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)

So in other words, it's pointless. Because less than 12, you wouldn't be doing 100% of the damage anyway. At the most, weakness can only drop attribute by 1, so it's not too difficult to keep yourself safe. Around 12/13 requirement it may be different. As for Diablo 2, the requirements don't vary. You can't use it if you're below the requirement, and exceeding it doesn't benefit you. It's the innate benefit from strength/dexterity that improves the damage. If you socket a weapon with -20% requirements, you won't get any more of a benefit with the requirement being lower. Well, thanks for the info. Rickyzhou 23:05, 18 April 2007 (CDT)