Page 1 of 2
[DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:34 pm
by lawrence
From Nevrax:
Xavier wrote:
We have added three new items to the Now In Test section of the website (mektoub icons and two small new inventory features) and updated two items to give you more information (prerequisites on light armors/jewels, emotes changes).
Nevrax would like your feedback on these changes. We've created separate feedback threads for each of them.
[ E Q U I P M E N T ]
- All piece of equipment (even light/caster armor and jewels), either crafted or looted, now have pre-requisites you will have to match to be able to equip them. All those equips have at most two pre-requisite skills. You can see the pre-requisite by right-clicking on piece of equipment then choosing 'info'. Please note that items bought, crafted or looted prior to the introduction of this change to the live version will keep their prerequisites (none for light/caster armor and jewels).
The new prerequisites will be:
- Light armor: max quality = constitution * 2;
- Jewels: max quality = highest skill + 25.
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:37 pm
by sehracii
Bah.
I was hoping for better...
But it works, I guess.
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:50 pm
by akm72
lawrence wrote:
The new prerequisites will be:
- Light armor: max quality = constitution * 2;
- Jewels: max quality = highest skill + 25.
[/list]
Yep, that looks about right to me.
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:34 pm
by dc77066
akm72 wrote:Yep, that looks about right to me.
Constition*2 does seem logical for Light Armor. Constitution is the determining factor for armor (const+10 for HA, const*1.5 for MA).
But if constitution can only be raised by fighting then const*2 prereq might be too restrictive for those that want to follow a less aggressive profession.
LA is used by foragers and crafters (ignoring mages and range fighters for sake of my argument). They are dependant upon the bonuses afforded to them by mixing jewelry and LA. They don't get bonuses from their equipment like others do. I personally switch between HP enriched LA and Focus LA depending on the area I'm foraging in.
In conclusion, it sounds like a good idea but I think some players (not me, I'm already 150 Const) will be at a disadvatange and may have to struggle to rediscover their center.
-Raku
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:06 pm
by amitst
I think the constitution is fair. One of my characteres has fight 50, but his constitution is at 115, because of his 200 Magery. Basically if you raise HP by magery, then the q of light armor you can wear stays about equal to your mage level. Seems rational, I think.
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:17 pm
by mmatto
Could we have outdated discussion thread locked? In this case, discussion goes now in 2 threads, this one and "[DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 13". I am guilty bumping it up after updated requirements as I did not see new thread before posting.
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:08 pm
by petej
I find it totaly bizare tbh that the main attribute of the one class that doesnt use LA should be the one to set the quality , it fits in with the scheme for the other armours but not the usage
If Light Armour truely is Melee orientated then id like to suggest we have some Forage n Craft err clothes (only capable of holding focus boosts with a quality governed by 2x dexterity

)
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:14 pm
by vguerin
I see the complaint guys, but I do not buy it... First thing I Mastered was digging (and the second) and this left me with CON = lvl 160 Melee IIRC. I felt this was quite fair as I had all the speed/invul for any level 250 player.
As most well know I also melee in LA, always have and always will for reasons I have posted elsewhere and I managed to Master 1h Blade while wearing LA.
It makes absolute sense for them to do this exactly as they have and it is consistant with the other requirements on gear.
But if constitution can only be raised by fighting then const*2 prereq might be too restrictive for those that want to follow a less aggressive profession.
You had to be hoping this wouldn't be read when you wrote it, you know thats wrong

Hell, even if what ya said had a lick of reason to it the same logic would suggest that those with a less aggressive profession wouldn't need higher level gear
___________________
DoubleTap -
Disciple of Jena - Master Swordsman
Matis Dual Blader & Medium Gladiator Champion (Undefeated)
Member of Team Melinoe, Matis 5V5 Champions (Undefeated)
Click here to join Melinoe or read
Ultimate Harvesting Guide
Melinoe - Atys Harvesters http://ryzom.twazz.net/
WWJD - What Would Jena Do ?
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:37 pm
by petej
If youd lvl'd melee first and the new rules had been in place you wouldve had an advantage over a pure forager of the same lvl (in that you could equip higher q LA carrying a greater focus boost) -does that seem right to you ?
(Ive only ever used LA too

)
Re: [DEV] Equipment Requirements, July 14
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:55 pm
by dc77066
vguerin wrote:You had to be hoping this wouldn't be read when you wrote it, you know thats wrong

Hell, even if what ya said had a lick of reason to it the same logic would suggest that those with a less aggressive profession wouldn't need higher level gear
Many props to you and your mastery. But to answer your criticism, if I didn't want it read I wouldn't have wrote it. I don't think you can extend my "logic" to conclude that it suggests foragers and crafters won't need higher level gear. There are plenty of in-game forces at play to encourage you to gear up.
If you can generate constitution in a happenstance manner and its sufficient enough to grant you to access to the equipment you need then the point is mute. And unless we all decide to reroll our characters to see if we can tell any difference the argument is pointless as well.
I already stated that I supported the change. I just thought I saw a situation where it could be an issue.