Talk:Requirement

Rename?
I think this should be renamed as either Requirement or Weapon requirement, then leave "Req" as a redirect (then add the redirect to the abbreviations category). I also noticed that some of the information in the article contradicts information at Weapon. Was there a program change, or is one (or both) of the articles mistaken? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Agreed on the rename/redirect. And where does the testing info even come from? The article cites several testers, confirmed results... but from where? — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 16:58, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * GWG iirc. Also, "Requirement" would be the best name for this. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 17:09, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Depending on what the name of this article changes to, a disambiguation may be good idea to separate this article from ... Required Hero: Koss (in-game usage) or even as opposed to Requirement (as in Hunted! requires Consulate Docks (Mission)) (GuildWiki usage)
 * Listed is a scheme for damage reduction on melee weapons, bows and spears... I presume this scheme would be the same for wands and staves?
 * Does armor on a shield operate similarly to offhands in a flat decreased armor? Or does it operate more similarly to weapons with a graduated decline in armor value?
 * As I recall hearing a long time ago, falling short of a requirement will only affect the linked statistic. For any sort of weapon, this would mean damage.  For offhands, this would mean energy.  For shields, it would mean armor.
 * From a quick test with a req 9 Collector's staff: there was no variation in energy despite changing the attribute related to the requirement.
 * By extension from the staves, the mitigation of Gain would not come into play with Inscriptions (or inherent bonuses that would be Inscriptions if it was an Elonian weapon) such as E+5 (while Enchanted)?
 * Since I recall no wands with attribute-linked energy, I presume the table applies only to offhands? The table then would not apply to a Holy Rod.


 * From a quick test, it seems that there is no differentiation between just short (r8 with a r9 offhand) and very short (r4 with a r9 offhand)3. Both resulted in a Gain of E+3. A few quick tests followed this trend and showed some other interesting results.


 * {| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"

! Gain || Req || Attrib >= Req || Attrib < Req ! E+10 || r10 || E+10 || E+6 || ! E+7 || r5 || E+7 || E+3 || ! E+7 || r2 || E+7 || E+6 || ! E+6 || r5 || E+61 || E+31 || ! E+12 || r13 || n/a || E+6 || 2 ! E+12 || r12 || E+12 || E+6 || ! E+12 || r11 || E+12 || E+6 || ! E+12 || r10 || E+12 || E+6 || ! E+12 || r9 || E+12 || E+3 || 3 ! E+12 || r9 || n/a || E+6 || 2, 4 ! E+12 || r8 || E+12 || E+6
 * }
 * 1This particular offhand had E+5 (while Health is above 50%). Whether the linked attribute was above or below the requirement, the bonus energy was present.  The listed Gain is the difference.
 * 2In contrast to the rest of the list, these offhands are for a profession differing from the primary and secondary of character used for testing. Thus, the attribute is presumably counts as rank 0, since it is unavailable.
 * 3This item is a green and was used to test the attrib 8 vs attrib 4 with a req 9 offhand.
 * 4This item is an Elonian gold offhand. It also has a Focus Core of Endurance, H+30, which was in effect.  See note 2

Adeira Tasharo 01:35, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Due to a lack of further discussion, I have made some preliminary edits. Pending more in-depth research, I will eventually update the table for Offhand Energy. I do not presently feel qualified to test the weapons, so I leave that someone else.

Adeira Tasharo 14:48, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Trivia
What is the origin of the myth that low req items are "better"? I once heard a rumor (which I now, sadly, spread) that a long time ago, in a land far far away (possibly beta), you did more damage with a req9 weapon than with a req11 weapon, even with weapon mastery at 13+. --Carmine 21:07, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I too would like to know how a lower requirement weapon is better than a higher one even if you've got 12 points into the weapon's attribute. Rickyzhou 20:15, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The two lines of thought that seem to apply to low req items:
 * Possible benefit from exceeding the req. - I seem to recall hearing something of the sort at some point, but I recall nothing conclusive. Some games, such as Diablo II, do reward exceeding the requirement.  AFAIK, GW is not one of them.
 * More flexibility in attribute distribution. (Also, Weakness) - You can max two attributes, however that will leave you with only a small handful for a third attribute. If your weapon or offhand requires 10, 11, or even 12 (13??), you have to keep that attribute fairly high, allowing less for other classes.  A req 7 weapon potentially leaves more attribute points for the others.  Granted, if you want to be at rank 12 (for benefit to skills) and have a req 7 weapon, this is irrelevant.  Weakness adds another pull on your skills.  If you have a req 9 weapon/offhand and have 9 ranks in that attribute, suffering from Weakness will cause you to miss the req and suffer a penalty on the equipped item. Adeira Tasharo 20:40, 18 April 2007 (CDT)