Shimmersight: New Design

i said that, but what i understand now is that shimmersight is made to be a "slappable" item, similar to how vaward works. also from what i understand, that's why its so hard to change, combined with the troubles of community backlash.

edit: selvut should put in details of what type of item shimmersight is supposed to be so people giving feedback will know what to say and what to suggest

 

sorta like what Nic said, I think it should have rainbow reqs
9 str / 10 dex / 10 int / 9 def / 9 agi sound good?
I get it's supposed to be slappable but these reqs are pretty tiny

 

1-2 regen is impossible.
1 Mana Regen is max 1.3=round to 1
2 Mana Regen, what it is now, is max 2.6=round to 3

Adding requirements or lowering skill boosts will break a lot of builds and ruin the intent of the item in the first place. The primary reason that it was brought up, is that all the issues with the item seem to only have happened after its mana regen was buffed from 1 to 2.

 

game balance V community
Honestly I think there should be another helmet added that is almost identical to vaward. Shimmer seems to be a different item than vaward and doesn't 'fully' fit its archetype. I think another item with the same SPs as vaward for a helmet slot would be good. maybe 3k hp and similar dmg%'s too? Shimmersight should be like the mana regen version of the helmet I suggested, but have slightly worse SP's or need some requirements since it has such a high mana regen.

________________________________

That's stupid. Having the option of just 1-2 would be really good. I see that 1-3 is too strong, but you can't rip away 2 mr from the helmet.

 

he means that it's literally impossible

 

Still

The more options the better, especially with a stat that is really hard to balance; hence the reason for this thread existing.

 

It used to not have it and no one really complained, until the rounding changes were put in.

 

Maybe give it negative Elemental defense?

Perhaps something like:

-20 Earth
-10 Thunder
-10 Water
-20 Fire
-20 Air

Whether the defenses are more lenient or harsher is up to the Item Team.

It would still have the advantage of being "slappable" on many builds but make the player decide on whether they want to use powders to cancel out some of the negatives (and use the elemental defense IDs to their advantage in that regard) for builds that aren't Rainbow, or for one to use a rainbow build to cancel out the negatives.

I think the best comparison of Shimmersight in terms of "SP helmets without reqs" is Blue Mask, Blue Mask gives high SP in return for small HP. Shimmersight is different, it gives good HP, decent skill points and mana regen. I think the MR is fine for what it is. I think giving it negative defenses is the best way to balance it since I can't think of anything else...

Uhh sorry if this post is sort of messy if it wasn't obvious by now I sort of rushed this one.

 

What are you talking about? I used to have a 2/4 mr 2/4 ms dark channeler back when it was 1-2 mr 1-2 ms. Now I have a 1/4 1/4 dark channeler. Things like that could be looked at more closely if 1-2 were an option. Maybe my Capricorn wouldn't look like this:

Spoiler: capri

Can we all agree that 2/4 2/4 is a whole lot less OP than 3/4 3/4? It'd be great to have 2/4 back. I understand that items were being *rounded up* to 2 and are not actually supposed to do that, but if some items were intended to have 1-2, that'd solve this whole problem full stop IMO. Ofc it'd bring up the topic of changing mana on other items, but the helmet would just have 1-2, thus ending the problems with shimmer.

 

So this helmet is supposed to be a combat-only thing, right?
So give it stuff like base -250 HR and base -2/4 MR
But give it stuff like base 325/4 LS and base 3/4 MS. If you are fighting, the MS and LS would oversupply for the -MR and -HR. Out of battle, not so much.

 

no no no no, that's not shimmersight at all. You're not even thinking about Ourboros! They'd be almost identical, but shimmer would be undeniably worse since -raw hr and -mr. It would no longer have any users in-game. Also, old shimmers (ie shimmersights acquired before the change) would not have the -hr or mana steal, thereby becoming far more powerful.

 

rip lunar spine

 

still hurts
*f*

 

I dont think this is a good idea, i thinking having special items that go against the system would make things very confusing, also i think it would make a lot of people say something like, "well they made a special case with this, why cant they do it with that too" The only case besides this i can think of is Coi with the 1-2 attack tier

 

The whole point is to have that option available to further balance the game. Of course they won't bring back 1-2 attack tier, I'd hate that too. I'm saying there should be another way of getting 1-2 mr or ms without trying to play the rounding system. The items in-game should be changed to simply allow for every integer from 1-10 to be possible so the team can balance items far more precisely.

 

There really is an unsaid rule in IM, No Clone Items. Each item was made to be a bit more unique and different in it's own way. Although there are many items that have similar ID's, we distinguish them with different focus' on the numbers. We constantly try to make items different from other items. We usually only compare items of the same type to the other, but cross item type clones is really a grey area we don't really try to explore.

That being said Facile is basically the same as Vaward, but it is a ring with reqs.

 

Technically, It's not an unsaid rule.

Since there's a very very large item pool.

Slight variation works, it's the entire force behind generic archetypes like those that drive elements.

 

at the same time though, this archetype is important for many builds like my freedom build. Without the right SPs, many builds just don't work. I agree that making direct replicas of other items in different slots shouldn't be standard procedure, but the whole point of my suggestion is to find alternatives that also solve the balance problems.

 

Wait, why'd you quote me?

I agreed with you.

 

I just quoted you because you agreed with me. +1 ;)