Ranger Archive
Thread: Next Question, 4th, for TH.
1- Thunderheart and the devs have EXPLICTLY said, MANY TIMES, that they will by no means release formulas nor mathematics implied on the game. So if u ask again about formulas and mathematics we will get that response again .
2. NRass the previous Ranger correspondet and Brisc Rubal the scout correspondent conducted a thourough experiment to test exaclty this, im too lazy to look for this post but im sure u will have no trouble finding if u look for it. If i remeber well, they proved that when u apply cvamo to a palyer is the applier's mod the one that works, and the a master ranger, with BE camo clothes will get 95 % effecivenes of camo on 25 level crits IF U ARE IN PRONE POSTION whilst mask scent got and effecctivenes of 85% also in rpone( not sure about the mask scent but im pretty sure camos was 95%). Anywa please look for the post and this question of yours will be answered almost in tins entirety.
Cya
Ether_Sunrider wrote:
Even tho you question is very well put up, im afriad it will never work because:
1- Thunderheart and the devs have EXPLICTLY said, MANY TIMES, that they will by no means release formulas nor mathematics implied on the game. So if u ask again about formulas and mathematics we will get that response again .
2. NRass the previous Ranger correspondet and Brisc Rubal the scout correspondent conducted a thourough experiment to test exaclty this, im too lazy to look for this post but im sure u will have no trouble finding if u look for it. If i remeber well, they proved that when u apply cvamo to a palyer is the applier's mod the one that works, and the a master ranger, with BE camo clothes will get 95 % effecivenes of camo on 25 level crits IF U ARE IN PRONE POSTION whilst mask scent got and effecctivenes of 85% also in rpone( not sure about the mask scent but im pretty sure camos was 95%). Anywa please look for the post and this question of yours will be answered almost in tins entirety.
Cya
Well I vaguely remember the "no formulas" stuff. So we just reword it, and ask for what the effective difference is. I also remember when NRaas and Delta did these tests. And from what I remember NRass posted that mask scent is 95% effective and /conceal is 98% effective. If that is the case then /coceal is not really worth the trouble to make camo kits, and continuelly apply it.
In my experience with a +128 camo mod, and runing through Dath with a group, my camo almost never breaks, but the others I applied it to continuelly break. And thus I have to constantly reapply it to them, and thusly thusly keep A LOT of extra camo kits on hand. To me, this seems much less effective, useful or fun.
Even though the Coor for scout and ranger did tests, that is not the root of the abilities. I want the devs to tell us. They don't have to tell us the exact formula, just how big a difference between the two, and what they feel was supposed to be advantage of using /conceal.
Message Edited by Squidwalker on 06-29-2004 07:29 AM
Duplication of skills is bad when a higher-level one starts at a point less than the lower-level one will be at that skill level.
Seiryuu wrote:
My concern is why would I use /conceal over /maskscent unless I was a master? Until then, coneal is actually inferior because we have to start over from a low skill.
Duplication of skills is bad when a higher-level one starts at a point less than the lower-level one will be at that skill level.
Exactly, but even at master its not really worth it. I'm master and almost never use /conceal on myself. Sooo not worth it compared to a really good mask scent. Especially if it's "not meant" to work on NPC. This is why I want to ask this question.
The one thing that might be in conceal's favor is that TH told us NPCs were not supposed to be included, but we do not know if this came from Green Marine or another dev. I'm beginning to think it was another one since he has been involved with JTL since player cities were finished.
Well it's an alternative. I'm just convinced we're not going to get a look-in till at least 2005 ![]()