Legendary skills statuses are not made equal ??

[popps]

When reading about various skills, I often hear players argue that while some skills are a "must" to 120, i.e. reach their "Legendary" status, for several others players, according to their experiences often suggest to stop much earlier, sometimes at 80, sometimes at 90, sometimes at 100, GM.

The point is, that if a skill is "good enough" at, say, 80 to make it "meaningless" to work it up to 120, well, then why the hell that skill has a 120 Legendary level as attainable to start with ?

Not all skills can be trained to legendary. Several stop at 100.

Therefore, those which are designed to be trainable to 120 should have a real significative difference versus their lower levels. Particularly, when 120 compares to, say, a level 80, for example.

Yet, often for some skills differences are so marginal that players suggest "not to bother" going past much lower levels and save up the points for something else.

Well, then I think that those skills having too much a marginal difference between 120, Legendary, and their lower levels are not well designed as never ever players should feel "not to bother" training them to legendary because that status only makes it up for a very marginal difference.

Even more, when this does not happen to all skills trainable to 120, Legendary, alike.

Some are considered a "must" to 120, others, as I said, are not at all felt as such.

Quite wrong, IMHO and it should be rethought.

Perhaps we should see an overall skills revamp making the Legendary status for ALL those skills trainable to that level more and quite significative versus lower levels ?

 

[Alezi]

Not again, popps... not again.

 

[It Lives]

Stealth/mining.

 

[Smokin]

When reading about various skills, I often hear players argue that while some skills are a "must" to 120, i.e. reach their "Legendary" status, for several others players, according to their experiences often suggest to stop much earlier, sometimes at 80, sometimes at 90, sometimes at 100, GM.

The point is, that if a skill is "good enough" at, say, 80 to make it "meaningless" to work it up to 120, well, then why the hell that skill has a 120 Legendary level as attainable to start with ?

Not all skills can be trained to legendary. Several stop at 100.

Therefore, those which are designed to be trainable to 120 should have a real significative difference versus their lower levels. Particularly, when 120 compares to, say, a level 80, for example.

Yet, often for some skills differences are so marginal that players suggest "not to bother" going past much lower levels and save up the points for something else.

Well, then I think that those skills having too much a marginal difference between 120, Legendary, and their lower levels are not well designed as never ever players should feel "not to bother" training them to legendary because that status only makes it up for a very marginal difference.

Even more, when this does not happen to all skills trainable to 120, Legendary, alike.

Some are considered a "must" to 120, others, as I said, are not at all felt as such.

Quite wrong, IMHO and it should be rethought.

Perhaps we should see an overall skills revamp making the Legendary status for ALL those skills trainable to that level more and quite significative versus lower levels ?

So what you want is to make it so we Fizzle spells basically at 120, because that is what will happen. When they brought in powerscrolls gm was still good enough for most skills, then they slowly made it so you had to be higher and make things not work like they use too, essentially lowering our skill cap.

Now you want them to make the few skills left that do not need to be 120 the same way, making our skill cap even lower. The only way they could do this is if they increased the cap to like 840 or something, which would totally unbalance things beyond belief. I would love to be able to put Mystism on my necro/spellweaving/mage, but I know it would be wrong.

Sorry but leave well enough as it is.

 

[Flutter]

Always something new to complain about.

 

[popps]

So what you want is to make it so we Fizzle spells basically at 120, because that is what will happen.

How about, instead, having all skills trainable to 120 more consistent with each other ?

What I find disturbing is the fact that while some skills are considered a "must" to 120 some others are not and players stop way before Legendary because the difference is marginal.

It is this different treatment between Legendary statuses of various skills that I find wrong and something that should get Developers' attention.

Either all 120 trainable skills should be felt as a "must" to 120 or none should.

It is the double standard which I do not like nor find as proper.

 

[Thangorodrim]

Bull****

No one said that, actually. What you were told was that in a tight template, with a specific purpose, one must prioritize the allocation of skill points.

There are benefits for maximizing all skills. Those incremental benefits may not be relevant for certain uses. Ever hear of diminishing returns?

 

[popps]

Always something new to complain about.

It is funny, what to some might sound as a complaint to others it may sound a discussion about game design and its improvement........

 

[popps]

No one said that, actually. What you were told was that in a tight template, with a specific purpose, one must prioritize the allocation of skill points.

There are benefits for maximizing all skills. Those incremental benefits may not be relevant for certain uses. Ever hear of diminishing returns?

Like, for example, for stealthing that is good enough at 80 as it may be at 120 ??

Some skills seem to have too much a marginal benefit at 120 to what they offer at lower levels and this, is not correct, IMHO.

C'mon...........

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

Why do I get the feeling poops is nothing more than an alt here to troll? None of this crap ever holds any value...ever.

 

[Maplestone]

I like evolution over revolution.

I like the idea of powerscrolls added for skills that currently don't use them, but only for a small extention of the ability, not gigantic restructurings. For mining, the ability to smelt-without-error would be enough of a bonus to make me desire it. For carpentry, tinkering, crafting, the improved chance of success at high-end items would similarly motivate me. No new content actually needed.

For skills that currently use powerscrolls that are "undervalued" on the market eg: chivalry, these strike me as opportunities to add some high-skill ability (eg: a slightly reduced rate of damage to equipment for chivalry over 100 would be an interesting ability in the age of imbuing)

Although I personally base my own characters around 6x120 concept, I think that a 12x60 template should also be something playable and fun ... people shouldn't be "forced" to go to 120.

There is no way to force equality in a game like UO - you can't design it because you can't predict what will become popular without taking away the joyful eccentricities of the game. All you can do is tweak here and there.

 

[Connor_Graham]

Blah blah blah....yada, yada, yada....talking out of my ass, talking out of my ass, talking out of my ass

There was a very good reason your last post was moved to spiels and rants. Maybe you should take a minute and figure out why before you post any more garbage about it. Reposting closed or moved threads, or even parts of them, are against the RoC on Stratics.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

Like, for example, for stealthing that is good enough at 80 as it may be at 120 ??

Some skills seem to have too much a marginal benefit at 120 to what they offer at lower levels and this, is not correct, IMHO.

C'mon...........

Let me get this right, you are actually complaining that works just as well at 80 as 120? Do you know the actual difference between the two? Do you know the difference between uhall and R&F?

Hey mods...why dont you check this IP of his to those of other users? If it is an alt I have a good idea who it is...

la...

 

[Rocklin]

I am sorry I read the OP's initial post and I didn't get "troll" or complaining at all. He simply is asking why skill sets vary from skill to skill in usefulness. People need to calm down and allow some criticism or intelligent debate in these forums. The game is far from perfect, and far from the worst as well.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

I am sorry I read the OP's initial post and I didn't get "troll" or complaining at all. He simply is asking why skill sets vary from skill to skill in usefulness. People need to calm down and allow some criticism or intelligent debate in these forums. The game is far from perfect, and far from the worst as well.

Then you didnt read his last thread complaining about assassins requiring too much skill. When he was proven wrong he started this thread to complain about it. Please do not feed the trolls or give them reason to continue to breed.

 

[Fink]

The skills simply aren't equal. If they were there'd be no point in choosing one over the other. The game would be about as diverse and interesting as Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Sure I'd like some additional benefit from my 120 Chivalry but I raised it that far for the title, not because I felt it should do more than as currently stands.

 

[Altpersona]

It's trolling because it's the same arguement guised in a different cloth. No matter how many people try and explain templates arn't a matter of being black & white he refuses to shut up. This persons threads by nature are baiting.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

It's trolling because it's the same arguement guised in a different cloth. No matter how many people try and explain templates arn't a matter of being black & white he refuses to shut up. This persons threads by nature are baiting.

This...

 

[wanderer1origin]

how about u log in post a picture logged in then post !

then we answer

How about, instead, having all skills trainable to 120 more consistent with each other ?

What I find disturbing is the fact that while some skills are considered a "must" to 120 some others are not and players stop way before Legendary because the difference is marginal.

It is this different treatment between Legendary statuses of various skills that I find wrong and something that should get Developers' attention.

Either all 120 trainable skills should be felt as a "must" to 120 or none should.

It is the double standard which I do not like nor find as proper.

 

[LordDrago]

How about, instead, having all skills trainable to 120 more consistent with each other ?

What I find disturbing is the fact that while some skills are considered a "must" to 120 some others are not and players stop way before Legendary because the difference is marginal.

It is this different treatment between Legendary statuses of various skills that I find wrong and something that should get Developers' attention.

Either all 120 trainable skills should be felt as a "must" to 120 or none should.

It is the double standard which I do not like nor find as proper.

Popps is right on with this one. Look, he just became a legendary complainer, and i can't tell the diffference since he was at around 60 skill.

 

[Kiminality]

Stealthing needs 120 skill if you're going to want 100% stealth in non-med armour.
Magery needs 120 if you want 100% cast on 8th circle spells (or best chance, at least).
Trade skills need 120 if you want the best success/exceptional chance you can.

Ultimately, the problem is that non-med armour offers less benefits than flaws, If there was a benefit to non-med armour that would make people want to use it, then 120 stealth would be worth more.

Besides, the original idea behind the PSs was that they wouldn't be necessary (How'd that work out, hmm?). So, what you're getting a bee in your bonnet over is pretty much that.
Some skills don't require 120 skill to be worthwhile. So what?

 

[Smokin]

How about, instead, having all skills trainable to 120 more consistent with each other ?

What I find disturbing is the fact that while some skills are considered a "must" to 120 some others are not and players stop way before Legendary because the difference is marginal.

It is this different treatment between Legendary statuses of various skills that I find wrong and something that should get Developers' attention.

Either all 120 trainable skills should be felt as a "must" to 120 or none should.

It is the double standard which I do not like nor find as proper.

Glad you read the first sentence and then totally ignored the rest. Keep pushing for it I don't care but make sure you get a skill cap raise too.

As for all 120 trainable skills should be felt as a must is the exact opposite of what they said when they introduced them. Mean you will not NEED powerscrolls. So add that too if your going to make your request make sure you make powerscrolls drop like candy from the sky also. Cause I don't pay EA to pay some guild to farm powerscrolls and make real life money, I pay to play.

 

[Flutter]

It is funny, what to some might sound as a complaint to others it may sound a discussion about game design and its improvement........

Make a post about something you like in Ultima Online popps... I dare ya.

 

[Quenchant]

I am sorry I read the OP's initial post and I didn't get "troll" or complaining at all. He simply is asking why skill sets vary from skill to skill in usefulness. People need to calm down and allow some criticism or intelligent debate in these forums. The game is far from perfect, and far from the worst as well.

As Restroom Cowboy stated, this is the same crap that got moved to spiels and rants yesterday. Same thing different words.

For your reading pleasure: Assassin's by Poops

Q

 

[Viper09]

No popps, bad popps. No more trolling threads. Tis nothing more than a restructured assassin thread that was already moved to rant forum.

 

[wanderer1origin]

poops ranting and spieling again

Like, for example, for stealthing that is good enough at 80 as it may be at 120 ??

Some skills seem to have too much a marginal benefit at 120 to what they offer at lower levels and this, is not correct, IMHO.

C'mon...........

 

[Heartseeker]

How about, instead, having all skills trainable to 120 more consistent with each other ?

What I find disturbing is the fact that while some skills are considered a "must" to 120 some others are not and players stop way before Legendary because the difference is marginal.

It is this different treatment between Legendary statuses of various skills that I find wrong and something that should get Developers' attention.

Either all 120 trainable skills should be felt as a "must" to 120 or none should.

It is the double standard which I do not like nor find as proper.

Popps is right on with this one. Look, he just became a legendary complainer, and i can't tell the diffference since he was at around 60 skill.

LOL.

 

[Widow Maker]

To add a person to your ignore list:

Click on their board name. When that screen opens, click on the down arrow next to User List, under their name. The option to Ignore them is there. Use it as you please. In my experience, noisy little kids go away when completely ignored. I gauge this will also apply to this proven troll.

In the old days, this was called being shunned. This scenario absolutely fits this person ingame. There was always only one outcome.

Enjoy troll free post reading, it is wonderful.

 

[Uvtha]

Like, for example, for stealthing that is good enough at 80 as it may be at 120 ??

Some skills seem to have too much a marginal benefit at 120 to what they offer at lower levels and this, is not correct, IMHO.

C'mon...........

If you want to stealth in plate... 120 stealth is a must. If you never do anything buy wear lether, 80 will do just fine. Its a choice of what YOU want to do while stealthing. All the skills are like that.

If all you wanted to do with necro was curse weapon, then you certainly wouldnt need to take it to 120, would you?

 

[jfkeach]

Start by naming the skills in question....

Magery - Too many fizzles unless 120.
Med - You fail to concentrate even at 120 med alot
Taming - no way to control high level pets without it and lore at 120 (effectively)
Spellweaving - Unless 120 WOD is useless, fails too often for the casting time

For miners you have gloves, for smiths you have hammers, for LJ's you have Melisande's Hatchet.

For most crafting skills you have Talismans with bonuses.

I think that the skill caps are ok as is. However, there are some that need to be thought about.

At GM Plus taming, you still fail miserably on Ki-Rins. I was taming them the other day, and average 8 tries to tame. Some took 15 tries. Some took 1. But most took 5 or more tries. I was at 106 taming.

So I went and was taming Ridgebacks. For something that is not hostile, and has less strength than bulls, you fail as many times as you succeed at that high of taming.

necro, you can jewel up to GM and go into Vamp form, then take off jewels and keep the form. Might take several tries but that is what makes Sammies feasible.

You go messing with skills and you could very well upset the apple cart. People have worked hard to get where they are with skills and any modifications will be seen as nerfs. I quit playing years ago after the nerf hammer got applied to my bard.

Right now there are more pressing issues. Such as Bugs. Fix the durability bug. I can't use my archer because of it. when a bow loses 96 Durability with 98 arrows being fired, there is a problem. With a magical short and ssi 35, and 135 dex, that dont take long. Makes him useless in spawns or peerless.

Now if you want give me 30 more skill points Ill put fletching on him and repair in field. Otherwise fix the bug.

 

[Uvtha]

Start by naming the skills in question....

Magery - Too many fizzles unless 120.
Med - You fail to concentrate even at 120 med alot
Taming - no way to control high level pets without it and lore at 120 (effectively)
Spellweaving - Unless 120 WOD is useless, fails too often for the casting time

Yes, but if all you want to do is cast some low level spell, or med from 40 mana, then you don't NEED to 120 it. That's the point. The reason that there are some skills that dont get maxed very often is that people dont mind not having access to the skills maxed benefit.

At GM Plus taming, you still fail miserably on Ki-Rins. I was taming them the other day, and average 8 tries to tame. Some took 15 tries. Some took 1. But most took 5 or more tries. I was at 106 taming.

So I went and was taming Ridgebacks. For something that is not hostile, and has less strength than bulls, you fail as many times as you succeed at that high of taming.

Your complaint here seems to be taming req of certain monsters, not that high skill is required.

necro, you can jewel up to GM and go into Vamp form, then take off jewels and keep the form. Might take several tries but that is what makes Sammies feasible.

No you can't.

 

[maroite]

Uh... I'd rather them make the 100% useless skills more useful.


Not worry about making skills which already have 120 scrolls just as useful as other 120 scroll skills.

So many skills are just completely useless in mosts opinions.

Forensic Evaluation, Camping, Taste Identification, Item Identification, Herding.

Ok stealth herding can be fun, and some may have niche uses, but you see my point.

No you can't.

Its probably better to say "You can't do this anymore." As at one point, you could, and everyone who played a sampire did.

 

[Taylor]

Skills at legendary levels are better than at levels of, say, 80. However, due to skill point constrains, people tend to choose carefully how they distribute points, putting more points toward skills that are more important.

Chivalry is rarely raised above 75. Most chivalry spells work at around 75. Holy Light still fails a lot, though. If people had the skill points to invest in chivalry, everyone would bring the skill to 120, to ensure 100% successful casting of holy light. However, when forced to choose between 120 chivalry and 120 swordsmanship, players will be inclined to invest more points in swordsmanship.

Skill caps = a game of give and take. This is game mechanics are balanced. Luckily, real life works the same way - no one is good at all skills and hobbies. Better get used to the idea.

 

[popps]

poops ranting and spieling again

How so ?

To my knowledge, the purpose of UHall to exist is, according to http://vboards.stratics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3

UHall
This is the place for general discussion about Ultima Online gameplay, development issues, and related Ultima Online issues. Please keep posts on topic, and use the U. Hall OT for off-topic posts!

Discussing about skills in the game ain't perhaps a development issue??

I am not making it up that players feel that some skills MUST be 120ed while other skills, yet trainable to Legendary, are NOT as important to 120 and, infact, they stop much before that, sometimes perhaps at 80.......

This inequality of design of skills, where some have their value at 120 being so significant that players would not accept staying at 119 and other skills where players are happy to stop at 80 when infact those skills could be trainable to 120 I find it discriminating among these skills.

Personally, I think that any and all skills trainable to 120 should have significant value, alike, over lower levels.

This does is a design issue, as I see it, because treating skills one way or the other does have a different impact on players' gameplay.

I do not see why skills, all trainable to Legendary, should be treated differently as in regards to the impact that their Legendary status offers to the player.

If the Legendary status of a skill is not wanted to have a special and significant impact over lower values, there is always the choice to leave it at 100 and NOT make it trainable to Legendary with powerscrolls to start with....

 

[Saunders]

Many of Popps' posts seem to indicate that he feels there should be platonic perfect slots into which things should fit in UO.
There should be a perfect assassin template, unique sets of equipment to optimise certain characters, and a calculator to indicate this.
It seems to me that he wants a class based game rather than a skill based one where people run their own messy choices and comromises.
For me, it is good that I can have a skill at less than 100% and it be useful at the level I want. It means I can have 75 Chiv and squeeze some meditation onto a paladin char, for instance
And Popps, adding IMHO to the end of a post does not mean that you are acknowledging that all you have posted is no more than an opinion.

 

[popps]

Although I personally base my own characters around 6x120 concept, I think that a 12x60 template should also be something playable and fun ... people shouldn't be "forced" to go to 120.

The issue is not forcing any player, the issue, IMHO, is about making players have to make choices over the role that they want to play in a roleplaying game.

I am fine with a 12x60 template, what I am NOT fine is with the inequality that there are currently skills where a player has to be 120, 119 is not good enough, and skills where 80 is "almost" as good as 120.

That's what I find discriminant among the skills currently trainable to 120.

My argument is that the bonuses that 120 status offers over lower levels should be the same for all the skills trainable to 120. Then players would make their choices and pick the template (role) they want to play in the game.

I hate hearing arguments that skill such and such must be 120ed but hey, skill such and such is a waste of points to 120, getting it to 80 is good enough to save up those 40 points for something else.

This is simply not right, IMHO, and discriminant among the skills.

Either all skills should offer a significant bonus over lower levels at 120 or none should.

It is the double standard that skills currently have that I utterly do not like.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

 

[popps]

I am sorry I read the OP's initial post and I didn't get "troll" or complaining at all. He simply is asking why skill sets vary from skill to skill in usefulness. People need to calm down and allow some criticism or intelligent debate in these forums. The game is far from perfect, and far from the worst as well.

That is what I am trying to voice and yet, whenever I try to express my opinion over something which I think does not work right and could be improved, I get jumped at.

Sometimes, I get told it is the way it is and that I need to live with it or change game.

Excuse me ??

I do not understand then what these Forums are all about if issues revolving around Development of the game and its design cannot be discussed.....

Besides, mind you, I try my best to always be polite and not jump on anyone but try focusing on the game designs I do not like, offering my view of how they could be changed for the better, IMHO.

 

[popps]

Then you didnt read his last thread complaining about assassins requiring too much skill.

If that is what you got off my post then I was not able to express myself too well.

My point was another but apparently I was unable to explain it too well.

 

[popps]

The skills simply aren't equal. If they were there'd be no point in choosing one over the other.

Who is talking about making all skills one and the same ? Certainly not me.

I am talking about having all skills, within their diversity have their Legendary status offer the same bonus over lower levels.

That's quite different and makes it for a game where players need to make their choices over the role they want to play more significant, as I see it.

I find it just not right that some skills have their 120 status have such an impact over lower levels that players would not settle for 119 and other skills where players are all happy to settle with 80 when infact that skill is also trainable to 120.

This different treatment of Legendary status of skills is what I argue against.

 

[popps]

Some skills don't require 120 skill to be worthwhile. So what?

My argument is that, though, "some" do require 120 skill to be worthwhile and I find this discrimination among skills not right.

Either no skill should require 120 to be felt as worthwhile or all should.

And, it could be made so, either way.

It only would require to tone down 120 skill bonuses for those skills felt as a "must" to Legendary, OR, as an alternartive depending which path is wanted to be taken, pump up the bonus for Legendary status to those skills now neglected from players because lower levels are good enough and close enough to what 120 can offer to them.

I am fine either way, I just do not like the different treatment of Legendary status among the skills all, yet, trainable to Legendary.

 

[Tina Small]

Popps, there's a lot of work that would go into accomplishing what you want and I seriously doubt that the developers have it pegged as a high priority.

About a year ago, one of the developers (I believe it was Leurocian) stated in one of the townhall meetings that it was impossible to raise some skills to 120 through "normal game play" because no content exists in the game that is sufficiently difficult to provide the gains. He acknowledged that the only way to raise some skills to 120 at this point in time is through guaranteed gains. I believe spellweaving was one of the skills he mentioned as an example of a skill that is stuck in this situation.

Not long after this acknowledgement by the developers, guess what was introduced to the game? Scrolls of Transcendence, a slight improvement over Scrolls of Alacrity in that you didn't have to play games with logging on a character for fractions of a minute to take advantage of the gains provided by your 15 minutes of accelerated skill gain once you eat a Scroll of Alacrity.

So, given that we've now had Scrolls of Alacrity, the original Scrolls of Transcendence, and now the puzzle-reward Scrolls of Transcendence, what conclusion can we reach about how much importance the developers currently place on adding content to the game to allow players to gain skills through normal game play?

I'd say nada, zip, zilch, zero. Ain't never gonna happen in our lifetimes.

Unfortunately, I think the UO team is running as a skeleton crew and we have lovely little pastel-hued scrolls as the stop-gap solution to the issue of actually having to use a skill in order to gain in it.

What that means for you and anyone else that thinks all skills that go to 120 should have some kind of boost or reason to actually raise them to 120 is that the issue is probably never going to be addressed or addressed to anyone's complete and utter satisfaction. It's just going to remain a situation that has been addressed sufficiently to dampen most complaints to a low murmur and allow the UO team to focus on other more important and/or more pressing issues. I think the team will take advantage when they can of opportunities to add content for the purpose of raising skills (e.g., they added a lot of new gargoyle armor and weapons in the SA expansion that have high enough skill requirements to help significantly with gaining in some crafting skills). However, I doubt they'll ever just do a publish or two just for that purpose.

 

[popps]

As for all 120 trainable skills should be felt as a must is the exact opposite of what they said when they introduced them.

Just as one of several examples possible, a scribe realistically wanting to make good Scrapper's NEEDS 120 magery..........

So much for 120 skill level not felt as needed.......

 

[maroite]

Just as one of several examples possible, a scribe realistically wanting to make good Scrapper's NEEDS 120 magery..........

So much for 120 skill level not felt as needed.......

Just because having higher magery allows you take make more powerful items doesn't mean you NEED 120 magery.

You can still make scrappers with 120 magery. If you WANT better scrappers, then its your choice to get 120 magery or not.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

If that is what you got off my post then I was not able to express myself too well.

My point was another but apparently I was unable to explain it too well.

I got it just fine...your thread is just another troll...nothing more...nothing less. Only thing left to do now is figure out whos alt this is...


my money is on this being rico...

 

[Tina Small]

Popps, if the developers added more content to keep you happy on this issue, the next complaint would be that nothing's balanced anymore. It's not as simple of an issue to address as you seem to think.

Perhaps instead of complaining about the issue, you could actually spend some time researching which skills don't seem to have value at the 120 level and come up with NEW spells, moves, and/or content to provide a way to train them up to 120 in a not-too-ridiculous amount of time and that actually fit the skill itself and the lore/history of the game and that won't completely unbalance any aspect of the game?

 

[popps]

However, when forced to choose between 120 chivalry and 120 swordsmanship, players will be inclined to invest more points in swordsmanship.

And ain't this the point I am trying to get through ?

That skills are not all treated the same when it comes to the bonuses they offer at 120, Legendary level?

The fact that players don't think about it for a second, and take swordsmanship to 120 but leave chivalry at 75 shows to me precisely that either the 120 bonus for swordsmanship is too good or the bonus for 120 chivalry is not good enough.

Either way, something is not right, as I see it, and should be corrected as all skills trainable to 120 should have comparable bonuses over lower levels and not make one choice for one skill to 120 easier over another skill yet trainable to 120.

 

[popps]

Popps, if the developers added more content to keep you happy on this issue, the next complaint would be that nothing's balanced anymore. It's not as simple of an issue to address as you seem to think.

Well, thanking to the 720 skill CAP of which I am a big fan (you see ? something I do like in the game....), should all 120able skills be made finally equal in the bonuses they offer at Legendary, this I do not think would create balance issues simply because players would be unable to fit too many of them in a template.

Choices would then have to be made, and those who choose to 120 stealthing will get their specialties equalling those who, say, chose instead 120 necromancy.....

What I am trying to say is that if those skills now offering crappy bonuses at 120 will be pumped up, this will get players have to make choices over how many skills they can afford to 120.

Also, another possibility is to limit with a hard CAP the number of skills a player can have set to 120 on a given template at any one time. Say, for example, 3 or 4, period.
And this, whether with real skill or +skill items.

This way, balance issues even when pumping up legendary bonuses for those skills now offering crappy advantages at 120 would be dealt with.

 

[maroite]

Popps, if the developers added more content to keep you happy on this issue, the next complaint would be that nothing's balanced anymore. It's not as simple of an issue to address as you seem to think.

Perhaps instead of complaining about the issue, you could actually spend some time researching which skills don't seem to have value at the 120 level and come up with NEW spells, moves, and/or content to provide a way to train them up to 120 in a not-too-ridiculous amount of time and that actually fit the skill itself and the lore/history of the game and that won't completely unbalance any aspect of the game?

Can I has 120 Herding? I wanna herd the Stygian Dragon into the Primeval Lich spawn... thats ok right?

Well, thanking to the 720 skill CAP of which I am a big fan (you see ? something I do like in the game....), should all 120able skills be made finally equal in the bonuses they offer at Legendary, this I do not think would create balance issues simply because players would be unable to fit too many of them in a template.

Choices would then have to be made, and those who choose to 120 stealthing will get their specialties equalling those who, say, chose instead 120 necromancy.....

What I am trying to say is that if those skills now offering crappy bonuses at 120 will be pumped up, this will get players have to make choices over how many skills they can afford to 120.

Also, another possibility is to limit with a hard CAP the number of skills a player can have set to 120 on a given template at any one time. Say, for example, 3 or 4, period.
And this, whether with real skill or +skill items.

This way, balance issues even when pumping up legendary bonuses for those skills now offering crappy advantages at 120 would be dealt with.

Uhhh... what gives a crappy advantage at 120? You've not once listed actual skills you think are bad.

 

[popps]

What that means for you and anyone else that thinks all skills that go to 120 should have some kind of boost or reason to actually raise them to 120 is that the issue is probably never going to be addressed or addressed to anyone's complete and utter satisfaction. It's just going to remain a situation that has been addressed sufficiently to dampen most complaints to a low murmur and allow the UO team to focus on other more important and/or more pressing issues. I think the team will take advantage when they can of opportunities to add content for the purpose of raising skills (e.g., they added a lot of new gargoyle armor and weapons in the SA expansion that have high enough skill requirements to help significantly with gaining in some crafting skills). However, I doubt they'll ever just do a publish or two just for that purpose.

Let me sum it up to see if I understood it right....

So my point and concerns over the way Legendary skills are dealt with in the game is valid and yet, nothing can be done for lack of resources so instead of a radical and comprehensive solution some patching work is done from time to time ???

If I understood it right then the only hope is that in the future more resources are added to the game or this issue is made a higher priority so that it is finally addressed in the comprehensive and complete way it would require ?