View Full Forums : GoD AA cost MAY be adjusted


elty
08-30-2004, 10:12 PM
I think this is somewhere in the Dev chat transcript. They feel GoD AA cost is too high and consider reducing it. What do you tink that need to be reduced?

Let me begin what I think

Healing ward for cleric/druid/shaman, DD ward for wiz: from 3/6/9/12/15 to 3/3/3/3/3

Dot critical: either up the crit rate to comparable to FoM 3, or change from 5/10/15 to 4/5/6

Advance tracking: from 5/5/5/5/5 to 3/3/3/3/3

Quicken Curing: 5/10/15 to 4/4/4

FoMM: 3/6/9 and please unerf the crit rate to pre GoD level (wiz forum ahs a proof that SOE lwoer the crit rate after GoD release)

Secondary Forte: Make 2nd spec up to 200, or reduce to 5 from 15.

all other seems reasonable

oh, and can we have some unique druid AA please? I lose count of how many times I say that.

Aluaeia
08-31-2004, 12:31 AM
If it were entirely up to me

Make SCS 2/4/6 like the int caster version.

Dot Crits 3/6/9 or even 2/4/6

Healing ward 3/1/1/1/1 (HELLO ASSTASTIC ABILITIES YAAAY) Seriously, why is this thing so crappy?

Secondary Forte spec up to 200 and 10 aa or keep as is and 5 aa

Quickened Curing 2/4/6 or 3/3/3

Advanced Tracking, haha, uhh, 2/2/2/2/2 I guess. Don't really care, I'll never buy it.

FoMM 3/6/9 or 5/5/5

Persistent Casting, uh, make it do something useful. then it might be worth 2/4/6.

Packrat, uh, 3/3/3/3/3

Swift Journey 3/6 or 5/5, it's a pretty good deal though even at 5/10 imo for non-sow classes (which means it's kinda a ripoff for us :/ ).

Convalescence, uh, seriously, who the hell cares? Oh fine. 2/2.

Lasting Breath 2/2

Tudamorf
08-31-2004, 02:14 AM
For the most part, GoD AA costs are just fine the way they are. A few are a bit overpriced -- like the last steps of Quickened MGB and healing ward, and pet affinity -- but they only require a minor adjustment. Some of the other AAs need to be balanced, but in terms of the distribution of AAs, not the total. In other words, instead of 5, 10, and 15 point steps, each conferring the same benefit per step, there should be three 10-point steps.

Aluaeia's suggested values are far too low and would be unbalancing. Even though AAs are much easier for the average player to acquire now as compared to the beginning of PoP, Aluaeia is making the AAs as cheap as, or even cheaper than, PoP AAs. Not only will that cause players to burn through the AA content too fast, but also many powergamers who bought those skills will suddenly find themselves with a massive reserve of AA in time for OoW, which would allow the powergamers to burn through OoW faster than they should.

Aluaeia
08-31-2004, 02:55 AM
Not only will that cause players to burn through the AA content too fast, but also many powergamers who bought those skills will suddenly find themselves with a massive reserve of AA in time for OoW, which would allow the powergamers to burn through OoW faster than they should.

I roll 8d6 save vs care.

Tiane
08-31-2004, 05:23 AM
I roll 8d6 save vs care.

rofl... that was rude but it actually made me laugh out loud 8P

As for burning through AA content too fast... please... even before GoD was released, the number of people with maxed AA's on any particular server could be counted on one hand. They are the tiny tiny tiny tiny minority, and SOE needs to realize that most of their income doesnt come from them. Nor does it even make for good game design... placing rediculous AA/time costs on very very marginal upgrades to abilities makes them seem (rightly) pointless to most non-obsessive players.

As for them actually getting around to reducing the GoD aa's like they said they would at the Summit... dont hold your breath.

Jocund
08-31-2004, 08:05 AM
Secondary Forte: Make 2nd spec up to 200, or reduce to 5 from 15.
Since all early purchasers got their second spec to 200, I'd say choice B of the above would be approriate (and btw, I am one of the double 200 ones - just got it done in the nick of time.)

Wyte
08-31-2004, 11:21 AM
Since all early purchasers got their second spec to 200, I'd say choice B of the above would be approriate (and btw, I am one of the double 200 ones - just got it done in the nick of time.)You mean that still hasn't been resolved? That just pisses me off about SOE.

Tappin
08-31-2004, 12:02 PM
Nope, and the tracking hasn't either. I guess it's too hard to run a "Set TrackingSkill = MaximumTrackingSkill Where TrackingSkill > MaximumTrackingSkill" ?

I have more tracking than I should. Just wish I'd gotten in on the 200 secondary spec before they nerfed it :P

Aaeamdar
08-31-2004, 01:35 PM
Me too. Could have bought it on day 1, but they said it was 100, so I went for SCS3 and FoMM1 instead. /sigh.

Fairweather Pure
08-31-2004, 05:20 PM
They will never adjust GoD AAs and issue credit. It's been too long since it's release. Just don't even talk about it.

duralupal
08-31-2004, 06:31 PM
It's actually not that easy to resolve unlike tracking because which specialty at 200 is the secondary and which is the primary? Can't reset 'em both, can't reset randomly! (though that may be interesting :P). Doubt VERY much date of the last skill mod is available via a query. Would require some user input, doubt they'll be adding something like that to "fix" 2% of the population base, and a fix that'll piss that 2% off to boot. Heck, I think wasn't the bard piercing cap lowered WAY back when? And some bards are walking around with a higher than normal piercing skill from that change from ancient times?

If they do scale back GoD AA costs I wouldn't expect anything other than a very very modest reduction, they aren't going to want to flood the player base with a bunch of newly spendable AA.

Mannwin Woobie
08-31-2004, 10:36 PM
Can't reset 'em both

Sure you can.

duralupal
08-31-2004, 11:19 PM
Ok, you *could*, but talk about pissing off some people big time.

Edit: Especially when you figure that some are going to miss the fact of the change and accidently get a skill up in the school they don't want and so will have to reset their spec. Resetting both would be one of the dumber things SoE could do.

Aaeamdar
09-01-2004, 01:19 AM
you reset both to 51.

Tudamorf
09-01-2004, 03:03 AM
Sure you can.And cause a massive uproar by the player base when they have to earn back the skill?

When I was trying to get my secondary forte up to 200, skill gains were roughly 10x slower than the average skill -- much slower than I remember them being back in 1999. It could take a casual player weeks or months to earn their 200 again, and in the meantime they would be at a mana disadvantage.

There is no need to upset every player just because a tiny PvV minority took advantage of the AA before it was nerfed.

Mannwin Woobie
09-01-2004, 08:09 AM
OK, now in all honesty, those who ran to get their secondary spec to 200 knew (or should have known from the AA description) that they were cheating/exploiting, or whatever. I doubt you could have accidentally gotten it to 200. I could see 150, maybe even 180 because you couldn't stop it from going up. But we all know advances after that are very few and far between.

They could easily, and quite fairly, reset. If you have a secondary spec above 100 (but not at 200), it gets set to 100. If you have two at 200, they both go back to 100, maybe a little less so you don't accidentally advance the wrong one.

Come on, you know you took advantage of a bug. Do you really think you are 'entitled' to two specs at 200 because you were slick enough to pull one off?

Personally, I don't care if they reset or not. But those that exploited/cheated/whatever have no one to blame but themselves.

Macnbaish
09-01-2004, 02:23 PM
Well in that case.. if a query type fix would work you would just check to see if whatever skill was identified as the secondary spec was over 100. If so.. reduce it to 100. Easy. :dance:

Delores Mulva
09-01-2004, 06:06 PM
Secondary Forte
9162 This ability allows you to advance a second magical specialization past the specialization limit (50). After purchasing this ability, the next specialization to go over 50 becomes your secondary forte.

This was the original text for Secondary Forte, Mannwin. No mention of the 100 cap - this was added AFTER the error where people could get to 200. So how should people have known?

Grygonos Thunderwulf
09-01-2004, 07:10 PM
Set TrackingSkill = MaximumTrackingSkill Where TrackingSkill > MaximumTrackingSkill" ICK... no vb-esque code :P


UPDATE tblPlayerSkills
SET Tracking = (SELECT DefaultMax
FROM tblSkillMax
WHERE Class = 'DRU' AND
Skill = 'Tracking') +
((SELECT SkillLevel
FROM tblPlayerAA
WHERE Skill = 'Advanced Tracking') * 5)

WHERE Tracking > (SELECT DefaultMax
FROM tblSkillMax
WHERE Class = 'DRU' AND
Skill = 'Tracking') +
((SELECT SkillLevel
FROM tblPlayerAA
WHERE Skill = 'Advanced Tracking') * 5) AND
Class = 'DRU'
Forgive sucky formatting .. code tags aren't quite literal on vbulletin (anyhow I'm just pokin around.. that SQL statement assumes alot)

duralupal
09-01-2004, 09:59 PM
Exploited? What were casters supposed to do when they hit 101? Stop casting those spells? :confused: I'm sorry bob, I can't heal you right now, you see, it would be an exploit potentially. Did some sit around and train up? Assuredly, but whether they raced upwards or did it over the couple days naturally, there were gonna be people well above 100.

If you reset and make people earn it back you're penalizing them for having had the AA available on day 1, and that's fair how? Sorry, but I find it far fairer that if somebody had put in the work ahead of time to bank it, then SoE says hey, good for you, it was our bad.

Wyte
09-02-2004, 01:05 AM
There is no need to upset every player just because a tiny PvV minority took advantage of the AA before it was nerfed.No, but leaving the disparity in error does give just cause to be upset. Either allow 200 for everyone or fix it.

Or did I misread that, and it actually means "I deserve the 200 cap because I got it early, and don't whine 'cuz you can only get to 100"? I sure hope that's not what you meant. :P

Sunwukong Stormrider
09-02-2004, 01:27 AM
Sorry to go back so far, but where and when did devs actually mentioned that they will be "Evaluating" GoD AA cost? Anyone have any actual links? im quite skeptical.

Tudamorf
09-02-2004, 01:52 AM
Sorry to go back so far, but where and when did devs actually mentioned that they will be "Evaluating" GoD AA cost? Anyone have any actual links? im quite skeptical.http://www.thedruidsgrove.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9217

<i>[21:32] The cost of AAs in Omens of War is not fixed at the moment, but I'm expecting them to be priced below the level of Gates AAs. I'll be taking a look at the cost of Gates AAs in the near future and may make adjustments</i>

Mikar
09-02-2004, 03:14 AM
Obviously the 200 error should be fixed. Saying otherwise is like saying that those who got the multiple BiC augments early should be allowed to continue to use them all.

As for the costs - some of them are indeed stupid - but I dont really care either way about those. Atleast the playing field is level.

Sunwukong Stormrider
09-02-2004, 12:04 PM
Thanks Tuda, I just bought Run 4 on my SK and seeing run 5 costing 10 points makes me faint. I'm going to finish up some Luclin/PoP AAs in the meanwhile, i hope they follow through with this.

Mannwin Woobie
09-02-2004, 12:15 PM
This was the original text for Secondary Forte, Mannwin. No mention of the 100 cap - this was added AFTER the error where people could get to 200. So how should people have known?

It was changed in test, BEFORE it went live. If you recall, we had quite a few discussions here before release date about the value of it after it was nerfed on Test to 100 cap.

People knew. Sure it would be hard to stop your skill from advancing, but for it to get all the way to 200 before they fixed it, it would be my guess you were "training" it, not just getting it from normal grouping.

Delores Mulva
09-02-2004, 03:05 PM
The discussions were here, not in game. The description in game did not mention the 100 cap until after the error was made and fixed. A player who didn't follow message boards would have no idea what the cap should or should not be.

MadroneDorf
09-02-2004, 03:46 PM
I'm pretty sure that characters are stored in flat form, not database form, so changes like that might be a little harder then a simple if then statement.

High AA cost is something thats debatable, some of them are obviously overpriced, however having some being exspensive is a not a bad thing. Having a few AA that cost a lot for minimal gain for AA fiends isnt that bad. Once again thats not to say that some definatly dont need to be readjusted.1

Tiane
09-02-2004, 05:22 PM
Skills get reset on Test all the time. Bards had their meditiation reset to 1, and int casters who had research >200 had it reset down to 200.

The issue isnt whether or not they have the ability fix the problem. The fact is that, knowing or not, anyone with a secondary spec >100 and any druid with tracking too high for their AA level is the victim of a bug. Another fact is that people here boasted about going to various zones and raising their skills, so this bug was well known and a number of people did indeed take advantage of it.

So, we have a bug that benefits players, some players abused it, and the loophole that allowed it has been closed. However, the bug-ees still have skills to which they are not entitiled. Why hasnt SOE run the query to fix this? They have the ability, as shown by their actions on test (and live too, a few times over the years.) The answers are:

a) They dont care.
b) They dont consider the increased skill levels that much of a benefit. Which begs the question why they charged such rediculous AA prices for them in the first place.
c) One or more of the devs took advantage of this bug on live and doesnt want to lose their skills.

And that's about all there is to say on that.

Tudamorf
09-02-2004, 05:41 PM
The answers are:
Or d) the harm to the entire player base <i>with</i> a wipe is greater than the harm to the entire player base <i>without</i> a wipe.

Choice (d) is the real issue that surfaces with every wipe-or-no-wipe-after-bug-X-is-discovered argument. Remember that the <i>least</i> invasive way they could wipe would be to search for all players who bought Secondary Forte, and reset all specializations higher than 100 to 100, which would necessarily mean they would lose up to 100 points of legitimately earned skill.

So, the harm to the player base <i>with</i> a wipe: <i>every</i> player who bought Secondary Forte and increased their skill to the "legal" limit will be forced to sit hours or days gaining back that skill. In terms of total man-hours, this number could be staggering.

The harm to player base <i>without</i> a wipe: <b>none</b>, other than a little jealousy by some players that a small PvV crowd has a higher skill.

Obviously, a wipe isn't warranted.

Tappin
09-02-2004, 05:47 PM
Considering that you can get your alt or evoc specialization from 100 to 200 by casting level 1 spells on yourself while waiting on a Ldon Group or raid, I don't see the big harm. Worst case screnario, you would take a few days to get back up to max.

I re-specced twice (once when they made druids decent heals and once after I bought 2ndary Forte and stupidly followed it with a dot), so I speak from experience.

Tiane
09-02-2004, 06:09 PM
And Tuda, you are assuming that they have no way of detecting when a skill increase last took place on a skill. That's a false assumption.

Aaeamdar
09-02-2004, 07:38 PM
I'd prefer all specs be reset to 50 than allow those that have their spec over 100 to keep it. Or, preferably, I'd like them to wake up to the fact that it shoudl always have been set at 200 for 15 AA. But the current condition where some get the benefit (most, intentionally exploiting a bug, IMO) and others don't is stupid. Tracking too (mine is like 180 and should most certainly be reset to 125 - I bought no AAs for it).

duralupal
09-02-2004, 08:03 PM
No way in heck they go through rollback log files to check the date, the work to do that for such a larger player base would be nasty just in terms of processor cycles -- and that's even assuming they still have files from that long ago, which isn't a given (probably they have them, but on tape, so triple the nastiness). I doubt very much that they have a timestamp stored in any other way.

Really though, people need to stop slinging around "exploiting" and "cheating". Some folk had the AA saved up the first day and bought the skill, it's hardly their fault that it was bugged. Whether or not some sat around and skilled up to 200 (and I know some did) is honestly irrelevant, even if nobody did that the same question would remain as folk would be above 100 just by virtue of having been playing (I'm not at 200 myself, I didn't sit around and skill up, I'm at I think 183 just from playing). To be upset at folk and slinging VERY loaded words is about as unfair as you can get, frankly it oozes of simple bad spiritedness.

Tiane
09-02-2004, 08:55 PM
What's bad spirited is defending an inequity. It doesnt matter, in the end, *how* you or others got the bonus skill points. The fact remains that you shouldnt have gotten them and no matter how you rationalize it, you should never have gotten the increases and you cannot defend the fact that you still have them. It's quite simple. If you benefitted from the bug and you now do not want to see the bug's side effects fixed, you are a hypocrite. It's no different than them deleting duped platinum... it doesnt matter how you received it, the fact is that it was artificially created and should not exist. Expunge it. Or if you benefitted from an error on your tax return and got an extra $1,000, even though in every other respect your income/return was identical to 20 others who didnt get that bonus 1,000. You think you deserve that extra money? You think you should get to keep it? It's not a lottery, and the world doesnt work like that.

And people need to stop assuming what things are or are not possible regarding data mining of character records. There's a *lot* of information stored these days, and storage is cheap. And you wont find any official mention on what they can dig up precisely because they dont want you to know and take advantage of any holes that may or may not exist in the records. That's one SOE strategy I can certainly understand and support. But when you assume that they *cant* look something up, you are 90% of the time assuming incorrectly.

duralupal
09-02-2004, 09:09 PM
Actually, I didn't say that I thought it shouldn't be fixed, though I don't think it's as straightforward as some would say because most practical solutions contain some unfairness as well. Nor did I say it wasn't possible to get the last updates, what I said was that it wouldn't be that easy to do technically, the point here being it's not necessarily something that SoE can blink and do in 30 minutes. What isn't "fair" is somebody who doesn't have higher than 100 acting as though the people who are higher than 100 are like plat dupers -- your own example -- it's night and day how it happened, nobody set out with the dupers' desire to cheat and in order *not* to go past 101 you'd have to flat out stop playing. Sling the insults all you want, discussing how it can be fixed and the difficulties associated is one thing, projecting all sorts of motives to people when those motives weren't there is just silly.

Aaeamdar
09-02-2004, 09:17 PM
Well, its certainly possible the people over 100 siply made a terrible decision and then got lucky. During beta when it was at 200, it was my first AA I planned on getting. BEFORE release it became 100 and made it a marginal at best AA to get.

So, the people with it over 100 either made a very bad choice of AA or they knew that even though it was supposed to be restricted to 100, it was infact going to 200 due to a bug. The later are essentially just like plat dupers, yes.

Tracking is a little different because the only way to not get tracking up would be to refuse to use it at all. It was not a matter of holding off on purchasing a broken AA. Both should clearly be fixed, but I think Taine is fair in suggesting there is not much difference between people with a second spec over 100 and people who used bugs to dupe plat.

No matter though, the arguement for getting to KEEP the ability gained through a bug is untennable, regardless of the intent of the players currently benefitting from it.

duralupal
09-02-2004, 10:44 PM
I doubt very much whether anybody *knew* it was gonna be bugged, maybe, just maybe, those people who bought it on day 1 already had a lot of AA so that even at the inflated cost for lower benefit it still beat anything they had left to buy.

Edit: Or perhaps nature's boon should have been the purchase? :D

Aaeamdar
09-02-2004, 10:48 PM
Number of AAs has nothing to do with it. You could have 30 banked. At 15 AAs for +50 spec, that is a terrible buy for half of your banked AAs. Its a pretty good buy if you know you can get it to +150 though. At any rate, I did not discount the possibility that people made really bad AA decisions then got lucky when the AA they bought did more than what it was supposed to. Does not matter. It is not a supportable possition that some people who paid 15 AAs shoudl get +150 spec while most get +50. Either the AA needs to be fixed so that it allows 200 spec or those with 2 specs above 100 need that bug gained advantage fixed.

duralupal
09-02-2004, 11:09 PM
Number of AA has everything to do with it....Its not a question of its overall value, it's a question of it's value compared to what else you've still available to you to buy. At ~2.7% saving for 50 it's not a terrible buy IF you've done pretty much every other AA. I mean, what are you supposed to do with the exp? Let it overflow 30 and lose some every time you zone? Even at the horrible 2.7% or so (comes out to something like that, don't remember the exact number) it STILL beats just about any other GoD AA (which says a lot about GoD AA....). The #'s on FoMM are pretty bad also and it's *more* expensive, more run speed is always nice but 4 and 5 aren't the game changer 1 through 3 were, critical DoT's....DoTs are so situational now. Nature's boon? right, Quickened Curing? horrible benefit / AA there too though I like the skill. Was as good a buy as any of the other GoD crap on the day it came out.

As far as your other point....well I don't see many people arguing against that the question is more the likelihood of SoE doing anything about it. What's sticking in my craw as should be obvious by now is the claim that people who bought it the first day and thus benefited from the bug are scuzzy cheaters, this despite the fact that the motivation to cheat just ain't there.

Mannwin Woobie
09-03-2004, 08:36 AM
the claim that people who bought it the first day and thus benefited from the bug are scuzzy cheaters

Not everyone is saying that. My point is, you know it's a bug, and chances are that most who took it to 200 knew it was a bug at that time. It should be fixed. The inconvenience of leveling your 'real' spec to 200 if you currently have 2 at 200 is more than offset by the benefits you have had for all this time with them both at 200.

And yes, except for PvP it doesn't really matter. However, we all like to feel that we are all getting a fair shake in this world. It is not fair that we all spent the same amount of AA, but some got x3 as much for it.

Thicket Tundrabog
09-03-2004, 11:26 AM
I suppose there might be some that got a second specialization up to 200 without knowing it was a bug, but there couldn't be many.

Should the secondary forte and tracking stats be rolled back to their intended caps? Absolutely!

I certainly knew that there was a bug when I got tracking to 178 and secondary forte to 112. I also fully expected such an obvious bug to be corrected and rolled back.

I feel bad about the tracking AA, because 178 tracking is certainly useful. When we check on raid targets the guild rangers and 178 tracking druid gets sent out. It's not fair to the rangers. My reason for artificially increasing tracking was selfish. I wanted to see if purchasing the tracking AA was worthwhile, so I raised tracking to 175. The last three skill increases just came from normal playing. I never thought it would stay there.

I feel less bad about the 112 in secondary forte. I got the AA soon after GoD came out, and before I knew about the bug (some think it's a stupid AA to get, but I disagree). I didn't exploit to raise the stat. It just got there through normal play.

Bottom line --- roll the stats back. It's the only fair thing to do.

Thicket

Wyte
09-03-2004, 11:43 AM
Bottom line --- roll the stats back. It's the only fair thing to do.The other fair thing to do would be to allow 200 spec. Obviously its not so game breaking to warrant an emergency patch, heck... it didn't even get a non-emergency patch.

Logilitie
09-03-2004, 01:41 PM
i never got secondary forte, and thus still have wimpy 50 specialization in alteration :(.
BUT..
i always am tracking ( and foraging for that matter ) so my tracking just naturally went to 186 and is still there.

yeah i'm a mini-ranger Druid!

Aluaeia
09-03-2004, 02:20 PM
I suppose there might be some that got a second specialization up to 200 without knowing it was a bug, but there couldn't be many.

Should the secondary forte and tracking stats be rolled back to their intended caps? Absolutely!

I certainly knew that there was a bug when I got tracking to 178 and secondary forte to 112. I also fully expected such an obvious bug to be corrected and rolled back.

I feel bad about the tracking AA, because 178 tracking is certainly useful. When we check on raid targets the guild rangers and 178 tracking druid gets sent out. It's not fair to the rangers. My reason for artificially increasing tracking was selfish. I wanted to see if purchasing the tracking AA was worthwhile, so I raised tracking to 175. The last three skill increases just came from normal playing. I never thought it would stay there.

I feel less bad about the 112 in secondary forte. I got the AA soon after GoD came out, and before I knew about the bug (some think it's a stupid AA to get, but I disagree). I didn't exploit to raise the stat. It just got there through normal play.

Bottom line --- roll the stats back. It's the only fair thing to do.

Thicket

178 tracking isn't as useful as showeq! lolorlfllolollkrrol

Delores Mulva
09-03-2004, 04:02 PM
So, the people with it over 100 either made a very bad choice of AA or they knew that even though it was supposed to be restricted to 100, it was infact going to 200 due to a bug.

The description of the AA on release did not mention the 100 cap. The only way someone looking at the AA in game would know that there was supposed to be a 100 cap was if they read message boards, as the original description sure implied that you'd get a second specialization at 200, same as the first. Not all players read message boards. Let me quote the text again:

This ability allows you to advance a second magical specialization past the specialization limit (50). After purchasing this ability, the next specialization to go over 50 becomes your secondary forte.

So, to be fair to those that didn't know (and you're going to have to assume everyone didn't know), you're going to have to find in the database whether anyone over 100 spent training points on this, how many they spent, how much cash it cost, and code refunds for both while setting secondary specs back down to 100 points. Then, if you really want to be fair, you go back and fix every bug that's resulted in permanent character change: XP bugs, the bug with scribing Imbue spells, any loot table flaws, flags granted by bugged encounters, the whole nine yards. Just attempting this will take weeks, if not months, of programmer time.

Or you can leave it alone, go fix more important things, and the only people upset are a few messageboard complainers that hate that someone else is getting up to 6% more mana preservation on one school of spells compared with them.

Personally I think they should raise the cap to 200 and be done with it. Everyone will have the same skill level, and players will be more than willing to forget about the time when some people were over the 100 cap. It would also allow classes with dual natures, like druids, to be play balanced properly, as opposed to disadvantaging one of the spec alt / spec evoc groups. But until they do, I don't want them wasting time on chasing down such a minor point or unfairly nerfing folks who did nothing more than believe the ability description they were given in game.

It is not fair that we all spent the same amount of AA, but some got x3 as much for it.

It's not fair that some people were able to flag for Ikkinz 1 by charming mobs when that was not intended (mobs were flagged uncharmable in the Beta, apparently). It is not fair that some people scribed Imbue spells before deity restrictions were put on them. Look at any expansion release and you'll see a ton of things that were "not fair" and not intended. At some point you need to accept that some things are not worth the time it would take to fix. This is one of them.

Islington
09-03-2004, 04:04 PM
lolorlfllolollkrrol
You mispelled "LOL" Just remember, it's 1 O and 2 L's.

Aaeamdar
09-03-2004, 04:09 PM
you're going to have to find in the database whether anyone over 100 spent training points on this

As training can't be spent passed 30 points, that would be no one. Its an easy fix. I do agree that the best fix is to make teh AA take a second spec to 200. But if SOE is too stupid to understand that - at a minimum they should fix what they did.

Tiane
09-03-2004, 05:21 PM
I'll third the notion for just raising the Secondary Spec cap to 200. Obviously SOE feels that a few thousand people having it be above 100 hasnt significantly affected the game in a negative way, so why not just up it to 200 like it should have been in the first place?

As for tracking, /shrug. Sometimes its nice to have a shorter list, imho. Should still be reset, though.

Mannwin Woobie
09-04-2004, 01:06 AM
At some point you need to accept that some things are not worth the time it would take to fix. This is one of them

Way too simplistic. If you don't care, then why bother posting at all? Just let it slide and move on. Also, it reeks of the holier-than-thou attitude. You are just so much better than the rest of us that you can bring peace to your soul and accept such minor things. How wonderful for you.

Honestly, the bug itself doesn't bother me nearly as much as the attitude shown here. If they decide to fix it, you really can't complain. You weren't entitled to it, period. Using the "well, if you fix this, then you have to fix that" argument is baseless. Just because we can't catch all the thieves in the world doesn't mean we can't punish the ones we do catch.

And the description was there on release date. You keep quoting the old text from before the nerf and BEFORE release. Here is a quote from a prior thread on this board. This was posted on 01/30/04:

logged onto Test and found this change in eq_str.us:
9161 Secondary Forte
9162 This ability allows you to advance a second arcane specialization past the limit of 50. After acquiring this ability, the next specialization to go over 50 becomes your secondary forte. The second specialization is limited to a maximum skill of 100.

Firemynd
09-04-2004, 10:51 AM
I'll third the notion for just raising the Secondary Spec cap to 200. Obviously SOE feels that a few thousand people having it be above 100 hasnt significantly affected the game in a negative way, so why not just up it to 200 like it should have been in the first place?

Well, I'll fourth, for exactly the reason you stated. As we all know, SOE has traditionally treated any bug that can be exploited to significant gain as a high priority. In the past we've seen them react swiftly to such a bug, releasing follow-up patches within hours (even minutes) after bring servers up from a scheduled patch.

If the Secondary Forte bug had been providing some outrageously high mana savings on every spell, we would have seen the same sort of swift reaction. But not only was the mana savings at 200 spec deemed too insignificant to warrant an emergency patch... it was apparently not even significant enough to be fixed in any of the dozens of patches and mini patches since the bug was discovered. Obviously they realized it just wasn't that big a deal.

I suspect the ONLY reason devs haven't simply increased Secondary Forte to 200 across the board, is because they're reluctant to admit that they were wrong in decreasing it to 100 in the first place; especially since this was an extremely unpopular move.

Rytan (or whoever is calling the shots for spells at the moment) needs to suck it up and change the cap to 200. No apologies or explanations needed; just do it.

~Firemynd