Old aRO Forums

The 'Other' Section => AnesisRO Archive => Archive => General Questions => Topic started by: exDragon on February 11, 2011, 01:50:22 pm

Title: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 11, 2011, 01:50:22 pm

I asked this in other thread but it never got answered.  Is the fact you can only make one a bug or working as intended.  If this is intended explain why?

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Auurium on February 11, 2011, 02:16:04 pm

Quote from: exDragon on February 11, 2011, 01:50:22 pm

I asked this in other thread but it never got answered.  Is the fact you can only make one a bug or working as intended.  If this is intended explain why?

intended to my understanding, it's just like a SQI Weapon. Because it's class-specific.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Valash_Vrayr on February 11, 2011, 02:28:00 pm

That's pretty lame though as far as Soul Bound goes. You're pretty much saying, don't even risk going past +4 upgrade, or even being able to make more to 'try' to ensure some success at anything above +4 as well.

What a waste.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 11, 2011, 03:03:06 pm

Quote from: Auurium on February 11, 2011, 02:16:04 pm

Quote from: exDragon on February 11, 2011, 01:50:22 pm

I asked this in other thread but it never got answered.  Is the fact you can only make one a bug or working as intended.  If this is intended explain why?

intended to my understanding, it's just like a SQI Weapon. Because it's class-specific.

That would only make since if the SQI wasn't bound at all.  Then you could make different soul linkers to make different SQIs.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 13, 2011, 06:28:22 pm

If this is intended then why was this chosen?

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 26, 2011, 06:36:07 pm

so?

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: SanRath on February 26, 2011, 06:50:54 pm

They decided when VO came out that all future SQIs were going to be soul bound.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Malique on February 26, 2011, 06:55:25 pm

Triple posting isn't going to get you an answer any faster...

Quote from: SanRath on February 26, 2011, 06:50:54 pm

They decided when VO came out that all future SQIs were going to be soul bound.

You're free to make a suggestion, though, but ensure you have a good argument.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 26, 2011, 11:10:09 pm

Please read my question before giving a response and look at the date of the post before you complain about triple posting.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Malique on February 27, 2011, 01:05:00 am

Please heed forum rules before attempting to try and one up someone, then. You're pretty notorious for posting in that manner, as well. I saw a reply to it and posted.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Linux4ever on February 27, 2011, 02:19:16 am

Quote from: Valash_Vrayr on February 11, 2011, 02:28:00 pm

That's pretty lame though as far as Soul Bound goes. You're pretty much saying, don't even risk going past +4 upgrade, or even being able to make more to 'try' to ensure some success at anything above +4 as well.

What a waste.

I thought it was just account bound... If it is account bound just keep making SG and make sqi for them then delete and make until u have enough sqi to upgrade to like +7 or something...

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 27, 2011, 09:03:26 am

I don't see what problem your trying to point to with forum rules.  Also, I can't really help if someone decides to interrupt the manner I write things in as trying to one up them.

Quote from: Linux4ever on February 27, 2011, 02:19:16 am

Quote from: Valash_Vrayr on February 11, 2011, 02:28:00 pm

That's pretty lame though as far as Soul Bound goes. You're pretty much saying, don't even risk going past +4 upgrade, or even being able to make more to 'try' to ensure some success at anything above +4 as well.

What a waste.

I thought it was just account bound... If it is account bound just keep making SG and make sqi for them then delete and make until u have enough sqi to upgrade to like +7 or something...

Its soul bound hence why I'm asking if being only able to make one was intentional or a bug they haven't fixed yet.  If it is intentional then why was that decided?

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Malique on February 27, 2011, 01:24:36 pm

Quote from: exDragon on February 27, 2011, 09:03:26 am

I don't see what problem your trying to point to with forum rules.  Also, I can't really help if someone decides to interrupt the manner I write things in as trying to one up them.

This is what I'm pointing out to you, since you have a habit of doing this:

Quote

Do not "Bump" topics. This rule does not apply to the merchant and guild sections of the forums. Do not attempt to keep topics alive by filling them with fluff posts. Contribute to the topic, or simply let it run its course. If nobody is posting, the topic has clearly lost interest.

and

Quote

Do not multi-post. Multi-posting is when someone makes more than one consecutive post (meaning there are no posts by other people between each post). If you were the last person to post in a topic, and you wish to say something more, please use the "modify" button to edit your last post.

You also CAN help it with your forum tone. There are different ways to say something, which is the beauty of language. Work on it.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 28, 2011, 10:00:44 am

Isn't there unmentioned statue of limitations in those rules like if you ask a question and no one answers and it falls of the front page then it is not likely to get answered so you need to reply to it if you want an answer.




As for the question itself.  Is the fact that you can only make one a bug that hasn't been fixed or intentional.  If it is intentional then please explain why?

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Muranodo on February 28, 2011, 10:58:29 am

Quote from: exDragon on February 28, 2011, 10:00:44 am

Isn't there unmentioned statue of limitations in those rules like if you ask a question and no one answers and it falls of the front page then it is not likely to get answered so you need to reply to it if you want an answer.

As for the question itself.  Is the fact that you can only make one a bug that hasn't been fixed or intentional.  If it is intentional then please explain why?

I'd imagine it is intentional. Soul Linker mains have commonly complained about the class being nothing more than a dual client link slave typically. When I frequently saw them, they would either go afk outside of castles, or in emperium rooms until an attack came, and they had to link other players (since there was usually just one).
As a note, this was around a year ago, so I'm sure this has slightly changed albeit probably not by much.

If you consider this it'd make more sense. Rather than allow a player to easily make x garments, they have to choose one (short of going through the hassle of making multiple Soul Linkers to have multiple garments). And in scenarios where that choice fails they would have to be more reliant on a fellow Soul Linker and High Priest/Priest for survivability or swap to a less desirable carded garment.  Since the class is foremost support, it should stick closely with other support players in a competitive environment and even moreso other Soul Linkers since they function best when they are near each other.

If multiple garments could be made, you'd be taking away from that sense of cooperation. So you can consider it a guided attempt to get Soul Linkers to play more as the class was intended.

It won't completely solve the whole dilemma of SL slaves + the limited class loyalty base, but it slightly addresses it.  I'm not certain this is the reason, but it is what came to mind foremost. You could argue against it for various reasons, but you'd get the basic rebuttal:  SL is non-trans, so they should be squisher even while boosted (inability to swap SQI garments does this).  Additionally, they have plenty of skills that keep them alive.  Even more so if the SQI discussion grants them KE.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: exDragon on February 28, 2011, 01:16:08 pm

Half the skill it takes to play a character is knowing what to wear at what times and is part of this game in general and removing that is removing part of the skill in the game.  Both support and offensive classes need to do this. Also, a priest is a non trans and they can swap evangs to ones that are better in different situations.  Wizzards are basically support classes in WoE as their role is offensive disabling and not really killing and they can swap SoM to one that better fits a situation even though they are a non trans class.  Even sages are mostly used for support in WoE and they can swap tomes as the situations calls.  This makes the argument of not being able to swap to differently carded SQIs make no since from a game stand point.

There is also the fact the only reason the SQI was made soul bound was an attempt to make it more of a zeny sink so it makes no since to only allow someone to only make one as this limits the amount of zeny making this SQI can pull out of the economy.


Finally, even though soul linkers aren't much of duelers, you still can duel with them and garment swap is an important part of dueling.

Title: Re: SL SQI question
Post by: Muranodo on February 28, 2011, 03:04:37 pm

Quote from: exDragon on February 28, 2011, 01:16:08 pm

Half the skill it takes to play a character is knowing what to wear at what times and is part of this game in general and removing that is removing part of the skill in the game.  Both support and offensive classes need to do this. Also, a priest is a non trans and they can swap evangs to ones that are better in different situations.  Wizzards are basically support classes in WoE as their role is offensive disabling and not really killing and they can swap SoM to one that better fits a situation even though they are a non trans class.  Even sages are mostly used for support in WoE and they can swap tomes as the situations calls.  This makes the argument of not being able to swap to differently carded SQIs make no since from a game stand point.

There is also the fact the only reason the SQI was made soul bound was an attempt to make it more of a zeny sink so it makes no since to only allow someone to only make one as this limits the amount of zeny making this SQI can pull out of the economy.


Finally, even though soul linkers aren't much of duelers, you still can duel with them and garment swap is an important part of dueling.

And the response you would likely get is then to swap to other garments. You can still use your skill and smarts to swap intelligently. A SQI isn't required in all scenarios.  If you were to get a player example you might get something like:  Paladin A swaps between his Toad Aegis and Stone Bucklers as the situation demands in PvM and does just fine. Substitute other shields for gameplay type.

But I can see your argument is based around that x classes can swap already.

Generally, if you argue based around the logic of "old SQIs" versus "new SQIs" then you're going to run into a problem.  The "old SQIs" should have been soul bound / account bound, but they weren't (so you'd see no swapping besides between regular weapons/SQIs and players would have to work together better and smarter).  So you're arguing against a new ideology favored by the GM team which I doubt will be changed.  You can see such in the old thread about abolishing soul bound / account bound which indicates their opinion on how SQIs should be handled.

As for the zeny sink logic, people sell accounts yet with SQIs, so I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a successful zeny sink unless account selling would become illegal at some juncture.  So being able to make more wouldn't pull out anymore zeny in the economy.

Same logic with dueling.  You can intelligently swap despite what abysmal damage a SL would do in PvP against anyone decently geared.

And as a final point:  I'm just noting what would likely answer your question.  You can debate with the GMs further if they choose to weigh in.  Do I think it's the wisest choice? No.