Page 1 of 1

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:59 am
by DOCTOR THUNDER
Legendary smith + 60 ASH = 180 smithing. It should be the same on here, it shouldn't cap out at 140 or whatever you guys have it set to.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19708

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:24 am
by Plastic Man
DOCTOR THUNDER wrote:Legendary smith + 60 ASH = 180 smithing. It should be the same on here, it shouldn't cap out at 140 or whatever you guys have it set to.
QFT

Some of the %s on items seem to not take any real affect from having an ASH 60 on, plus at 180 smith its a silly amount of failing on enhancing.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19712

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:29 am
by DOCTOR THUNDER
Some of us even have smiths that are scrolled to 140 or 150, from way back when those scrolls dropped. Its really a waste after all the effort some of us put into getting those very rare scrolls.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19713

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:16 am
by Plastic Man
I just enhanced a batch of items and I was only sucessful on 20/61. Thats at 120 Smithing with an ASH +60. Seems to me that is a bit low, I mean I'm a "Legendary" smith with a crazy Hammer of Ancient Smiths thats only sucessful slightly less than a third of the time, What kind of legends has UO be writing, cuz thats not very impressive. Maybe by legnedary smith they mean legendarily bad XD.

I mean earning such a cool title should mean Im at least sucessful most of the time. Is 51% sucess rate really to high of a goal to aim for? I mean my sucess rate as a smith out of legends only compares to Bush's approval rating, I'm only slightly more successful than he is popular. Thats pretty bad.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19714

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:26 pm
by Red Squirrel
Do you have 120 REAL BS points + ash? since ash is hard coded into craft system (VERY BAD code) and I don't think +bs items or talismans will help, it has to be real skill + the ash. I'll take a look at this when I get the chance.

having 150bs is to replace the need for ash, it wont stack with it. Those scrolls were removed as the bod system was made easier so we could not justify dropping such scrolls anymore. Unfortunately lot of these "early days" things cannot be completely removed.

Opened ticket: http://www.iceteks.net/devel/index.php? ... ask_id=212

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19716

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:41 pm
by DOCTOR THUNDER
yes, we both have real 120BS and are using +60ASH. It would be nice if the old smiths with over 120 skill could get a different title than legendary.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19717

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:52 pm
by jrhather
DOCTOR THUNDER wrote:yes, we both have real 120BS and are using +60ASH. It would be nice if the old smiths with over 120 skill could get a different title than legendary.
Elderly?

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19718

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:47 pm
by Red Squirrel
Given those are not obtainable anymore I rather not put more essence on it by adding special titles, or it will raise more questions about it. If it was my choice I'd revert it to 120 but that would not go through too well, so way I see it is a vet status, and since the hammers can get you up to 180 (once fixed) then it will still be fair, just that with 150 you wont need the hammer so its still an advantage in that sense.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19722

Smithing cap should be 180, as per OSI

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:30 pm
by DOCTOR THUNDER
i wish I could take the scroll off of that guy and use it as decoration.

Archived topic from AOV, old topic ID:3092, old post ID:19724