Multi Opponent and Weapon Bonus Pool on 01/14/2013 11:02 AM CST
Links-arrows 1
Reply Reply

Multi Opponent is not being added to the weapon bonus pool in the latest transfer.
Reply Reply
Re: Multi Opponent and Weapon Bonus Pool on 01/14/2013 11:02 AM CST
Links-arrows 2
Reply Reply
> Multi Opponent is not being added to the weapon bonus pool in the latest transfer.

How did you manage to measure that?
Reply Reply
Re: Multi Opponent and Weapon Bonus Pool on 01/14/2013 11:08 AM CST
Links-arrows 3
Reply Reply


It hasn't in any interation of test so far.


I've had at most between 50 and 67 ranks of weapon bonus pool for each copy, after losing 500+ ranks of multi.
Reply Reply
Re: Multi Opponent and Weapon Bonus Pool on 01/14/2013 11:09 AM CST
Links-arrows 4
Reply Reply


Any word on when the test copys will be today?
Reply Reply
Re: Multi Opponent and Weapon Bonus Pool on 01/14/2013 12:31 PM CST
Links-arrows 5
Reply Reply
> Multi Opponent is not being added to the weapon bonus pool in the latest transfer.

> How did you manage to measure that?

I only have ranks in weapons that will not be combining with the exception of ME (57 ranks) and MB (6 rank). My MO is 392 ranks. My small edged will be grandfathers from 349 to 395. I have no weapon bonus pool in test.

There could be only two explanations. Grandfathering from 349 to 395 ranks completely uses my bonus pool, or MO is not be added to the bonus pool.

Multi Opponent - 392.20
Parry Ability - 384.41
Light Edged - 349.00
Brawling - 325.23
Offhand Weapon - 283.80
Light Thrown - 278.50
Heavy Edged - 222.35
Heavy Blunt - 222.23
Twohanded Blunt - 219.73
Twohanded Edged - 218.37
Short Staff - 218.33
Short Bow - 212.49
Pikes - 212.23
Heavy Thrown - 210.03
Light Crossbow - 205.31
Light Blunt - 204.83
Slings - 198.00
Medium Edged - 57.81
Medium Blunt - 6.63
Reply Reply
Re: Multi Opponent and Weapon Bonus Pool on 01/14/2013 12:35 PM CST
Links-arrows 6
Reply Reply
> I only have ranks in weapons that will not be combining with the exception of ME (57 ranks) and MB (6 rank).

Fair enough.
Reply Reply