Game Mechanics: Staff of Temperate Flux and Rod of Insidious Glamour Should not be useable on move

[Rygar]

Originally Posted by Duik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also. Wiz on live. Used flux staff. But only have "trust me bro" proof.

I believe him, yo. I don't know why, but I do.

[Kirdan]

Gluwen is very much wrong about flux staff, changing it would be unclassic. This has nothing to do with guilds, Wayward Rando.

[Duik]

3 resists 3 success.
For that small sample

[Awsten_Tx]

I have read through everything and posted a week ago that it likely has a cast time similar to dainnhammer. Can still use on the move but limits it to between 2 and 3 cast per second.

[feniin]

Originally Posted by Awsten_Tx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have read through everything and posted a week ago that it likely has a cast time similar to dainnhammer. Can still use on the move but limits it to between 2 and 3 cast per second.

I feel like you're just deliberately ignoring the logs and in-era evidence because you can't accept being wrong about this. Good thing nilbog can read and doesn't need your grandstanding.

[Wayward]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I feel like you're just deliberately ignoring the logs and in-era evidence because you can't accept being wrong about this. Good thing nilbog can read and doesn't need your grandstanding.

For real... Literally everyone in this post is telling him he's wrong and providing evidence of the fact, but he keeps saying "Yep that proves it's got a 0.1 cast time."

I wish I had the same type of brain as Gluwen, I bet his detachment from objective truth helps him to stay happy regardless of circumstance. He can probably just reason anything away and imagine a reality where he is infallible.

[Awsten_Tx]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I feel like you're just deliberately ignoring the logs and in-era evidence because you can't accept being wrong about this. Good thing nilbog can read and doesn't need your grandstanding.

You mean the logs citing 6 cast a second that turned out to be 2 wizards?

That also had a whole slew of logs showing 2 cast per seconds that were conveniently excluded
...

Or the number of people claiming "truth me bro" that dont even know logs mechanics.

But by all means, continue the personal attacks. I am sure that will prove your case.

[Vivitron]

Originally Posted by Awsten_Tx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You mean the logs citing 6 cast a second that turned out to be 2 wizards?

You just claimed you reviewed baakss links which include nov 2001 logs showing ~5 fluxes/second from a single wizard, so maybe those logs?

[Awsten_Tx]

Originally Posted by Vivitron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You just claimed you reviewed baakss links which include nov 2001 logs showing ~5 fluxes/second from a single wizard, so maybe those logs?

how do you know they are from a single wizard? there is a shaman in the group casting malaisement. This is the kinda "trust me bro" garbage that goes on. Previously it was 6 cast per second when, oh wait, there were 2 wizards in the area.

there isnt an ounce of viable evidence the current function is classic. On the other hand we have 2 different patch notes, and heaps of logs, that show it should of been clickable about 2 or 3 times a second. no more.

[Awsten_Tx]

they arent log files, they are a copy pasta. 21 years after the fact, on a thread generated on the exact same topic...