NW Weapon transfer (in General)

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 3:10 AM EDT

How about in the blacksmith u have an option to meld weapons together so if u have a high nw weapon and u want to change it into another u offer a base of the new weapon. NW transfers to new weapon type and old weapon is consumed so if u want to return it to the previous weapon type u will need to buy another base weapon of the previous type.

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 3:23 AM EDT

the nw of a weapon is divided into that which is in x and that which is in + and these would get transferred into the new weapons corresponding x and +

INDColtsFan18 July 18 2008 3:25 AM EDT

I agree but it should only transfer 90% of its NW, it's only fair, so weapons arent 100% disposable.

You can't get everything in life for free, and even purchasing another weapon for it to be changed into isnt a big enough cost in my eyes, if we are considering millions of NW.

But of course all the tanks out there are going to say, yes give us all the money we spent on it into another weapon. Well then why not just make dienchanting be 100% as well and create a armor NW xfer shop, and just make the entire market and economy aspect of this game pointless.

If there is going to be a way to transfer over Net Worth there has to be a penalty, just like with every other aspect of this game.
1. Re-ink your tat pay the fee
2. Rent out items pay the fee
3. List an item for auctions pay the fee
4. Post a fs/wtb thread pay the fee
5. the list goes on..

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 3:27 AM EDT

ok dd spells disenchant at 98% so make the nw transfer 98% of original then that i think is fair

INDColtsFan18 July 18 2008 3:33 AM EDT

How is that fair? 90% is A LOT, 98% is way way overboard.

Your saying all tanks should get the advantage to switch huge weapons at a very very small cost?

Then I say all mages should be able to transfer the NW values amongest there armors. And they should be able to deposit weapon NW's into there armors.

See now that sounds unfair, but at the same time it would be the only way to make it fair.
If this ever gets implemented which it probably wont, due to economic reasons. I would guess Jon would make it like a 75% NW transfer at most., split into X and + evenly.

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 3:39 AM EDT

INDColtsFan18 a few points. A tank has to train 4 stats hp, st, dx and a skill usually. A mage trains 3 stats usually dd spell, evsion and hp. mages don't require a weapon to deal their damage tanks do. Mages have large enc which they can use to boost their armours up high where as tanks require most of their enc for their weapons and lose out on armour and so yes i believe the same rate of disenchantment for a dd spell should apply as the max to a weapon meld in my idea.

Wasp July 18 2008 3:53 AM EDT

Make it so that only forgers can do the process and it requires time, probably about a week, and BA. This way forgers can do a new thing and get more business. Should do it for 90% of the net worth. The tank/mage argument is null in this instance as you cannot buy experience, as opposed to simply dropping more net worth into an item.

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 3:59 AM EDT

ah no the exp argument isn't dead the fact is mages do plenty of damage with their spells they train exp in a less diluted pool as i pointed out before and the amount of availuable cb$ for weapon nw growth seems to have reduced not to mention weapons are highly more influenced and restricted in growth by enc something a mage doesn't have to deal with. And lastly evasion nullifies tanks much more effectively then amf nullifies mages.

QBOddBird July 18 2008 4:00 AM EDT

I would say keep in mind that mages do not have their own tattoo to boost their damage, whereas tanks have the ToA to boost PTH, STR, and DX.

Mage ToA ftw

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 4:02 AM EDT

well anyway i've drifted off my own topic i still think the weapon meld would be a neat edition to the blacksmith no matter how its implemented

lostling July 18 2008 4:05 AM EDT

yea sure do NW xfer :) i would like to shift a tattoo's NW into a DB =x

QBOddBird July 18 2008 4:06 AM EDT

I do think blacksmith credits for weapons would be nice, as it is far easier for a mage to switch spells than for a tank to switch weapons.

At a higher rate than armor, but certainly nowhere as high as 90% - just something reasonable so that fighters can switch weapons without such a very high penalty. At least, while weapons are still so valuable.

Now, if there was a cap on weaponry....

lostling July 18 2008 4:11 AM EDT

then pray... tell me what would be the point of different forge times... and efficiency? would it all not go to waste? i could forge the + on a mageseeker (pretty easy i think) and convert it to a SOD which is harder to forge i think

QBOddBird July 18 2008 4:14 AM EDT

What's the point of forging anyways? Answer me that, lostling :P it is pretty much useless as an occupation as is.

BadFish July 18 2008 4:15 AM EDT

IMO the point of forging is something to do that makes slightly more money than fighting if you're on a break period between NCB's.

Wasp July 18 2008 4:15 AM EDT

The cost of switching the weapon should outweigh any benefits such as those lostling. Maybe changing the weapon should cost a simple 1 time rate of say... 10m? Which can only be added by a forger : )

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 4:20 AM EDT

and anyway the forging rate seems to be tied into the nw of the x and + so lower forging times = cheap ungrade transfer this into a weapon with high forging times and higher upgrade cost and u get less x and + for your dollar

QBOddBird July 18 2008 4:23 AM EDT

Tetra - except it doesn't, since you could be adding NW to a tattoo and MPR to a team. Fighting still makes more.

lostling July 18 2008 4:24 AM EDT

anyone can be a forger so the point is moot :) probably a 1 time fee of say 10% NW :) basically its the same thing as converting at a 90% rate

Cube July 18 2008 4:37 AM EDT

I agree this should be done somehow. Mages can switch spells in a second, and for tanks it can take months to switch. How can tanks be expected to adapt to changes?

BadFish July 18 2008 4:40 AM EDT

Mages can switch spells in a second because they can't gain exp in a second. The blacksmith is instant damage increase, whereas EXP you have to gain over time. The balance: Mages take longer to reach damage breakpoints, but can flexibly arrange when that damage is dealt; Tanks can deal massive damage much earlier, but have much less flexibility when it comes to manipulating damage.

Soxjr July 18 2008 4:41 AM EDT

I think the point of the original poster has been lost. He was trying to say that if a mage wants to switch from CoC to the new spell it costs 2% of the exp trained. To do the same thing with a weapon right now it would make you lose what 50% because of disenchant? He is asking that as a tank you be able to change weapons and therefore your type of attack as easily as a mage. I don't know if I personally agree, but I can give my perspective on the idea.

Right now I'm about 16 mil away from paying for my insta on Spiral and once that is done I have a 116 mil nw weapon. The mageseeker works great, but what if I wanted to switch my strat up a little and go Elven Long Bow? I would have to lose half of the nw and then pay back up to get the weapon to the same stats as it is now? That's about 1 year of playing to make up the ground, whereas a mage takes a few days or a week to make up 2% of lost exp. I personally can see how this seems a bit wrong in tank eyes. I mean when there is a change on changemonth and a new weapon comes out and is viable, do you really think there is a chance it can be used at the top?? Not really, because people are not going to keep upgrading a weapon to 100 mil + when that weapon could not work as well the next week, but yet a mage can change as often as they like and change from MM to CoC to the new spell back to MM and that just cost them exp. Nothing else. That exp is a lot easier to get than the cb $ it's taking me to get to pay for this weapon.

I do know that I chose to go tank and archer at that, but if I would have known that I was going to be stuck in the set-up I had forever because I don't spend USD and have no chance of changing weapon types. I don't think I would have chosen any type of tank at all. We are too stuck. Once you choose it's over. There is no changing because the investment to get the weapon able to hit costs everything you make and then some. I hope I haven't rambled on too much but it's almost 2 am and I'm tired.

lostling July 18 2008 4:41 AM EDT

i say let the mages do it :)

the larger the FB the less NW is loss :) starting at 80% maxing out at 90%


lostling July 18 2008 4:43 AM EDT

soxjr :) you can always sell it i guess :)

Cube July 18 2008 4:47 AM EDT

However, Tetra a free retrain was offered to all mages. Maybe this could only be offered for a limited time when a new weapon was released?

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 4:47 AM EDT

don't forget my original idea requires sacrificing a weapon in most case it will be a rare or special weapon meaning a great reduction in number that are availuable i ask of mages no such sacrifice when they change dd spell

BadFish July 18 2008 4:48 AM EDT

OB- Fighting requires a strat, and so much time and emotion invested. Honestly, who has it in them? Not me! Forging, you can have every point of exp you have trained in Decay and you forge just as well as the most powerful strategy that has as much exp as you do.

BadFish July 18 2008 4:49 AM EDT

Just read Cube's post, I say that's a good idea- everytime a new weapon, or for that matter a new armor, is introduced there could/should be a free NW transfer into a new weapon, as a new weapon/armor always changes game mechanics, sometimes fairly drastically (read: DB's)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 18 2008 4:52 AM EDT

Wen you start a new character, you can't move your exisitng DD over to them....

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 4:55 AM EDT

QBGentlemanLoser "When you start a new character, you can't move your exisitng DD over to them....'

no offense this is a ridiculous statement really u can't exactly equip a 100mil nw weapon to a new character either can u...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 18 2008 4:56 AM EDT


You'll take penalties until your ENC is high enough. But you can.

you cannot in any way take a 100 M level FB to a new character. That investment is lost utterly.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 18 2008 4:58 AM EDT

"whereas a mage takes a few days or a week to make up 2% of lost exp"

I wonder how long it would have taken Sute to make up that 2% if he'd changed his FB to MM in a nromal retrain period.

I think it would be much longer than a few days to a week.

Soxjr July 18 2008 5:02 AM EDT

Either way GL would it take him a year to make it up. That's how long it would take me to currently dis-enchant. and then take a weapon back up to my 116 mil lvl bow. So anything less than a month, which I'm sure it takes him less than a month to make that 2% is a big difference.

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 5:06 AM EDT

no offense the amount of time required to regrow your dd on a new character is about the same time it would take for an enc to grow to accommodate a large weapon. How long do u think it would take a new character to get enough enc to equip say freeds weapon.

I have a mage and tank and i have to say the mages in this game no matter what u lot might say are hypocrits and instead of evening up the balance like to parade around in what is slowly turning into mageblender

Daz July 18 2008 5:07 AM EDT

I actually like Wasps idea. My interpretation is a little bit different:

Just have forging on the new weapon as normal, but with a weapon you're taking the magic from as a focus.

The forge rate to the new item is doubled half for normal forging, half as the focus leech), and 105% (or whatever) of this is removed from the focus item.

Could possibly even have a new forge formulae, as magic transfer formulae, instead of a normal forge formula.

Obviously this isn't exactly what everyone has been asking for as it requires some amount of fresh upgrade to the 'new' item, rather than all transfer, but you get that.

Soxjr July 18 2008 5:10 AM EDT

Oh and I'm wrong. The amount of time it would take is a couple weeks. Maybe a little longer. The biggest DD I can see on the list is not even 10 mil in lvl... So at 10 mil lvl's 2% exp lost is 200,000 lvl's or 2.4 mil exp. Even at the lowly amount of 100k exp per day that is only 24 days. So probably closer to 2 weeks max if changing spells.

Cube July 18 2008 5:15 AM EDT

Quite simply my argument is that if mages can retrain with no penalties during big change months. Tanks need some sort of equivalent to try out new weapons or large changes to weapons.

If the dagger was suddenly given 70x with the same PTH curve, no one would be able to try it out for months. During large changes to the game it makes sense for this to be possible. Or lets say suddenly the Morgul hammer only leeches 10 percent, basically every tank with a Morgul hammer would want to switch, or at least try out another weapon, but a lot of them would just have to live with the change and grip about it because they couldn't afford the time wasted to switch.

At any other time I'd say, suck it up you chose to be a tank, but theres no reason for this to not be allowed after large changes if free retrains exist.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 18 2008 7:22 AM EDT

"Quite simply my argument is that if mages can retrain with no penalties during big change months"

The free retrain was an abomination. It wasn't needed and has lead to this.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 18 2008 7:24 AM EDT

(tongue in cheek post)

The 50% NW lost from disenchanting a Weapon can be regained instantly. Unlike DD.

It just depends on how much USD you're prepared to spend.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 18 2008 7:28 AM EDT

Sox, even if it is only two weeks to retain up that lost DD, it's two weeks your characters 'power' is no longer progressing.

The same doesn't hold for Tank building cash back up to pump thier new weapon. They still gain XP to increase STR. Unlike the Mage who (if we assume their AGs/NSC are maxxed) has nothing comparable.

So the Mage stalls for 2+ Weeks, the Tank take longer to grow back, but continues to grow thorughout.

Plus the Tanks weapon investment can be sold/moved to another character.

QBJohnnywas July 18 2008 7:52 AM EDT

How did we manage without all this kind of stuff before? Oh yes, we spent money CB or USD and invested in those new weapons.

I don't remember anyone asking for this when the mageseeker came along though. No, people just dropped cash into the new bows and got on with it.

Where is all this coming from?

Wizard'sFirstRule July 18 2008 7:57 AM EDT

I think I agree that tanks should have such options, such as sending admin bigger than base weapon/armor will result in a bigger than base new weapon/armor. The weapons market is not exactly "liquid", and trying to sell a big weapon is a difficult process. Disenchanting is inefficient, and there is simply no good way of converting NW in weapon to reinvest.

QBJohnnywas July 18 2008 8:00 AM EDT

Admittedly the weapon market is poor right now, but how many people get more than 50% of the NW of their weapon when they sell it?

QBJohnnywas July 18 2008 8:04 AM EDT

And that question is about BIG weapons not some piddly low NW weapon. I'm quite happy with disenchant considering how low weapons go for sale these days.

Dark Dreky July 18 2008 8:44 AM EDT

"Where is all this coming from?"

I completely agree.

There were only a few new weapons introduced and NONE of them viable at the top tiers. Why should tanks get this option of magically converting old weapons into new ones? It's called trading. If that doesn't work... try harder?

Disenchanting works fine the way it is now.

QBRanger July 18 2008 8:47 AM EDT

"There were only a few new weapons introduced and NONE of them viable at the top tiers."

Well we will never know about the MoD since nobody at the top tier will make one high enough.

I personally like that weapon a lot.

But I disagree with DD, and my opinion on a Weapon Artist is well known.

Yet another reason tanks fall behind mages now. Mages have the highest damage item/spell in the game and tanks cannot even try a new weapon that comes out without losing 50-70% of their old ones NW. And if the new weapon stinks, another loss occurs.

QBRanger July 18 2008 8:50 AM EDT

And this is coming from the free retrain we just had.

A new spell that entirely changes the game was introduced. Not something that is just ok, but something that is wow overpowered.

And tanks got no way to try to adapt. They were stuck in their weapon, or as some did, got rid of their huge weapon (Mikel, Freed).

It used to be if a mage wanted to try a new spell or a different DD, they took the xp loss, however low it was. If tanks wanted to try a new weapon, they took the NW loss.

With the retrain mages got FREE change, tanks got squat.

That is where this came about.

QBRanger July 18 2008 8:54 AM EDT

And it is amazing that the ones vehemently against the idea of a Weapon Artist are those that benefited most from the free retrain.

That is RBF users and mages. Hmmmm.......

I do like AA's idea though. Perhaps that and a small fee of 1% of the NW of the item.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 18 2008 9:07 AM EDT

"never" is truly a long time. all it takes is one nub building one of the new weapons from scratch and putting much of their cash in one. it won't be as big as the top weapons now, this is true, but with encumbrance it will likely be as big as it sensibly can.

as for robf users being against a weapon artist or the current suggestion, i would not speak for others as that is just silly, but i am all for it and would even like to see it be possible at 2 to 5 percent cost so it is in line with what we pay for xp retrains. of course one of the reasons i am for it is so that we have one less continual rant going on in the forums. ; )

QBRanger July 18 2008 9:11 AM EDT

Hooray for ranting!!!

It worked for the TOE and MgS. Worked for the multiple layers of damage reduction.

Perhaps it can work for a weapon artist!!!

QBJohnnywas July 18 2008 9:16 AM EDT

I'm new to this mage thing, but I'm still sitting with the same strat after the retrain as before it. I was one of the people who voted against it. And having been a tank player for most of my CB time, I would still be against the idea of a weapon artist.

It just moves mages and tanks one step closer to being indistinguishable. One of the things that has made a tank a tank has been how weapons work, the strategy around what you spend, what you don't. Take that away and you might as well make all weapons the same as UC and upgradeable through XP.

That's why I'm against it.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 18 2008 9:19 AM EDT

hmm, i have never in my five + years in cbland, seen jon start a changelog with, "due to hyper-focused whining of the loudest, most opinionated, forum hogs and based on the topic changes that happen when i enter chat..." merely because one action follows another it is a logic flaw to assume cause and effect.

QBRanger July 18 2008 9:19 AM EDT


I would have been against it also, or not even brought it up if not for the free retraining.

But I do want things to be someone equivalent in what characters can try out.

QBRanger July 18 2008 9:24 AM EDT

I have not either dude, however sometimes a temporal relationship is more then just that.

Dark Dreky July 18 2008 9:27 AM EDT

"With the retrain mages got FREE change, tanks got squat."

Not true! Tanks got the chance to retrain to mages... for FREE! =)

I thought the retrain was a horrible idea anyways, but that's just me. My main problem with this is what JW pointed out; why now? There have been a few weapons introduced before and there was never this outcry for free weapon "re-inking".

Is the MoD that attractive? I mean, all it does is extra damage against AS. Right? Or am I missing something....

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 18 2008 9:31 AM EDT

"sometimes a temporal relationship is more then just that." does sound less misleading and less confident than "It worked for the TOE and MgS. Worked for the multiple layers of damage reduction."

facts are facts while opinions are opinions. stating one as the other really does little to help an argument and can make, at least some of us, question everything stated.

Ancient Anubis July 18 2008 9:33 AM EDT

ah yes can i add one thing to this debate. Its the mages who are the ones always going on about the influence of usd being to great in this game and yet here they are actively encouraging by saying us tanks should go and spend more usd so we can try a new weapon. Well done guys i'm amazed how u criticise one thing only to push it on another argument to suit your selves.

QBRanger July 18 2008 9:35 AM EDT

The MoD does 2x damage vs the AS bonus HP AND ignores PL.

Making those PL/TSA/HP minions less useful.

And as I stated, as to the "why now", please read my last posts on the subject.

As we had a free retrain nothing equivalent was done for tanks.

Yes, tanks could retrain to mages and some actually did. How many mages retrained to tanks? None I can think of. In fact, of the top 3 tanks in the game, all changed to a RBF or mage centric team. If we had a chance to Weapon Artist our weapons, that may have not been 3/3.

in the last 2 retrains it was more mage---> tanks, this time it was the opposite, but a wide margin.

QBsutekh137 July 18 2008 10:38 AM EDT

Let's try to get this on track with some facts and less hyperbole, folks.

First of all, Ranger, using words like "all" and "every" when it comes to the free retrain is simply incorrect. You know how I know? Because I didn't change a think in my stance. Not one thing. So I can say with absolute certainty that not "all" who benefited from the retrain are against a weapon artist idea.

Oh yeah, and also because I am also not against the weapon artist idea. So, I neither am against your idea nor did I benefit from the retrain. So much for "all".

In summary, the very first thing we can do is tone down the polarizing affect.

GL had a fun point:

"I wonder how long it would have taken Sute to make up that 2% if he'd changed his FB to MM in a nromal retrain period.

I think it would be much longer than a few days to a week. "

Well, I think my DD on my mage would take maybe a week at most...the DD on Joe isn't that big and hasn't been increased in a loooong time. Let's take something like my total DM, if I had to switch from it. It's around 25% of my MPR. Two percent loss off 25% is 0.5%. If we assume the NCB worked pretty well for me, especially since I used RoE on a single minion most of the way and then bought additional characters (and did peak barely at the top of MPR at that point), then we are talking 0.5% of the whole time CB2 has been open. CB2 has been open for 1294 days. Half a percent of that is 6.47 days. Round that up. That's a week. I'm as surprised as anyone at how low that is, and am glad I ran the numbers. Retraining everything on my team would take about a month to recover from -- sounds about right.

Back to the weapon idea... I think it is fantastic. Something that works in the forge, taking some time and/or BA, and costing something in terms a net worth loss. GL, I hate to disagree, but if encumbrance and weapon allowance isn't working right at lower levels enough to stop someone from transferring a weapon down (and still having it be useful), then that needs to be changed -- don't blame weapons. Putting a massive weapon on a new character should result in crap rewards -- simple as that.

Next, this scheme would only ever REDUCE weapon sizes. I would not go along with any scheme that could meld weapons into something bigger (not even sure anyone said anything like that, I just want to be clear). So, philosophically, this is GOOD for the game. Because, for once, weapons would be made smaller, not just be open-ended growing bigger forever. I suppose in the sense that it made weapons more pertinent it might end up increasing a larger number of them (as opposed to weapons that sit idle), but I think that is a nice evolutionary touch.

And to make it all fair, this would, of course, apply to all weaponry and to all armors. So, it could be useful for mages as well.

Here's what would have to be in effect to make this a cohesive, fair scheme (just for starters, and just in my opinion):

-- Utilizes the forge. Let's make the forge something essential again (if it ever was).
-- Needs to take time. I think that even if the scheme uses BA and causes a net worth hit, it should STILL take a minimum time based on size of the job. Why? Because otherwise USD can be a shortcut on time, and time is important.
-- Needs to take BA. Just like recovering from a retrain takes BA, so should this scheme, either in terms of forge usage or BA accrual. In fact, it could be something like a BA accrual reduction while you have an item "in the shop". Could even be an effective "vacation mode" of sorts, put a big weapon in the shop, have accrual knocked down 2-3 BA per cycle, and you are in slo-mo. You are getting your item where you want it, but are losing a bit of ground and money as a result (and are able to go sit on the beach for 48 hours straight! *grin*).
-- Needs to only allow weapons/gear to be changed and slightly reduced, no melding of weapons to make hybrids or make them bigger. That's too video-gamey for me. *smile*
-- Needs to work on ALL items, and for once, even worthless or small items should actually be EASIER to change than big ones. Right now big weapons have the cheapest upgrade prices. I think this weapon-changer scheme should make it easier to change SMALLER weapons so that smaller folks can play around more easily and learn about what works. This should work for armor too.
-- Finally get rid of items NOONE uses. Since people could just buy and switch a tulwar to a sabre, or maybe not even that, we should finally get rid of the things no one ever, ever uses or should use.

Problems (at least with the ideas I have mentioned above):

-- Classing. Obviously, one cannot take a dagger and make it a BoNE. So, there would be implementation issues for Jonathan (we'd be talking database changes as well, I assume) to make sure items were labeled as "equivalent" to each other, or offerable as an exchange. In fact, maybe this would be a balance show-stopper. What is a TSA equivalent to? What about an ELS? Jonathan would have to work as hard on balancing item classes as he has had to balance tattoos (since they are already changeable). That will be a chore, and ongoing one.
-- Implementation. It is easy for me to say how it all should work, but that's because I have provided virtually no actual implementation specifications. This is not going to be an easy thing to do, at least not if it involves forging, time, BA, and covers all item classes (as I would like to see).

Maybe a simpler scheme would work, but I am not sure I would be on board with any simpler scheme. Alchemy is a tough row to hoe -- it shouldn't be easy. *smile*

Yukk July 18 2008 10:50 AM EDT

Why turn this whole thing into a gigantic Rube Goldberg coding exercise ? The original idea was to take a +X xY weapon and send it to the blacksmith with a base different weapon. At this point, the blacksmith takes all of the + from the old weapon and tranfers it to the + of the new weapon minus a percentage, same for x. The old weapon is destroyed in the process.
Weapons is weapons for this example and why not ? +100 on your dagger might only give you +20 on the MoD.
I guess you could do the same for any two pieces of armour.

QBsutekh137 July 18 2008 11:32 AM EDT

I don't disagree, Yukk, but I guess I would like the process to also take some time and/or BA. Items still have inherent capabilities over experience -- they can be transferred. To a clan member, to a new character, to a new player. Experience can't.

Though, I guess that can be made up for by just having stricter penalties on the NW loss...

I do want to see the forge used more, that's why I wrote a lengthy set of ideas on how I would like to see it implemented. Just my opinion...

QBRanger July 18 2008 11:35 AM EDT


Your not a tank driven team, but a familiar driven one. Large difference.

And if changing weapons takes time, it is nearly worthless for a lot of tanks out there. Using BA is a very poor idea. Mages do not use BA to change their DD spell, and did not lose any MPR during the free retaining time.

If you want to make it only rares can be changed to other rares, so be it.

But it has to be instantaneous and lower cost to compete with the free retrain all the mages and all the tanks who changed to mages received.

However, you are right. Instead of all, I should use most. I just get frustrated from banging my head against the wall viewing the same foolish anti-tank arguments.

Like mages should have an advantage since they do not spend USD etc....

How about fairness for everyone?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 18 2008 11:38 AM EDT

i do believe that be sut you are speaking of.

Yukk July 18 2008 11:40 AM EDT

Ranger, it could be that Jon swings back and forth from tank blender to mage blender in order to stir things up and keep us on our toes. Tanks get the upper hand and invest GDPs into their weapons and then the weapon gets nerfed or mages get a huge boost.
Honestly, would you enjoy this game as much if you'd had the same strat since you got Koy ? Or is half the fun in thinking through the changes and fighting to stay a contender ?
I know this is off-topic and arguing devil's advocate (even against myself) but maybe Jon has a plan. After all, a lot of us bitched about a week long free mage retrain and as far as I know, Jon didn't even respond.

QBRanger July 18 2008 11:48 AM EDT

It would be fun if I had a chance to change my weapon and therefore my focus like mages had during the last retrain.

I understand the pendulum swings back and forth, but ever since evasion got its boost, esp with the AoF, we have been towards mage blender for a long time.

And the free retrain gave mages another nice boost especially with the new spell.

But when a ? good weapon and an awesome new spell both come out in the same changemonth, and most of us can only really try/use the new spell, something is off in my mind. In the fairness dept.

Last changemonth was one of the most turbulent in recent memory. New items/spell/nerfs to damage reductions, etc..

However tanks were stuck with their primary weapon to base their minions around (or give them up like Mkel and Freed did), while mages had fun playing around with the new spells and new nerfs to AC/MgS/protection etc...

All I wanted during that time was an equal chance to change my characters focus, perhaps to missile, perhaps to the new weapon, perhaps to a Bone. Instead of having to choose between MH tank or mage.

What is heavens is so hard about that to comprehend?

And no, I am not willing to lose 50% of my MH's NW to "try" out a new weapon and see it is works. Since if it does not, I am really hosed. Forging takes wayyyy too long as we all know.

Making it cost a lot, or take a long time, or use BA is just flat out unfair to all the tanks out there.

QBsutekh137 July 18 2008 12:02 PM EDT

OK, but surely it should cost more so as to be more of a detriment than the 2% untrain "cost", yes? Items are transferable and permanent. That has to be factored into any weapon "retrain" scheme, doesn't it? How much that factors in is up to Jonathan.

My other ideas were mainly a focus on that, that it needs to cost _something_ more, and to also try to get the forge involved somehow. Like I said, just my opinion, and just ideas.

lostling July 18 2008 12:27 PM EDT

weapon artist im all for it... but yes 1% of the NW is seriously little... i mean... thats just xfer fees

QBRanger July 18 2008 12:45 PM EDT

One cannot make a weapon artist too expensive or take too long.

Otherwise it is just useless.

There has to be some balance in cost, with (IMO) it taking no time as tanks can ill afford to be without their weapon for longer then 6 hours.

Take a 50M NW weapon. Not unusual in this stage of the game.

Taking the cost to be 5% is 2.5M each time one wants to try another weapon. That is very cost prohibitive for some tanks.

A fixed cost for the ability to change would be a balance.

IE: 2% or 2M whichever is less. That would seem right to me.

QBsutekh137 July 18 2008 12:55 PM EDT

I disagree. Needs to be more than 2%, otherwise it is just like experience, except with all the inherent benefits of a weapon: sellable, transferable, persistent, loanable, etc.

I don't disagree with a cap, I just think I would double what you say (for starters) -- 4% up to 4 million. That way it is twice as burdensome as retraining, and the cap is 10 times the tattoo artist.

And the next time we have a retrain, if ever, the % and cap would be zero so tanks could do whatever they needed to tweak and test.

QBRanger July 18 2008 12:58 PM EDT

That sounds fine with me OB.

However, would you be adverse to a week of free weapon artist to counter the week of free retraining?

It would matter less then if it was during the free retrain as one usually goes DM with a missile tank and AMF with a melee tank.

Hence I personally could not try a missile weapon easily without losing a lot of MPR. And more if it did not work well.

Or perhaps a 3 day free retrain and WA?

lostling July 18 2008 1:04 PM EDT

errrm ranger... thats sut not OB =x


* sutekh137 until Jul 14

QBRanger July 18 2008 1:07 PM EDT

Yes, it is Sut.

There is the problem with people changing their names every month. OB I reference that time.

But again, using the forge to change weapons is a very poor idea since tanks need their weapons to fight.

And having to use BA to change a weapon when mages just had a free retrain is not entirely equal footing.

QBsutekh137 July 18 2008 1:10 PM EDT

I have not changed my name in a long time...

The free retrain is in the past. There was a poll, a discussion, and Jonathan made a decision. In my opinion, that cannot be remedied now, especially since we have no clue whether Jonathan even thinks this is _remotely_ a good idea. Even if he did, he likely wouldn't do anything until next change month.

Cube July 18 2008 3:06 PM EDT

I see this as very necessary, there is no market for high leveled weapons especially after a nerf. What has resulted is that most tanks are locked into the weapon they chose until some sort of market reaches their level. Sure, if there were more people with higher level weapons to trade with it wouldn't be a problem, but the problem is EVERY SINGLE gigantic melee weapon is a Morgul Hammer, so what are you going to do?

Okay, this may be self inflicted, but based on the fact that considering the MH does less damage than it's 84x base; doesn't that mean that the MH was nerfed already, but people were stuck with it anyway? Wouldn't weapon diversity be more interesting anyway?

As for after the introduction of a weapon, it would be to jump start it into the game the exact reason SG allowed a free retrain. Just because you didn't like the retrain doesn't mean it didn't have a purpose.

Also, let tanks swap weapons instantly for 2% of their XP in strength, hp, and dex? I'm sure plenty would still do it.

Yukk July 18 2008 3:27 PM EDT

This is just like anything else. The guys locked in feel the pain. I may only have $50M invested in my weapons (weapons which have undergone major nerfs since I acquired them) but even assuming I could somehow fight without my weapons, it would take me a year to replace lost NW at 50% (again, assuming I could compete in the 6/20 zone with a couple of $12M weapons)
The guys who benefited from a free retrain and immediately got to use the new mage DD at 100% strength don't see any issue. Sure, they climbed a few notches up the ladder that week, but that's all good, right ?
I'm still hoping Jon (and NS) have a master plan and I'm sure it's harder to deal with tank issues than with mages.

QBRanger July 18 2008 4:45 PM EDT


You do not seem to understand.

As a tank you must have spent USD. Therefore if you lose some money, haha on you.

That was sarcasm for all those out there.

But what I wanted, as well as some (not all) tanks, was equal consideration in changing our character.

As someone pointed out above, it is fun to change your character. Change your weapon, or your spells. But when you have millions of NW locked up in a specific weapons your kid of stuck.

Unlike mages who can take a small xp loss and move on to the next bigger/better spell.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] July 18 2008 7:43 PM EDT

I for one am looking forward to Jon fixing this by simple making it cost 50% of XP to train, and readding the tat lvl penalty for reinking...

Disenchanting is brand new as it is, it seems to have done the same thing as some of the other luxury items Jon has handed down; made things worse.

We get a free retrain, we cry for more of them. We get a free reink, and we want a free retrain to go with it. Disenchanting allows us to get more out of big ticket items than was ever possible before... and now we want it to work just like XP.

It never ends. Jon has a awfully good record of giving us what we need rather than what we want. I hope that continues.

Cube July 18 2008 9:17 PM EDT

So you'd rather no one could switch strategies ever... That sounds like the dumbest solution I've ever heard. The only interesting part is changing up your strategy. Honestly, what is the fun in a static system... How would it not be more interesting to see someone suddenly switch to an ELS and start winning, or something along those lines. I have no idea why you'd insist on doing the same thing over and over again.

And this is why I think the idea only adds to the game because it adds choice at a small penalty rather than a massive one.

Soxjr July 18 2008 9:27 PM EDT

Novice I normally read your comments and even if I don't agree sometimes I see where you are coming from, but did just say that a 50% loss from disenchanting is like getting a tanks cake adn now we want to eat it too? If so then this is one where I will respond and say that is rediculous.

I could care less if this ever goes into existance, but I will say one thing. If this game wants tanks or archers to really work, there has to be a way when a new weapon comes out or just wanting to switch strategies to something that might actually compete better, that there has to be a way to switch the weapon. 50% of a 20 mil weapon is nothing. Yeah lower down the dis-enchant thing can work adn also can sell the weapon and buy a new one and blacksmith back up, but explain to me how I'm supposed to take 1 year of time to take my 116 mil nw Mageseeker and make it an Elb if I found out that that strat would work better. In that year look at all the ground I lost, then when the year is over, what if the Elb didn't work as well, then I got another year to get back to Mageseeker and in all that time my damage went nowhere. It stayed the same, while mages got bigger and bigger and if they decided to change from MM to CoC to the new spell it takes them all of a couple weeks to make up the exp they lost. You got to be kidding saying this is someone asking for ice cream to go on thier cake and is just asking for too much.

QBRanger July 18 2008 9:29 PM EDT

Novice, that is a very myopic approach.

Jon does not "give" us anything. He throws us some stuff and lets us play with it in the sandbox.

But if your going to believe CB is a static game, that's very wrong. At least how I think of CB.

Change is great, and letting people change their characters is great. Free untrain/retrain is great but very limited in its usage. Like in a very volatile changemonth.

However, I am posting, as others are, to state the lack of a weapon artist to help tanks do exactly what mages have been able to do. Change their character. We can, just not to another type of tank.

Fun for mages, quite boring for tanks.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002UbS">NW Weapon transfer</a>