Requests from a Master Weaponsmith

Discussion in 'Tradeskill Discussion' started by ARCHIVED-Troubor, Mar 1, 2008.

  1. ARCHIVED-TaleraRis Guest

    Rashaak wrote:
    Which would be nice as well. But the problem I see there is there's no way they can have a new version of all these vastly different weapons, so any we did get would most likely be limited in their scope and who they're valuable toward. The other recipes are valuable for a wide variety of players. I don't think it would help us too much if what we could provide were limited to a slim margin of available weapons that we could provide.
  2. ARCHIVED-KniteShayd Guest

    I'm liking the changes, but what I DON'T see is how these effects on the melee wepaons will affect PvP!
    I apologize if this was posted, but I didn't want go through ALL the the posts. I read from 1-10 and 14-17 though.
    My issue is this:
    If positional attacks are added to the weapon, then will they affect us in PvP? i.e. if i'm fighting a brigand, am I taunting him till he uses walk the plank? and then if so (because brigs have soooo much utility for positional attacks...) am I going to now be facing an OP godlike apponent and never get a hit in due to the deaggro affect of him being behind?
    This has me a little concerned.
    I also didn't se a listing for bows. Are bows going to be imbued the same?
  3. ARCHIVED-Troubor Guest

    Rashaak wrote:
    Ah okay, thank you for the clairification. I'd of course like to see throwing ammo and whetstones made for each tier also..but having "actual" weapons changed like this for every tier is a very nice start, I applaud the effort.
    As for the "Flamberge should be a 2 hander", I still do point out the in game precident for a one handed weapon called "flamberge" and that there were/are one handed weapons with a flamberge like blade IRL, again I own one IRL from my SCA days that may or may not be historically accurate per-se, but at least is fully functional as a real weapon in terms of quality and so forth. I quoted an article from Wikipedia where they show such..even show an image from another reference work where they refer to a one handed longsword sized weapon as a flamberge, although I admit the author of the Wikipedia entry does state that such designation is in error, it would be (If I recall right) probably more proper to call a one handed 'flameblade/wavy blade" sword sized weapon a "Flambard".
    Again..since there's in game Pre LU 24 precident for a one handed weapon called a "flamberge" (One of my alts actually has his steel Pre LU 24 one in fact), there's some looted one handed weapons with the wavy blade shape now (One from Unrest comes to mind for instance...it's maybe b@stard sword sized, but it is a one hander), I do propose keeping flamberge a one hander. If need be, we could always..now or later have a 2 handed wavy blade sword called a "Flamberge", a one hander called a "Flambard". Dagger sized we already have the Kris of course.
  4. ARCHIVED-Troubor Guest

    Rashaak wrote:
    I do wonder about a falchion having such a fast delay also. Not sure how truly historically accurate the "falchions" I saw were from replicas made for SCA costume wear, but the joke we had in our little group I camped with was to call them "Pancake turners" since they were as wide or wider then a spatula for such. They were stubby weapons for a sword yes..but wide and kind of heavy for being that short. Based on just that (which I admit might not be fully accurate), they should have the same delay as a long sword.
    If the "One Handed" flamberge we'll get is based on the well..one handed wavy blade sword I own, weight is again about the same...having it's delay at the same as a longsword's delay is logical again.
  5. ARCHIVED-Noaani Guest

    Bandorn@Venekor wrote:
    This is actually a good point.
    My personal suggestion would be to simply remove the hate/dehate proc from the weapons in PvP altogether, though other solutions would not be hard to figure out.
    No.
  6. ARCHIVED-KniteShayd Guest

    Noaani wrote:
    I agree. Thanks for responding.
    Anything about that being tested out Miss Domino? I would like to set all the mages and rangers at ease by being able to say that other scouts can't be more godlike, lol.
    Also are the Caster procs being scaled down for pvp in amount or percentage?
  7. ARCHIVED-Terron Guest

    Youngone31 wrote:
  8. ARCHIVED-Terron Guest

    Bandorn@Venekor wrote:
    If you are it will have nothing to do with the new proc.
    With a proc rate of 1.6 times a minute it will not lock anyone down (even with haste).
  9. ARCHIVED-Archonix Guest

    sliderhouserules wrote:
    The effects will only trigger off of melee attacks, melee combat arts (only for the primary weapon) and hostile damage spells. For melee attacks, the effect will only trigger for attacks made with the imbued weapon.
  10. ARCHIVED-Youngone31 Guest

    DominoDev wrote:
    Thank you Domino. I honenstly did not think you would change this weapon from 1HP to a 1HS sword.
  11. ARCHIVED-Andric_D Guest

    Are the tailored sheaths and pouches also getting a look at with this? with a dirth of decent dropped ones rogues (who's ranged arts require a thrown weapon) are using bows mostly and there was no joy with the faction recipies unlike bows. The lack of decent thrown weapons out side of VP is hopefully just an oversight - if its a problem of other classes themn maybe soem rogue only ones?
  12. ARCHIVED-Youngone31 Guest

    Terron, you are not as smart as you think you are. If you are going to analyze something, I suggest you do a better job of reading people posts and thinking before you make replies. Everyone plays this game differently. Just because something works or does not work for you does not mean it aplies to everyone else.
    Everyone has different situations Terron. Keyword here is Situations.
    For instance, when you said that your conjie tried to tank for her pet and died many times. I could tell you that you do not know how to play your class. That would not be fair to you because I do no know what situation you was in.
  13. ARCHIVED-xsikal Guest

    Archonix wrote:
    Thanks for the clarification!
  14. ARCHIVED-Kenban Guest

    Archonix wrote:
    If this is how the weapon is going to work then the wording needs to reflect this. This proc says any successful attack when it does not actually proc off a successful attack it procs off a hostile spell or a successful attack with that weapon. This is a very general problem with procs currently and many procs wording do not reflect how it actually is triggered.

    On a side note I am back to wishing there was an option which just has pure stats like DPS or CA damage bonus (not a proc based one just CA damage) just something other then a proc.
  15. ARCHIVED-Zerion Guest

    Archonix wrote:
    First,
    Thanks for the clarification.

    But I have to ask... What does SOE has against Ranged attacks? If melee weapons only proc of of melee FINE.. but now its ok for them to proc off of Ranged Hostile Damage spells but not normal Ranged attacks...

    It seem pretty obvious that SOE has an issue with Ranged combat... I just don't understand it....
  16. ARCHIVED-Rijacki Guest

    Zerion@Befallen wrote:
    A -melee- weapon (like a sword) shouldn't proc off a ranged hit. Likewise a ranged weapon shouldn't proc off a melee hit. A ranged proc (i.e. bow imbue) should hit off a ranged hit.

    It's not an issue with ranged combat it's one type of combat not procing another combat type weapon.
  17. ARCHIVED-Kitsune286 Guest

    Spells are limited to "On a successful spell attack" too. =)
  18. ARCHIVED-Lodrelhai Guest

    Rijacki wrote:
    I'll buy that one when someone explains why a proc that won't trigger off a ranged attack will trigger off a ranged spell. This is triggered magical damage, not a crit bonus.

    Also, we seem to have a contradiction here. From pg 19 of this discussion:

    DominoDev wrote:
    vs on this page:

    Archonix wrote:
    So now I'm confused - which one is it?
  19. ARCHIVED-BigChiefJJ Guest

    Rijacki wrote:
    This still doesn't make sense to me. A dagger that I have on my body can proc damage from a successful hostile spell, but cannot get triggered from a ranged attack or a ranged combat art. However this dagger can get triggered by a melee combat art even if I macro combat arts to use the melee CA then turn on my ranged autoattack thus not even swinging the melee weapon?
    Scenario 2: My dirge has two of the new MC weapons equipped, however I open combat with my Ranged CA that roots the mob - I then proceed to cast 4 spells while the mob is rooted - firing ranged autattacks between each spell. My dirge has 8 potential procs before the mob gets within melee range and I still have a bow in my hands. The only difference in this fight between my dirge and ranger is that my ranger is firing ranged CA's and dirge is firing spells. How is this fair to Rangers?
    Will there be something added to these new weapons that would make them desirable to rangers that still want to play out of melee range? A weapon that would have STR and INT with possible Ranged Crit and +CA damage instead of imbed effect similar to what jewelers can make for symbols?
  20. ARCHIVED-Rijacki Guest

    Lodrelhai wrote:
    A mage is a lot less likely to wade in to melee, right? So there is a proc off of magical spells the same as melee to give incentive to a mage to have one of these weapons, yes?

    There are two types of damage, really, physical and spell. Physical is melee and ranged. Spell is.. well.. any spell. Physical damage with a melee weapon can proc a melee proc but not a ranged weapon proc. Physical damage with a ranged weapon, bow or thrown, can proc a ranged proc but not a melee proc. Spell is 100% different.

    AND, Domino's statement was early on. She's the tradeskill dev. She also stated that what she was saying in that early post could be changed with testing or with specific statements by other dev more versed in the mechanics of procs and weapons. Archonix is more authoritive on the mechanics of the weapons himself. So... which one is it? A statement by the tradeskill dev where she states it could be inaccurate on some points and/or subject to later changes vs a more recent statement by a dev who handles itemisation and combat mechanics. You're really having a hard time figuring out which one is more accurate?

Share This Page