Forums › English Language Forums › General › General Discussion

Search

Should Sprite Ultimates & Physical Appearance be Seperated?

5 replies [Last post]
Fri, 02/27/2015 - 08:12
Paintool's picture
Paintool

Maybe we've had this discussion before and I just can't find it, but should they be separated?
I mean think about it this way: knights can switch and swap gear underneath costumes like it's nobody's business (and they do already with hide inspect!), but sprites aren't so lucky. When you get an ultimate you are forced to permanently change and conform to that sprite's look forever unless you buy a reset star to change ultimates. But ultimates and appearance aren't mutually exclusive. I wanted a Maskerwraith with those dread looking arms, BUT I really want to use the ultimate skill the wings offer.

I really think this is a missed opportunity for true customization and variability. In my proposed future, sprites will have their own unique items in the "sprite gear tab" (which only holds pods {which is silly if you ask me}) and from there we can swap around sprite appearance PROVIDED you've used it as an ultimate at least once.

Or OOO could take the "nothing good is free" approach and have "sprite accessories" that get destroyed if you remove them if you don't buy the silly overpriced reset star ticket whatever to save your appearance.

General discussion because generally everyone will have a sprite and we should all talk about it.

Fri, 02/27/2015 - 08:30
#1
Bopp's picture
Bopp
response

I understand the desire for flexibility. Let me tell you another example, and then explain why ultimately I disagree.

It has been proposed that weapon style, damage type, and status be decoupled from one another. So for example you could buy a flourish-style sword and then attach shadow enhancements and shock enhancements and end up with some sort of shadow-shock flourish. This plan would greatly increase the variety of weapons in the game, without adding much design work, due to simple "combinatorial blow-up". The same could be done for armor, trinkets, etc.

The problem with these approaches is that they have too much symmetry. Beautiful design often benefits from a delicate mixture of symmetry and asymmetry. As examples I offer Millenium Falcon, Castle Neuschwanstein, and Warlock. They would be much more boring if they didn't have just the right amount of weird appendages sticking out unexpectedly.

Ultimately, limiting our choices to a few configurations that aren't perfectly symmetric with each other keeps things more interesting.

Fri, 02/27/2015 - 13:42
#2
Fehzor's picture
Fehzor

If there was a perfectly equal system put in place it wouldn't necessarily have to be symmetrical.

Lets say that you could get sprite ultimates to look however you wanted, but that sprites came with one look and getting the other look required serious efforts- only an absurdly rare scenario room that showed up every five hundred or so hours of gameplay could reverse the look of a sprite ultimate such that it was mis-matched. Can they get the look they want? Yes. Is it worth looking for to most? Nope. But when it shows up randomly it's always worth it and doing so could breed more variance in the look of sprites.

The same would work with weapons. If there were items that could be used to change damage type, add status effects, trade damage for speed etcetera, they'd work out just fine as long as they weren't all perfectly available all the time. Like if they came around in limited quantities as an event.

Fri, 02/27/2015 - 14:06
#3
Bopp's picture
Bopp
style vs. substance

That's a good idea, when it comes to sprite appearances. In fact, it could apply to armor appearances too (i.e., accessories).

When it comes to non-cosmetic issues such as weapon performance, the designers would have to be careful. The rareness of Black Kat seems to irritate many posters on these forums.

Sun, 03/01/2015 - 11:27
#4
Pdtopgun's picture
Pdtopgun
I'm all for it

For my Seraphynx, I wound up going with the Dazzling Light Ray instead of the Disintegration Ray, even though the latter is generally considered to be far more useful, solely because I thought the antennae looked really ugly on it. I'll probably wind up choosing the other two ultimates based more on appearance than utility too. It'd be really nice to choose the abilities I feel would best suit my playstyle without worrying what they'll do to the Sprite's appearance.

Sun, 03/01/2015 - 16:48
#5
Fehzor's picture
Fehzor

Well I said rotate them all with events so that we'd end up removing the rareness factor almost entirely. Lets say that each individual weapon had its own set of "changers" for each possible permutation of change, and that three changers were available at any one time each for 6 days such that every 2 days a changer was swapped out.

5* Weapons: ~18 swords, ~30 handguns, ~19 bombs = ~67 total
Possible attributes: 6 status effects, 4 damage types, 4 modifiers (MSI, ASI , CTR, damage) = 14
Total changers: 14 * 67 = 938
Total time to rotate through all of them at 2 days per changer: 1,876 days, or a little over five years.

Are they rare? Not at all. There would literally always be some within your grasp for 50K crowns or so. Would it be hard to get the one you wanted? Absolutely. But say you want fire for stagger storm and shadow damage for final flourish comes around... there's nothing to stop you from wanting that too, and there are a TON of intriguing weapon combinations to go around.

Nor would it be plausible to even say what was the best set of attributes. There would almost certainly be popular choices that people wanted (like pure damage combuster for FSC) but no one would be able to collect enough to make an exact call when it comes down to it. How would a pure piercing voltedge that dealt very low damage that dealt stun+poison and made you walk faster fare compared to a piercing glacius that made you walk slower, deal more damage, and freeze at a lower rate? I couldn't tell you if I wanted to beyond speculation.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system