Talk:Shiro's Sword

This sword is incredibly lame. :( It would have been awesome if the life stealing was, say, 10:1 at the expense of the high requirement in Swordsmanship. But to make it so high-req just for the skin is retarded, let the item hoarding farmers have it! >:( --Karlos 21:20, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

"(which looks a lot better by the way)" Isn't this an opinion? I've gone ahead and removed it, and personally I like the look of the sword, but the high req is absurd (IMO). --GraceAlone 07:43, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

You mean you people don't have 15/16 Swordsmanship when using a sword? Only problem I see is that /Ws can't use the weapons effectively, which isn't a terrible loss. -Savio 13:02, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Hey, I solo fow with 15 swordsmenship. Foo 08:25, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

If I'm not mistaken, having a level in an attribute that is over the required amount adds damage. (Such as having 16 swordsmanship instead of just the required 9 for a weapon) That would be one reason why having a requirement of 15 is kind of a bad thing. Regular attacks just wouldn't pack the same punch.
 * I'm not following. Having 16 swords on a req 4 weapon will do the same as having 4 swords won't it? test it (0 strength) Skuld  15:44, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Skuld, see Damage. -PanSola 18:02, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I am correct in thinking that the req 9 sword and req 15 sword do the same amount of damage in the hands of a warrior with 15 Swordsmanship, however, yes? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 02:07, 23 May 2006 (CDT) )
 * Correct. --adeyke 02:19, 23 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the 15 swordmanship is crazy but in some ways the sword still has its positives. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.136.49.227 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:12, 8 August 2006 (CDT).
 * lot's of PvPers run 16, but PvPers are not getting to the divine path... --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 19:22, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The sword is cheap though, so even the hardest of PvPers could possibly aquire it if they wanted w/o getting to the Divine Path. -Gares 19:35, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

"Massive criticals"?
An anon poster just added:
 * This is due to the fact that it has massive criticals as a hidden effect.

to the Notes. I commented it out because I would like it to be verified first. If someone tests this against a dummy, I would greatly appreciate if they post the raw data here. Thanks. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:06, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Probably some idiot thinking criticals are linked to requirements again. Of course you'll have a better chance of criticals using Shiro's Sword since you're forced to have 15-16 Swordsmanship to use the weapon. But you'll end up with the same result if you have a regular sword with 15-16 Swordsmanship. -Savio 20:44, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
 * That is my suspicion also. However, I would like to know if there is greater than a 22% chance for critical hits with Shiro's Sword with 15 in Swordsmanship. I would be greatly surprised if the claim were true, given that such an innate bonus would be imbalancing, but suspicion of wrongness is not disproof. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:55, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * To me, it seems only as another try to scam someone in game by providing profs from guildwiki, and another reason to allow only registered users to edit articles. Foo 08:22, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The splelign and gramar woudl be very bda if it weretn for anons ;) &mdash; Skuld  11:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Check RecentChanges. Click "hide logged in users". Count the well over 100 edits today alone. Want to throw those away just because one or two of them are tarts? -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 11:41, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Semi-protection is not a bad idea for feature complete articles, however. Not that I think protection has any bearing on this particular instance, cf. Hanlon's Razor. Seventy.twenty.x.x 11:48, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it is (a bad idea, that is). Nothing wrong with using measures like that in response to specific vandalism, but as a general tool it is nearly as heavy-handed and elitist as logged-in only. Neither is a good idea, because either will result in fewer edits, and by extension, less accurate and up-to-date content. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 11:58, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Requiring registration is elitist? Huh. Seventy.twenty.x.x 14:08, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Random hit-n-run trivia insert: according to the log of the last 500 users to be blocked, only 24 were registered users. 95.2% of all blocked accounts are anon IP addresses, most blocked due to vandalism. ps: this is posted from my IP as it appeals to my quirky side. --24.19.168.170 14:25, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And requireing registration will just make all of them that much harder to spot. Besides, this statistics completely ignores how many VALID edits anon users have done, and how many of those edits wouldn't have happened with requiring registration is an immeasurable effect. - 14:28, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This is a debate that has gone on in the wiki posibly from the start, and one that will contiinue indefinitely.
 * My opinion is that the larger group of anon edits are either from users who have accounts and just didn't log in, or from users who are willing to register and just hadn't seen a need yet. The cost to the wiki in lost edits would be relatively insignificant.
 * But as PanSola points out, despite GW:YAV, those who police recent changes tend to focus more attention on policing the anon edits. With most vandals being anon, it's a low-tech way to target a population more likely to vandalize.  I don't want to get into a debate on the equal application of policy, I'm just as guilty of policing anon edits more closely, just making an observation. --24.19.168.170 14:46, 10 June 2006 (CDT)