|
|
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2003
|
patch 1.45
i bumped the sharpen weapon skill from level 8 to level 9
sharpened a 2 handed sword that required 24 agility. now the sword requires 50 agility to use. this sword had been sharpened to require 24 agility with the previous level of the sharpen skill. similar things have happened, such that the agility requirements have almost doubled on all the weapons when sharpened with level 9. what's up?
thanks.
EDIT:
since i didn't take the information down, i decided to sharpen a found weapon: [nocando] sword.
before sharpening: damage = 37-79 agility 12 after sharpening: damage = 114-180 agility 54
sharpening level = 9
Last edited by everyman420; 02/06/04 12:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2003
|
patch 1.45 fixed the agility requirements so that there once again becomes a consequence to sharpening. prior patches had made it so that you could sharpen without (much) regard to agility - wholly unbalanced IMO. 1.45 did not change the requirements for any previously sharpened weapons however. this also seems immensely fair. the one caveat to this is that if you took a weapon sharpened to (let's say) level 8 in patch 1.44 and it had an agility requirement of 28 - then patched to 1.45 and added a 9th level of sharpen - your weapon would now take on the characteristics of a weapon that had gone through it's sharpening life as a 1.45 weapon with a 'new' agility requirement of 56! yikes! in other words, if your agility is not that high and you have sharpened weapons carried over from patch 1.44 (or earlier), make sure you save prior to adding any additional levels of sharpening. they will become patch 1.45 weapons when you do! hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2003
|
ok, well i figured as much. so i just started pumping points into agility. had to spend some skill points to bump the summoning doll agility as well. i think we need to make up our minds, because apparently the current sharpening skill results were similar if not the same as the original version before all the patches, and then at some point they decided to modify the skill so that the agility requirements weren't so steep and the damage wasn't getting amplified so much. this was somewhere between 1.32 and 1.42. I guess it became necessary to put things as they were. .:heh:.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2003
|
i've only sharpen to level 9 (act III), but as i put virtually ALL my attribute points into agility and strength, attaining the 56 required agility for my one hander was relatively easy. however, if sharpen proceeds upward of say level 13-14 and the agility requirement becomes 80-something, it will indeed start to require gold charming my itmes.
of course, the bow still kicks any swords butt! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2003
|
.:heh:. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2004
|
I never understood this, why would you need to be more agile to handle a sharper weapon? I know it makes it equal out more but it doesn't make sense. It would be alot better if you accidentally slipped and chopped off a finger or something on higher sharpen levels and lower agility, that would make sense. I think putting lots of proficiency in certain weapons should also put in a little proficiency in similar weapons, like proficiency in two handed swords would mean you would be quite good with a single handed sword
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2003
|
i guess that was the idea with the agility, that you know you cannot wield the newly sharpened and thus rebalanced sword without chopping off a leg, if your agility isn't enough, therefore you cannot (read: willnot) do it. ??
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2004
|
Ahh I spose that makes sense, I could be fussy and say it's unbalanced though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> but that's probably only my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|