Quote Originally Posted by KingFu View Post
I'd be strongly opposed to this. I've said for a while, 50-60 range (as used in your example) should remain mostly untouched, as balance isn't much of a concern there. I think tinkering with it could easily do more harm than good to the currently most balanced range in the game.

This would also ruin any sort of diversity there is at any level. 90% of bears at that range use either mace set or plat talon anyways, most mages use int sets, and almost all birds use dex sets right now, so I fail to see how this would do any sort of class balancing. I haven't been too active in 66-71 but from what I have this wouldn't really balance much either, and anywhere below 50 it wouldn't apply to anyways since no one uses sets there. All it would do is limit people and kill any level of diversity that still remains.

The only area this idea would help balance would be at endgame, which Cinco has already addressed with making the 2h weapons class specific. Applying this to levels below that would just be an all around bad idea.

Honestly, the more I read this idea and think about it, it's really quite nonsensical.
I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Allowing class specific set bonuses could add the exact factor that we need. Namely, the ability to compensate whatever the specific class is lacking statistically speaking. For example, if a bird is lacking damage at a specific level, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus. This would allow the bird to gain the damage it needs, without causing other classes who equip the set to have over powered damage output. Or if a bear lacks dodge at a specific range, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus that would only benefit the bear. That way birds couldn't obtain too much dodge by using the set.

You mentioned level 55 (specifically, you said 50-60), but I think it's a shame that you missed my point. I only brought up level 55 because raid roach was the first set that popped into my head. I actually agree with you that level 50-60 is very well balanced. Ideally balanced, I'd even say. (Not perfect, of course.)

Finally, you mentioned lower levels not really having sets so my idea, provided it worked, would only benefit higher levels. I'd say you're thinking inside the box. The lower levels have most of the building blocks for sets, and even a few sets at a couple levels (25, 35) Would it really be that hard to add a piece or two to different levels, or even just rename a few items to complete the set? I don't think that's too far of a stretch if we're already reworking set bonuses in the first place.

But going back to my main point, do you see how class specific bonuses could fill in the gaps, statistically speaking, for whatever the class is lacking? I think this could be especially potent at the lower levels. I'm not saying we go crazy with it or anything. Balance should always be done in small doses first.

I'll throw in one more thought, and then I'd love to hear your response if you have the time. This doesn't even necessarily have to mean that a class can only get a bonus for their stat-related set. It could mean that a bear equips a dex set, int set, or str set, at his level and gets an entirely different set bonus from say a bird, or a mage who equip the same set. Does that make more sense?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.