Remove =fire and =ice

[tabstorm]

Or at least remove the resistance changes on them. It's very annoying to have to use these as a substitute for rF/rC, because if you forget to swap out again you might randomly die, which probably won't happen if you're just swapping rF/rC rings.

[lethediver]

Could have all rings of foo resistance become rings of foo that give rFoo+ and bonus spellpower to foo spells, with no corresponding elemental weakness.

[duvessa]

They shouldn't have the resistance or the vulnerability. The vulnerability is irrelevant in virtually all cases since you can just take the ring off, and the resistance makes rings of protection from fire/cold redundant.

It's kind of questionable that they exist at all, though, yeah. Ice magic would remain the best element if it had the same chances at enhancers as air and earth.

[Cimanyd]

They shouldn't have the resistance or the vulnerability. The vulnerability is irrelevant in virtually all cases since you can just take the ring off, and the resistance makes rings of protection from fire/cold redundant.

I think lethediver was suggesting merging the two different kinds, leaving only e.g. "ring of fire {rF+ Fire}". (same thing as a staff of fire, then? except staves do come in air and earth versions, among others)

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Maybe if you did that, do something like Ring of Earth (AC+X Earth+), Ring of Air (EV+X, Air+), Ring of Venom (rPois Pois+)? Seems odd that only Fire and Ice have these enhancers, and it would be doubly so if they didn't come with a malus.

Then again, maybe the ring-slot enhancers are questionable at best. Maybe something like a Ring of Wild Magic instead? Seems like a neat way to allow a dedicated caster to sacrifice a ring slot for spellpower, if their cast rates are good enough.

e: Or you could just cut ring enhancers. Fire and Ice seem pretty mediocre in general.

[VeryAngryFelid]

If rings of fire/ice are too powerful without the penalty (probably they are), then we should just discourage swapping, this way player will not forget to swap them off. For example, give them *Draining and remove amulet of Harm.

[Leszczynek]

Yes, please, more negative effects on equipID-ing mundane items, please! I love the identifcation game and carrying stacks of unindentified items of various kinds with me!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this already annoys the hell out of me with amulets, I really don't want it to happen to rings as well.

[tabstorm]

Could have all rings of foo resistance become rings of foo that give rFoo+ and bonus spellpower to foo spells, with no corresponding elemental weakness.

This could be cool. It's not as if conjuration is particularly strong in the current metagame...

[TeshiAlair]

Rather than minus resistance, give them a plus to spellpower and a minus to opposing spellpower, to encourage specialization. On remove, they give temporary -cast, which prevents combat switching but isn't punishing for wear IDing.

[kuniqs]

Make power-enchancing rings for all spell schools, without downsides.

[goodcoolguy]

I would add that resistance/vulnerability thing adds significant inventory annoyance because if you find them, you generally ought to carry them too, but not wear them except in a few encounters and/or portals.

[tabstorm]

Rather than minus resistance, give them a plus to spellpower and a minus to opposing spellpower, to encourage specialization. On remove, they give temporary -cast, which prevents combat switching but isn't punishing for wear IDing.

Why should specialization be encouraged in this way? You already have a good reason to - the school you specialize in will do more damage to 90% of enemies than if you tried to equally skill multiple schools.

[VeryAngryFelid]

Yes, please, more negative effects on equipID-ing mundane items, please! I love the identifcation game and carrying stacks of unindentified items of various kinds with me!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this already annoys the hell out of me with amulets, I really don't want it to happen to rings as well.

I believe it is easy to make an exception for use-id. First time you don't have any *Draining so you can remove it without any problems. If you try to equip a known ring of fire, you get a warning "Are you sure you want to put the ring on? It has *Draining" and *Draining appears. It might be done to amulet of harm too by the way, the point of *Draining should be prevention of swapping, not use-iding.

[jwoodward48ss]

Rather than minus resistance, give them a plus to spellpower and a minus to opposing spellpower, to encourage specialization. On remove, they give temporary -cast, which prevents combat switching but isn't punishing for wear IDing.

That's how it used to be. Why was it changed, again?

[PleasingFungus]

probably because we already have several systems (skills, spell slots, single-element enhancers, cloud/opposite element cancelling...) that encourage specialization.