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

Cassie wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: I would love to hear more from Jeff on how or why he took the token in this final direction.
Even more than that, I would love his breakdown of how/why he made each suggested proposal he gave us. What persuaded him, etc.

Agreed, I think most of us would have been ok with 1:1 or 2:1 (possibly with a cap) hp channeling + the decreased cost on the mage powers, and the reversion to double base damage at a huge hp cost just seems nearly unusable as an UR for the time being at anything other then epic play, and even then is a huge healing sink on the party.

I'd also still love to hear what happened here, as I think a lot of us really felt blind-sided by this:

Jeff Martin wrote: ... A short time ago I received some detailed info that made me change the new MEC, the Relic and the Legendary for the Wizard. I hope you will not be too disappointed...

I could be wrong, but what I inferred from what Jeff said was that he went back to the original version because of passionate feedback from those that preferred the original version to the 1:1 version, but that because of all the tokens that could increase HP he thought he had to change the cost of the original MEC from 10 to 25.

Mike Steele wrote:

Cassie wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: I would love to hear more from Jeff on how or why he took the token in this final direction.
Even more than that, I would love his breakdown of how/why he made each suggested proposal he gave us. What persuaded him, etc.

Agreed, I think most of us would have been ok with 1:1 or 2:1 (possibly with a cap) hp channeling + the decreased cost on the mage powers, and the reversion to double base damage at a huge hp cost just seems nearly unusable as an UR for the time being at anything other then epic play, and even then is a huge healing sink on the party.

I'd also still love to hear what happened here, as I think a lot of us really felt blind-sided by this:

Jeff Martin wrote: ... A short time ago I received some detailed info that made me change the new MEC, the Relic and the Legendary for the Wizard. I hope you will not be too disappointed...

I could be wrong, but what I inferred from what Jeff said was that he went back to the original version because of passionate feedback from those that preferred the original version to the 1:1 version, but that because of all the tokens that could increase HP he thought he had to change the cost of the original MEC from 10 to 25.

Can you please provide reference to anyone who publicly preferred the original version of doubling base damage?

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Cassie wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: I would love to hear more from Jeff on how or why he took the token in this final direction.
Even more than that, I would love his breakdown of how/why he made each suggested proposal he gave us. What persuaded him, etc.

Agreed, I think most of us would have been ok with 1:1 or 2:1 (possibly with a cap) hp channeling + the decreased cost on the mage powers, and the reversion to double base damage at a huge hp cost just seems nearly unusable as an UR for the time being at anything other then epic play, and even then is a huge healing sink on the party.

I'd also still love to hear what happened here, as I think a lot of us really felt blind-sided by this:

Jeff Martin wrote: ... A short time ago I received some detailed info that made me change the new MEC, the Relic and the Legendary for the Wizard. I hope you will not be too disappointed...

I could be wrong, but what I inferred from what Jeff said was that he went back to the original version because of passionate feedback from those that preferred the original version to the 1:1 version, but that because of all the tokens that could increase HP he thought he had to change the cost of the original MEC from 10 to 25.

Can you please provide reference to anyone who publicly preferred the original version of doubling base damage?

I never said I had reference of anyone publicly preferring the original version, I don't really want to go through hundreds of posts to look for them. I don't know how much of that was private feedback, or who it was from, of course.

In the first post, Jeff said "Frankly, I was surprised by the amount of "passion" (<=nicest term I could think of) for changing the way the token works. To cut to the chase, I have spent the money to make a new plate made so that this "final version" of the MEC will be in print. I did not leave the MEC unchanged, but with the big expanse in "max hp" booster items since 2014 (and especially this year) the 10 hp cost is not enough for game balance."

My interpretation of that is that Jeff got "passionate" feedback from people unhappy he changed the way the token worked and preferred the original, and therefore went back to the original version (at extra cost to TD), but boosted the cost because of higher HP potential now. I'm sure someone else might have a different interpretation from that statement.

I'm not even going to attempt to assume what may or may not have been on Jeff's mind. If wants to, he can tell us. If not, it is what it is.

I certainly don't envy Jeff, he's almost in a no-win situation. I get that overall hp is going up for player's characters due to the number of hp enhancing tokens. But it seems like this sets an awkward precedence. Can we expect the damage taken from Rod of Persuasion to go to 25hp in the next year or two? I think rogues have access to the same hp tokens.

Also, while character hp has gone up, so has monster hp. From what I can see, since 2014 when MEC was introduced the monster hp totals at nightmare level have almost doubled. So to maintain balance, if you're going to increase the cost, shouldn't you increase the damage in order to maintain balance? I guess it depends upon how you want to look at it. Like I said, its really a no-win situation.

In hindsight, the relic/legendary probably should not have centered around MEC in the first place. But now its done. I'm just going to accept that MEC is nerfed and move on.

Do you know ANYONE who plans to currently utilize the Mad Evoker's Charm as written without crafting the new necklace?

Do you know ANYONE who plans to use the MEC trigger on the necklace at the same frequency as it is being used this year?

The change to the Mad Evoker's Charm wasn't a nerf, it was made functionally unusable.

If the MEC is the core design concept of the necklace WHY is it set to cost 5x the amount of HP as all of the other triggers? HOW is a 25HP trigger considered to be in any way acceptable.

It's been WEEKS of asking for reasoning for this over the top nerf to the Mad Evoker's Charm and reversal of the promise to revamp the Wizard card as part of the process. and we've heard nothing. NOT ONE WORD has been uttered.

We were attacked by someone intending to destroy a 10 year old class design and they did it very successfully. They assassinated the Mad Evoker Wizard.

The one token that allowed Wizards to PARTIALLY compete with other characters at the UR level is now unusable.

It's no surprise that players are quitting the game over this whole fiasco. If the Mad Evoker's Charm needed fixing this was NOT the way to do it.

I feel incredibly sorry for any player who enjoyed the mad evoker playstyle. Especially one who spent over $300 on a copy of the token in the last 5 years. Losing some value to a reprint is one thing. Losing value to crippling a token is something else completely.

*sigh* I just can't. I prayed for weeks that Jeff might see how negatively the token was received and might relent on the change but that's obviously not going to happen. We aren't allowed to have nice things.

Dave wrote: I'm not even going to attempt to assume what may or may not have been on Jeff's mind. If wants to, he can tell us. If not, it is what it is.

I certainly don't envy Jeff, he's almost in a no-win situation. I get that overall hp is going up for player's characters due to the number of hp enhancing tokens. But it seems like this sets an awkward precedence. Can we expect the damage taken from Rod of Persuasion to go to 25hp in the next year or two? I think rogues have access to the same hp tokens.

Also, while character hp has gone up, so has monster hp. From what I can see, since 2014 when MEC was introduced the monster hp totals at nightmare level have almost doubled. So to maintain balance, if you're going to increase the cost, shouldn't you increase the damage in order to maintain balance? I guess it depends upon how you want to look at it. Like I said, its really a no-win situation.

In hindsight, the relic/legendary probably should not have centered around MEC in the first place. But now its done. I'm just going to accept that MEC is nerfed and move on.

I was saying this since the moment Ashenne’s was first previewed: stay away from MEC

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Cassie wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: I would love to hear more from Jeff on how or why he took the token in this final direction.
Even more than that, I would love his breakdown of how/why he made each suggested proposal he gave us. What persuaded him, etc.

Agreed, I think most of us would have been ok with 1:1 or 2:1 (possibly with a cap) hp channeling + the decreased cost on the mage powers, and the reversion to double base damage at a huge hp cost just seems nearly unusable as an UR for the time being at anything other then epic play, and even then is a huge healing sink on the party.

I'd also still love to hear what happened here, as I think a lot of us really felt blind-sided by this:

Jeff Martin wrote: ... A short time ago I received some detailed info that made me change the new MEC, the Relic and the Legendary for the Wizard. I hope you will not be too disappointed...

I could be wrong, but what I inferred from what Jeff said was that he went back to the original version because of passionate feedback from those that preferred the original version to the 1:1 version, but that because of all the tokens that could increase HP he thought he had to change the cost of the original MEC from 10 to 25.

Can you please provide reference to anyone who publicly preferred the original version of doubling base damage?

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.

For what it’s worth the wizard in my group is planning on buying, and using, the new Mec. Not having the original means he didn’t have any feeling of loss, and being dramatically cheaper with a repent saves him a bunch of money. I should have enough healing to cover it’s use a few times during the dungeon. He won’t be able to use it every round of every combat, but even without he was already one of the top damage dealers in the party.

I was thinking about CEA. Now, neck and charm are two different slots, though MEC has always been complicated by INT requirement unless you find Starhide or Aron's de rigueur.

2hp for 3dmg.

That ratio interests me because I view oMEC as pretty much 10hp:~15dmg. I used it a lot on 11pt Magic Missiles, and these days 8pt MMs seem more likely.

Now, besides being fine with the 2:3 token that, yes, I think is bad design but lots of game components are bad design and still end up fitting in games, the obvious thing to consider is how 25hp fits into a new world order.

If class cards were redone and spell dmg was doubled and you stretch some to believe that everyone with nMEC will be using 3rd level spells all of the time for base 40dmg, then 25:40 retains some principle of 2:3.

Of course, the expectation that class cards would be redone in such a way is exceedingly speculative.

As for current use, it's the sort of thing I can see if running on Hardcore for like 1/room when over-HPed for Hardcore or if you really, really have an extra charm slot for like 1/room or when you stop caring about living in like room seven.

It's not something I would suggest anyone go out and get if they didn't already have one. But, who knows how the game will look a year from now? Or, put another way, one would think that after going through dev cycles where stuff changes dramatically from day to day that it's difficult to predict what the environment will be like a year later.

I certainly don't envy Jeff. No matter what he did there were going to be people upset with the token.

I'll have to see if I want to make/equip the relic and (maybe) the legendary. I do like the mage powers a lot, but I don't see myself using the MEC power anymore. Just too costly.

I don't see ANYONE using the Mad Evoker's Charm anymore.

It's FAR too expensive for the extremely weak benefit. Even on level 3 spells.

I'm generally OK with the necklace. I am extremely displeased with the attack against Wizards in the form of the Mad Evoker's Charm "fix"

More than anything I am extremely displeased that it was done in secret and was implemented with no way for the Wizards to defend ourselves.

It sets a very negative precedent that I hope all other players are watching very closely. Not only are your tokens not safe when the design window closes (Gloves of the Cabal) you tokens are not even safe on reprint 10 years later.

That eroded every bit of trust I have in tokens and fairness to classes.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: I don't see ANYONE using the Mad Evoker's Charm anymore.

It's FAR too expensive for the extremely weak benefit. Even on level 3 spells.

I'm generally OK with the necklace. I am extremely displeased with the attack against Wizards in the form of the Mad Evoker's Charm "fix"

More than anything I am extremely displeased that it was done in secret and was implemented with no way for the Wizards to defend ourselves.

It sets a very negative precedent that I hope all other players are watching very closely. Not only are your tokens not safe when the design window closes (Gloves of the Cabal) you tokens are not even safe on reprint 10 years later.

That eroded every bit of trust I have in tokens and fairness to classes.

Someone said they were going to use it about 3 posts ago.