be surprised if they were lol

Touche, but that's not quite what I meant. I meant it seemed more like a curse because, "why the hell does this ring make me slightly faster but make my legs fall off!!!" It seems logical that the rings are enchanted to become what they are, so it seems unlikely that they would only have drawbacks out of necessity.

Considering all rings are completely optional(unless you wish to kill Gyndolin who's an optional boss), I wouldn't say that the're out of necessity. It just makes your character more unique, it adds flavor. They're giving something up in exchange for that extra power, what they give up could be any number of things as Pirate pointed out. A person with no ring being able to go toe to toe with someone who has two rings is pretty balanced in my book, assuming they are both equally skilled.

Sloth9230 wrote:Considering all rings are completely optional(unless you wish to kill Gyndolin who's an optional boss), I wouldn't say that the're out of necessity. It just makes your character more unique, it adds flavor. They're giving something up in exchange for that extra power, what they give up could be any number of things as Pirate pointed out. A person with no ring being able to go toe to toe with someone who has two rings is pretty balanced in my book, assuming they are both equally skilled.

Sure, the rings are optional. You don't NEED any rings to complete the game. But the same can be said for melee weapons, or spells, or armor. Hell, you could do a run through with just items. Why should rings be treated any differently? If we balance so that someone with no rings is on the same footing as someone with two rings, then logically the rings have no value.

I agree with shkar here, rings need to be beneficial, yeah have negative points too in some cases, but the positive should far outweigh the negative so the ring is worth using.

I have made repeated and explicit statements that the examples were just examples. That they were in no way ment to signify the actual implementation or specific numerical values of rings I would put in game.

As was said, only the most powerful rings would have drawbaks. This can even be explained in ways that don't conflict with the current magic theory.

The energy behind the enchantment must come from somewhere, so the enchanter who made the ring didn't have the energy to "complete" the enchantment and leave it self sustaining, so the ring has to draw on the wearers strength to fuel its potent abilities.

Like a circuit in a flashlight (you being the battery) it has to draw from you to work.

Shkar wrote:
Sure, the rings are optional. You don't NEED any rings to complete the game. But the same can be said for melee weapons, or spells, or armor. Hell, you could do a run through with just items. Why should rings be treated any differently? If we balance so that someone with no rings is on the same footing as someone with two rings, then logically the rings have no value.

I suppose you have a point in that nothing is really necessary to complete the game. However I don't think that drawbacks would make rings useless. It would just force people to think more carefully about which ones they want to wear, if they want tot wear any at all.

For instance, a Ring that insta-regens stamina in excahnge for half your life(just an example) and a ring that boosts melee but you also take more damage. Would you wear the two together? Probably not, but there are those who would. This is just an example though, I'd prefer if only the more powerful ones have drawbacks.

Forum Pirate wrote:I have made repeated and explicit statements that the examples were just examples. That they were in no way ment to signify the actual implementation or specific numerical values of rings I would put in game.

As was said, only the most powerful rings would have drawbaks. This can even be explained in ways that don't conflict with the current magic theory.

The energy behind the enchantment must come from somewhere, so the enchanter who made the ring didn't have the energy to "complete" the enchantment and leave it self sustaining, so the ring has to draw on the wearers strength to fuel its potent abilities.

Like a circuit in a flashlight (you being the battery) it has to draw from you to work.

Would be kinda cool to have a health draining (20 HP per five seconds?) for a 30% damage boost or such.

Only problem with that would be that you'd have to put it on right after you invade or get summoned. If you're wearing it before then, you could start off at a severe disadvantage. What about 20hp per hit? Like the Chaos Blade.

I could see that. Would be better on STR weapons, but they NEED help.

It would definelty work better for strength weapons, if it was 20 per 5 seconds I would just wait for the person to die

Forum Pirate wrote:I have made repeated and explicit statements that the examples were just examples. That they were in no way ment to signify the actual implementation or specific numerical values of rings I would put in game.

As was said, only the most powerful rings would have drawbaks. This can even be explained in ways that don't conflict with the current magic theory.

The energy behind the enchantment must come from somewhere, so the enchanter who made the ring didn't have the energy to "complete" the enchantment and leave it self sustaining, so the ring has to draw on the wearers strength to fuel its potent abilities.

Like a circuit in a flashlight (you being the battery) it has to draw from you to work.

I get what you're saying. I'm not even trying to argue with you, really. The main difference between are opinions is that you want stronger rings with added downsides, and I want somewhat weaker rings with the "cost" just being the opportunity cost.

Which one would actually work better? Probably a mixture. Have some rings that give a flat bonus for those who want diversity, and some that increases both risk and reward for specialists. In the end, it's an argument that can't be settled without solid, concrete examples.

High Risk, High Reward type ring:

Plague Bearer Ring: The wearer of this ring causes Toxin 250 (20 Hp/S, 30 seconds) within a (TwoP) area, but cannot roll (You stumble as though at 51%).

Nito?