Talk: Iop

Edits

I edited a few of the spell descriptions to be clearer, and more concise. --Tre 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at my guide for beginners!

Look at my guide for beginners! URL: Iop/Strength 3rd. It sometimes can't find it, so search afterward!

That's all!

Strength

what should i do to get stronger..?

200 Iop

There's now a lvl 200 Iop on Djaul. And he got, indeed, Summoning of Iop Dopple as lvl 200 spell.

How does the Dopple summoning work? As in, does it have the same characteristics as the player, or something else? Because looking at the spell's description, it doesn't look worth levelling...I mean, not that I'm gonna get to 200 any time soon, but is the dopple good? --Looful (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it has it's own characteristics, which aren't very good (Iop Dopple (summon)), but multiply that by three because of the caster's level. However, a Dopple can be useful, to buff you, or distract your opponent. AdventuresOfASquirrel_zz^z12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Int-build solid rated?

Since when have Intelligence build been rated as a solid and proven build? It doesn't have any good damaging mid-range spells except SS which has a tricky range nor AoEs to deal with groups. Agi-Iops have Celestial which cover better close-mid -range and it's AoE. Sure building a Agi-Iop requires more efford in lower levels, but after gaining Jugdement Sword things should be smoother.

My point is that Agility and Intelligence builds are roughly equal in terms of effectiveness. Therefore they should have same rating (meaning that they should have 2 marks, instead of 3).Pupuaro 15:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agility and Intelligence builds are approximately equally powerful builds, and, yes, they are both very difficult to play. However, a smart, strategic player who knows what they're doing can be extremely effective with either of them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Strengthstorm is the second most powerful spell in the game, after Iop's Wrath, in terms of damage per AP, and Celestial Sword is one of the most powerful area of effect spells. Agility Iops can also use Moon Hammer. Used in combination with spells such as Cut, Blow, Intimidation, and Release, (and Jump... thanks to Squirreladventures for that, I completely forgot about it.) both of these builds can be extremely effective. Beet of Doom 06:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Iop's Wrath has 1/2 fails, true, but Strengthstorm has awful range (not boostable). Celestial may do high damage, but has a small AoE than Sword of Iop, and can hit the caster. Moon Hammer has 1/10 crit fails, and can hit quite low or very high. Now let's argue the other way, and see which sounds better.

Strengthstorm is 3 AP from level 5, with higher base damage than most strength Iop spells. Poor range can be countered with high agility (for dodge rolls), push back or Jump. Fails, however, can't be combated. Celestial may have a smaller AoE than Sword of Iop, but it's circular, not cross, and has higher base damage. Moon Hammer has 1/10 crit fails, better than Iop's Wrath, but with only a few hundred agility, can do better damage and at a range.

Which argument sounds better? Strength Iops would say the first one, Intelligence or Agility Iops would say the second. Using these arguments, you could even say that Int or Agi Iops are better than strength ones. It just depends how well you argue. AdventuresOfASquirrel_zz^z06:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A build doesn't need to be the best possible build for a class to be proven and solid. I'm not saying that Intelligence or Agility Iops are better builds than strength Iops, in fact, when you take into account the horrible agility and intelligence caps for Iops, strength is probably the best build. I'm just saying that agility and intelligence Iops are approximately equally powerful. One other thing about agility and intelligence builds that neither of us mentioned is that the Reckless Set has a couple of items that would be quite helpful, for example, Ring Bellious deactivates line of sight on Celestial Sword, and Cloak Orporal deactivates line of sight on Strengthstorm. Another spell for intelligence Iops that is underrated, in my opinion, is Cut, which has boostable range, a linear area of effect of three squares, an unlimited number of casts per turn, and causes the target to lose two MP. At level six, Cut is only three AP. Beet of Doom 06:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Best Charecter

since last patch iops do godly n i mean godly dmg. Destructive Sword lvl 4 does 70 dmg at lvl 21 for a 113 int n 133 str. THey can solo all though monsters like miliboowolfs , bearman , n polished cracrocks at their 20s while a str cra lvl 40 does merely 50 dmg with maxed magic arrow.

Yet another example why Iops are over-powered. TheHutty 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And then they get killed because they can't heal/reduce damage etc, except sort of with Sword of Judgment and Vitality (spell). Just doing loads of damage can't save you from something with high enough HP that can kill you first or steal your AP. AdventuresOfASquirrel_zz^z

Squirrel, you're saying that Iops can't heal and they'd get easily killed. Whereas I do have to approve in some points I think you underestimate Vitality (spell). Surviving the first round, which is quite easy unless it's a party-fight, and just keep rebuffing Vitality will solve quite a few HP-matters. I'd say, Iops could be overpowered. Darkdrake 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a level 35 or lower Iop, who doesn't even HAVE Vitality (spell). Yeah, even a level 20 Iop can solo two or three crackrocks, but only if they can keep running. if the crackroks catch up, they are dead meat. an iop delivers as much damage as possible as fast as possible, but iops are squishy, and can easily get killed the next turn. AdventuresOfASquirrel_zz^z 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's like comparing a level 1 Iop with a level 1 Feca. That argument's just... useless, I guess... Darkdrake 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Iop's are overpowered, juts that they may seem to hit higher than most other classes. But the thing is Iop's are meant hit quite high, just like Osa's are expected to summon and buff the summon, each class it's own benefits and weaknesses, in my opinion none of them are overpowered. It may be a bit stereotypical of me and I know there are builds which go against the 'normal' ideas, but at the end of the day each class is meant to have certain apsects about them. Otherwise just scrap the whole class idea, and go from the same kind of blank character at the start like some RPG's do. The fact is the classes are pretty much equal, what matters is the characters themselves (spells, equips etc). If you want to do 'godly' damage then be an Iop. Because they're one of the classes whihch is geared towards that. It probably sounds pretty stereotypical but it's just the way it is. Galrauch 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Applauds Galrauch. That's pretty much what I was saying. Iops' strength is their high damage, their weakness is that they take damage WAY too easily. It's just a matter of balancing the two. Low level iops have low range, so have to rely more on strategy. Higher levels have higher range, so can go for sheer power. Iops are actually quite hard to play, but if you look at any player who knows what they are doing, it doesn't look that way. Same applies for any class. AdventuresOfASquirrel_zz^z 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's 2010 now, so obviously Iops have changed a LOT, but as a scrolled level 83 Eca, it's pretty annoying, losing to a level 65 Iop who has 1080 hp (40 more than me), hits 180x3 (compared to my 250x2 at close range), and to top it off, can move 7 spaces with 9 AP. And that's just a level 65 Iop, higher levels piss me off more. >_< I guess I have to give them credit though, since I hear it's pretty annoying raising int Iops to level 60+. --wadjet2 (talk) 23:29, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

What set after Royal Gobbal Set

What's a good set for a level 90 IOP? --87.8.35.225 08:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrdala is perfect, it gives 2 ap, which will get you to 10 ap after level 100 with a gelano, which mean 2 SoI's.59.183.9.172 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the argument about build ratings...

While Celestial Sword and Strengthstorm are two of the most powerful spells in the game, I still think that both Agility and Intelligence builds should have a level two rating. As shown in the soft cap table, both builds are affected by horrible soft caps, so they need to be scrolled and get decent equipment to be powerful. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if two people, equally skilled tactics-wise, fought each other with no scrolled characteristics or equipment, one with a Strength Iop, and the other with an Agility or Intelligence one, the Strength Iop would be more likely to win. Assuming that that's accurate, a Strength Iop would be a better option for a starting player, hence why I think Agility and Intelligence builds should be rated lower than Strength. --Looful (talk) 06:20, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave it as it is for now, with Builds as messed up as they are then I don't want to overcomplicate things by writing pages on pages on the vertues of Iops. ;) Also they do have a two ** rating anyway, less I'm going blind. ;_; Galrauch (talk) 17:41, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

They do have two star ratings, but I put that in. When I arrived, they were three. --Looful (talk) 07:24, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

So you did. Stop confusing me! Galrauch (talk) 16:19, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Stares at Galrauch quizzically I'm just about as lost as you are now.--Looful (talk) 16:59, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sorry just me being my usual cryptic self. Just when someone posts about making an edit (Or in your case I miss the actual edit) I assume they've made no changes to the page. Just my slanted view on Wikis, never understood why people post about making an edit, or going to make an edit, always just prefered being bold and doing the edit, then discussing it if it is reverted or what not. Anyways enough de railing, the change has happened and I've made a fool of myself, hope you're happy now! >:] Galrauch (talk) 18:48, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well then, I usually make an edit when I see fit, but I also like to say why. --Looful (talk) 08:54, September 24, 2009 (UTC)