because a small fix to one item doesn’t matter when the meta qwimmzon just described exists, you’re patching a window while the roof is gone
the meta being broken doesn’t make incremental fixes pointless. if anything, it makes them necessary. and the “rearranging deck chairs” analogy only works as a dismissal if the ship is already sinking. the game isn’t dead, it’s actively being developed, and small changes are exactly how live games get balanced. your own argument just proved why shields should be first on the list.
would you rather deal high 100s-mid 200s with a 30% increase to your speed and have a considerably lower cooldown, or deal 500s on tap with 4k hp ON BASE and not aura
be normal or be reasonable, the choice is yours
that’s not a counterargument to anything i said, that’s just you describing how broken the meta is and proving my point for me. if someone is sitting at 4k hp on base doing 500 per hit, why are we also letting them equip a shield for free defense on top of that?
fine but if the game is actively being developed then vetex should be fixing powerstack and stat scaling, not spending dev time on shield gate-keeping when the broken meta is what actually kills builds
sorry for derailing the convo guys
you’re actually very much on topic
nobody said vetex has to personally choose between fixing power scaling OR shields, these aren’t mutually exclusive changes. a restriction on who gets passive shield defense is a value change in a spreadsheet, it’s not competing with fixing stat scaling for dev time. you’re acting like suggesting shields get restricted means everything else stops getting worked on, which makes no sense. your argument keeps shifting every time i respond.
you’re wrong though, a spreadsheet change that breaks class versatility still needs testing, balance passes, and potential follow-up nerfs when people find workarounds. it’s not free dev time just because it looks simple on paper, and you’re still treating the symptom instead of the disease
i dissagree with that heavily, the whole point of the stat system and the gear system being different was what made builds diverse. making it so stats dictate gear just ruins the whole system of the game. it turns a slight inconvience into a worse system.
the stat and gear system is already dictating builds though, if everyone’s stacking the same defense rolls on identical armor and now shields too then you don’t have diversity you have one meta with minor variations
you started by saying shields aren’t a problem because of the agility penalty. then you said the real issue is armor homogeneity. then it was the whole gear system that needs fixing. then vetex should focus on power scaling instead. your position has changed four times in this thread and every time i address it you just move to a different complaint.
and now suddenly you’re a game dev expert worried about testing overhead for what is functionally a conditional defense stat. the same logic applies to every balance change ever made, you could dismiss literally any proposed fix with “but testing takes time.”
no fuck that, those aren’t four different arguments they’re all the same point. shields are a symptom of a broken system and you keep trying to isolate them like it’s a problem you can just solve in a vacuum, it doesn’t work that way
that’s literally my original argument from post one. you just agreed with me and framed it as a rebuttal to ryuken. the lack of diversity is exactly why shields should be restricted to weapon builds. it’s one fewer stat that every class can stack identically. i’ve been saying this the entire thread and you keep circling back to it like it disproves my point when it’s the foundation of it.
acknowledging something is a symptom of a broken system doesn’t mean you leave it alone, it means you start somewhere. i’m not claiming restricting shields fixes everything, i never said that. but “it’s all connected” isn’t a reason to do nothing, it’s just a way to avoid engaging with the specific proposal on its own merits, which you still haven’t actually done.
yeah okay so maybe it is your original argument but that doesn’t mean restricting shields fixes it, it just means the problem is bigger than you’re acting like it is
nah that’s bullshit, if a mage can’t equip a shield they’re forced to choose between damage and defense through stat allocation, that IS a meaningful tradeoff you’re just refusing to see it
any non-weapon class can already equip a shield and get the passive defense. they’re not choosing between damage and defense through stat allocation, they’re just equipping an item with zero mechanical cost to their actual build. that’s a free stat. if the defense came from investing points instead of just picking up a shield then yeah, that would be a meaningful choice. it doesn’t, and that’s why your argument doesn’t work.
a weapon slot is still a cost even if they don’t use weapon skills, they’re giving up an item slot that could be something else, and if shields aren’t actually overpowered then restricting them doesn’t solve anything anyway
a mage giving up a weapon slot they have nothing to put in anyway isn’t a cost. and your second point is literally circular. you agreed there’s a defensive homogeneity problem earlier and now you’re saying shields aren’t overpowered so restricting them does nothing. you can’t acknowledge the problem and then use “there is no problem” as a defense in the same breath.