Skill increase bugs

[OREOGL]

TEMPLATE ONE:
120 mage
120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
100 inscription
75 tactics (+15 jewel) == 90 tactics
65 med

TEMPLATE TWO:
120 mage
105 eval (+15 jewel) == 120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
100 inscription
90 tactics
65 med

Do you understand the difference in these two templates? In the end, they reach the same number of skill points that are distributed in the same fashion. However, due to restrictions in real skill for tactics, template two is superior since you can perform secondary special moves. Allowing template one to work the same as template two is what I'm asking for. ZERO new templates would come to fruition.

You understand that no one is going to handicap themselves by using one jewelry with a single +15 skill on it right?

Hell, they don't even do that now.

I was looking for a piece of jewelry last night for tAming and saw a legendary with +45 skill for lore, taming, and archery (15 each). And that was one piece of jewelry.

People using hybrid templates aren't going to put swords at 120. They don't do that now.

I see what you're getting a at but if anything, the other jewelry skills should be weighted.

So there's your argument and then there's reality.

 

[cazador]

TEMPLATE ONE:
120 mage
120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
100 inscription
75 tactics (+15 jewel) == 90 tactics
65 med

TEMPLATE TWO:
120 mage
105 eval (+15 jewel) == 120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
100 inscription
90 tactics
65 med

Do you understand the difference in these two templates? In the end, they reach the same number of skill points that are distributed in the same fashion. However, due to restrictions in real skill for tactics, template two is superior since you can perform secondary special moves. Allowing template one to work the same as template two is what I'm asking for. ZERO new templates would come to fruition.

Ok so I was confused. I'm merging two threads I think where one person wants to remove skill requirement some one wants skill cap raised...reading it like this not only should be done but it should of been fixed ten years ago. Unless they were battling too many people whirlwinding at 50 skill with jewls to gain too fast :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OREOGL]

Ok so I was confused. I'm merging two threads I think where one person wants to remove skill requirement some one wants skill cap raised...reading it like this not only should be done but it should of been fixed ten years ago. Unless they were battling too many people whirlwinding at 50 skill with jewls to gain too fast :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I started doing that last night.

Their argument is that jewelry isn't balanced as far as skills are concerned so they want the real skill requirements removed from specials.

The thing is, for specials, everyone requires real skill Mage or not. So the eval skill versus a tactics skill isn't equivalent trade off if they removed the real requirement

You could argue Mage weapons but again doesn't apply to specials.

If this happened I would free up no less than 60 skill points im wasting on fencing and tactics I use for ai specials on my tactics Mage. (Assuming I'm using imbued items, but in reality Id use some of the legendary items with higher skill bonuses to use elsewhere) I'd have to leave some since jewelry probably wouldn't cover all of the points.

As a result I'd probably throw on ninja or something

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

If this happened I would free up no less than 60 skill points im wasting on fencing and tactics I use for ai specials on my tactics Mage. (Assuming I'm using imbued items, but in reality Id use some of the legendary items with higher skill bonuses to use elsewhere) I'd have to leave some since jewelry probably wouldn't cover all of the points.

As a result I'd probably throw on ninja or something

How would you free up 60 points exactly? Because you would get rid of Fence/Tactics entirely? Or, are you thinking by making specials consume non real skill you would all of a sudden have 60+ skill to play with?

 

[OREOGL]

How would you free up 60 points exactly? Because you would get rid of Fence/Tactics entirely? Or, are you thinking by making specials consume non real skill you would all of a sudden have 60+ skill to play with?

If specials required non-real skill, I'd be using jewelry. 15 fencing and 15 tactics at a minimum on each piece.

The only reason I have it now is for ai which consumes 170 skill points.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

If specials required non-real skill, I'd be using jewelry. 15 fencing and 15 tactics at a minimum on each piece.

The only reason I have it now is for ai which consumes 170 skill points.

And why are you not using jewels with +mage/eval/resist ?? It will literally give you the same outcome...

 

[OREOGL]

And why are you not using jewels with +mage/eval/resist ?? It will literally give you the same outcome...

The template is set up for a Mage weapon and stat loss so if I die I can still roll around with 120 magery.

Reversely if I did fencing tactics and if I died I would only run around with 120 fencing which is extremely limited in its own.

 

[chad]

The template is set up for a Mage weapon and stat loss so if I die I can still roll around with 120 magery.

Reversely if I did fencing tactics and if I died I would only run around with 120 fencing which is extremely limited in its own.

The point still stands that you could put those skill points into eval/resist/whatever other skills you have. It's becoming increasingly clear that you have some convoluted sense of reality and very little understanding of the most basic game mechanics. You say that you will suddenly gain +60 skill, but can't actually explain how. Unless you can give an actual example(you can't), then you should probably take a break from posting because it's embarrassing.

 

[Acid Rain]

Go back to HOT boards since you can rarely post w/o insults bro.

Only embarrassment is your lack of manners, respect of other players views, & moot points supporting your poor 'gimme' attitude.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

The template is set up for a Mage weapon and stat loss so if I die I can still roll around with 120 magery.

Reversely if I did fencing tactics and if I died I would only run around with 120 fencing which is extremely limited in its own.

Your template makes absolutely no sense. I understand using Mage weapon in conjunction with fencing, but it is more harmful than it is practical. Imbuable weight on your weapon is taking a hit. Also, setting your template up to be playable in stat holds less weight than making your template more effective out of stat.

It would make more sense for your template to run 70/70 fence/tactics which would free up 30 points for something else.

Using a kyrss without poison is also extremely limiting.

120 mage/eval/resist/fence 90 tactics/pois with either 60parry or 67 (+7 skill) alchemy or 90 (+30 skill) parry makes your template much more effective in the field. If you don't mind losing the 30sdi you could even go 90 ninja for survivability. If you can fit +40 skill you can go anatomy allowing more damage op from mele and also leaving you unaffected by dis-arm freeing up your mastery slot from mele.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

Go back to HOT boards since you can rarely post w/o insults bro.

Only embarrassment is your lack of manners, respect of other players views, & moot points supporting your poor 'gimme' attitude.

AHHH I cannot rebuttal his argument so I will just flame him! Good one, bro!

It's not a gimmie attitude it's pointing out a mechanic that literally makes zero sense. Since you cannot prove why it needs to remain that way it's safe to assume you cannot comprehend it as well...

 

[Acid Rain]

You can argue a point respectfully. That's all I was saying.
Wasn't trying to attack or defend any mechanic.
My comprehension is just fine thanks

 

[chad]

Go back to HOT boards since you can rarely post w/o insults bro.

Only embarrassment is your lack of manners, respect of other players views, & moot points supporting your poor 'gimme' attitude.

Another unknown fanboy vying for my attention. You must still be recovering from all the beatings I gave you over the years. I have been plenty respectful, but it becomes tiresome that not a single person in disagreement can bring up a valid point, including yourself. So, I've asked him to stop wasting my time and post something of substance.

 

[Acid Rain]

Another unknown fanboy vying for my attention. You must still be recovering from all the beatings I gave you over the years.

Thanks for the LOL son.

 

[I Actually PVP]

You can argue a point respectfully. That's all I was saying.
Wasn't trying to attack or defend any mechanic.
My comprehension is just fine thanks

How are you contributing to this thread? Oh right, you're not , thanks.

This is a very valid point that Chad has made, it should've been fixed when they introduced the new loot, and the only person that has had a somewhat sensical rebuttal is Oreo (who's argument is centered around his own non-sensical template).

So yes, as someone that actually pvp's and like playing hybrid templates, Dev's please make this change.

 

[Acid Rain]

At what point did anyone declare the system intended? Is there any documentation of that? Even if it is intended, don't you think that nearly 13 years down the road, that the system might deserve reevaluation?

Since there seems to be a misunderstanding here I will clarify:

DEVs conceive a mechanic to determine viability & merit. Then they work towards their intentions to insure functionality.
Lastly, they implement their work into the product. The fact that the mechanic is present shows obvious intent. Documentation is the product.

Reevaluation is always good. Please continue....

 

[chad]

Since there seems to be a misunderstanding here I will clarify:

DEVs conceive a mechanic to determine viability & merit. Then they work towards their intentions to insure functionality.
Lastly, they implement their work into the product. The fact that the mechanic is present shows obvious intent. Documentation is the product.

Reevaluation is always good. Please continue....

The presence of a mechanic does not convey intent.

Examples over the years might include:
Use of virtue system to bypass skill timer.
Open quiver to exceed 35 damage critical cap in PvP.
Teleport -> Target self to appear in the middle of the ocean.

Regardless, I find intention to be irrelevant in this scenario. So, let's not dwell on it.

 

[Acid Rain]

The presence of a mechanic does not convey intent.

Examples over the years might include:
Use of virtue system to bypass skill timer.
Open quiver to exceed 35 damage critical cap in PvP.
Teleport -> Target self to appear in the middle of the ocean.

Regardless, I find intention to be irrelevant in this scenario. So, let's not dwell on it.

Again some confusion. Your referring to exploits to the intended mechanic. That's why reevaluation is always good.

I can see how some players confuse use of exploits with actual intended mechanic though.

... irrelevant in this scenario. So, let's not dwell on it.

Agreed.

 

[CovenantX]

I still want Tactics to be removed as a skill requirement for specials, make it only the weapon skill as it use to be.
It was more Active, more diverse, more fun. it was the best of both worlds.

This is starting to remind me of a thread I started a few years ago... which by the way still is not locked, and there are quite a few changes listed that need to be removed, and a few newer ones that need added... *PvP needs some Attention*

 

[Lord Arm]

not again, gimmie gimmie gimmie, I want I want I want

 

[OREOGL]

Your template makes absolutely no sense. I understand using Mage weapon in conjunction with fencing, but it is more harmful than it is practical. Imbuable weight on your weapon is taking a hit. Also, setting your template up to be playable in stat holds less weight than making your template more effective out of stat.

It would make more sense for your template to run 70/70 fence/tactics which would free up 30 points for something else.

Using a kyrss without poison is also extremely limiting.

120 mage/eval/resist/fence 90 tactics/pois with either 60parry or 67 (+7 skill) alchemy or 90 (+30 skill) parry makes your template much more effective in the field. If you don't mind losing the 30sdi you could even go 90 ninja for survivability. If you can fit +40 skill you can go anatomy allowing more damage op from mele and also leaving you unaffected by dis-arm freeing up your mastery slot from mele.

I play solo so often die to groups.
If I wanted to poison I wouldn't use the kryss, I'd add poisoning for magery.

Plus I have 120 parry so I don't bother to chug, also in part because it's built for solo PVP in VVV.

I tested anatomy on test and the additional damage was minimal especially since ai is already capped.

I used the Mage weapon for the additionAl blocking chance.

all of the mods are capped except for a few hci.

Either way the template works pretty well but when I built it was factoring in that PVP was mostly against dexers at the time.

 

[I Actually PVP]

not again, gimmie gimmie gimmie, I want I want I want

WTF is wrong with people on this forum?!?

Of the 3 pvp-related threads I think I've posted in, the conversation and discussion has consistently gotten over run and derailed by unrelated posts and attacks like this or other unfounded accusations, general statements, and arguing of semantics (it also seems to be the same 5 or so people.

I don't see myself, Chad, Old Vet, Cetric, Cazador, Oreo, or other pvp-focussed posters going into all the threads about macows, foil, auction safes, house design, or pvm/tram related content and spewing unrelated nonsense and bash on you all for asking for content changes and fixes (I also suspect that we'd be banned and our posts deleted pretty quickly if we did do that).

How do the mod's justify this? How do the posters (ie. arm, acid rain, aran, malagaste, frodo, etc.) justify this; you all admittedly don't pvp, you haven't for years, and you all admittedly actively avoid fel in general?!?!?!

There's absolutely zero-potential to have any type constructive discussion of pvp here and yet we're forced to post here if we even want to have a chance of the Dev's noticing....

 

[cazador]

Couldn't like it twice but this is my attempt




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Acid Rain]

...discussion has consistently gotten over run and derailed by unrelated posts and attacks like this or other unfounded accusations, general statements, and arguing of semantics...

How do the posters (ie. arm, acid rain, aran, malagaste, frodo, etc.) justify this; you all admittedly don't pvp, you haven't for years, and you all admittedly actively avoid fel in general?!?!?!

My points are valid even if you don't agree. The OPs #2, #4, and #5 are intended game mechanics that have been carefully thought out by DEVs.
They are NOT bugs. I appreciate any reevaluation on this, as I posted, but I simply don't agree.

Also, ALL of my 7 homes in UO are in Fel, I just picked another VvV banner toward my set on ATL, and I was fighting at the Harry on Cats last night.
Again, you are wrong in your comments and assumptions. Keep up the good work bro, at least ur consistent.

 

[I Actually PVP]

My points are valid even if you don't agree. The OPs #2, #4, and #5 are intended game mechanics that have been carefully thought out by DEVs.
They are NOT bugs. I appreciate any reevaluation on this, as I posted, but I simply don't agree.

Firstly, if you "simply don't agree", please do grace us with your reasoning. So far you've provided no counter argument and have also attacked Chad because he couldn't "argue a point respectfully." In my experience, arguing a point involves...counter points; you've provided none and have posted more than 5 times in this thread.

Secondly, I'll grant you that #2, #4, and #5 may have been intended (they made it to publish after all and I guess we're assuming that the devs thoroughly test and evaluate all the new content they add (although history would speak otherwise)).

With that said, even if those features are working as intended, they were implemented 5+ years ago and really don't make sense with the new loot. Why should +15 eval be worthwhile and +15 tactics shouldn't? The same temps are conceivable either way, yet under the current system, a +15 eval ring is potentially worth billions while a +15 tactics ring will always be garbage...

Last point (and if we're still assuming that these were intended, well thought out, and heavily studied features by devs that understand and partake in pvp) is it so wrong to consider changing the system to reflect the times? These boards are full of requests to tweak, enhance, or "fix" certain features and content, such as custom housing, deco, EM events, chiv spells, etc. (all of which were equally "intended" and "carefully thought" as the current changes we're asking for now).

For some reason though, when it's tram related fixes and updates, it's not seen as a "gimme gimme gimme post."

 

[King Greg]

Firstly, if you "simply don't agree", please do grace us with your reasoning. So far you've provided no counter argument and have also attacked Chad because he couldn't "argue a point respectfully." In my experience, arguing a point involves...counter points; you've provided none and have posted more than 5 times in this thread.

Secondly, I'll grant you that #2, #4, and #5 may have been intended (they made it to publish after all and I guess we're assuming that the devs thoroughly test and evaluate all the new content they add (although history would speak otherwise)).

With that said, even if those features are working as intended, they were implemented 5+ years ago and really don't make sense with the new loot. Why should +15 eval be worthwhile and +15 tactics shouldn't? The same temps are conceivable either way, yet under the current system, a +15 eval ring is potentially worth billions while a +15 tactics ring will always be garbage...

Last point (and if we're still assuming that these were intended, well thought out, and heavily studied features by devs that understand and partake in pvp) is it so wrong to consider changing the system to reflect the times? These boards are full of requests to tweak, enhance, or "fix" certain features and content, such as custom housing, deco, EM events, chiv spells, etc. (all of which were equally "intended" and "carefully thought" as the current changes we're asking for now).

For some reason though, when it's tram related fixes and updates, it's not seen as a "gimme gimme gimme post."

+1,00,000

 

[I Actually PVP]

Hmmm seems like Acid has nothing to say now, what a surprise.

I don't know who the mods are on this forum, but can we get this thread cleaned up, please?

I think Chad's request and arguments have been pretty clearly stated. If you have a counter argument (that's related to game mechanics and features) please state it.

If a dev would like to chime in or take note, that'd be lovely @Kyronix @Mesanna @Bleak (those are the only devs I've seen on here, if there are more, someone please tag them).

 

[kelmo]

chuckles You know you can self moderate. right? Merely ignore everyone who's opinion offends you.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

chuckles You know you can self moderate. right? Merely ignore everyone who's opinion offends you.

Yea, you are right. I don't know why I didn't do this earlier since all you do is 'chuckle' or post one word answers that have never contributed anything.

Welcome to my Ignore list Kelmo, you will not be missed...

 

[kelmo]

See! It is that easy.

 

[kelmo]

As far as adding anything to this thread that has any merit, many others are speaking that I agree with. If I have something to add I will.

I was just pointing out that you have the option of ignoring any that disagree with you. It is much easier that way. *smiles*

 

[I Actually PVP]

chuckles You know you can self moderate. right? Merely ignore everyone who's opinion offends you.

I wasn't asking for my sake, I was asking so that it's both easier for devs to read through the thread and so it also a disincentive for those who are just jacking their post count up and not contributing to the discussion.

So again, mods please delete this post, kelmo's posts, and all the others that are off topic, many thanks!

Also, just an unrelated comment, suggesting that you ignore anyone that disagrees with you is the definition of ignorance; terrible advice.

I'll get off my pulpit now and hope this post is deleted.

 

[kelmo]

 

[OREOGL]

Hmmm seems like Acid has nothing to say now, what a surprise.

I don't know who the mods are on this forum, but can we get this thread cleaned up, please?

I think Chad's request and arguments have been pretty clearly stated. If you have a counter argument (that's related to game mechanics and features) please state it.

If a dev would like to chime in or take note, that'd be lovely @Kyronix @Mesanna @Bleak (those are the only devs I've seen on here, if there are more, someone please tag them).

This should be fixed but specials should still require real skill.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

This should be fixed but specials should still require real skill.

You haven't even come remotely close to giving a valid reason as to WHY...All of your reasoning has been debunked especially with the amount of walk around there already is in game...

 

[OREOGL]

You haven't even come remotely close to giving a valid reason as to WHY...All of your reasoning has been debunked especially with the amount of walk around there already is in game...

Do tell how you debunked it?

Only thing I recall was you telling me to switch skills around.

If all we had to do is switch skills around then there is still no need to make specials non-real.

 

[I Actually PVP]

Do tell how you debunked it?

Only thing I recall was you telling me to switch skills around.

If all we had to do is switch skills around then there is still no need to make specials non-real.

Well, do tell us why specials should require real skill?

As we've stated, the same temps are going to be available either way. The way skills currently work just make it harder and more expensive to create templates/suits and also create vast inequality in the value of jewels. As previously stated, why should a +15 eval ring be potentially worth billions and a +15 tactics ring always be garbage?

 

[cazador]

chuckles You know you can self moderate. right? Merely ignore everyone who's opinion offends you.

I wish you had the same stance for all my "trolling" suspensions.

Me: Bugs? In UO! No way!!
You: sorry 24 hour suspension for trolling.

Gah! You've changed your train of thought without your super sexy ban stick!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OREOGL]

Well, do tell us why specials should require real skill?

As we've stated, the same temps are going to be available either way. The way skills currently work just make it harder and more expensive to create templates/suits and also create vast inequality in the value of jewels. As previously stated, why should a +15 eval ring be potentially worth billions and a +15 tactics ring always be garbage?

Because if the same templates are available either way then there is no reason to change it.

Let alone these are not direct trade offs. How are you comparing +15 skill for spell damage increase to +15 skill letting you use a special?

I think price value is moot in this discussion.

I do agree the same 15 skill should be weighted for damage value.

 

[OREOGL]

I wish you had the same stance for all my "trolling" suspensions.

Me: Bugs? In UO! No way!!
You: sorry 24 hour suspension for trolling.

Gah! You've changed your train of thought without your super sexy ban stick!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I once was banned for three days for bringing up shard merging In a thread, by a different moderator.

It has been nice to get a discussion with someone without worrying about being locked or banned because they didn't want to moderate a thread.

In Kelmos defense though, he moderated the faction forums pretty well in spite of what posted there and at times about him.

It could have been much worse.

 

[cazador]

I once was banned for three days for bringing up shard merging In a thread, by a different moderator.

It has been nice to get a discussion with someone without worrying about being locked or banned because they didn't want to moderate a thread.

In Kelmos defense though, he moderated the faction forums pretty well in spite of what posted there and at times about him.

It could have been much worse.

No it wasn't a shot at @kelmo he was actually one of the more fair guys..it was more of a jab like..ohhhh now we have ignore!

But yes the actually discussion on discussion board have been pretty good minus the few trolls here and there which we are all guilty of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I Actually PVP]

Because if the same templates are available either way then there is no reason to change it.

Let alone these are not direct trade offs. How are you comparing +15 skill for spell damage increase to +15 skill letting you use a special?

I think price value is moot in this discussion.

I do agree the same 15 skill should be weighted for damage value.

Ok, instead of comparing eval to wep skills, lets compare Magery to the Wep skills. Why should +15 magery give you the bonus of being able to cast higher level spells (such as say, flamestrike) but a +15 wep skill/tactics shouldn't give you the bonus of using a higher weapon special?

The same templates are available either way, but it's currently a much larger pain in the butt to make said templates (and we're creating a much larger inequality in loot/pricing) because of the current set up. For the sake of diversity and accessibility to pvp, this should be changed.

You don't seem to be arguing the topic on hand: that there's a discrepancy in jewels/game mechanics. Your argument seems to be more like Acid's and other's: that this is an unnecessary demand/not worth the dev's time. That, however, isn't an argument; it's an opinion (and one that I, Chad, and others disagree with).

So again, is there a reason based on game-mechanics/features that you feel like this change shouldn't be applied?

 

[King Greg]

+Skill Increase should be treated the same across the board for all skills, including bards.

There is no reason to be punished for using +15 in one skill, but not for using +15 in another. Since the Majority of Skills aren't punished for using Skill Increase, it only makes sense to do away with all of the real skill vs Final Skill Checks.

If you are worried about this drastically changing the pvp field to where players are gods, I hate to tell you this, but our gear went from ~600 weight per piece to 1400 weight per piece Almost a year ago and no one is a god yet .

 

[OREOGL]

Ok, instead of comparing eval to wep skills, lets compare Magery to the Wep skills. Why should +15 magery give you the bonus of being able to cast higher level spells (such as say, flamestrike) but a +15 wep skill/tactics shouldn't give you the bonus of using a higher weapon special?

The same templates are available either way, but it's currently a much larger pain in the butt to make said templates (and we're creating a much larger inequality in loot/pricing) because of the current set up. For the sake of diversity and accessibility to pvp, this should be changed.

You don't seem to be arguing the topic on hand: that there's a discrepancy in jewels/game mechanics. Your argument seems to be more like Acid's and other's: that this is an unnecessary demand/not worth the dev's time. That, however, isn't an argument; it's an opinion (and one that I, Chad, and others disagree with).

So again, is there a reason based on game-mechanics/features that you feel like this change shouldn't be applied?

Because you can still cast flamestrike at 105, versus the lower requirement of 80 skill for a primary weapon skill.

At 80 magery, you can get maybe only 25% success chance of flamestrike going off, and at 70 fire resist only does 27 damage with a 1.8 second cast time at best. Where you can swing at 1.25 seconds with minimal dex using a 2-3 second weapon with ai at 35. At 105 skill for say fencing, you still have a 44% chance of hitting the target and 35% at 80 skill.

These are not equivalent changes, especially since ai does 35 damage on top of hit spells. This leave it imbalanced since not only is a mage fizzling just from casting skill, but being hit leaving the damage balance completely skewed.

 

[cazador]

Because you can still cast flamestrike at 105, versus the lower requirement of 80 skill for a primary weapon skill.

At 80 magery, you can get maybe only 25% success chance of flamestrike going off, and at 70 fire resist only does 27 damage with a 1.8 second cast time at best. Where you can swing at 1.25 seconds with minimal dex using a 2-3 second weapon with ai at 35. At 105 skill for say fencing, you still have a 44% chance of hitting the target and 35% at 80 skill.

These are not equivalent changes, especially since ai does 35 damage on top of hit spells. This leave it imbalanced since not only is a mage fizzling just from casting skill, but being hit leaving the damage balance completely skewed.

I think what Chad is asking for is having skill count towards the real skill.

Like if you have 50 Mage and put +30 jewls you can cast flame strike
But if you have 50 Tactics and put +30 jewls you still can't use specials. Which is kind of silly when you look at it. What difference should it make if I put 30 Magery or 30 tactics on my jewls. I could understand bard skills. But tactics is a bit strange. The only real reason I could see this at first being an issue was stopping quick switch of jewls. But hell if your talented enough to switch out jewls and make use of a skill that way. Skill should triumph above all else.

If the change happens @chad I expect to see videos of you running a temp with 50 tacts and throwing on jewls to hit those moving shots or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

Because you can still cast flamestrike at 105, versus the lower requirement of 80 skill for a primary weapon skill.

At 80 magery, you can get maybe only 25% success chance of flamestrike going off, and at 70 fire resist only does 27 damage with a 1.8 second cast time at best. Where you can swing at 1.25 seconds with minimal dex using a 2-3 second weapon with ai at 35. At 105 skill for say fencing, you still have a 44% chance of hitting the target and 35% at 80 skill.

These are not equivalent changes, especially since ai does 35 damage on top of hit spells. This leave it imbalanced since not only is a mage fizzling just from casting skill, but being hit leaving the damage balance completely skewed.

Your argument is still flawed. You are not comparing the two correctly. If I wanted to cast FS I can go real skill 50 with +30 skill and see ZERO consequence. The template you are referring to is still 100% obtainable by adding the skill increase in other areas. So if you are thinking it is unbalanced, then you need to realize it is already a possibility...

There is literally no argument in favor of how the game mechanic is currently operating. It was viable at one point in time, but it is not currently.

 

[OREOGL]

Your argument is still flawed. You are not comparing the two correctly. If I wanted to cast FS I can go real skill 50 with +30 skill and see ZERO consequence. The template you are referring to is still 100% obtainable by adding the skill increase in other areas. So if you are thinking it is unbalanced, then you need to realize it is already a possibility...

There is literally no argument in favor of how the game mechanic is currently operating. It was viable at one point in time, but it is not currently.

Incorrect, and coming from the dude who thinks you have a 73% to parry with a shield and weapon and that you cant block with parry as a stand alone skill i think my argument has more merit than yours.

But for arguments sake, if you do the math it still isnt equivalent. (Let alone blatantly ignoring the difference of skill requirements to perform the same damage)

Adding skill for magery up to 80 (from 50) doesn't change the damage, it is still 25% (based on tc) chance to cast at 27 damage in ~8 seconds best.
Adding a special like ai from 50 to 80 with jewelry allows you to do a minimum damage of 35 every 3 hits or 3.75 seconds. Doubling the damage in the same amount of time.

So the zero consequence argument is false.

Sorry to throw math in to confuse you.

 

[OREOGL]

I think what Chad is asking for is having skill count towards the real skill.

Like if you have 50 Mage and put +30 jewls you can cast flame strike
But if you have 50 Tactics and put +30 jewls you still can't use specials. Which is kind of silly when you look at it. What difference should it make if I put 30 Magery or 30 tactics on my jewls. I could understand bard skills. But tactics is a bit strange. The only real reason I could see this at first being an issue was stopping quick switch of jewls. But hell if your talented enough to switch out jewls and make use of a skill that way. Skill should triumph above all else.

If the change happens @chad I expect to see videos of you running a temp with 50 tacts and throwing on jewls to hit those moving shots or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flamestrike is weighted at that skill with both damage and casting percentage.

Doing this would not have the same balance. If they weighted the damage when using it thatd be fine with me. But as it stands and just making the change requirement alone, would not be balanced.

 

[cazador]

Flamestrike is weighted at that skill with both damage and casting percentage.

Doing this would not have the same balance. If they weighted the damage when using it thatd be fine with me. But as it stands and just making the change requirement alone, would not be balanced.

Ok damage I get. It's just the two skills picked for the argument.
What about 50 eval bumped to 80
And say tactics to 90 from 50..

Mind you it makes no difference now. You can just swap the skills around either way. Instead of using +15 tactics jewls you use +15 eval jewls. Now I'm not saying remove the skill needed to perform a special attack it should be 70 and 90. But why does modified eval do as much damage as real eval. Granted I already know the damage difference between 50 and 80 is quite small, but why include it in the loot tables if it's useless. Unless you're modifying real skill above 90 already. I've pvp I don't have a need for 120 tactics. Maybe that topic should be being discussed.

On another note. Does modifying tactics from 90-120 give you a damage boost? And why did they implement it this way to begin with of it does..@Kryonix @Mesanna


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

Incorrect, and coming from the dude who thinks you have a 73% to parry with a shield and weapon and that you cant block with parry as a stand alone skill i think my argument has more merit than yours.

But for arguments sake, if you do the math it still isnt equivalent. (Let alone blatantly ignoring the difference of skill requirements to perform the same damage)

Adding skill for magery up to 80 (from 50) doesn't change the damage, it is still 25% (based on tc) chance to cast at 27 damage in ~8 seconds best.
Adding a special like ai from 50 to 80 with jewelry allows you to do a minimum damage of 35 every 3 hits or 4.25 seconds. Doubling the damage in the same amount of time.

So the zero consequence argument is false.

Sorry to throw math in to confuse you.

Well, it's actually a 35% chance at 80 magery to cast FS. You are comparing something that is affected against the opponents resist in comparison to something that clearly ignores resist. You are also basing your claim that you are hitting 100% of the time. Again, false. There are too many variables in your argument you are blatantly ignoring and to be honest it's beginning to get really old arguing with you about mechanics that you clearly do not understand.

I have corrected you on many occasions and I'm not going to do it anymore. Have fun building worthless templates that allow you to play in stat.

Welcome to my ignore list.