Drake pet? Req of sword? - Guild Wars Forums

Kassad · Dec 17, 2005, 10:29 AM // 10:29

1.Ok, Drake as a pet?
2.High Req weapons worth more then req 7?
3.A req 12 does more then a req 7 at equal swordmanship?

I just need the answers (I obviously know them) from the Guild Wars players, so then I can link this thread to a different forum and for some idiots to learn something. Thanks.

Sol_Vie · Dec 17, 2005, 10:33 AM // 10:33

1) No, they aren't an option nor do I think they ever will be.
2) No. Definitely not. The lower req the more attr points you can potentially free up for other slots.
3) No.

unienaule · Dec 17, 2005, 10:38 AM // 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol_Vie

1) No, they aren't an option nor do I think they ever will be.
2) No. Definitely not. The lower req the more attr points you can potentially free up for other slots.
3) No.

What he said. The myth that high requirement weapons are somehow "better" is possibly one of the dumbest in my opinion. At least the "OMG Anet fixed absorbtion this update" has some grounds for truth, i.e., that IS how it's supposed to work...

widds2v · Dec 17, 2005, 10:41 AM // 10:41

To comment on #2, I don't see why people pay ungodly amounts for req 7 when they have 16 in the skill anyway (in this case say like Axe for a war). I'll stick to a 12req max dmg sundering/fortitutde axe for 20k vs a 7req max dmg sundering/fortitude axe for 200k.

DABhand · Dec 17, 2005, 12:33 PM // 12:33

As I thought he didnt tell you the whole story.

I dont know if im allowed to post a link to another forum about it, so mods if im wrong sorry.

http://fileforums.com/showthread.php?t=74376

As you can see if you read what was said, the story is entirely different

Oh and HI everyone

Pevil Lihatuh · Dec 17, 2005, 01:29 PM // 13:29

my god thats a thread and a half. just for the record, the req has nothing to do with the damage. its just that if you're forced to put 12 into swords, then you'll do more damage than if you choose to only use the 7 that your sword makes you have. if that makes sense. lol.

Nikki Moonlight · Dec 17, 2005, 01:29 PM // 13:29

just made a post on those forums to try and clear it up..

..bet i got something wrong though, lol

Auntie I · Dec 17, 2005, 01:46 PM // 13:46

Oh, wow!
I have a headache after reading that.

Apparently they really like to argue!

And people wonder why Warriors have a bad Rep....*Shakes head and signs*

DABhand · Dec 17, 2005, 02:58 PM // 14:58

Well I wasnt really in a bad mood, it was Kassad who did the bad attitude stuff which started this whole stupid argument :P

Grim you did explain it well

Kakumei · Dec 17, 2005, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DABhand

Well I wasnt really in a bad mood, it was Kassad who did the bad attitude stuff which started this whole stupid argument :P

Grim you did explain it well

Not to defend Kassad's behavior, but rather shed some light, but it rather irks me as a veteran Guild Wars player to see newer players perpetuating common false beliefs as you and a few others on that board did.

DABhand · Dec 17, 2005, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Again ill admit ive not been playing GW for a long time like vet's. And ive never said I know everything about GW, or that ive been playing it from the beginning.

But im only going on what ive seen and heard, ive seen the sword that was shown to me.

But unfortunately there is some people who cant have a serious discussion without name calling etc. And then reading things in the wrong context. Again its unfortunate that it ended up that way, if he was calmer we could have gotten to the facts and ended it amicably.

Still I have had a look around here very nice forum with good help, its just a shame that some people like Kassad have to go into any debate with a hot head. It ruins it I suppose for other people.

Anyways thanks all for being persistant and holding back in this situation which could have became worse

jamnog · May 26, 2006, 08:57 PM // 20:57

hmm perhaps the "drake" was a dune lizard easy enough to mistake the two. umm apart from the size i suppost.

A_Muppet · May 26, 2006, 09:25 PM // 21:25

Just to knock the req thing of the head:
12 in the weapon skill (EG: 12 in swordsmanship with a sword, 12 in axe mastery for an axe) does the full damage. Anything below will do a bit less, anything above a bit more.

So a warrior will do the same damage if he's weilding a req 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 sword and has 12 swordsmanship.

However, a warrior using a req 7 sword and with 7 swordsmanship will do notably less damage that a warrior with a req 7 sword and 12 swordsmanship.

Lower req swords are valuable, because as you know, if you don't meet a weapon's req you do ALOT less damage with it. Hence low req is most popular-it doesn't restrict your builds like a high req weapon.

However, for things like archer rangers who usually have at least 13 marks, req can be utterly irrelevant. It's not unusual for a ranger to have a high req 15^50 bow they bought cheap, that's customised. They know they won't sell it, and it's specially earmarked for an archer build.

Dec 17, 2005, 10:29 AM // 10:29	#1
Kassad Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Jul 2005 Profession: W/	Drake pet? Req of sword? 1.Ok, Drake as a pet? 2.High Req weapons worth more then req 7? 3.A req 12 does more then a req 7 at equal swordmanship? I just need the answers (I obviously know them) from the Guild Wars players, so then I can link this thread to a different forum and for some idiots to learn something. Thanks.

Dec 17, 2005, 10:33 AM // 10:33	#2
Sol_Vie Desert Nomad Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Boston, MA Guild: Blood Of Orr [BoO]	1) No, they aren't an option nor do I think they ever will be. 2) No. Definitely not. The lower req the more attr points you can potentially free up for other slots. 3) No.

Dec 17, 2005, 10:41 AM // 10:41	#4
widds2v Academy Page Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Japan Guild: House Palomides Profession: W/Mo	To comment on #2, I don't see why people pay ungodly amounts for req 7 when they have 16 in the skill anyway (in this case say like Axe for a war). I'll stick to a 12req max dmg sundering/fortitutde axe for 20k vs a 7req max dmg sundering/fortitude axe for 200k.

Dec 17, 2005, 12:33 PM // 12:33	#5
DABhand Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Dec 2005 Profession: W/R	As I thought he didnt tell you the whole story. I dont know if im allowed to post a link to another forum about it, so mods if im wrong sorry. http://fileforums.com/showthread.php?t=74376 As you can see if you read what was said, the story is entirely different Oh and HI everyone

Dec 17, 2005, 01:29 PM // 13:29	#6
Pevil Lihatuh Jungle Guide Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Yorkshire, UK Profession: R/Me	my god thats a thread and a half. just for the record, the req has nothing to do with the damage. its just that if you're forced to put 12 into swords, then you'll do more damage than if you choose to only use the 7 that your sword makes you have. if that makes sense. lol.

Dec 17, 2005, 01:29 PM // 13:29	#7
Nikki Moonlight Krytan Explorer Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Brighton, England Guild: Ice Cold Elements [ICE] Profession: Mo/	just made a post on those forums to try and clear it up.. ..bet i got something wrong though, lol

Dec 17, 2005, 01:46 PM // 13:46	#8
Auntie I Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Apr 2005 Guild: Veritas Invictus Profession: E/Me	Oh, wow! I have a headache after reading that. Apparently they really like to argue! And people wonder why Warriors have a bad Rep....Shakes head and signs

Dec 17, 2005, 02:58 PM // 14:58	#9
DABhand Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Dec 2005 Profession: W/R	Well I wasnt really in a bad mood, it was Kassad who did the bad attitude stuff which started this whole stupid argument :P Grim you did explain it well

Dec 17, 2005, 07:00 PM // 19:00	#11
DABhand Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Dec 2005 Profession: W/R	Again ill admit ive not been playing GW for a long time like vet's. And ive never said I know everything about GW, or that ive been playing it from the beginning. But im only going on what ive seen and heard, ive seen the sword that was shown to me. But unfortunately there is some people who cant have a serious discussion without name calling etc. And then reading things in the wrong context. Again its unfortunate that it ended up that way, if he was calmer we could have gotten to the facts and ended it amicably. Still I have had a look around here very nice forum with good help, its just a shame that some people like Kassad have to go into any debate with a hot head. It ruins it I suppose for other people. Anyways thanks all for being persistant and holding back in this situation which could have became worse

May 26, 2006, 08:57 PM // 20:57	#12
jamnog Ascalonian Squire Join Date: Sep 2005 Profession: N/Mo	hmm perhaps the "drake" was a dune lizard easy enough to mistake the two. umm apart from the size i suppost.

May 26, 2006, 09:25 PM // 21:25	#13
A_Muppet Krytan Explorer Join Date: Dec 2005	Just to knock the req thing of the head: 12 in the weapon skill (EG: 12 in swordsmanship with a sword, 12 in axe mastery for an axe) does the full damage. Anything below will do a bit less, anything above a bit more. So a warrior will do the same damage if he's weilding a req 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 sword and has 12 swordsmanship. However, a warrior using a req 7 sword and with 7 swordsmanship will do notably less damage that a warrior with a req 7 sword and 12 swordsmanship. Lower req swords are valuable, because as you know, if you don't meet a weapon's req you do ALOT less damage with it. Hence low req is most popular-it doesn't restrict your builds like a high req weapon. However, for things like archer rangers who usually have at least 13 marks, req can be utterly irrelevant. It's not unusual for a ranger to have a high req 15^50 bow they bought cheap, that's customised. They know they won't sell it, and it's specially earmarked for an archer build.