Curse

Patrician · Jul 15, 2008, 01:58 PM // 13:58

gloom shield q10 tact
+30 hp
-2 ench

how much its worth? its non insc

Pleikki · Jul 15, 2008, 02:56 PM // 14:56

~50kish orso

romeus petrus · Jul 15, 2008, 03:53 PM // 15:53

a) It is not perfect.
b) Doubt you will be able to get more than 30k for it.

StueyG · Jul 15, 2008, 04:40 PM // 16:40

ZoMg LyKe PeRfEcTz Iz OnLz ReQ 8z LyKeZ DuH! /endsarcasm

1. It is "perfect" to most anyone in GW.

2. Around 50k or so.

_Todeshand_ · Jul 15, 2008, 05:05 PM // 17:05

the req kills it imo...

agree with romeus: 30kish

but it is what you call a "perfect" tyrian shield

romeus petrus · Jul 15, 2008, 08:11 PM // 20:11

What is considered perfect in trade is usually req 9, +30, -5/20%.

Engage · Jul 15, 2008, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Perfect is actually a very misused term in the GW community. Perfect refers to the variables that define any given item. As long as those variables are at there climax then the said item is perfect. A blue req 13 Fellblade for example with an inscription slot. It has a 1/1 on it, 15% Ench and a +20% vs plants. This is said to be perfect because all variables pertaining to it cannot be improved in such a way to improve its performance relative to its current state.

and yeah, ~50k

Snow Bunny · Jul 15, 2008, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by romeus petrus

What is considered perfect in trade is usually-5/20%.

Probably one of the worst mods there. I'd certainly prefer -2/enchant over -5/20.

It's a good caster shield for sure - 45/50k, depends on your buyer.

carnage-runner · Jul 15, 2008, 08:57 PM // 20:57

25K.. Perfect=r8 with
for a weapon 15^50/+5 energy
for a shield a perfect health mod of some sort, and either an armor or damage reduction modifier. All max stats of course.
R7 is considered better than perfect.

Who are we kidding here, the only people who care about the word "perfect" are those who buy r8's with said mods only. Goadh!!

We also must respect the regular occurances of this forum. Such regularities include but do not limit, the exchange of elite weapons and armory for monetary items. Such regularities often include the distribution and collection of "perfect" weapons. This is such a common happening, that we must respect the word perfect as it is being used more frequently, to describe req 8..(so on and so forth) items. So universalizing the word would be to make it mean said discription because that is already the common trend. We must respect frequency, and above all, we must respect the actuality of perfection, unable to be bettered.

Re:edit:thing:
Although I do agree that functional perfection is similar to perfection, it is not quite the same. Functional perfection creates the dilema of impracticality in definition. The longevity of a definition strives on integrity in all scenerios. Defining perfection by the scenerio, being the functionality of the inherent modification with respect to the requirement to obtain such perfection, creates a void in knowledge. We know that when something reaches perfection that it is now unable to be bettered by any other item of similar properties and function. The perfect wheel would be true all the way around. If each spoke was given a different scenerio in their respective places and thus made untrue, the wheels perfection would be lost. To be more precise, the perfection of one thing means it is perfect in all respects in any scenerio. One spoke cannot be more perfect than another in a perfect wheel. Therefor, in a game where we are comparing perfect weapons, one perfect weapon cannot be greater than another perfect weapon. If I had a requirement 8 tactics Gloom shield with a health modifier of plus 30, and a damage reducer of minus 2 while enchanted, I would have a superior shield. Point in fact, perfect things are perfect in every scenerio.

This has been fun, we should make a thread for debating things like said topics.

Thanks, Carnage.

25K no more because of req.

Engage · Jul 15, 2008, 09:14 PM // 21:14

Yeah, but that is taking "perfection" and defining it relative to what you prefer. If the term is to hold any meaning it must be made universalized and simplified. I also think that the definition with respect to the construct of an item and the variables that form that construct is the best way to look at what really defines "perfection".

The term has become a footstool for the individual. Taken to hold under its umbrella, preferences, tastes, things that have no grounding in its underlying foundation. Taken by itself, the word perfect can mean many different things with respect to anything pertaining to what defines the item.'

EDIT:

I do not wish to defile you or your opinion. I hold both in high regard. My only wish is to pass mine along as best I can. Furthermore, although simplicity is the nature of this conversation, it is usually the simple things that are most rigorous to define. This is because they define everything else. For example 1 + 1 = 2 seems like a simple equation. But rather it is an extension of logic, it surmises that one concept plus another equals two given that the concepts are equal in themselves. Numbers in themselves are concepts, generalized instances of reality simplified for the individual. Even this can at best be equated as a mere concept.

With respect to the requirement on the any item, it is what is needed in the specific attribute to use the item. It governs not the type of functionality but rather the basic usage of one of the inherent aspects of the item. Its only purpose is to govern whether or not the user should gain that inherent aspect.

The variables, those that govern functionality relative to the situation should be held responsible for perfection. Those variables, when at their climax can be said to obtain perfection. This is perfection by functionality. This is my definition of what defines "perfection". I am not saying this is the only definition, I am just saying that it is one possible rigorous and useful definition.