True Item Level

ltsmithneko · February 2017

100HP = 1 stat .
4HP= 1 stat.
4k HP = 1,000 stats.
Everfrost = 0 IL. (for now.)
25 of a stat = 1 IL
~~15 CA (etc.) = 1 IL~~
Set Bonuses IL is separate.
Rounded up stats that are left over to equal 1 IL just so it's more consistent.

Artifacts - 2 IL 11 IL 26 IL 58 IL 104 IL (may change)
Active Artifact Power- 6 IL 11 IL 14 IL 18 IL 25 IL (may change)
Helmet - (Example)"Vivified Headsman's Sallet" 256 IL.
Chestplate - (Example)"Vivified Headsman's Scalemail" 454 IL (Without AC added.)
Bracers - (Example)"Vivified Headsman's Vambraces" 256 IL.
Boots - (Example)"Vivified Headsman's Greaves" 256 IL.
Main-hand - "Headsman's Greataxe"...413 IL (Without WD added.)
Off-hand - "Headsman's Sword Knot"...120 IL
Belt - "Demogorgon's Girdle of Might"... 77 IL (without ability score added, may need to create a post for that/ link.)
Neck...77(without AP bonus added in.)
Shirt -
Pants -
Rings -
Armor kits - 1 IL 2 IL 4 IL 8 IL
Jewel Kits -1 IL 2 IL 4 IL
Off/Def Enchants
Single Stat - 1 - 28 IL
Duel Stat - 1 - 34 IL
Triple Stat - 6 - 37 IL (lowest grade enchantment is R4.)
A/W Enchants -
U Enchants - 1 IL per
O Enchants -
Companion's IL
Active Companion's Rarity.....
Summoned Companion's Rune-stones -
Summoned Companion's Equipment -
Summoned Companion's Enchantments -
Mount's IL
Mount Combat Powers -
Mount Equip Powers - 80 IL 160 IL
Mount Insignia's -3 IL 6 IL 14 IL (Minor exceptions for Insignia of Gond(2nd stat only gives 1-2IL, and lacks and Epic version), Insignia of Prosperity(2nd stat Glory, Gold, and Experience Gain grants no IL)
Mount Insignia's Combo's -
Boon's IL
Boons -SH boons that are track via IL are the Offensive and Defensive Boons. Link-Boons True IL
Sets IL
Weapon Set -
Armor Set -
N/B/A Set -
Active Toon Powers
At-Will-
Daily-
Encounter-
Class Feature-

ltsmithneko · February 2017

Reserved.(Just in case.)

armadeonx · February 2017

They should also remove enchantments in utility slots from IL (maybe not darks...).

ltsmithneko · February 2017

armadeonx said:
They should also remove enchantments in utility slots from IL (maybe not darks...).

Hmm... why not make them kinda like marks where they don't really affect IL that much except about 1 point per like the Overload, tbh the Overload should affect it more, but next mod is going to make it where I never really use overload enchantments. :P

thefiresidecat · February 2017

yeah utility slots don't need stats. even darks. going a little faster isn't really il worthy. making em like overload would be ideal. totally agree with the rest of this. it would make il a useful stat again.

bloodshotbeast · February 2017

I feel like a somewhat simple solution would be to add up all your total stats then divide that by 10 (for example) then boom your item level. After that all you would have to account for is the companion and its equipment.

cscriv79 · February 2017

would require a rework of all dungeon IL requirements too, plus with new mod and the restriction on underdark rings it would probably be best after that.
May just be too much work for them.

superjellybaby · February 2017

The thing is ilvl has been proven time and time again that it means nothing in the wrong hands, Players could still run deflect on a cw with less than 1k arm pen, wanderers fortune x5 on mount bonuses, flaming enchant as a gwf, sieging/fortification rings on a hr just because they are orange and shiny.

I'm a cleric at 4386 ilvl and i have actually out dps'd bis gwf's and numerous other classes in current end game content like FBI/MSVA, ilvl with never resemble player skill when everything can be farmed in low level content or simply purchased with a credit card

thegravelnome · February 2017

"I feel like a somewhat simple solution would be to add up all your total stats then divide that by 10 (for example) then boom your item level. After that all you would have to account for is the companion and its equipment."
Bloodshottbeast

A simple, elegant, and easy to pull off solution. Now it would have to exclude temporary Buffs, activated powers, and the like. However this would be the simplest solution that any spreadsheet could figure out completely on its own without human input. I like it. Now if only there was some way to incorporate the skill level of the person playing it as well

ltsmithneko · March 2017

thegravelnome#9466 said:
"I feel like a somewhat simple solution would be to add up all your total stats then divide that by 10 (for example) then boom your item level. After that all you would have to account for is the companion and its equipment."

Bloodshottbeast

A simple, elegant, and easy to pull off solution. Now it would have to exclude temporary Buffs, activated powers, and the like. However this would be the simplest solution that any spreadsheet could figure out completely on its own without human input. I like it. Now if only there was some way to incorporate the skill level of the person playing it as well

Wouldn't be an easy solutuion simply due to certain classes having stats that effect other stats therefore increasing it more, making a large divide in a single feat vs you having one that doesn't directly effect a stat.

sundance777 · March 2017

Seconded on the utility slot items, it should not matter if I am wearing rank 7 QM or R12 QM on dungeon entry limits, I see no reason for my main character to wear more than a R7 in these slots most of the time.

The trouble with IL is it only adds up what you are wearing, it does not really know if you are built correctly (highly subjective I know) or if you can play the class...I have a few that I admit I can't play very well.

One of the biggest things that I think should be added is the companion and enchants/gear from the comp. This are very important factors in the PVE content. My companion wears more R12's than my character (not really but almost) and that is not accounted for in the current IL method.

mordekai · March 2017

Are the numbers you propose based on anything other than, "that's probably worth..."?
I just struggle to equate a mount combat power with being three times as relevent as a transcendent soulforged. Or roughly the equivalent of three transcendent bonding runestones. I'm fairly sure the three enchantments would be more useful.

I appreciate the work thats gone into this, but I think the item level system needs to be completely reworked from the ground up, with the existing system and its associated values being replaced with a score that reflects a character's value in regard to its class as much as how much stuff it has.

Score that reflects something like the damage a DPS does, a tanks stability, or a healers healing.
Item level based only on what you have, rather than how useful it is, is still unimportant if the guy with IL 3200 who is stacked with stuff that doesn't actually do much gets to run the whole dungeon while the 2.5k guy with fewer purple mounts and companions, (but ones that are cleverly combined) can't get past room 1 of the dungeon because the other players look at IL as if it is reflective of what they can do, rather than what it means... which is "how much they've got."

I've mentioned this before, but even the number of Powers a character has at R4 can make a big difference. But equally, you could have them all at 4 and not have a Feat set up that works, and do less than a character with less stuff while the IL suggests you are "better".

Average output, or potential output, based on the characters set up, items, boons etc, would be more reflective than arbitrary numbers for stuff you have that might be completely useless.

Just giving everything that doesn't have an IL a score of its own won't fix anything, it will just give people with more stuff, useful or not, an even higher ranking.

ltsmithneko · March 2017

hmmm... how much do you rough think AC would be worth IL wise? I can find HP's IL by using artifacts stats, but AC isn't on an artifact so it makes it a bit more complicated. :P Look under the spoiler section to see what I'm talking about.

Aye, Weapon Damage as well.

mordekai · March 2017

Again, it's relative.
My CW just traded in his Dusk robes having got a Lifesilk Spinneret, and his AC went up by 5 to 22.
The subsequent rise in his DR means a hell of a lot more to him with his five figure hit points than it would to, say, my GF.

The game has so many complex equations constantly running throughout a combat, with so many variables, constants and multipliers flying around, that I am fairly sure there would be a means by which an aggregated score of actual vs potential vs average could be kept, and reflected in a rating that is based on class based criteria.
(Apologies, just realised I typed a three line sentence...)

I'm no expert on coding, but the monster AI seems pretty robust and I imagine the game could run sims of a characters aptitude to arrive at a potential max efficiency, and what would be an expected level of efficiency. Measure that against the average of the past X no of hours played to achieve a score.

Sounds complex, but in reality it could be reflected with an alpha-numeric, with a colour.
E.g, Green, A1 for what is currently a 4k plus who knows what they're doing, down to a Red C3 for a 1.4k guy with a hodge pdge of feats who dances the Macarena in the red zones.

The letter suggests your potential maximum, the number your expected average, and the colour shows that you are hitting near enough to max (green), around the expected mark (orange), or below (red).

To be honest, the code monkeys could do that with little difficulty, the problem would be the game designers deciding on the appropriate criteria for each class, and what the standards should be.

ltsmithneko · March 2017

Newly updated*

Armor Kits
Jewel Kits
Off Def Enchantments
Mount Insignia's
little things reworked.

kclowe · March 2017

Companion and its equipment should definitely be accounted for as well as all the boons. Boons contribute a lot and deserve some points. Even if each is generically 3 IL across the board. As for utilities slots, i can see the argument on why not but feel ir should be left as is. It shows what your capable of even if its not straight hitting power. Otherwise just call it something else again.

rjc9000 · March 2017

mordekai#1901 said:
Again, it's relative.
My CW just traded in his Dusk robes having got a Lifesilk Spinneret, and his AC went up by 5 to 22.
The subsequent rise in his DR means a hell of a lot more to him with his five figure hit points than it would to, say, my GF.

The game has so many complex equations constantly running throughout a combat, with so many variables, constants and multipliers flying around, that I am fairly sure there would be a means by which an aggregated score of actual vs potential vs average could be kept, and reflected in a rating that is based on class based criteria.
(Apologies, just realised I typed a three line sentence...)

I'm no expert on coding, but the monster AI seems pretty robust and I imagine the game could run sims of a characters aptitude to arrive at a potential max efficiency, and what would be an expected level of efficiency. Measure that against the average of the past X no of hours played to achieve a score.

Sounds complex, but in reality it could be reflected with an alpha-numeric, with a colour.
E.g, Green, A1 for what is currently a 4k plus who knows what they're doing, down to a Red C3 for a 1.4k guy with a hodge pdge of feats who dances the Macarena in the red zones.

The letter suggests your potential maximum, the number your expected average, and the colour shows that you are hitting near enough to max (green), around the expected mark (orange), or below (red).

To be honest, the code monkeys could do that with little difficulty, the problem would be the game designers deciding on the appropriate criteria for each class, and what the standards should be.

Well, Ilvl can talk about your gear, but if there's a problem with the player behind the keyboard, there's only so much the gear can do before it's obvious where the issue is.

About the "max" output character/BiS:

I would be blunt about what I want to say, but terms of service, so...

Back when Storm King's Thunder was in preview testing, the devs actually thought that people would get Relic Armor because of Ilvl alone, even though Relic Armor generally had awful stats (seriously, GWF Raid Armor with Power/Recovery/Def? whyyy).

Relic Raid Armor only got changed when the PC community had to remind the devs that nobody would care about Relic Armor if the stats weren't good...

I wonder if the devs would do the same thing when determining what the BiS for each character is for their BiS simulator.

mordekai · March 2017

But how relevant is "this guy drops enchants only they can pick up" when queuing for CN?

I really do appreciate the thought that's going into this, but it will take a lot to convince me that even a broader spectrum IL is fit for purpose and doesn't need scrapping and something more relevant taking it's place.

Repeal and Replace!!!!!

Maybe that's not such a great slogan... I'll have to think about that.

terramak · April 2017

Thanks for running this thread - and yeah, Item Level has been a weird system in the game (even before, when it was Gear Score). We're taking another pass at it in the module after The Cloaked Ascendancy, and there's a feedback thread up on the "NeverwinterPreview Shard (PC)" -> "NeverwinterPreview - Feedback/General Discussion" forum if you'd like to glance at that and offer opinions. I think we took a bit of a different approach, though.

I know it's a bit more difficult to contextualize this info if you're not running the Preview shard on PC, but hopefully the main post should have sufficient information. I've also pointed some folks to this thread, too.

mordekai · April 2017

Hmm...
It looks like a more complex version of the same, "its not what it does, it's all about its colour".

Does anyone think this will be more or less likely to alter perceptions of a player based on his or her number of purples or golds?

What I mean is that, simply put, purple does not always equate to better than blue. My blue Bear Cub will pull my HAMSTER through more dungeons than my purple man at arms. But the cool gang will prefer me to load the purple, in order to APPEAR better based on a score that reflects how much high end stuff you have, more than whether or not its actually useful.

Replacing something with something that is basically the same thing squared still has the same issues at its core, just with a much wider gap between the top and bottom. (just ask Paul Ryan... he'll tell you.)

But as with Utility enchantments, you are left wondering if a Transcendent Training rune is actually WORTH the same as a Transcendent Bonding, or is Dwarven Footing really WORTH the same as Baphomet's Might.

ltsmithneko · April 2017

terramak said:
Thanks for running this thread - and yeah, Item Level has been a weird system in the game (even before, when it was Gear Score). We're taking another pass at it in the module after The Cloaked Ascendancy, and there's a feedback thread up on the "NeverwinterPreview Shard (PC)" -> "NeverwinterPreview - Feedback/General Discussion" forum if you'd like to glance at that and offer opinions. I think we took a bit of a different approach, though.

I know it's a bit more difficult to contextualize this info if you're not running the Preview shard on PC, but hopefully the main post should have sufficient information. I've also pointed some folks to this thread, too.

Aye, the main point of this thread is to draw awareness to the issues and things we want. c: Reason why I have made many posts, happy to see feedback on it. ^.^ Just hope you'll guys will take the best things out of those discussions. Tbh I haven't put as much time into this discussion as I have with others , simply due to me not having certain info available to me at a certain time, as well as im not playing much of NW atm. .x.

ltsmithneko · April 2017

mordekai#1901 said:
Hmm...
It looks like a more complex version of the same, "its not what it does, it's all about its colour".

Does anyone think this will be more or less likely to alter perceptions of a player based on his or her number of purples or golds?

What I mean is that, simply put, purple does not always equate to better than blue. My blue Bear Cub will pull my HAMSTER through more dungeons than my purple man at arms. But the cool gang will prefer me to load the purple, in order to APPEAR better based on a score that reflects how much high end stuff you have, more than whether or not its actually useful.

Replacing something with something that is basically the same thing squared still has the same issues at its core, just with a much wider gap between the top and bottom. (just ask Paul Ryan... he'll tell you.)

But as with Utility enchantments, you are left wondering if a Transcendent Training rune is actually WORTH the same as a Transcendent Bonding, or is Dwarven Footing really WORTH the same as Baphomet's Might.

The color thing was just to show what rairty not affecting the number's at all. ^-^ I was thinking of spliting the artifact equipment so you gain some stats each level and a bigger stat increase once you hit the next rairty, same with artifacts. :P But as for bonding, that one would be very hard to order... tbh why not make the other runes act the same as bonding just with different stats, atleast they'd add more vairity. ^.^ As for boons that all depends on the player n' class, I'd recommend a true recommendation system for each class, but then there would be a lack of varity.

armadeonx · April 2017

mordekai#1901 said:
Hmm...
It looks like a more complex version of the same, "its not what it does, it's all about its colour".

Does anyone think this will be more or less likely to alter perceptions of a player based on his or her number of purples or golds?

What I mean is that, simply put, purple does not always equate to better than blue. My blue Bear Cub will pull my HAMSTER through more dungeons than my purple man at arms. But the cool gang will prefer me to load the purple, in order to APPEAR better based on a score that reflects how much high end stuff you have, more than whether or not its actually useful.

Replacing something with something that is basically the same thing squared still has the same issues at its core, just with a much wider gap between the top and bottom. (just ask Paul Ryan... he'll tell you.)

But as with Utility enchantments, you are left wondering if a Transcendent Training rune is actually WORTH the same as a Transcendent Bonding, or is Dwarven Footing really WORTH the same as Baphomet's Might.

Also on that point, why would you have a purple man-at-arms? or a trans training rune for that matter?

There's only so much you can expect from a gear based ranking system, it's an indicator of the quality of your gear, not an assessment of your build.

Here's a challenge for you though; instead of doing your usual 'disagree' thing, lets hear some constructive & creative input about what you think would work.

mordekai · April 2017

armadeonx said:

mordekai#1901 said:
Hmm...
It looks like a more complex version of the same, "its not what it does, it's all about its colour".

Does anyone think this will be more or less likely to alter perceptions of a player based on his or her number of purples or golds?

What I mean is that, simply put, purple does not always equate to better than blue. My blue Bear Cub will pull my HAMSTER through more dungeons than my purple man at arms. But the cool gang will prefer me to load the purple, in order to APPEAR better based on a score that reflects how much high end stuff you have, more than whether or not its actually useful.

Replacing something with something that is basically the same thing squared still has the same issues at its core, just with a much wider gap between the top and bottom. (just ask Paul Ryan... he'll tell you.)

But as with Utility enchantments, you are left wondering if a Transcendent Training rune is actually WORTH the same as a Transcendent Bonding, or is Dwarven Footing really WORTH the same as Baphomet's Might.
Also on that point, why would you have a purple man-at-arms? or a trans training rune for that matter?

There's only so much you can expect from a gear based ranking system, it's an indicator of the quality of your gear, not an assessment of your build.

Here's a challenge for you though; instead of doing your usual 'disagree' thing, lets hear some constructive & creative input about what you think would work.

Why have those things?

To meet higher level player based IL requirements without the expense of getting the stuff that actually makes a difference.

Perception is all someone has if they are the sort of HAMSTER who boots first and asks questions later.
On Saturday I ran my HR through Throne and was surprised when my 2.9 HR almost doubled the DPS of an HR
with 3.1k. So I had a look at their gear... +5 ring of Vanishing Presence, and +5 ring of Reflex Sight... told me all I needed to know. There simply ARE people who conflate IL with "Character Level" and even with the facts in front of them think that rather than a reflection of what gear they have, acts as some sort of damage multiplier.

If that's how people currently stack their IL to look better, I don't see the new rules improving that situation any.

What good is an assessment of your gear, when the score it provides is Treated as an assessment of your build by the same boot first people? Or even by the people who think that simply having a higher IL somehow "makes" them better?

I refer you to the suggestion I made for a colour coded alpha numeric system based on what items actually provide your class and how you continue to perform against those statistics in game. It would require a ground up reworking, and be a more complex stat recovery than assigning arbitrary numbers to any item regardless of its genuine usefulness, but lets not worry about whether a score means anything real, when a shiny big number makes enough people go "Ooooh, I've gone up by 3.5k... I must be super special".

mordekai · April 2017

rjc9000 said:

mordekai#1901 said:
Again, it's relative.
My CW just traded in his Dusk robes having got a Lifesilk Spinneret, and his AC went up by 5 to 22.
The subsequent rise in his DR means a hell of a lot more to him with his five figure hit points than it would to, say, my GF.

The game has so many complex equations constantly running throughout a combat, with so many variables, constants and multipliers flying around, that I am fairly sure there would be a means by which an aggregated score of actual vs potential vs average could be kept, and reflected in a rating that is based on class based criteria.
(Apologies, just realised I typed a three line sentence...)

I'm no expert on coding, but the monster AI seems pretty robust and I imagine the game could run sims of a characters aptitude to arrive at a potential max efficiency, and what would be an expected level of efficiency. Measure that against the average of the past X no of hours played to achieve a score.

Sounds complex, but in reality it could be reflected with an alpha-numeric, with a colour.
E.g, Green, A1 for what is currently a 4k plus who knows what they're doing, down to a Red C3 for a 1.4k guy with a hodge pdge of feats who dances the Macarena in the red zones.

The letter suggests your potential maximum, the number your expected average, and the colour shows that you are hitting near enough to max (green), around the expected mark (orange), or below (red).

To be honest, the code monkeys could do that with little difficulty, the problem would be the game designers deciding on the appropriate criteria for each class, and what the standards should be.
Well, Ilvl can talk about your gear, but if there's a problem with the player behind the keyboard, there's only so much the gear can do before it's obvious where the issue is.

About the "max" output character/BiS:

I would be blunt about what I want to say, but terms of service, so...

Back when Storm King's Thunder was in preview testing, the devs actually thought that people would get Relic Armor because of Ilvl alone, even though Relic Armor generally had awful stats (seriously, GWF Raid Armor with Power/Recovery/Def? whyyy).

Relic Raid Armor only got changed when the PC community had to remind the devs that nobody would care about Relic Armor if the stats weren't good...

I wonder if the devs would do the same thing when determining what the BiS for each character is for their BiS simulator.

Relic Armour is the opposite end of the spectrum to what I think is the issue.
With armour people will go for the best they can get. But with artifacts, companions, mounts, enchants, if the IL can bu upped by going for a cheaper, faster, less effective option, do you genuinely believe that people forego the IL because the stats aren't as good?

I don't. Which is why I think IL is less than useless, whilever someone out there thinks that having worse gear is literally better for their character, it actually advocates entropy.

armadeonx · April 2017

mordekai#1901 said:

armadeonx said:

mordekai#1901 said:
Hmm...
It looks like a more complex version of the same, "its not what it does, it's all about its colour".

Does anyone think this will be more or less likely to alter perceptions of a player based on his or her number of purples or golds?

What I mean is that, simply put, purple does not always equate to better than blue. My blue Bear Cub will pull my HAMSTER through more dungeons than my purple man at arms. But the cool gang will prefer me to load the purple, in order to APPEAR better based on a score that reflects how much high end stuff you have, more than whether or not its actually useful.

Replacing something with something that is basically the same thing squared still has the same issues at its core, just with a much wider gap between the top and bottom. (just ask Paul Ryan... he'll tell you.)

But as with Utility enchantments, you are left wondering if a Transcendent Training rune is actually WORTH the same as a Transcendent Bonding, or is Dwarven Footing really WORTH the same as Baphomet's Might.
Also on that point, why would you have a purple man-at-arms? or a trans training rune for that matter?

There's only so much you can expect from a gear based ranking system, it's an indicator of the quality of your gear, not an assessment of your build.

Here's a challenge for you though; instead of doing your usual 'disagree' thing, lets hear some constructive & creative input about what you think would work.

Why have those things?

To meet higher level player based IL requirements without the expense of getting the stuff that actually makes a difference.

Perception is all someone has if they are the sort of HAMSTER who boots first and asks questions later.
On Saturday I ran my HR through Throne and was surprised when my 2.9 HR almost doubled the DPS of an HR
with 3.1k. So I had a look at their gear... +5 ring of Vanishing Presence, and +5 ring of Reflex Sight... told me all I needed to know. There simply ARE people who conflate IL with "Character Level" and even with the facts in front of them think that rather than a reflection of what gear they have, acts as some sort of damage multiplier.

If that's how people currently stack their IL to look better, I don't see the new rules improving that situation any.

What good is an assessment of your gear, when the score it provides is Treated as an assessment of your build by the same boot first people? Or even by the people who think that simply having a higher IL somehow "makes" them better?

I refer you to the suggestion I made for a colour coded alpha numeric system based on what items actually provide your class and how you continue to perform against those statistics in game. It would require a ground up reworking, and be a more complex stat recovery than assigning arbitrary numbers to any item regardless of its genuine usefulness, but lets not worry about whether a score means anything real, when a shiny big number makes enough people go "Ooooh, I've gone up by 3.5k... I must be super special".

Ah so you mean the old gear score system or something similar? Maybe where stats are added up and give a 'total dps' or 'total defensive capability'? "how you continue to perform against those statistics" suggests having a base-line of statistical performance and a tracking mechanism that weighs many things against that baseline or "player average" and publishes this performance on your character?

The first part is difficult as it suggests that 'stacking stats' is the way to go, whereas we know that having the right balance of stats is more important.

Addressing the second point, have you considered the impact on player cooperation if there existed a form of player rating that worked in a similar way to the pvp scoreboard? If you think people can be elitist or trollish now, have a think about how bad it could get with (in essence) a pve scoreboard - certain guilds only recruiting people in the 'epeen category' or premades only accepting those in the 'gold group' of players.

The thing is we can all site experiences of people with terrible/innapropriate gear - but did you consider that the HR in your example was primarily a pvp player and as he was only running a skirmish couldn't be bothered swapping out his gear? It's easy to pass judgement after a glance at someone and make assumptions, but such narrow views don't really advance the debate.

The fact is the majority of experienced players make reasonable gear choices based on the needs of their class & build. Item Level never will be perfect and most sensible players know that it is just a baseline of gear quality. For example, if I'm looking at someone as a potential recruit for the guild I look at their item level first then I look at their stats & gear choices - I've seen a couple with a legendary catalogue - as their primary! - needless to say they don't get the invite, but most players are so 'meta-build' that you can predict their gear choices just by knowing their class.

Realistically, Cryptic are not going to do a full ground-up rewrite of the entire system and them just factoring in extra stats from companions & mounts is an improvement on the current design. Most people are ok with it and that's good enough for me.

ltsmithneko · April 2017

mordekai#1901 said:

On Saturday I ran my HR through Throne and was surprised when my 2.9 HR almost doubled the DPS of an HR
with 3.1k. So I had a look at their gear... +5 ring of Vanishing Presence, and +5 ring of Reflex Sight... told me all I needed to know. There simply ARE people who conflate IL with "Character Level" and even with the facts in front of them think that rather than a reflection of what gear they have, acts as some sort of damage multiplier.

Aye, those such rings were going to have a huge decrease in IL simply due to the lack of actual stats, not that they are worthless, but most of the time you can do without them. Exception to the Charging Bull ring, but most don't really bother decking out a ring they only use for two things of content in the game. :P

armadeonx · April 2017

Just to copy/paste a quote from one of the devs on the main thread:

"In terms of accuracy, there have been lots of great suggestions that would make the system more accurate, but as others have pointed out, the goal isn't to maximize accuracy so much as to make things more accurate than before (and hopefully "accurate enough") and still preserve simplicity. One thing that's important to simplicity is, I think, that each item gives a fixed number -- not contextual numbers. I also don't want to go down the path of saying specific item X or Y is more powerful, so we will give it more item level. I think it's better if we keep things by category (purple enchantment is worth X, blue artifact is worth Y), and if we keep the number of different categories low."

I think that answers it well enough.

mordekai · April 2017

So basically, its like the guys running the annual "Biggest HAMSTER" contest decided to switch from inches to millimeters so the competitors would get a bigger number and fool themselves into thinking their HAMSTER got bigger.
They'll still be guessing in millimettres, just like they were with inches but hey... accuracy in statistical relevance is less important than thinking your HAMSTER got bigger.

Got it now...

ltsmithneko · April 2017

armadeonx said:
Just to copy/paste a quote from one of the devs on the main thread:

"In terms of accuracy, there have been lots of great suggestions that would make the system more accurate, but as others have pointed out, the goal isn't to maximize accuracy so much as to make things more accurate than before (and hopefully "accurate enough") and still preserve simplicity. One thing that's important to simplicity is, I think, that each item gives a fixed number -- not contextual numbers. I also don't want to go down the path of saying specific item X or Y is more powerful, so we will give it more item level. I think it's better if we keep things by category (purple enchantment is worth X, blue artifact is worth Y), and if we keep the number of different categories low."

I think that answers it well enough.

Personal option, ew.

armadeonx · April 2017

Well that's the opinion of a dev who obviously gets to hear the thoughts of the decision makers first hand and he's also the guy tasked with introducing these changes so it's fair to say he's 'in the loop'.

True Item Level

Comments

I am neither here nor there, for I am NevrCene