Talk:Altar of Devastation - Manufactured Ingredient Recipes

Classing those by gem/essence type is much less useful than by focus, in my opinion.

This is even truer for the Altar of Devastation as I feel the choice of the proper focus will have lots of importance. As soon as someone has little knowledge of the pattern, he'll know that each elemental has:


 * One spell damage enhancer (Devotion, Combustion, Glaciation, etc.)
 * One weapon damage ability (Holy, Flaming, Frost, etc.)
 * A bonus to a "physical" ability (Strength, Consitution or Dexterity)
 * A bonus to a "mental" ability (Charisma, Wisdom or Intelligence)
 * A insight bonus to AC
 * One elemental damage protection ability (5% Acid Absorption, 20% Healing amplification, etc.)

And, for accessories:


 * One spell crit ability (Healing Lore, Fire Lore, Ice Lore, etc.)
 * One "guard" ability (Ice Guard, Evil Guard, Good Guard, etc.)
 * One bonus to HP and to skills with a "physical" ability as key ability (Strength, Consitution or Dexterity)
 * One bonus to spell points (or Wizardry VI) and to skills with a "physical" ability as (Charisma, Wisdom or Intelligence)
 * The two others seem a little... odder

Point is that looking by gem or essence type is very redudant. It's not like we'd be reinventing the wheel each time. By sorting by essence and gem type, you have toi scroll down 6 times the same ability with a very light variation. Maybe it's just me, but it makes it harder for me to read the table, as the information in th following row is too similar from the previous one. Variating the abilities on the green steel item seems to make the page much easier to read.

I know the main reason was that "foci are the less interesting information", but even there I disagree. As I've stated before, the chosen element will influence the ability received at the third upgrade. I wouldn't be surprised to see other looking at what they get from each focus rather then looking what they get from so and so gem or essence type. Just my two cents, I hate to browse the tables now... :( --Borror0 19:18, February 19, 2008 (EST)