FANDOM


m
m (Talk:Req moved to Talk:Requirement: already discussed on talk page - no need for tag)

Revision as of 20:39, March 30, 2007

Rename?

I think this should be renamed as either Requirement or Weapon requirement, then leave "Req" as a redirect (then add the redirect to the abbreviations category).
I also noticed that some of the information in the article contradicts information at Weapon#Linked Attribute. Was there a program change, or is one (or both) of the articles mistaken? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:51, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Agreed on the rename/redirect. And where does the testing info even come from? The article cites several testers, confirmed results... but from where? — HarshLanguage Qswearing small 16:58, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
GWG iirc. Also, "Requirement" would be the best name for this. -Auron Elit Druin 17:09, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


  • Depending on what the name of this article changes to, a disambiguation may be good idea to separate this article from ... Required Hero: Koss (in-game usage) or even as opposed to Requirement (as in Hunted! requires Consulate Docks (Mission)) (GuildWiki usage)
  • Listed is a scheme for damage reduction on melee weapons, bows and spears... I presume this scheme would be the same for wands and staves?
  • Does armor on a shield operate similarly to offhands in a flat decreased armor? Or does it operate more similarly to weapons with a graduated decline in armor value?
  • As I recall hearing a long time ago, falling short of a requirement will only affect the linked statistic. For any sort of weapon, this would mean damage. For offhands, this would mean energy. For shields, it would mean armor.
  • From a quick test with a req 9 Collector's staff: there was no variation in energy despite changing the attribute related to the requirement.
  • By extension from the staves, the mitigation of Gain would not come into play with Inscriptions (or inherent bonuses that would be Inscriptions if it was an Elonian weapon) such as E+5 (while Enchanted)?
  • Since I recall no wands with attribute-linked energy, I presume the table applies only to offhands? The table then would not apply to a Holy Rod.
  • From a quick test, it seems that there is no differentiation between just short (r8 with a r9 offhand) and very short (r4 with a r9 offhand)3. Both resulted in a Gain of E+3. A few quick tests followed this trend and showed some other interesting results.
Gain Req Attrib
>= Req
Attrib
< Req
E+10 r10 E+10 E+6
E+7 r5 E+7 E+3
E+7 r2 E+7 E+6
E+6 r5 E+61 E+31
E+12 r13 n/a E+6 2
E+12 r12 E+12 E+6
E+12 r11 E+12 E+6
E+12 r10 E+12 E+6
E+12 r9 E+12 E+3 3
E+12 r9 n/a E+6 2, 4
E+12 r8 E+12 E+6
1This particular offhand had E+5 (while Health is above 50%). Whether the linked attribute was above or below the requirement, the bonus energy was present. The listed Gain is the difference.
2In contrast to the rest of the list, these offhands are for a profession differing from the primary and secondary of character used for testing. Thus, the attribute is presumably counts as rank 0, since it is unavailable.
3This item is a green and was used to test the attrib 8 vs attrib 4 with a req 9 offhand.
4This item is an Elonian gold offhand. It also has a Focus Core of Endurance, H+30, which was in effect. See note 2

Adeira Tasharo 01:35, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


Due to a lack of further discussion, I have made some preliminary edits. Pending more in-depth research, I will eventually update the table for Offhand Energy. I do not presently feel qualified to test the weapons, so I leave that someone else.

Adeira Tasharo 14:48, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.