TOPIC: READ THIS! Change to MEC and Details on Relic & Legendary

Balance (ROTFL)

I still also love just how cheap the MEC token looks: the broken ring, the set arrows all crooked. The token image itself barely has any detail compared to its last version or any other UR in the set. It looks exactly like it feels.

Mike Steele wrote:

NightGod wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

NightGod wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Do you seriously think 10% of the Wizard players would actually be OK with this change?

So far we have 24 pages of comments and it appears only 1 person in 24 pages is somewhat accepting of the design.

Obviously Wizards would prefer the version with only 10 HP cost, but I do think a number of Wizards will use the MEC effect. Maybe not as often, but I think they will use it.

Well, as long as you, a very vocal druid player, thinks some wizards will use it, then it must be perfect.

I don't believe I ever said it's perfect. I think I was pretty clear the original version would be preferable due to the lower HP cost, but I understand why it was changed. Time will tell if the effect is used or not. I still think the Legendary is terrific, even without the MEC effects.

I mean, I think the druid legendary is terrific (I think it is the coolest effect of the legendaries-Poly + casting spells is sweet), but you've stated multiple times that you're excited about changing it.

It's almost like people who play the class regularly might have different opinions than those looking in from the outside.

There seemed to be lots of Wizards that were going to use the MEC effect when it was a 1:1 effect. The Wizard 20 damage spell is nearly that now (25 HP for 20 damage), so why wouldn't Wizards that were going to use the 1:1 effect before use the MEC now for the 20 damage spell for nearly the same bonus? And since the Legendary allows that spell to be cast an additional time in each room, that's 80-100 bonus damage from the MEC effect per Dungeon for Wizards with the Legendary even if that's all that it is used for.

At this point, I can only assuming you're trolling with comments like this.

NightGod wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

NightGod wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

NightGod wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Do you seriously think 10% of the Wizard players would actually be OK with this change?

So far we have 24 pages of comments and it appears only 1 person in 24 pages is somewhat accepting of the design.

Obviously Wizards would prefer the version with only 10 HP cost, but I do think a number of Wizards will use the MEC effect. Maybe not as often, but I think they will use it.

Well, as long as you, a very vocal druid player, thinks some wizards will use it, then it must be perfect.

I don't believe I ever said it's perfect. I think I was pretty clear the original version would be preferable due to the lower HP cost, but I understand why it was changed. Time will tell if the effect is used or not. I still think the Legendary is terrific, even without the MEC effects.

I mean, I think the druid legendary is terrific (I think it is the coolest effect of the legendaries-Poly + casting spells is sweet), but you've stated multiple times that you're excited about changing it.

It's almost like people who play the class regularly might have different opinions than those looking in from the outside.

There seemed to be lots of Wizards that were going to use the MEC effect when it was a 1:1 effect. The Wizard 20 damage spell is nearly that now (25 HP for 20 damage), so why wouldn't Wizards that were going to use the 1:1 effect before use the MEC now for the 20 damage spell for nearly the same bonus? And since the Legendary allows that spell to be cast an additional time in each room, that's 80-100 bonus damage from the MEC effect per Dungeon for Wizards with the Legendary even if that's all that it is used for.

At this point, I can only assuming you're trolling with comments like this.

That's not trolling, I was just providing actual numbers as to why the MEC effect for the Legendary still seems useful. If our Wizard somehow ended up with the Legendary, I think she would use the MEC effect at least on the 20 damage spells each room.

Mike Steele wrote: That's not trolling, I was just providing actual numbers as to why the MEC effect for the Legendary still seems useful. If our Wizard somehow ended up with the Legendary, I think she would use the MEC effect at least on the 20 damage spells each room.

That's great that your Wizard would use the effect if they got the Legendary, Mike. Would you equip them with the MEC itself absent getting the effect from the Relic/Legendary?

Does it really matter if a handful of wizards still use MEC? I feel very safe in saying the vast majority will use it far less frequently, if at all. On its own, it's more a niche token that a few might still want to use because they find it fun and think their healers can accommodate. In reality, I don't see how it can be used in every single round of combat (as some, like I, did previously). The only way that would work is if the Cleric/Druid did nothing but cast healing spells almost every round on the Wizard/Elf Wizard. Seriously, how much fun is that? At 25 hp per round, a BIS wizard would not have enough hp to use its effect after 3 rounds. Some won't have enough after 2 rounds, as you also no longer have the ability to exhaust your supply of hp.

MEC is also not a viable option for newer players who might not have the tokens necessary to reach more than 50 hp. Straight out of a starter pack, it wasn't usable before due to the intelligence requirement, now its not usable due to the hp cost. How many starter pack only wizards will have more than 25hp. So that's not too much of a change. At least in the past, you only needed a rare hat of intellect to make it useful in future runs. Now, you need to find at least a handful of hp boosting tokens and tie up multiple slots to have adequate hp resource.

As an "add on" feature to the relic/legendary its ok, but the token should never have been built around it. Will I use its effect? Possibly, in the final combat room where I don't really care what my hp total is. And even then I only plan to use it in combination with fork or boost and at least a 2nd level spell where I can double the damage it does. If I can get 36 or 40 damage for the 25 cost, then its ok. Otherwise, not so much.

The reality is this. Yes, some will still use it, but it will be far, far less used than it is today. The majority of people who actually play the class do not like the new design. You can always find exceptions and dig up some numbers that try to make it look better. It will still see far less use and be disliked by the majority.

Fiddy wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: That's not trolling, I was just providing actual numbers as to why the MEC effect for the Legendary still seems useful. If our Wizard somehow ended up with the Legendary, I think she would use the MEC effect at least on the 20 damage spells each room.

That's great that your Wizard would use the effect if they got the Legendary, Mike. Would you equip them with the MEC itself absent getting the effect from the Relic/Legendary?

I doubt that I would, because I didn't outfit them with the original MEC either. Partly because they are already the largest damage dealers in the group, and we're already pretty overpowered for the difficulty level we play. If i were going to outfit one or both of our Wizards with one of the new Wizard class tokens, I think I'd probably shell out the cash for at least the Relic, because I think the Relic / Legendary is where the real fun is.

If we were to upgrade to Nightmare difficulty level, and if I had access to just the UR MEC but not the Relic or Legendary, then I would consider using it. Right now two of our three Charm slots for the group (I don't use slot extenders, so everyone has 3 Charm slots) are locked down with Charm of Avarice and Charm of Synergy. The Wizard's third Charm slot is Questor's Charm. I think the bonus damage from the MEC would outweigh the benefit from Questor's Charm for our Wizards, even if only used a few times in the Dungeon. Especially if saved for the boss room, or for rooms where there are restrictions (such as flying creatures) which make it more difficult for some non-Wizards to do damage.

How about this..I know it is probably too late to change, but I am just trying to find something everyone agrees on...what if it (MEC) doubled all bonuses, not just base+skill check. still keep the cost at 25 HP

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote: How about this..I know it is probably too late to change, but I am just trying to find something everyone agrees on...what if it (MEC) doubled all bonuses, not just base+skill check. still keep the cost at 25 HP

Massively overpowered, especially in BIS builds. That could get back to the 2:1 ratio or more from one of the earlier versions.

kurtreznor wrote: ...
I don't know about public, but I was privvy to private conversation where at least 2 wizards were VERY upset at MEC being changed (to the non-double version). But it wasn't about perceived power, it was all about having a token they have owned for years suddenly being changed. I briefly thought about explaining how the 1-for-1 version is most likely better than double damage, but I realized that wouldn't help. They just wanted their tokens to be left alone.
This is why the change was so baffling to me; it seems like the absolute worst option, where nobody is happy with it.

Mike Steele wrote: I doubt that I would, because I didn't outfit them with the original MEC either. Partly because they are already the largest damage dealers in the group, and we're already pretty overpowered for the difficulty level we play. If i were going to outfit one or both of our Wizards with one of the new Wizard class tokens, I think I'd probably shell out the cash for at least the Relic, because I think the Relic / Legendary is where the real fun is.

If we were to upgrade to Nightmare difficulty level, and if I had access to just the UR MEC but not the Relic or Legendary, then I would consider using it. Right now two of our three Charm slots for the group (I don't use slot extenders, so everyone has 3 Charm slots) are locked down with Charm of Avarice and Charm of Synergy. The Wizard's third Charm slot is Questor's Charm. I think the bonus damage from the MEC would outweigh the benefit from Questor's Charm for our Wizards, even if only used a few times in the Dungeon. Especially if saved for the boss room, or for rooms where there are restrictions (such as flying creatures) which make it more difficult for some non-Wizards to do damage.

One feature of most discourse (at least this is how it comes across to me) is that there's an assumption that TD is played one particular way. Now, of course, people are going to offer opinions on how things should work based on their own experiences and preferences, but I don't even find a single way that TD is played when my group is on a run. Number of players, class choices, the dungeon, whether the dungeon has been played before, decisions made to make things more challenging, player personalities/moods, and whatever else alter the experience.

I quoted these two comments because there's a linkage in my mind, though I suppose I have to explain how.

Putting aside that I would be with those kurtreznor mentions who would have just wanted MEC left alone for reasons that aren't germaine to this post, I believe that something that could be agreed upon is that increasing the cost to use MEC changes how it gets used. Unlike many, many other comments, that doesn't sound controversial. If oMEC had never existed and a new token came out that did what nMEC does, people could come up with ways that they would use it, but it wouldn't be what oMEC has been. oMEC has been a routine play for those who have it and some way to increase INT. nMEC, ignoring the transmutes, comes across as something more akin to a Lotus Blossom Bowls or whatever better comp than a slotless item that has a far more limited role. Going from essential part of build at UR level to specialized function is, of course, going to affect those who already possess the token.

It's been a routine play for what should be an obvious reason - people like dealing as much damage as they can as long as the costs for doing so are reasonable, and 10hp to inflict 11 or whatever more damage is often enough reasonable. Much like there are all sorts of tokens to enable other classes to increase damage output, oMEC served to increase damage output at a cost that was often enough acceptable.

Maybe some people used it like I've used it, where I decide round by round whether the cost-benefit is good enough to bother, where any 3rd level spell is pretty much going to get doubled but a Magic Missile may not, especially on the first round when you may be shooting an illusion or something, but I digress. But, whether it's a round by round choice or just always done, usage rate was high IME.

Okay, that's for some portion of the playing population. Then, get Mike's situation. Mike's situation, based on what I recall reading, is that they play Hardcore to not have things be too challenging and that a lot of the "BiS" plays aren't used. While it should come as no surprise that there could be a difference in perspective when one person is commenting about being overpowered for Hardcore and someone else is concerned with keeping up with the most effective damage builds in the game, what confuses me is why there's any expectation that one perspective matters to the other. If someone else plays the game differently, then it's counterproductive, at least for those of us who aren't decision makers, to dismiss how others approach the game.

Where I'm going is that I can see why comments get made about "here's how I/we would use this token" because TA should be surveying more than just one sort of player/playgroup. However, claiming that differing experiences are universal seems to lead to many, many pointless posts. Like this one.

I would note, getting back to a reason to include kurtreznor's comment, that changing an existing token comes with far more gravitas than if we were only talking about proposed ideas for new tokens. If the transmutes had remained as is and MEC hadn't been changed, one less thing to complain about. Trying to tie this ramble all together, once a game component is part of the pool of options, the game forms around that component (if good enough to see play), and so we are getting different world views entangled with altering an established standard within one or more of those world views.

Btw, changing gears significantly, ignoring the legendary and doing some time travel to have Mage Medallion already exist when I've played in say 2019-2020, the only Mage Power I could see getting consistent use would be Quicken.

The MPs and APs are less in my mind promoting a glass cannon playstyle and more providing a variety of options to classes that already have more options than most. Most classes can only punch harder. Spellcasters already have the ability to select spells that could do different things, even if they end up doing the same thing over and over. MPs/APs are, as another poster put it now a long time ago, providing a toolbox. Rather than push wizards up the mountain of damage rankings, versatility is being expanded. Not to say 2021 tokens don't increase versatility of others, but it's dramatic with the transmutes. When some less common situation arises, like spell resistance or multiple targets or significant elemental vulnerability, then wizards get the option to do something that didn't previously exist. Whether that's compelling or not will get played out, but the appeal to this approach with the class transmutes is going to be to those who like more options over more damage. I think it might also be noncontroversial to say that some forumites were really much more interested in more damage.

Ian Lee wrote: ...Big snip...

I think it might also be noncontroversial to say that some forumites were really much more interested in more damage.

Agree with large sections of your post Ian. I trimmed out most of it though, to focus on the very last point which I believe was 99% of the problems during token design this year.

I believe it was folly to push for wizards to leap ahead of Monk / Ranger in the damage charts, which I also believe directly lead to the final version of the the reprinted MEC There have been multiple times during token design where after the final final version, something gets nuked - it happened last year with amulet of vigor getting hit for being too good, and that was just a rare. Whoever is providing feedback at the very end of the development cycle has significant influence, and seems to have had influence for quite a while. My guess is that this person brought up something along the lines of "the original intention was that Mec would only be used 2-3 times per dungeon - now with all the HP boosters, its getting used every round of every combat. It should be restored to its original intent".

If the forum hadn't been pushing so hard for OMGWTFBBQ damage, and landed with the wizard somewhere around or just below barbarian damage, we may not have seen the nerf to the mec. Or, maybe it would have gotten hit by the nerf bat anyway, what do I know.

MEC is going to be used like spell surge, every once in a while to do more damage and at NM usually at least once in the last combat. MEC is not a great token anymore, but to me what is more important is that the Relic and Legendary are usable and attractive. I think for the most part that was accomplished. I know I will be building the Relic for when I play a wizard. I also have the gear to have the HPs to use MEC a few times which helps.

I do worry that MEC is not a good token for starting wizards anymore. That seems a bit harsh. With that said hopefully this opens up the design space for more interesting and powerful URs for wizards going forward. I know there was an ask to support more play styles other than just channeling in the endless Legendary threads, so maybe this will turn out to be a good thing. Unfortunately we will have to wait until next year to find out.