Newsfiend
10-22-2009, 08:21 AM
Wings16 wrote:
I've thought the same thing about these trivials as the OP. It doesnt make sense to say it's to control the amount of potions (or whatever the item may be) coming into the world. The trivial for the level 85 clarity potion is 508. When SoF was new and level 80 was max, the best clarity potion had a trivial of 468. You can take these trivials all the way back to level 70 and see the fail rates constantly get lower.
If the target fail rate is 50% now, what will it be at 90? 55% failure? What was it during SoF, 45? The only logic I can see in this is that Ngreth hopes to someday allow the skill caps to go above 300. Then all this would make sense again. To have trivials scale like that looks nice on paper but to me doesnt make sense unless the skill cap also goes up with it.
Well. If you are reading minds... you are doing a poor job.
I have it at that trivial for the fail rate. No other "nefarious" purpose.
More... (http://forums.station.sony.com/eq/posts/list.m?topic_id=156566&post_id=2317781#2317781)
I've thought the same thing about these trivials as the OP. It doesnt make sense to say it's to control the amount of potions (or whatever the item may be) coming into the world. The trivial for the level 85 clarity potion is 508. When SoF was new and level 80 was max, the best clarity potion had a trivial of 468. You can take these trivials all the way back to level 70 and see the fail rates constantly get lower.
If the target fail rate is 50% now, what will it be at 90? 55% failure? What was it during SoF, 45? The only logic I can see in this is that Ngreth hopes to someday allow the skill caps to go above 300. Then all this would make sense again. To have trivials scale like that looks nice on paper but to me doesnt make sense unless the skill cap also goes up with it.
Well. If you are reading minds... you are doing a poor job.
I have it at that trivial for the fail rate. No other "nefarious" purpose.
More... (http://forums.station.sony.com/eq/posts/list.m?topic_id=156566&post_id=2317781#2317781)