Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I don't feel very strongly about the issue regarding 1612 one way or another, but I'm just going to post some warding attempts from my lvl 54 paladin's log so that there's more info for everyone to work with:
lvl 54 elven paladin
36 paladin ranks
20 minor spiritual ranks
21 wisdom bonus (without counting fully bonded weapon)
hunting with 1612 on
Against a lvl 58 rotting Citadel arbalester - either a stronger one or had buffs from other local critters
You gesture at a rotting Citadel arbalester.
A pillar of grey luminescence manifests around a rotting Citadel arbalester.
CS: +256 - TD: +194 + CvA: +8 + d100: +43 == +113
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the Citadel arbalester's body!
... 18 points of damage!
... 10 points of damage!
Blistering strike to leg shrivels skin and causes excruciating pain.
The Citadel arbalester is driven to his knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Against a weaker arbalester
You gesture at a rotting Citadel arbalester.
A pillar of grey luminescence manifests around a rotting Citadel arbalester.
CS: +256 - TD: +162 + CvA: +8 + d100: +8 == +110
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the Citadel arbalester's body!
... 19 points of damage!
... 15 points of damage!
Plasma scorches a hole in the Citadel arbalester's weapon arm!
The Citadel arbalester is stunned!
The Citadel arbalester is driven to his knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Against a decaying citadel guardsman, which are around lvl 56
You gesture at a decaying Citadel guardsman.
A pillar of grey luminescence manifests around a decaying Citadel guardsman.
CS: +256 - TD: +162 + CvA: -2 + d100: +45 == +137
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the Citadel guardsman's body!
... 29 points of damage!
... 10 points of damage!
Plasma strike to neck constricts throat causing the Citadel guardsman to choke.
The Citadel guardsman is stunned!
The Citadel guardsman is driven to her knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Another decaying citadel guardsman
You gesture at a decaying Citadel guardsman.
A pillar of grey luminescence manifests around a decaying Citadel guardsman.
CS: +256 - TD: +177 + CvA: -2 + d100: +66 == +143
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the Citadel guardsman's body!
... 36 points of damage!
... 10 points of damage!
Minor burns to the Citadel guardsman's shield arm.
The Citadel guardsman is driven to her knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Ethereal mage apprentice - around lvl 54, but has elemental buffs
You gesture at an ethereal mage apprentice.
A pillar of grey luminescence manifests around an ethereal mage apprentice.
CS: +256 - TD: +199 + CvA: +19 + d100: +42 == +118
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the mage apprentice's body!
... 23 points of damage!
... 10 points of damage!
Direct assault cleaves straight through the breastbone.
Alas, it mends before you can make a wish.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Putrefied citadel herald - around lvl 60, has spirit buffs
You gesture at a putrefied Citadel herald.
A pillar of grey luminescence manifests around a putrefied Citadel herald.
CS: +256 - TD: +248 + CvA: +17 + d100: +26 == +51
Warded off!
With a faint flicker, the grey luminescence fades away.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>Well, to a degree these 2-3 sentences already exist and are frequently inaccurate. Just look at some of this stuff: https://www.play.net/gs4/info/professions/
I've seen those as well. Many of them are pretty vague and could use an update.
>Updating these would probably be helpful, that's true, but I'm not sure how to capture the nuance even of just the pre-cap and post-cap situations for most professions in a few sentences, never mind when there are usual meaningful thresholds between those points. (Consider bards and the 1035, 425, 60 Manipulation, 75 Manipulation, 30 Air, and 75 Air thresholds all being game changers...)
I don't think these class summaries/guidance need to capture all the nuances of a class. That's what further reading is for and what the free fix skills are there to help with, in case mistakes are made. The game's complexity is admittedly a double edged sword that makes it hard for new people to get into, and makes it interesting for those who are experienced, but downsides of this complexity are probably not something we can completely negate at this point. The class summaries just need to point out very basic stuff like "this class works fine as pure spell casters OR with a big weapon backed up with some magic", "Stick with spell casting only, use weapons at your own risk" or "these guys are expected to wear robes and often use unarmed combat, but still do ok with weapons". Given these are meant to help with absolute newbs, they don't need to get super detailed nor do they need to touch on or encourage most mutant builds, for example ones like war mage which past a certain point, requires a lot more gears and investments for most people to make work. These simple guidance should prevent catastrophic mistakes first and foremost, the fine tuning or exploration of stuff that makes a character unique can come from guides or other sources.
>In a game that has a pretty dizzying number of changes in recent years if you consider the full scope of it, so much so that entire professions can fall into or out of favor, I want the skill system to act as a beacon both for players, in pointing the way toward viable builds, and for dev, in shaping development. When there's a disconnect where a profession looks like they must be good at X based on a spreadsheet of training costs but is bad in practice, then I do see that as problematic even if there's a page somewhere that could give more clarity.
If this is a new game being built from the ground up, tweaking the skill costs to reflect expected builds would probably be fine - but even then, mutant builds can still pop up and lead right back to the same scenario where some skill costs look off for a given build, since that's kind of part of the definition of a mutant build. Furthermore, the game already exists and is balanced in a way where stuff mostly work (opinion may differ based on individuals, please don't hit me). Changing the skill costs now for classes that are currently balanced to send a better signal to newbs is putting the cart before the horse - where some newbs may be slightly less confused, but actual class balance goes out of whack. Just to use clerics as an example, if we want war clerics to be viable, perhaps a push for them to have more AS would be more productive. My understanding is that once upon a time they were intended to be a more physical pure, and the costs reflect that old design direction.
>It's absolutely correct, it applies the same way to those willing to do deep wiki dives, and it's the angle I'm coming from because I've been there before with missing the mark on understanding a profession (several of them, in fact) before rolling it up, ultimately regretting playing them, and I want to as much as possible avoid seeing that happen to others.
This is a fine goal, but once again I'm not sold on the idea of changing skill costs for currently balanced classes/builds as a way to achieve it. A straight forward disclaimer of "This class is not very good with weapon using builds" in the class descriptions probably would have helped prevent you from picking cleric back in the day without hassles and consequences of tweaking skill costs.
I've seen those as well. Many of them are pretty vague and could use an update.
>Updating these would probably be helpful, that's true, but I'm not sure how to capture the nuance even of just the pre-cap and post-cap situations for most professions in a few sentences, never mind when there are usual meaningful thresholds between those points. (Consider bards and the 1035, 425, 60 Manipulation, 75 Manipulation, 30 Air, and 75 Air thresholds all being game changers...)
I don't think these class summaries/guidance need to capture all the nuances of a class. That's what further reading is for and what the free fix skills are there to help with, in case mistakes are made. The game's complexity is admittedly a double edged sword that makes it hard for new people to get into, and makes it interesting for those who are experienced, but downsides of this complexity are probably not something we can completely negate at this point. The class summaries just need to point out very basic stuff like "this class works fine as pure spell casters OR with a big weapon backed up with some magic", "Stick with spell casting only, use weapons at your own risk" or "these guys are expected to wear robes and often use unarmed combat, but still do ok with weapons". Given these are meant to help with absolute newbs, they don't need to get super detailed nor do they need to touch on or encourage most mutant builds, for example ones like war mage which past a certain point, requires a lot more gears and investments for most people to make work. These simple guidance should prevent catastrophic mistakes first and foremost, the fine tuning or exploration of stuff that makes a character unique can come from guides or other sources.
>In a game that has a pretty dizzying number of changes in recent years if you consider the full scope of it, so much so that entire professions can fall into or out of favor, I want the skill system to act as a beacon both for players, in pointing the way toward viable builds, and for dev, in shaping development. When there's a disconnect where a profession looks like they must be good at X based on a spreadsheet of training costs but is bad in practice, then I do see that as problematic even if there's a page somewhere that could give more clarity.
If this is a new game being built from the ground up, tweaking the skill costs to reflect expected builds would probably be fine - but even then, mutant builds can still pop up and lead right back to the same scenario where some skill costs look off for a given build, since that's kind of part of the definition of a mutant build. Furthermore, the game already exists and is balanced in a way where stuff mostly work (opinion may differ based on individuals, please don't hit me). Changing the skill costs now for classes that are currently balanced to send a better signal to newbs is putting the cart before the horse - where some newbs may be slightly less confused, but actual class balance goes out of whack. Just to use clerics as an example, if we want war clerics to be viable, perhaps a push for them to have more AS would be more productive. My understanding is that once upon a time they were intended to be a more physical pure, and the costs reflect that old design direction.
>It's absolutely correct, it applies the same way to those willing to do deep wiki dives, and it's the angle I'm coming from because I've been there before with missing the mark on understanding a profession (several of them, in fact) before rolling it up, ultimately regretting playing them, and I want to as much as possible avoid seeing that happen to others.
This is a fine goal, but once again I'm not sold on the idea of changing skill costs for currently balanced classes/builds as a way to achieve it. A straight forward disclaimer of "This class is not very good with weapon using builds" in the class descriptions probably would have helped prevent you from picking cleric back in the day without hassles and consequences of tweaking skill costs.
<I submit that archery (the Ranged weapon skill) is actually two-handed. Try using a bow one-handed some time, and get back to us about how well that works out....>
Or a crossbow... hand crossbows don't count on the basis they're fictional devices.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
Or a crossbow... hand crossbows don't count on the basis they're fictional devices.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
>A straight forward disclaimer of "This class is not very good with weapon using builds" in the class descriptions probably would have helped prevent you from picking cleric back in the day without hassles and consequences of tweaking skill costs.
Back in the day, far enough back, many professions were different than they are today. Warriors were actually pretty weak without redux, mstrike, and maneuvers. Very few of them bolted except wizards, because 111 just wasn't that cool. Clerics had trouble hunting living creatures effectively except by binding and swinging. Empaths were focused a lot more on healing with the old 800 spell list. The descriptions we see today from yesterday actually did apply, in some cases. Or it's possible they applied to the profession from RoleMaster, but changed as they were implemented here. Clerics are probably more of the latter. The empath-cleric-paladin split is somewhat confusing if you're familiar with classes in other games. For example, paladins don't heal people here. It would explain rogues and bards having higher blunt costs, too, since many of these weapons were heavy and could not be easily concealed.
These things could be spelled out, but the annual fixskill will still probably be necessary to adjust things over time as different expectations are set for different professions. Bolting, for example, is about to change for many professions. Ideally, you could train as you wanted and not have to worry too much about viability, but I think there's a bare minimum anyone is going to need to survive. It becomes more difficult when the reason a player picks a profession changes or goes away. For example, if you mainly play a wizard to enchant, but enchanting changes, then you may not be playing a wizard anymore. Or if you're playing a sorcerer and your best spells change, or if your entire character is built around Voln Fu and it goes away. These are the kinds of things that make setting player expectations very difficult. Not that it shouldn't be done, but maybe writing in how things have changed over time might also give new players perspective on where the design is going.
Back in the day, far enough back, many professions were different than they are today. Warriors were actually pretty weak without redux, mstrike, and maneuvers. Very few of them bolted except wizards, because 111 just wasn't that cool. Clerics had trouble hunting living creatures effectively except by binding and swinging. Empaths were focused a lot more on healing with the old 800 spell list. The descriptions we see today from yesterday actually did apply, in some cases. Or it's possible they applied to the profession from RoleMaster, but changed as they were implemented here. Clerics are probably more of the latter. The empath-cleric-paladin split is somewhat confusing if you're familiar with classes in other games. For example, paladins don't heal people here. It would explain rogues and bards having higher blunt costs, too, since many of these weapons were heavy and could not be easily concealed.
These things could be spelled out, but the annual fixskill will still probably be necessary to adjust things over time as different expectations are set for different professions. Bolting, for example, is about to change for many professions. Ideally, you could train as you wanted and not have to worry too much about viability, but I think there's a bare minimum anyone is going to need to survive. It becomes more difficult when the reason a player picks a profession changes or goes away. For example, if you mainly play a wizard to enchant, but enchanting changes, then you may not be playing a wizard anymore. Or if you're playing a sorcerer and your best spells change, or if your entire character is built around Voln Fu and it goes away. These are the kinds of things that make setting player expectations very difficult. Not that it shouldn't be done, but maybe writing in how things have changed over time might also give new players perspective on where the design is going.
"Clerics had trouble hunting living creatures effectively except by binding and swinging. Empaths were focused a lot more on healing with the old 800 spell list." -- Kandor
Actually, both hunted living & undead just fine because Binding/214 set their defense to "zero + spell effects", which most of the time meant "zero".
And it was pretty safe, too, because you could swing a weapon at parry 100 (what we call 'stance defensive') and it would be attacking at "zero + spell effects [to include Society bonuses]", so Bravery + Heroism + full Council load == +75 attack versus your +0 defense, plus the difference of ThT (which effect we now call AvD), meant you were pretty well guaranteed a hit by "at least as much as your die roll".
Not <cough> that I would have ever stooped to doing something like that... <cough>
(By which you can read that, "Yes, I did precisely that," for a bunch of levels in spectral monks/monastic liches.)
Actually, both hunted living & undead just fine because Binding/214 set their defense to "zero + spell effects", which most of the time meant "zero".
And it was pretty safe, too, because you could swing a weapon at parry 100 (what we call 'stance defensive') and it would be attacking at "zero + spell effects [to include Society bonuses]", so Bravery + Heroism + full Council load == +75 attack versus your +0 defense, plus the difference of ThT (which effect we now call AvD), meant you were pretty well guaranteed a hit by "at least as much as your die roll".
Not <cough> that I would have ever stooped to doing something like that... <cough>
(By which you can read that, "Yes, I did precisely that," for a bunch of levels in spectral monks/monastic liches.)
Monastery critters are in their 20s, and I was pointing more toward effectiveness toward cap with average training in MjS (i.e. much less than 100 ranks). 214 is, however, one of those OP old-school spells discussed recently that lasts a long time, even with a small endroll over 100. The monastery critters were a pushover for clerics with repel, and were (and continue to be) comparatively difficult to hunt for weapon swingers.
In the time frame you made mention to, "cap" (by creature level) was in the high 30s/low 40s, with +/- 25 experience per level differential (so you could only hunt down by -3, not by -9 as now). Healers (Strom, Kayla), Clerics (Sydna, Hilgavolkas), and lockpickers (Artuero, Strom [again]) were really the only ones in the high-40s or more.
Blinding was even worse, because the duration was entirely level based. You could succeed with only a 101, and still get full duration on your target. (It was only -20 for being stunned, but you were not going to be doing anything else.) Palma had a field day with that in the Glad Games (because the mechanics of the match forced both opponents into more offensive/less defensive mode) and just waited to smack people upside the head.
.
Largely, those success margins were necessary, because people were only able to get one (+1) spell per level.
I'm still not entirely sold on the "triple in spell research" being a good thing for game mechanics, but it's probably way too late to change that at this point. (I thought a mere 1 was way too slow, but levels took longer then, too. I kind of think 3 is too high. Fortunately there's a nice middle ground at "two"... but no, I don't think it will change.)
Blinding was even worse, because the duration was entirely level based. You could succeed with only a 101, and still get full duration on your target. (It was only -20 for being stunned, but you were not going to be doing anything else.) Palma had a field day with that in the Glad Games (because the mechanics of the match forced both opponents into more offensive/less defensive mode) and just waited to smack people upside the head.
.
Largely, those success margins were necessary, because people were only able to get one (+1) spell per level.
I'm still not entirely sold on the "triple in spell research" being a good thing for game mechanics, but it's probably way too late to change that at this point. (I thought a mere 1 was way too slow, but levels took longer then, too. I kind of think 3 is too high. Fortunately there's a nice middle ground at "two"... but no, I don't think it will change.)
I more or less agree with Doug's, JTU's, and Kandor's most recent responses to my subtopic all at once. I could find things to quibble with, but would rather emphasize the two main points I agree with:
A - Documentation giving insight into design intent and goals is a good thing.
B - An aspect of a profession changing or disappearing is a challenge for player expectations.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
A - Documentation giving insight into design intent and goals is a good thing.
B - An aspect of a profession changing or disappearing is a challenge for player expectations.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
Hi I'm late to this discussion, but I'm not seeing how these changes matter at all for a bard.
We don't have any bolt spells, so the ability to 2x spell aiming is a skill I can't even use.
We are getting a 1 point reduction in mana control training cost, I don't see that changing much of anything, our manaspellup formula is still crazy underwhelming
Please consider allowing bards to 2x in elemental lore so that we can boost our sonic equipment, and still dabble in some of the other elemental lore benefits.
Please consider lowering the magic hindrance formulas so that its possible to use heavy armor with sufficient over training.
Please give all other professions looking for magical abilities, one spell/or skill that has a chance to kill them, like bard songs do.
Archales
We don't have any bolt spells, so the ability to 2x spell aiming is a skill I can't even use.
We are getting a 1 point reduction in mana control training cost, I don't see that changing much of anything, our manaspellup formula is still crazy underwhelming
Please consider allowing bards to 2x in elemental lore so that we can boost our sonic equipment, and still dabble in some of the other elemental lore benefits.
Please consider lowering the magic hindrance formulas so that its possible to use heavy armor with sufficient over training.
Please give all other professions looking for magical abilities, one spell/or skill that has a chance to kill them, like bard songs do.
Archales
How about when you prep/cast (or incant) a BardSong, if you are already singing it you just get charged the Renewal cost--since you were clearly already willing to pay the [higher] casting cost--and get the spell effect & assessed the castRT, rather than getting NO spell effect + the castRT + a snarky little message?
(As an alternative, I would settle for "NOT getting the castRT" as an acceptable resolution.)
(As an alternative, I would settle for "NOT getting the castRT" as an acceptable resolution.)
>We don't have any bolt spells, so the ability to 2x spell aiming is a skill I can't even use
Runestaff defense is the only possible use I see from it... and surely there should be more interesting ways for a bard to accomplish the same without a completely inaccessible skill.
---
;tune towncrier
Rohese: "... the TownCrier (tune in if you haven’t, it’s without doubt the best thing to ever happen on LNet)"
Xanith: "It's flat out amazing"
Doug: "100.times ^"
Lawronius: The stuff ... the TownCrier team does is incredible.
Runestaff defense is the only possible use I see from it... and surely there should be more interesting ways for a bard to accomplish the same without a completely inaccessible skill.
---
;tune towncrier
Rohese: "... the TownCrier (tune in if you haven’t, it’s without doubt the best thing to ever happen on LNet)"
Xanith: "It's flat out amazing"
Doug: "100.times ^"
Lawronius: The stuff ... the TownCrier team does is incredible.
"With the Backend Update portion:
- Can the 'list' format be updated to be COLUMNAR, rather than line-of-textual? (Easier to read 'cman info' than it is to read 'cman list', for example.) Name. Mnemonic. Rank being gained. Cost of that rank. I would also like to see "of how many", because I do not always remember that "this one only goes to 3" whereas "these half dozen go to 5." I would be fine with "3 [of 5]" in the "rank being gained" column, for example." -- Me, #536
I happened to be on the Test server and faked some LevelUp to see what my Monk will look like a bit in the future...
OMG, "cman list" looks so good laid out in alphabetized columns!!!
Thanks!
- Can the 'list' format be updated to be COLUMNAR, rather than line-of-textual? (Easier to read 'cman info' than it is to read 'cman list', for example.) Name. Mnemonic. Rank being gained. Cost of that rank. I would also like to see "of how many", because I do not always remember that "this one only goes to 3" whereas "these half dozen go to 5." I would be fine with "3 [of 5]" in the "rank being gained" column, for example." -- Me, #536
I happened to be on the Test server and faked some LevelUp to see what my Monk will look like a bit in the future...
OMG, "cman list" looks so good laid out in alphabetized columns!!!
Thanks!
On Monday morning (12/07/20), the previously announced Skill Training adjustments (details linked below) will go live. All characters will receive a FIXSKILL at that time. Please note that FIXSKILLS do not stack, so if you currently have one, you will not gain another.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T3ogxn9RxZVlTVhPNInFl2XwLB7jOWEGHEs9pbHkg8w/edit?usp=sharing
GameMaster Estild
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T3ogxn9RxZVlTVhPNInFl2XwLB7jOWEGHEs9pbHkg8w/edit?usp=sharing
GameMaster Estild
Is the removal of 1612 going to happen with these changes or be held off until the rest of the paladin revamp? I seem to recall it being mentioned in the lively discussions on the topic that we'd get a chance to see everything together.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
The skill adjustment docs takes the stance that squares should be able to 1x in spell aiming relatively cheaply, since they can only 1x anyway, and there's really no harm in letting them dabble for the lulz. Sounds fair.
But by that logic, why am I still be paying 14/3 for pole arm ranks on a sorcerer? Wouldn't it make sense for pures to be able to dabble in 1x weapon skills more cheaply as well?
The skill training adjustment (details linked below) and accompanying FIXSKILL is now live. If you are currently logged into the game, you will need to log out and log back in to have your skill costs adjust.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T3ogxn9RxZVlTVhPNInFl2XwLB7jOWEGHEs9pbHkg8w/edit?usp=sharing
GameMaster Oscuro
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T3ogxn9RxZVlTVhPNInFl2XwLB7jOWEGHEs9pbHkg8w/edit?usp=sharing
GameMaster Oscuro
Below is my wizard who is losing tps and spell ranks due to this change. Having the same ranks in As and Emc i would believe would equal out to having lost nor gained anything but i have lost 2 spell ranks ( it is migrating them back to 79 which i didnt tell it to do ) and i am still losing training points when i log out and back in. I had 52 and saw the message go live about logging out and back in to set this in motion so i did and still i am losing tps if i go hunt. Currently stuck at 39 after having lost who knows how many now,im not gonna bother hunting if im just going to lose more.
Annamari (at level 96), your base skill bonuses, ranks and goals are:
Skill Name | Actual Actual
| Bonus Ranks Goals In-Game Time to Goal
Armor Use..........................| 20 4 4
Physical Fitness...................| 197 97 97
Arcane Symbols.....................| 197 97 97
Magic Item Use.....................| 197 97 97
Spell Aiming.......................| 296 196 196
Harness Power......................| 197 97 97
Elemental Mana Control.............| 197 97 97
Elemental Lore - Air...............| 166 66 66
Elemental Lore - Earth.............| 45 9 9
Elemental Lore - Fire..............| 96 22 22
Perception.........................| 197 97 97
Climbing...........................| 150 50 50
Swimming...........................| 170 70 70
Spell Lists
Major Elemental....................| 100 100
Spell Lists
Minor Elemental....................| 75 75
Spell Lists
Wizard.............................| 81 79 5996 days, 18 hours, 39 minutes
Training Points: 39 Phy 0 Mnt (2650 Phy converted to Mnt)
Looks like at least one change in the document was "canceled" (Paladin Lore cost went up to 0/10, but remained 2x instead of dropping to 1x). Is this a delayed change (for that lore review), or something that isn't going to happen now? Any others that didn't make it through?
- Andreas
This is the only one. I announced paladin lore was going to remain at 2x, but it doesn't look like the document was refreshed after that decision was made.
Viduus
- Andreas
This is the only one. I announced paladin lore was going to remain at 2x, but it doesn't look like the document was refreshed after that decision was made.
Viduus
I'm still losing points as well,roughly at your level. It was explained as this on discord.
NaijinToday at 10:50 AM
If you lose TPs, you probably had too many to begin with. There are things that can happen that cause TPs to desync. Those discrepancies used to be recalculated at level 100 and fixed there. Now it's recalculated on every login.
Another player,Melivn was helpful and explained it that way to me as well,still is a hard pill to swallow when so many are getting tps from this and some are losing tons due to a 'bug' that has existed for years.
My capped wizard had 89 PTPs early this morning....contemplated putting a spell rank into my MjE spells. Logged him back in and now he's around 40. Glad I didn't train in that spell rank, otherwise I would have lost it.
I've seen a lot of folks commenting on how they now have hundreds and hundreds of free TPs. Guess my wizard wasn't special enough to benefit at all from the change.
I've seen a lot of folks commenting on how they now have hundreds and hundreds of free TPs. Guess my wizard wasn't special enough to benefit at all from the change.
That isn't the case for everyone,just trained and while i got tp's i am also 2 spell ranks in the hole still so subtracting that from the mix and i dont end up with enough left to train in things i have been for more levels then we have digits to count on. Could we get a heads up here when this is sorted?
There's currently a bug with inter-level TPs not being allocated correctly after log in. The closer you are to achieving your next level, the more TP deficit you'll notice. We've been working to resolve this issue over the last day. We'll post when it's been resolved. Sorry for the inconvenience.
GameMaster Oscuro
GameMaster Oscuro
I have a level 15 warrior who is currently losing 10 ranks of perception and 6 each in climbing and first aid, which seems like quite a lot more than inter-level. I haven't gained exp or changed stats since before the change.
Those skills don't actually show as going away, weirdly, just in the process constantly. Did I have more training points before than I should have had?
(at level 15), your base skill bonuses, ranks and goals are:
Thanks!
Those skills don't actually show as going away, weirdly, just in the process constantly. Did I have more training points before than I should have had?
(at level 15), your base skill bonuses, ranks and goals are:
| Skill Name | Actual Actual |
| Bonus Ranks Goals In-Game Time to Goal | |
| Two Weapon Combat.................. | 128 34 34 |
| Armor Use.......................... | 148 48 48 |
| Combat Maneuvers................... | 122 31 31 |
| Blunt Weapons...................... | 128 34 34 |
| Multi Opponent Combat.............. | 70 15 15 |
| Physical Fitness................... | 124 32 32 |
| Dodging............................ | 120 30 30 |
| Survival........................... | 30 6 6 |
| Perception......................... | 74 16 6 0 minutes |
| Climbing........................... | 30 6 0 0 minutes |
| First Aid.......................... | 30 6 0 0 minutes |
| Strength (STR): 87 (18) ... 87 (18) |
| Constitution (CON): 83 (16) ... 83 (16) |
| Dexterity (DEX): 87 (23) ... 87 (23) |
| Agility (AGI): 87 (33) ... 87 (33) |
| Discipline (DIS): 73 (-4) ... 73 (-4) |
| Aura (AUR): 75 (17) ... 75 (17) |
| Logic (LOG): 72 (11) ... 72 (11) |
| Intuition (INT): 65 (7) ... 65 (7) |
| Wisdom (WIS): 55 (2) ... 55 (2) |
| Influence (INF): 35 (3) ... 35 (3) |
| Level 0 Stats for Elf Warrior |
| Strength (STR): 80 |
| Constitution (CON): 80 |
| Dexterity (DEX): 80 |
| Agility (AGI): 80 |
| Discipline (DIS): 70 |
| Aura (AUR): 70 |
| Logic (LOG): 70 |
| Intuition (INT): 60 |
| Wisdom (WIS): 50 |
| Influence (INF): 20 |
Thanks!
The bug is on the calculation of the thresholds for 1x or 2x.
So for level 15, your 16th and 17th ranks should be charged at 1x, similarly your 33rd and 34th ranks should be charged at 2x.
However, at cap, this changes from Level +2 to Level +1.
From my understanding with Oscuro, the system wide forced recalc job was initially created to solve for capped individuals, who would never experience a levelup, and there was no recalculation available anywhere. However, this impacted <100 characters by artificially reducing their skill thresholds.
So it's not about PTP or MTP, it's about how many skills you have higher than 1x, and how many times it's calculating 2x. When I take a look at your 15 warrior, I can see many of those things adding up on many sides, which it seems manifested themselves as climbing/first aid.
So for level 15, your 16th and 17th ranks should be charged at 1x, similarly your 33rd and 34th ranks should be charged at 2x.
However, at cap, this changes from Level +2 to Level +1.
From my understanding with Oscuro, the system wide forced recalc job was initially created to solve for capped individuals, who would never experience a levelup, and there was no recalculation available anywhere. However, this impacted <100 characters by artificially reducing their skill thresholds.
So it's not about PTP or MTP, it's about how many skills you have higher than 1x, and how many times it's calculating 2x. When I take a look at your 15 warrior, I can see many of those things adding up on many sides, which it seems manifested themselves as climbing/first aid.
The bug that was causing missing training points from intralevel training should now be resolved. If you're currently logged in, please log out and back in for the update. Everyone has been granted another FIXSKILL. If you notice any other discrepancies, please let us know.
GameMaster Estild
GameMaster Estild
| notAvaia, player of |
| Me-the-Wizard lost 5 spell ranks. Yesterday I had 31 Wizard spell ranks(which I have had for a long time now). Logging in tonight I have 26. No migration, no warning, no option, just poof gone. |
Please post or email me the full output from INFO START and SKILL, and the amount of experience your character has. We can then manually check your TP calculations.
GameMaster Estild
Relevant Stats and Skills -
>info startLevel 0 Stats for XXXXXX, Dark Elf Wizard
Strength (STR): 60
Constitution (CON): 50
Dexterity (DEX): 85
Agility (AGI): 79
Discipline (DIS): 83
Aura (AUR): 75
Logic (LOG): 78
Intuition (INT): 70
Wisdom (WIS): 50
>skill XXXXXX (at level 59), your current skill bonuses and ranks (including all modifiers) are:
Skill Name | Current Current
| Bonus Ranks
Armor Use..........................| 40 8
Multi Opponent Combat..............| 5 1
Physical Fitness...................| 159 59
Arcane Symbols.....................| 220 120
Magic Item Use.....................| 220 120
Spell Aiming.......................| 222 122
Harness Power......................| 160 60
Elemental Mana Control.............| 160 60
Elemental Lore - Air...............| 90 20
Elemental Lore - Earth.............| 50 10
Elemental Lore - Fire..............| 90 20
Elemental Lore - Water.............| 50 10
Perception.........................| 160 60
Climbing...........................| 105 25
Swimming...........................| 105 25
First Aid..........................| 82 18
Trading............................| 40 8
Spell Lists
Major Elemental....................| 59
Spell Lists
Minor Elemental....................| 55
Spell Lists
Wizard.............................| 26
Training Points: 87 Phy 0 Mnt (1540 Phy converted to Mnt)
>info startLevel 0 Stats for XXXXXX, Dark Elf Wizard
Strength (STR): 60
Constitution (CON): 50
Dexterity (DEX): 85
Agility (AGI): 79
Discipline (DIS): 83
Aura (AUR): 75
Logic (LOG): 78
Intuition (INT): 70
Wisdom (WIS): 50
>skill XXXXXX (at level 59), your current skill bonuses and ranks (including all modifiers) are:
Skill Name | Current Current
| Bonus Ranks
Armor Use..........................| 40 8
Multi Opponent Combat..............| 5 1
Physical Fitness...................| 159 59
Arcane Symbols.....................| 220 120
Magic Item Use.....................| 220 120
Spell Aiming.......................| 222 122
Harness Power......................| 160 60
Elemental Mana Control.............| 160 60
Elemental Lore - Air...............| 90 20
Elemental Lore - Earth.............| 50 10
Elemental Lore - Fire..............| 90 20
Elemental Lore - Water.............| 50 10
Perception.........................| 160 60
Climbing...........................| 105 25
Swimming...........................| 105 25
First Aid..........................| 82 18
Trading............................| 40 8
Spell Lists
Major Elemental....................| 59
Spell Lists
Minor Elemental....................| 55
Spell Lists
Wizard.............................| 26
Training Points: 87 Phy 0 Mnt (1540 Phy converted to Mnt)
I've verified these stats against my spreadsheet and it appears that your number of TPs is dead on. You're 2x in Arcane Symbols and 1x in EMC as a Wizard, which are the two main skills that changed cost. The cost change leads to 4 PTPs rank difference, so 4*60 is 240 which was how many more TPs you were charged vs before the update. Your 5 spell ranks were auto untrained to handle that TP deficit. The auto-untraining just takes the TPs from the skill that's lowest down on the SKILLs list. You don't have to be satisfied with how it allocated your skills. This is why we granted you a FIXSKILL, so you can adjust them to how you see fit given the new TP costs. Sorry you were one of the few who ended up with a deficit, but in the long run, I think the changes are good for Wizards (and everyone else who was adjusted).
GameMaster Oscuro
GameMaster Oscuro
