What's so hot about Enchant

[NinjaRooster]

(Why clvl requirements are idiotic a different matter.)

Of course now comes the "why" question :) Me would be me most grateful for a kind explanation. And, could you explain all the fuss over "cracked sashes"? I haven't been playing in a long while.... :rolleyes:


Thanks and CHEERS@@@!!!

[LemmingofGlory]

NinjaRooster:
Of course now comes the "why" question  Me would be me most grateful for a kind explanation.

It's a game mechanic introduced to prevent twinking. Rather than letting players decide, "Screw this loser, he's hogging all my kills. I'm going to find someone who doesn't twink." Blizz thinks it's better to police them than let people police themselves. Maybe it helps the climate of public games, but speaking for myself: I think public games are a joke anyway. If you have to throw in an illogical feature to make them playable, maybe they weren't such a good idea in the first place. (Can ya tell I've played too many D1 pubbies? Can ya?!)

Okay, so Blizz is policing people with a game feature. That would be fine if it didn't have any effect on me. But that's just not the case. I find an item, I have the stats to use it, but I'm still not be able to equip it until I'm older. That's garbage.

On top of that, many clvl requirements are just stupid. C'mon, clvl 30 to use a "Ring of Flame"? A few patches ago I had two pairs of boots, "of Giants" and "of Titans." Titans gave the higher boost to strength. Care to guess which had the higher clvl req? It wasn't "Titans." You can even find such wonderful baubles as "Ring of Charged Bolt: Level 2 Charged Bolt, clvl 24 Req." Oh, boy, I can't wait until I'm clvl 24! I'll be the happiest Nec alive!

Of course, ranting on anti-twink features leads directly into Blizz's other form of policing us: the clvl-mlvl curve and their new portal restrictions. Oh, they don't want us being towed. That's bad. Bad bad. There's something bad about it, because Blizz keeps tryin' to stop it. But why is it bad? I don't like towing, myself; it feels cheap and unrewarding. But as far as I'm concerned, the only ones missing out are the folks who're towed. Or is this affecting other folks in some negative way? Well, I dunno about you, but I've never felt slighted because some ten-year-old from Wyoming was towed to Act 5 Hell. But maybe Blizz is just more sensitive to that kind of thing; y'know, emphatic. (Funny how my outrage slips right past their sensors, though.)

So, why throw in a severe clvl-mlvl curve to curb exp gain and keep us "in the right area" if we can handle the tougher area? Why? What purpose is there to such unbridled Buzzardry?! What logic?! BlizzLogic™.

And why introduce portal restrictions? Gee, I don't know, but somehow I have a feeling portal restrictions only exist to limit the number of "Tow me!!111" beggars. Game features to police mental midgets, isn't that the epitome of good game design?

And, could you explain all the fuss over "cracked sashes"?

Someone around here (I think) started a thing about Cracked Sashes. I used it as an example because it's the most mundane sort of item you'll ever see. Truth be told, I prefer Personalized Cracked Gnarled Staves, but they don't make as good of an example.

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

[gekko]

Twinking is giving a character an item that is beyond that character's means, whether it be through "trade" or otherwise.

So, you're saying that so long as the item being given is below the "means" of the receiver, it's not twinking? Sorry, I don't buy that.

Take a lvl 90 sorceress: she has far more than the means required to find magefist. Light gauntlets can be dropped in normal difficulty, so that lvl 90 sorceress obviously "could" have found magefist.

If she didn't find magefist, whether through "item farming" or just plain luck, then, speaking from a "purist" point of view, she shouldn't have it. If she was given magefist from a lvl ONE character, that's twinking.

Your way of thinking requires someone to make a judgement of what the character's 'means' are. Whohas the means to find those magefist gauntlets? Is it only twinking if you receive them after lvl 30? How about lvl 50? 60?

The character level and item level (or item quality, if you prefer) are meaningless. If you didn't find or buy it yourself, it's twinked.

The power rift you spoke of is the incidental factor, not where the item came from. In theory, a lvl 6 character could find very powerful equipment, usable right away. If one character finds several low-level uniques/sets and has excellent luck with rares, that character will be far more powerful than someone with very poor luck from item drops. Does twinking promote that rift? Absolutely. However, it is NOT THE DIRECT CAUSE.

Again, how cheesy is this? Depends. Is "twinking" a full cleglaw's set onto a lvl 80 paladin going to make that paladin "uber?" No. But it's still twinking.

gekko

[LavCat]

So, LavCat's example: If the same level 14 hero trades a dozen or so hard earned chips to her older sister for some bright shiny new ring, would you call that twinking?

Ignoring that "hard earned chips" is so absurd it makes me belly laugh, the answer depends on whether the item traded-for is beyond the clvl 14's means.

I have a level one bowazon using all uniques (except, I believe an amulet of strength). She did not find these items herself. But all are quite low level and can be found in early act one. Would you call that twinking?

I think I like Gekko's definintion better.

Personally I see nothing wrong with twinking. It is not better or worse than not twinking, it is just different. I look at not twinking like playing a character with no energy or no strength. I enjoy playing characters that use only what they have found themselves or bought, but I have never taken an untwinked character through nightmare. Soon I hope to start a couple ladder characters, though.

Related to this, and getting back on topic if I may, what about blessing a young character with a high level enchant? My baby bowazon could then do a couple of thousand fire damage with her Pluckeye. Or with a cracked dagger for that matter.

[GentlemanLoser]

Just to add fuel to the 'twink' fire.

You're in an 8 player game. One of the other players kills a monster/opens a chest. Out pops an item. For whatever reason, it's useless to that character, but they know it's just what you need. So they give it to you.

Is this twinking?

[gekko]

If an enchantress can't find equipment on her own to grant at least plus ten to enchant by the time she has put twenty points in enchant, warmth, and fire mastery, I think she should apply for a job as NPC.

I'd also like to help get this back on topic (seeing as I did my fair share to derail it :)). As to the question about getting plus ten to enchant: the real question isn't if you can get that equipment. The real question is if you can find that equipment and still keep your life, mana, resists and other vital statistics up. Particularly since if you concentrate so fully on +enchant and +fire skills equipment, your other, non-fire skills are likely going to suffer.

Yes, it's easy to find those +3 fire skills items. Now go and find those +3 fire skills with +life, +resists, faster hit recovery and other vital bonuses. With no twinking.

gekko

[Olon97]

I traded a prismatic MF amulet (which I made using the 6 p. gems + amulet recepie) for a fire skill charm for my ladder enchantress. From my perspective it was a great deal! First time I've had a sorceress skill charm on the realms. At the moment my enchantress has +6 leaf, +1 lore, +1 amulet (no other mods), and the fire charm for slvl 29 enchant (slvl 26 fire mastery). I'll hold off on the NPC application for now... Still gambling / looking for +3 circlets / amulets, and slvl 33 enchant isn't feeling so unattainable now.

Demon machine is working out reasonably well. Kuko has dropped at least 3 times in the public games I've playing in, but I'm always too slow to grab it. I would love to find a razortail belt. :)

[LemmingofGlory]

If she didn't find magefist, whether through "item farming" or just plain luck, then, speaking from a "purist" point of view, she shouldn't have it.

But from a purist point of view, any trading or gift-giving is entirely out of the question. The assumption is that any twinked character is not a purist. Thus, there's no need to even discuss twinking from a purist perspective. Bizarre argument.

Now, let's examine our respective logics.

Character A and Character B are in Normal Act 4 in different areas. Char B finds "Magefist" and gives it to Char A. By your definition, no twinking has occured. By my definition, no twinking has occurred.

Char A and Char B are in Normal Act 4 in two different games. Char B finds "Magefist" and (later) gives it to Char A. By your definition, twinking has occured. By mine, no twinking has occured.

Char A and Char B are playing Act 4 in two different games, Hell and Normal difficulties respectively. Char B finds "Magefist" and (later) gives it to Char A. By your definition, twinking has again occured. By mine, no twinking has occured.

I do not find your definition logically consistent. The conditions are either identical or equivalent enough as to be irrelevant. (Indeed, Char A need not even be in-game, just capable of handling the designated areas.)

Your way of thinking requires someone to make a judgement of what the character's 'means' are. Whohas the means to find those magefist gauntlets? Is it only twinking if you receive them after lvl 30? How about lvl 50? 60?

STATEMENT:
If the character does not have the means to find the item, it's twinking.

INVERSE:
If the character does have the means to find the item, it's not twinking.

The problem with the statement and the inverse is that extremes exist where the statements become silly.

For example, starting clvl 1 Necro off with The Gidbinn is clearly a gift beyond his means. (He cannot possibly obtain The Gidbinn for himself.)

For the inverse: A character justifies being given the unique Cinquedeas after he kills the very first monster capable of dropping it.

It is because of these extremes that I explained how I preferred to view situations in practice.

by LemmingofGlory:
Some may say to be "twinked" the gift must also cause imbalance. I prefer that distinction, myself. If a character's gifts are causing a problem balance-wise, "twinked" is a perfectly negative-sounding description. If the gifts aren't, I probably won't even notice the character has them and there's no reason to label the character at all.

Both of my examples are rather silly extremes. The Gidbinn won't overpower a clvl 1 Nec (at least by my reckoning) any more than a Hand Axe will. The Nec I wouldn't consider a twink because he doesn't seem particularly imbalancing.

The character with the unique Cinquedeas, however, is really stretching it. I'd consider him extremely cheesy and be rather leery of him. What won't he justify? "Oh, I killed Pindleskin. Time for my Griswold's set!" When the justification is this thin, the player may as well not use any reasoning in his gifting.

So, just what makes a reasonable gift? Something that's not going to throw you out of balance with respect to your gaming partners.

If you didn't find or buy it yourself, it's twinked.

BAH! D2 has gone and corrupted all the good jargon. Good old fashioned D1isms:

PURIST: Uses only items that character finds or purchases. No gifts. No trades. Different degrees of this neurosis exist wherein players progressively permit fewer and fewer items. The least restrictive allows the character to use any item found in the game while the most restrictive prevents use of any item from a monster the character did not kill AND any item another player picked up first.

Non-purist is anyone else. A non-purist is not a twink, but a twink is a non-purist.

Does twinking promote that rift? Absolutely. However, it is NOT THE DIRECT CAUSE.

If you wish to discuss when and how power rifts can exist without twinking, feel free. However, I'm confining my discussion to power rifts as they're created by twinking (and times when no rift exists).

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

[LemmingofGlory]

I have a level one bowazon using all uniques (except, I believe an amulet of strength). She did not find these items herself. But all are quite low level and can be found in early act one. Would you call that twinking?

I think I like Gekko's definintion better.

Given clvl requirements exist on all uniques, I don't see how you could have a level 1 using anything other than quest items. But for the sake of argument:

By Gekko, you'd be a twink if those items didn't drop in the game you were in.

By me, whether I'd call you a "twink" depends on whether the items are beyond your means and whether they're causing a problem balance-wise. If the crap can all be found in early act 1, I'd probably not have a problem with it. But I would consider it semi-cheesy (as I like the old standard of SNOBs with 1 present per 5 levels), but I don't imagine most folk even remember what a SNOB is anymore.

Related to this, and getting back on topic if I may, what about blessing a young character with a high level enchant? My baby bowazon could then do a couple of thousand fire damage with her Pluckeye. Or with a cracked dagger for that matter.

Not being an item, "Enchant" doesn't fall into the category of twinking. I'd define it as "Cheesy with great big globs of cheese on the side."

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

[pmak]

I've seen several references to Enchant being powerful in the new patch but haven't been able to see any posts that explain it's power well (and how to utilize it).

Here is a recently written guide that will tell you all about Enchant:

http://www.theamazonbasin.com/d2/forums/in...ndpost&p=368468

Briefly, Enchant now gets synergy from Warmth and can add a LOT of fire damage to anyone's (even a lowly Necromancer skeleton, or a level 1 character) attack.

[gekko]

So, just what makes a reasonable gift? Something that's not going to throw you out of balance with respect to your gaming partners.

How about this for an example: minor rejuv potions. Those are items, and can drop in early act 1. So, by your definition, giving my new characters 40 or 50 minor rejuvs is fair game -- after all, the first 50 monsters COULD all drop a minor rejuv. It's certainly not beyond my lvl 1 character's means to kill quill rats over and over until I accumulate 50 minor rejuvs.

Basing what is and is not a twink based on the quality of the item simply doesn't work. Just how powerful is a wizardspike? What about those magefist gauntlets? Where do you draw the line?

You're suggesting, unless I horribly misread you, that the line is drawn differently for each character. Well, sorry, I don't buy that. Why? Who draws the lines? Personally, I consider magefist to be a very powerful set of gloves (it's my tendency to play fire based sorcs :)). AThe "not going to throw you out of balance with respect to your gaming partners" is even worse. So, if my no-twink sorceress is playing a 100% pure game with some friends, and gets to clvl 75 with only what she personally 'earns' and picks up, then leaves and joins a game where several heavily twinked sorcs give her gear slightly below what they actually wear, what then? Since my gaming partners have changed, this gear can now be considered non-twinked, just like the stuff I was previously wearing?

The act of receiving a gift/trade is what defines a twink, not the quality of the item or the timing of the receiving.

A note about the example you gave of two characters in the same game and act who are in different areas. In that case, I think it depends. If you're playing as a team, drops shared among team members are not twinking anyone, whether you are briefly seperated or not. If, on the other hand, one player is killing Izzy and the other clearing the seals and D, well then, those two should not be trading as a team.

I'll grant that my line of distinction is sometimes hazy. No more so than yours, however. The fact of the matter is, however, that by your definition every character should be able to equip themselves with any gear that *could* have dropped, and no twinking would occur (although we do agree that would be cheesy). That's just plain silly. You're suggesting any character who has killed pindleskin in hell should be able to equip a WF or grandfather, and still be considered no-twink.

gekko

[Nightwind]

By the way, the 3 rings --> amulet recipe is an easy way to get plus to skills. Most players I've seen do not even pick up blue rings or amulets.

I've gotten my best rings adn amy's from that recipie. And conciderign thaat it's baced on 2/3 of my level instead of the drop level of the monsters, that seems to indicate bad luck on my part... right?

I had a 25% poison resist 4% lifeleach and a 12% mf 3 % life leach ring from the cube. And my 4% mana leach 12% mf ammy.
Excuse that those are all aproximations, but I don't have the disks out atm, I've been playing myst ... again.

[adeyke]

And conciderign thaat it's baced on 2/3 of my level instead of the drop level of the monsters

The ilvl of the rerolled jewelry is floor(.75 * clvl). That is, 3/4 of your level, rounded down, not 2/3.

[LemmingofGlory]

The act of receiving a gift/trade is what defines a twink, not the quality of the item or the timing of the receiving.

Then trading a Cracked Sash to a level 90 is twinking. That's absurd to me. I already have a term for characters that do what you describe: non-pure.

I'll grant that my line of distinction is sometimes hazy.

It is not. Your line of distinction is how I define the Purist vs Non-Purist. As that is the case, we should be arguing whether my definition of Pure vs Non-Pure is similar to yours.

No more so than yours, however.

I just have more terms for characters than you do. Allow me to briefly share some of them.

Variant
A character that plays by a set of rules dictated by a common theme. e.g. The BARbarian is a primitive, magic-fearing brute. It follows that he will not use magical items, shrines, etc. and takes portals only when absolutely necessary.

Style
The description of how a character plays, which may be in terms of skill use or item use. e.g. Zealot, Avenger, Bowazon, Axe Barb

Role
The description of a character's personality, if different from the player's.

Purist
At its most basic, a character who uses only items he finds or buys. No trading or gifting (incl. transfers). Differing forms of purism may allow OR disallow:
-Muling
-Using items that dropped from a monster another player killed
-Using items that another player picked up first
-Acceptance of potions if a partner brings them from town so you don't have to go get more
-Acceptance of gold from a partner in order to make a purchase
-Additional idiocyncracies may exist in D2 that I'm unaware of

Non-Purist (Analogous to your "Twink")
A character who either does trade/accept gifts or would not have a problem doing so. The character may still make a distinction over what types of gifts it accepts.

Twink
Character that accepts gifts which are beyond its means. Twinking can result in annoying gaming partners due to cheesiness, but doesn't always.

Cheese
A description for behavior. Twinking is usually cheesy. Accepting a load of items that are within your means can be somewhat cheesy, depending on what they are. Being given a dozen ethereal sashes is weird, but not cheesy. (How can something be cheesy if it sucks?) Being given a complete set of items that would be of use to you is fairly cheesy.

Cheese has a tendency to annoy gaming partners, but not always. Some players like cheese.

The fact of the matter is, however, that by your definition every character should be able to equip themselves with any gear that *could* have dropped, and no twinking would occur (although we do agree that would be cheesy). That's just plain silly. You're suggesting any character who has killed pindleskin in hell should be able to equip a WF or grandfather, and still be considered no-twink.

As long as I have cheese, I can define "twink" more specifically. I'm personally more concerned with twinking at low levels, as that's what I play most frequently. By the time a character is high level it can do things on its own, bore itself to death with one sort of run or another, etc. So insofar as twinking at high levels goes, particularly when considering items I'm fairly certain I'll not find, I consider the situation thusly:

Suppose I found a Grandfather with my Sorcie. I have a Paladin or a Barb who can access and reasonably handle the areas where Grandfather drops. What would I consider the Pally/Barb if I xferred Grandy:

Pure? Absolutely not.
Twink? No. He could find it. He just didn't.
Cheese? Grandy itself is such a high level item I think I'd probably save it as a reward for killing Hell Baal. Else it'd feel too cheesy. (I consider how powerful something is to be a factor in how cheesy it is if used as a gift.)

I think we'd both say cheese here, but you'd also classify it as twinking. I don't see any need to do that since I've already concluded cheese, and cheese tends to be more of a problem than twinking.

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

[Nightwind]

I rather remember snobs, even have a link somewhere in my collections of a solo ironman snob.... that's good reading, taught me a lot.

Mongo Jerry has been posting stories, syrian used to... gee, s uch nestalga, but that's topic drift.

Assistance from highere leveled characters could essentually be labeled a twink, that enchant, if it came from a sorc, who could kill the entire region the amazon is in, with a sneeze.... just twinked the little sister.
A rush is a twink, is it not?

[the Langolier]

How about this for an example: minor rejuv potions. Those are items, and can drop in early act 1. So, by your definition, giving my new characters 40 or 50 minor rejuvs is fair game -- after all, the first 50 monsters COULD all drop a minor rejuv. It's certainly not beyond my lvl 1 character's means to kill quill rats over and over until I accumulate 50 minor rejuvs.

Right. Also, rejuvs are not overly powered for a level 1 character. In fact, they just plain suck for them. Simple minor or light potions will fill more points than those rejuvs, and do it fairly quickly.

You're suggesting, unless I horribly misread you, that the line is drawn differently for each character. Well, sorry, I don't buy that. Why? Who draws the lines?

You do. If it feels like a twink to you, than it is. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

You're suggesting any character who has killed pindleskin in hell should be able to equip a WF or grandfather, and still be considered no-twink.

You're forgetting what LoG mentioned about changing the gameplay. If that windforce replaces an iron short bow, then we have a twink. It it replaces a Buriza or an Eaglehorn, then I don't see a significant increase in power at all.

I think LoG's description is right on. With your definition, even trading for magefist's is twinking. First of all, the item you trade away is most likely not going to be one you are currently using and therefore essentially worthless for your character. You might say it has value, but only value as a tradable commodity. By trading it away you really haven't lost anything. In return, however, you get a great set of gloves that you haven't had the luck to find yourself.

[LemmingofGlory]

Assistance from highere leveled characters could essentually be labeled a twink, that enchant, if it came from a sorc, who could kill the entire region the amazon is in, with a sneeze.... just twinked the little sister.
A rush is a twink, is it not?

Twinking comes into play with items only. If during the rush the character is snapping up items from monster drops, then I'd consider that sorta twinkish. The character is only in the "rushed" area by vitue of the rusher, thus items gained from the area are presumed to be beyond the means of the rushee.

The rush itself is just cheesy gaming.

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

[Nightwind]

Twinking comes into play with items only.

may have to agree to disagree on this.
But if a hack, something that isn't an item, specifically a trainer, can cancel purist status, then simmiliarly an action that gives advantages beyond the normal scope of a character, like an item would, could be concidered a twink.

[LavCat]

I have a level one bowazon using all uniques (except, I believe an amulet of strength). She did not find these items herself. But all are quite low level and can be found in early act one. Would you call that twinking?

I think I like Gekko's definintion better.

Given clvl requirements exist on all uniques, I don't see how you could have a level 1 using anything other than quest items. But for the sake of argument:

By Gekko, you'd be a twink if those items didn't drop in the game you were in.

By me, whether I'd call you a "twink" depends on whether the items are beyond your means and whether they're causing a problem balance-wise. If the crap can all be found in early act 1, I'd probably not have a problem with it. But I would consider it semi-cheesy (as I like the old standard of SNOBs with 1 present per 5 levels), but I don't imagine most folk even remember what a SNOB is anymore.



Not being an item, "Enchant" doesn't fall into the category of twinking. I'd define it as "Cheesy with great big globs of cheese on the side."

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

Unique items have character level requirements only in LoD.

[LemmingofGlory]

But if a hack, something that isn't an item, specifically a trainer, can cancel purist status, then simmiliarly an action that gives advantages beyond the normal scope of a character, like an item would, could be concidered a twink.

Disconnected logic. Allow me to re-phrase you.

If a character cheats it is not a purist (because trainers provide an outside advantage).
It follows that any character gaining an outside advantage is not a purist.
Therefore these characters are twinks.

Your conclusion has nothing to do with your first or second statement because you didn't mention twinking at all, only non-purism. (You didn't say non-purism == twinking.)

If you'd phrased it thusly:

A cheater is a twink because it gains outside advantages.
A character can gain an outside advantage through means other than cheating.
Therefore any character gaining an outside advantage is a twink.

Then you could use that conclusion. But it would be invalid unless you defined twinking as "Any character gaining an outside advantage." So, essentially, you don't even need to go into the reasoning. You just need to define twink.

Now, I do not see any point whatsoever in subdividing cheaters into pure/non-pure. I define purist as a label that applies only to legit characters. Therefore, when one asks "Is a cheater a purist?" I say, "No, because 'pure' is defined only for legitimate characters."

[o: *LEMMING* :o]