Is there a list of all the alb items which have charges/uses on them with mob drop locations?

Would be nice to know what Alb has access to at 1.65. Is there a str/con charge item?

Ardri wrote:Is there a list of all the alb items which have charges/uses on them with mob drop locations?

Would be nice to know what Alb has access to at 1.65. Is there a str/con charge item?

There is not a str/con item sadly. We get a bit gimped on charge items which sucks a bit.

All we get is dex/qui from the breifine boss mob..

Kaudo wrote:

Ardri wrote:Is there a list of all the alb items which have charges/uses on them with mob drop locations?

Would be nice to know what Alb has access to at 1.65. Is there a str/con charge item?

There is not a str/con item sadly. We get a bit gimped on charge items which sucks a bit.

So even once SI is implemented alb will not get a str/con charge?

Sanik wrote:

Kaudo wrote:

Ardri wrote:Is there a list of all the alb items which have charges/uses on them with mob drop locations?

Would be nice to know what Alb has access to at 1.65. Is there a str/con charge item?

There is not a str/con item sadly. We get a bit gimped on charge items which sucks a bit.

So even once SI is implemented alb will not get a str/con charge?

That is correct. We get hosed pretty hardcore.

The str/con charge item apparently came into SI after 1.65 confirmed by a GM here.

Kaudo wrote:
That is correct. We get hosed pretty hardcore.

The str/con charge item apparently came into SI after 1.65 confirmed by a GM here.

I'm pretty sure at this point that that is incorrect, sir. 1.65 was what... October 2003? These are my findings from the past hour or so of research:

Dated April 2004.

Crude Silken Cap.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Fedaykin_Cla ... r/t112.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20030806102 ... citem=6186

Post from July 2003 supports the above information:

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/threads ... 899/page-2

I'm pretty sure Alb had Str/Con charge item pre-1.65 in SI. I'm not going to research anymore unless I'm told by staff that these finds are not enough evidence. However, I'll bet people can find more evidence in French or German if you know how to look for it. Maybe even some item screenshots, too.

Grimhound wrote:

Kaudo wrote:
That is correct. We get hosed pretty hardcore.

The str/con charge item apparently came into SI after 1.65 confirmed by a GM here.

I'm pretty sure at this point that that is incorrect, sir. 1.65 was what... October 2003? These are my findings from the past hour or so of research:

Dated April 2004.

Crude Silken Cap.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Fedaykin_Cla ... r/t112.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20030806102 ... citem=6186

Post from July 2003 supports the above information:

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/threads ... 899/page-2

I'm pretty sure Alb had Str/Con charge item pre-1.65 in SI. I'm not going to research anymore unless I'm told by staff that these finds are not enough evidence. However, I'll bet people can find more evidence in French or German if you know how to look for it. Maybe even some item screenshots, too.

Simply due to the 56 value, I need to see a SS before I believe this.

Too much of a coincidence that the debuff value always is 56 and no other s/c buffs are 56 (always 30ish and 75ish). Combined with a picture provided later (and afaik no patch note about it being changed) showing it as a debuff is simply too strong evidence for it being a misinformation being spread across multiple forums (probably based off zam).

Mid has str/con dex/qui and haste as far as i know

http://www.bdodaoc.com/index.php?mode=v ... 508&type=1

The 1.84 version also show debuff... Unfortunately.

Trishin wrote:

Grimhound wrote:

Kaudo wrote:
That is correct. We get hosed pretty hardcore.

The str/con charge item apparently came into SI after 1.65 confirmed by a GM here.

I'm pretty sure at this point that that is incorrect, sir. 1.65 was what... October 2003? These are my findings from the past hour or so of research:

Dated April 2004.

Crude Silken Cap.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Fedaykin_Cla ... r/t112.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20030806102 ... citem=6186

Post from July 2003 supports the above information:

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/threads ... 899/page-2

I'm pretty sure Alb had Str/Con charge item pre-1.65 in SI. I'm not going to research anymore unless I'm told by staff that these finds are not enough evidence. However, I'll bet people can find more evidence in French or German if you know how to look for it. Maybe even some item screenshots, too.

Simply due to the 56 value, I need to see a SS before I believe this.

Too much of a coincidence that the debuff value always is 56 and no other s/c buffs are 56 (always 30ish and 75ish). Combined with a picture provided later (and afaik no patch note about it being changed) showing it as a debuff is simply too strong evidence for it being a misinformation being spread across multiple forums (probably based off zam).

You tell people they can't use proof from ZAM because some things aren't accurate. So people post proof using multiple different sites. Then you say nope, this is not valid proof. I need a 14 year old screenshot or nothing will be changed. Really man? Even though it's blatantly un-balanced you refuse to correct it?

I mean i get that you want to stick to 1.65 and have an organic classic server. But for things that are blatantly un-balanced why do you choose to not correct them for the betterment of the server? You guys just sit back and tout 1.65 as if it's the holy bible and is infallible. Some sh*t is broken and needs to be fixed in order for the server to be healthy and not imbalanced as f*ck.

People will leave because Uthgard refuses to make quality of life and balance changes. Mark my words in 6 months to 1 year you will see.

Show me a patch note from before the SS showing it as a debuff saying that item (or the mob it drops from and its drops) were changed.

And I am happy to accept it as a s/c buff. But 2 unreliable sources saying the same does not equal reliability.

Ardri wrote:
You tell people they can't use proof from ZAM because some things aren't accurate.

The fun part is ... for some issue reports i follow, Zam seems to be a reference.
I guess it depend which GM you talk to, and what is the matter.

About mob classification (Giant Magic Undead Humanoid etc) Zam seems stronger than patchnotes & dozens 2003 posts !
But not for S/C buff on Albion ! Deal with it !

funny thing is if the realms were reversed and this was mid trying to get the item back..

dev would say '56 makes no sense, so we are making it 76 and putting it in the game. show me a screenshot to prove this is wrong or it will be in mid'

defill wrote:funny thing is if the realms were reversed and this was mid trying to get the item back..

dev would say '56 makes no sense, so we are making it 76 and putting it in the game. show me a screenshot to prove this is wrong or it will be in mid'

so true

defill wrote:funny thing is if the realms were reversed and this was mid trying to get the item back..

dev would say '56 makes no sense, so we are making it 76 and putting it in the game. show me a screenshot to prove this is wrong or it will be in mid'

This get's thrown around a lot and I think it's pretty stupid. You either actually think the devs as a whole favor Mid (dumb) or you're joking around. The problem is that enough people repeat said joke and then angry players start to believe it. Or worse you turn off new players that don't know any better.