Crafting shards onto any item...

[Dark_Knight_Silver]

This is my only gripe with crafting. Added versatility would make this system top notch. I get why random loot has on certain types abilities on certain items but crafting should transcend this handicap. Keeping certain things on weapons and items separate but all items should be created equal;)

[Ghost6989]

Could you elaborate a little more. From the sound of it you want to be able to put any trait on items and weapons.

[dkyle]

Could you elaborate a little more. From the sound of it you want to be able to put any trait on items and weapons.

He's saying allow, say, Blindness Immunity, on any clothing or jewelry, not just goggles. Don't restrict enhancements to the items lootgen restricts them to.

For a limited set of enhancements, I don't see a big problem. It would allow crafted gear to be special without needing to be strictly better than lootgen gear.

Just don't allow, say, Seeker or Sneak Attack on crafted clothing or jewelry. Powerful effects like that should remain the domain of named items, and crafted/lootgen weapons.

[somenewnoob]

I'd like to see the same. One of my gripes too. Some classes have a tough time finding good items for a particular slot, so why not let them make a useful item with a power that normally isn't found on an item.

Gloves of striding, of blindness ward, etc.

[kernal42]

but crafting should transcend this handicap.

Why?

Why should I be able to make a maul of puncturing?

The weapon type restrictions make just as much sense for you crafting as for random-gen crafting (which, presumably, were crafted themselves at some point); there's no reason to remove them only for the crafting system.

-Kernal

[dkyle]

Why?

Why should I be able to make a maul of puncturing?

To be clear, I'm OK with relaxing clothing and jewelry item restrictions. But not weapon type restrictions. Restrictions on what various weapon types can do are a major part of their advantages and disadvantages.

[MrkGrismer]

I sure would like to be able to put deathblock on something other than 'armor or shield'

[Ghost6989]

I disagree, certain objects/items have an affinity with certain effects. Blindness immunity boots just doesnt make sense imo and though it may prove useful to some people I think has a certain logic the way it currently is. I mean strength goggles for example compared to bracers/gloves/belt of strength. I see it as fixing something that isn't broken.

[Uska]

I'd like to see the same. One of my gripes too. Some classes have a tough time finding good items for a particular slot, so why not let them make a useful item with a power that normally isn't found on an item.

Gloves of striding, of blindness ward, etc.

disagree I think striding should be boots only yeah I know its not now but some effects should only be on some items in my opinion anyways.

[Therigar]

Why?

Why should I be able to make a maul of puncturing?

The weapon type restrictions make just as much sense for you crafting as for random-gen crafting (which, presumably, were crafted themselves at some point); there's no reason to remove them only for the crafting system.

-Kernal

Umm, you shouldn't and I'm certain that's not what's being asked for.

When the restriction is logical then it is easily understood and accepted.

But, what is there about magic that prevents striding from appearing on any clothing or jewelry item? Why does it appear only on the items that it does?

We can accept that even magic is subject to the laws of physics so puncturing cannot be crafted onto a bludgeoning weapon or slashing weapon. But it makes no sense that magical effects on clothing are somehow only able to work on cloaks and boots or that effects on jewelry only works on rings and trinkets.

What is the physical law that prevents the magic from working?

Or, more to the point in a magic dominated world like the Eberron setting why can't magic bend the laws of nature so that mauls can inflict puncturing damage? Part of Eberron lore is that magic is what powers everything. So if I think like an Eberron native I'd wonder, "Why can't I have a puncturing maul?" Just because nobody else has unlocked the secret doesn't mean it cannot exist.

[dkyle]

I disagree, certain objects/items have an affinity with certain effects. Blindness immunity boots just doesnt make sense imo and though it may prove useful to some people I think has a certain logic the way it currently is. I mean strength goggles for example compared to bracers/gloves/belt of strength. I see it as fixing something that isn't broken.

In the original 3.5 crafting system, effects do have an affinity for certain slots, but this can be overridden by paying extra. This might be something worth incorporating; provide some way to pay extra to put effects in unusual slots.

[khaldan]

I disagree, certain objects/items have an affinity with certain effects. Blindness immunity boots just doesnt make sense imo and though it may prove useful to some people I think has a certain logic the way it currently is. I mean strength goggles for example compared to bracers/gloves/belt of strength. I see it as fixing something that isn't broken.

Think of it from a usefulness perspective then: Every item currently makeablle by crafting can instead be gotten through spending a bunch on a randomly generated item. Allowing unusual effects on items allows for a lot more variety in gearing, and makes crafting far more viable than it is now.

[somenewnoob]

Think of it from a usefulness perspective then: Every item currently makeablle by crafting can instead be gotten through spending a bunch on a randomly generated item. Allowing unusual effects on items allows for a lot more variety in gearing, and makes crafting far more viable than it is now.

Exactly. Why make the same junk you can find any day? Make something new with crafting, which would make crafting ....useful!

[steelblueskies]

not true. deathblock belt? deathblock cloak? the latter is a mabar only item afaik. the former is just nonexistent.

striding and featherfalling on one item? not even any named bits with that combo, especially for a logical place like boots.. dt armor can be either/or as well.
we have bracers and scepters with two +1 spell school foci, yet we can't do that either, but i can put a school foci on a ring for example.

the crafting of accesories mods available per slot, the release of the full useful range of modifiers, the restructuring of the modifier minimum level spread(ie +6 stat), addressing the guild augment slots and race restriction modifiers, and at some point them expanding the limited epic augment crystal selection- are all things that have yet to occur, but really should.

at present the best thing i can see to throw together involves a belt or ring containing a guild augment, featherfalling and moderate fort. two of these mods can be met or eclipsed by epic augments. deathblock epic augment, or the ability to put it on a cloak with just about any other useful mod would be great, but i doubt that will occur before mabar does twice.

blindness immunity rings exist in game as random stuff. ditto for blindness immunity necklace. trinket would be a good place for it, and so would armor.

i must agree that blanket mod to slot applicability would be bad. weapon mods belong on weapons predominantly. seeker however really should be available for use on a trinket, armor, or helm. we have them in those places already for named loot.

[Ghost6989]

But crafting isn't so much about breaking the general item laws that seem to be in place. I mean to me crafting it about creating my own specific items that i need and not relying on random drops to get gear that while useful, say 15% striding would sometimes have not so useful stats for me, say +5 to tumble. Its about crafting items, within the laws of the game to suit your own needs. Just because they made it doesn't mean that suddenly gear should be changed to fit any trait or effect desired.

[khaldan]

i must agree that blanket mod to slot applicability would be bad. weapon mods belong on weapons predominantly. seeker however really should be available for use on a trinket, armor, or helm. we have them in those places already for named loot.

Having crafting create items equilivant to good raid drops is a bad idea. Marilith chain has a major downside to it(taint of evil, medium armor hurting evasion melee), and having crafting make a seeker +6 robe with no real downside would be severely unbalanced.

As for making your own bloodstone/CC item, I'm somewhat hesitant of this as well. It wouldn't cause any major balance changes, but would devalue rare named items. I don't have as good a reason for this currently, and I'd like to come back to it.

[Rinnaldo]

This might be something worth incorporating; provide some way to pay extra to put effects in unusual slots.

Exactly what I was thinking. How about just, instead of a 100% chance of crafting the shard onto the item, if it's for an atypical slot (like Striding on a glove), give it a chance of failure. Failure could result in loss of either the shard, the blank, or both. Another option would be to just add more ingredients if you wanted the effect on an unusual slot. So, if you wanted Underwater Action on your chainshirt, you might have to put in 10 vials of water and a Wooden Idol, in addition to the shard and blank chainshirt.

I like the chance of failure better than the extra ingredients, personally, but it could also be done with a combo of the two.

[kernal42]

Umm, you shouldn't and I'm certain that's not what's being asked for.


There's nothing in the OP that specifies he's asking for items and not weapons. In fact, the wording suggests removing restrictions among accessory types *and* among weapon types.



What is the physical law that prevents the magic from working?


The question is an irrelevancy. It's just as meaningless to ask " What is the physical law that allows magic to work?" because there is no sensible answer to either.

The only important thing in terms of having a world that makes sense is continuity. For example, if you can't get puncturing on a maul now, you shouldn't be able to get puncturing on a maul tomorrow, and you shouldn't have been able to get puncturing on a maul yesterday. If this consistency is removed, then there are effectively no rules worth caring about.

Now, there is a difference between "does not exist" and "cannot exit". For example, maybe a blindness-ward helm *could* exist, but does not yet. Unfortunately, this is a distinction we can only speculate over.

-Kernal

[kernal42]

Exactly what I was thinking. How about just, instead of a 100% chance of crafting the shard onto the item, if it's for an atypical slot (like Striding on a glove), give it a chance of failure. Failure could result in loss of either the shard, the blank, or both. Another option would be to just add more ingredients if you wanted the effect on an unusual slot. So, if you wanted Underwater Action on your chainshirt, you might have to put in 10 vials of water and a Wooden Idol, in addition to the shard and blank chainshirt.

I like the chance of failure better than the extra ingredients, personally, but it could also be done with a combo of the two.

Increased chance of failure and increased ingredient cost are fundamentally the same; in either case you should expect to pay more for the successful crafting of the shard.

This is also a poor way of "paying extra" for the ability to craft in unusual slots:
The ingredient cost to get your crafting level high enough to craft the shards in the first place dramatically dwarfs the cost of the actual shard. The cost of the shard itself (or crafting it onto the item in question) would have to increase by a factor of 10-100 (depending on level) to even be noticable in comparison.

Adding, as a cost, differerent, rare ingredients would world; for example if crafting "striding" on your belt required the additional cost of some lightning-split soarwoods.

-Kernal

[steelblueskies]

Having crafting create items equilivant to good raid drops is a bad idea. Marilith chain has a major downside to it(taint of evil, medium armor hurting evasion melee), and having crafting make a seeker +6 robe with no real downside would be severely unbalanced.

As for making your own bloodstone/CC item, I'm somewhat hesitant of this as well. It wouldn't cause any major balance changes, but would devalue rare named items. I don't have as good a reason for this currently, and I'd like to come back to it.

Prefix+suffix. Seeker trinket with suffix would devalue bloodstone, yes. But only if it provided equivalency.
We already have multiple variants of the same mod depending on what it gets applied to.
So add seeker for trinket and cap it's bonus.
If the only value in marilith chain is the seeker bonus and not the multiple other modifiers, then the named loot is broken as is the gearing specificaly for it.
Furthermore I'd again suggest limitation via specific shard availability.

Looking at this from an arcane perspective the crafting extending to 75 had +2 spell school foci. Those are presently exceedingly rare.
Yet those could be crafted, and in places not available presently, such as rings.
So clearly the system is confused already as to it's goals.
End of the day rarity, doesn't equal good or even worthwhile.

The argument you present thus reduces to we should not be able to make things as useful as some that already exist, which is patently absurd. Skillful application without limitation should be an alternative path.
With limitation should be a utility path.
And as it is now, is a gimmick with all the utility of a cracker Jack or happy meal prize.

Further, remember they intend for a whole set of recipe's that must be found/won through challenge system content, which significantly negates arguments involving the need to farm for something rare being devalued.

[Therigar]

The only important thing in terms of having a world that makes sense is continuity.

So I'll assume you don't drive, use a telephone, watch TV or own a computer. No, check that last one since you clearly do.

Continuity doesn't even make sense. It is the rage against continuity that drives people to investigate, invent and discover.

The same should and would apply in Eberron. Just because it has not been done does not mean it cannot or should not be done.

I read that the Roman Catholic church used to condemn the use of forks. Yet most of the western world now uses forks routinely. Columbus did not sail over the edge of the world, even though just a few years earlier it was heresy to claim the world was not flat. And, although I'm sure some posters and readers still believe that the earth is the center of the universe most of us understand that this isn't the case.

Logic even demands that we accept change as the norm rather than continuity. If it were continuity that made sense we'd still all be living outside the garden wearing leaves and trying to figure out how to keep the rain off our heads -- no, wait, it wasn't raining yet....

To argue that we shouldn't allow full customization in crafting because of continuity is illogical. Rational thought would lead any number of Eberron citizens to wonder, "Why can't I make this differently?" And, in a world where magic is the dominant force there isn't anything to argue for the restrictions that currently exist.

Back in our world it makes sense that in building loot tables and magic items the developers limited what they did. They, after all, are few.

But, the limit is based on nothing connected to game world or even "reality." It is simply the product of limited development resources and the practical need to limit the number and types of items generated in a random table.

The players, OTOH, are numerous and they know what they would like to own if they could. Some of it might be "game breaking" and Turbine might want to disallow it in order to prevent some type of unbalance.

But, to allow the crafting of any clothing effect on any clothing item, of any jewelry effect on any jewelry item and any weapon effect on any weapon item (even if further restricted by weapon class to bludgeon, pierce and slash effects) does not seem unreasonable. To the contrary, it is precisely the type of thing players want and the reason they've asked for years now to have a crafting system.

[Dark_Knight_Silver]

Ya basically weapon stats are logical....vorpal-slashing etc but I cant see why I cant put any stat on any item be it clothing or jewelery...maybe even keep those seperate but limiting striding to a specific type is rediculus

[kernal42]

So I'll assume you don't drive, use a telephone, watch TV or own a computer. No, check that last one since you clearly do.

Are you trying to form an argument, or just presenting irrelevant assumptions?


Continuity doesn't even make sense. It is the rage against continuity that drives people to investigate, invent and discover.


You choose poor sources of continuity if they change.
The laws of physics are constant*. They have not changed; they will never change. Anything possible now will be always possible in the future and has been possible for all of history; only our own abilities have changed.

At a very fundamental level, the universe only makes sense because these laws are constant.

Cheers,
Kernal

*Please don't bother with some inane "We used to think the Earth was flat!" argument - The laws of physics have always been constant; our understanding of them has changed, but that isn't the slightest bit important. It's not as if the Earth became round once we realized it was.

[fuzzy1guy]

/signed

[Cabronsisimo]

Keeping 'continuity' is no reason to keep the restrictions.
i just crafted my first green googles just last week. only the first two tiers, they have
- blindness immunity
- poison immnunity
- fear immunity
- disease immnity
- and they will have deathblock on 3rd tier.

and then when i was talking to someguy on a pug, he showed me the same properties....on a pair of boots.

so puting all those in any kind of gear its already possible, for those who paid for the shroud pack.

then we get the seeker +6 hats, or the +1 attack and shocking blow trinkets from the pirate event.

So the only restriction to open the crafting to every posibility is turbine's mood.

I want to make a +5 vorpal silver greataxe of pure good
AND i want those +15 search, +15 spot, +15 disable gloves they gave to that press guy >.<

[ProdigalGuru]

1. A Maul of Puncturing would have a big spike on each end. Not only is is feasible, it's logical to assume someone thought of it as soon as they picked one up. Same goes for something like Vorpal Handwraps with claws like Wolverine. It's crafting, so why can't we assume it's just crafted in a different way?

2. PLEASE devalue The Blood Stone, PRETTY PLEASE. I would much rather level up crafting to make one than what I am currently doing to get one, and at least with crafting I am assured to get one.

3. Magic is magical. We can suspend disbelief enough to rationalize magical Speedy Gonzales boots, but not a magical Speedy Gonzales belt? Why? It's MAGIC.

[Therigar]

The laws of physics are constant.

Well, didn't my initial post discuss this very point? Is this now your fall-back position, that the reason we can only craft specific magical effects on specific types of items is because of some sort of restriction imposed by the laws of physics?

I will grant you that this makes logical sense with respect to situations like puncturing damage on a bludgeoning weapon. But explain what makes it necessary that water breathing can only craft to a limited set of jewelry items. What physical laws result in this limitation?

This is a FANTASY game in which MAGIC exists. Magic bends the laws of physics -- that is why it is magic and not science.

Maybe the reason why bludgeoning items can't cause puncturing damage is because we don't comprehend the laws of physics well enough. Isn't it possible that such an effect isn't constrained by physical laws but instead by our lack of understanding? And, wouldn't it be MAGIC if our understanding were shattered by some bludgeoning weapon that caused puncture damage?

From a purely scientific perspective the reason a piece of 4x4 lumber hitting a wall doesn't cause puncturing damage is because it does not hit with enough force. Propel it with tornado winds and you end up driving that 4x4 thru the wall like a staple thru paper.

So the reality is that such effects are not limited by laws of physics, even in our world.

You tried to argue that we should not have anything different from the types of things that Turbine gives us via their random loot generation. And you tried to argue that this should be that way because of the demands of continuity.

Now you try to argue that the laws of physics are justification for not making changes.

But, all of your positions are wrong.

Change, not continuity, defines the real world that we live in. Even the laws of physics that you appeal to are under constant examination as our understanding of the world increases.

It may be true that at some building block level there are immutable laws that cannot be changed. But that does not justify being able to magically enchant only specific clothing, jewelry or weapon items with a particular effect.

IMO the principle of "laws of physics" can justify why clothing items can only get "clothing" magics, why jewelry items can only get "jewelry" magics and why weapon items can only get "weapon" magics. And, in some cases there can be overlaps -- current items give stat boosting effects to all three groups as an example.

But, the "laws of physics" can't justify why water breathing as an "always on" ability is only available on specific clothing items and specific jewelry items while it is available as a "spell like" ability on others and not available at all on some clothing and jewelry types.

No, that situation exists simply because of the reason I stated before -- there are only so many developers and so much time so Turbine made a few items and filled the random tables with them. Nothing about "laws of physics" but everything about the laws of "get the job done because we don't have the time to pay you to work out every possible combination."

But, with crafting there is nothing to limit players.

Combine shard of prefix and shard of suffix with item of appropriate type.

From a developer's standpoint it involves breaking the world into the three groupings of clothing, jewelry and weapons. From there all existing prefixes and suffixes are dumped into one bin, two bins or all three bins depending on how Turbine wants to define them and Turbine's analysis of how it might affect game balance. Crafting devices simply permit prefix and suffix combinations as long as they match the bin's listing for a particular item type.

Determine minimum level, subtract 2 for bound to character/account and Bob's your uncle.

[MartinusWyllt]

I'd just like to be able to put blueshine on a weapon (since it is a prefix) so that I can craft an ooze bane weapon that is actually resistant to damage from said oozes.

[Therigar]

/OP/Makes named loot pointless.

There are two reasons for "named" loot.

One is because it is famous. It hasn't anything to do with the item's ability being special at all. There are plenty of other items with the same characteristics. This one is just famous (or infamous perhaps). Go look thru the named loot list and you'll see plenty of items in this category. Try this (http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s220/jgould2005/DDO/Items/Shields/DhakaaniShield.jpg) for an example.

The other reason for "named" loot is because it has characteristics that cannot possibly exist given the one prefix, one suffix rule that is imposed on the new crafting system. An example of that is found here (http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s220/jgould2005/DDO/Items/Gloves/GlovesofGnollHide.jpg).

The first type of "named" loot is already pointless because there are countless duplicates already. The second type will never be pointless because it cannot be duplicated by the crafting system.

Whay you might have meant to say is that the crafting system will enable players to make items that they value more than named loot. And that is certainly the case and I hope it is the reason for giving us crafting to start with.

1) Turbine doesn't need to guess at what kind of items players will value so they don't need to waste development efforts.

2) Turbine can spend their effort on giving us the second type of named items with characteristics combined into one place -- making "named" loot worthy of its name.

[dkyle]

Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing weapons should keep their unique enhancements because it is simply good game design.

It's a good idea to give different options different benefits. It makes for a more interesting game.

Take away those enhancements, and weapons become even more similar than they already are. Vorpal is a benefit of speccing for Slashing. Stunning is a benefit of speccing for Bludgeoning (one of the few there are), Puncturing is a benefit of speccing for Rapier. Banishing is a benefit of speccing for Bludgeoning or Puncturing.

Remove those, and, for example, the only reason to ever favor a Maul over a Greataxe is fighting Skeletons. Mauls are underpowered as is; they don't need to be even more useless.

Nobody is "Glove specced" or "Bracer specced". The different enhancement affinities for worn items are far less significant than the restrictions on weapons. I don't feel those restrictions have much value to the game, so I'm supportive of giving the crafting system a way to violate them. Thus allowing crafting to have more varied options than lootgen, but not necessarily "better" options than lootgen. A +6 STR Helm isn't really "better" than +6 STR Gloves, it just might be preferable for someone's gear layout.


This is not about physics of magic. Lore can justify just about any game mechanics change imaginable. It's about what makes the game better, and more interesting. Removing weapon restrictions loses a lot of the uniqueness of weapons, while gaining comparatively little. Weakening worn-item restrictions loses little of importance, and could help make the crafting system more interesting.

[Therigar]

Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing weapons should keep their unique enhancements because it is simply good game design.

:)

It happens that most of us agree with this. From a game design point of view we support the restrictions on weapons. It isn't real world or fantasy world "laws of physics" but just simple acceptance that the restrictions make the game work better.

As for the remainder of your post, well that was good as well.

[Setin_Myways]

1. A Maul of Puncturing would have a big spike on each end. Not only is is feasible, it's logical to assume someone thought of it as soon as they picked one up. Same goes for something like Vorpal Handwraps with claws like Wolverine. It's crafting, so why can't we assume it's just crafted in a different way?

2. PLEASE devalue The Blood Stone, PRETTY PLEASE. I would much rather level up crafting to make one than what I am currently doing to get one, and at least with crafting I am assured to get one.

3. Magic is magical. We can suspend disbelief enough to rationalize magical Speedy Gonzales boots, but not a magical Speedy Gonzales belt? Why? It's MAGIC.

I disagree with this because I think the 'Magic' that makes a weapon vorpal, or piercing or whatever is the same magic, however, it enhances the property of the weapon... so a weapon designed to slash someone becomes vorpal as it can cut better with this type of magic, and a poker type weapon becomes piercing because of this type of magic, a bludgeoning becomes stunning because of this type of magic... so it is not 3 or 4 separate types of magic, but rather one type of magic that manifests differently based on the damage type it is enhancing... adding a spike to a maul would add a different type of damage to the weapon, so maybe (far stretch here) it would do both
piercing and bludgeoning, but i really think the magic would do one or the other, a maul with a spike on it is just a pike weapon and no longer a maul. you would use it differently and require different skills to be really effective (for example, a piercing weapon would tend to get stuck in someone where a bludgeoning weapon bounces off - hit a log with an axe then hit it with a baseball bat... it will illustrate this concept clearly. hitting the same log repeatedly and proficiently with both items requires a different skill-set or reaction.


I can 'understand' too why some items are specific to a certain item type, i.e. striding to rings or boots because every runner knows you can improve your running by addressing your arm movement or your leg movement, or maybe a cloak is needed to resist, as the cloak reacts to make a physical barrier, but looking at GS items, it shows that extremely powerful magics can override these types of restrictions, i.e. blindness immunity on boots. this would imply there is some other 'missing' part from the current setup that does not allow properties outside the classic configuration.

I think it would be nice to see the expansion of the crafting system to allow this customization, but it would require a special shard, which is very high level, and it would add to the ML of the item(based on how different the base item is). So i could create a helm of blindness immunity for +1 ml, but boots of BI might be up to +4 to Ml... or bracers of striding would be +1 but a helm of striding would be +3 or =4 to Ml... something like that , i know i tend to over-complicate systems, but I hope you see what i am suggesting.

[kcru]

I disagree, certain objects/items have an affinity with certain effects. Blindness immunity boots just doesnt make sense imo and though it may prove useful to some people I think has a certain logic the way it currently is. I mean strength goggles for example compared to bracers/gloves/belt of strength. I see it as fixing something that isn't broken.

And PnP took care of that with higher costs. It's magic... a trinket can make you hit more often. Gloves can help you spot traps.

An easy way to do it would be a ceremony applied to a shard to remove location restrictions as far as the player-mechanics go. That ceremony would encompass the additional costs.

[kernal42]

This is a FANTASY game in which MAGIC exists. Magic bends the laws of physics -- that is why it is magic and not science.

I understand this. My point is that magic should also follow its own rules. This is why when you try to cast fireball, you get a fireball and not a cone of cold. The rules needn't make sense to us, nor must we know them, but the laws of magic must be constant and consistent.


You tried to argue that we should not have anything different from the types of things that Turbine gives us via their random loot generation.
No I did not. Try reading more carefully.


Now you try to argue that the laws of physics are justification for not making changes.

The laws of physics are not justification for anything; it was a counterpoint to your ridiculous "You shouldn't use computers" argument.


But, all of your positions are wrong.

You're a funny guy.


From a developer's standpoint it involves breaking the world into the three groupings of clothing, jewelry and weapons. From there all existing prefixes and suffixes are dumped into one bin, two bins or all three bins depending on how Turbine wants to define them and Turbine's analysis of how it might affect game balance. Crafting devices simply permit prefix and suffix combinations as long as they match the bin's listing for a particular item type.

Determine minimum level, subtract 2 for bound to character/account and Bob's your uncle.

I like how you're now claiming that "because it can be coded, it should be implemented!" That's a good one.

Cheers,
Kernal

[brinclhof]

Perhaps there could a special Remove Restriction shard that removes the location restrictions of selected abilities on not weapon items. The crafting lvl could be set fairly high that way if you are good enough at crafting you could craft an ability on an item that it normally doesn't have.

make a performing ring of Deathblock for example....

that would increase the crafting cost because you would have to craft the Remove Restriction shard first, and that restriction shard could require like 20 greater essences from each of the major schools so like 20 greater body, 20 greater arcane and 20 greater divine essences.

[Therigar]

I understand this. My point is that magic should also follow its own rules.

Alright, so how does this differ from my POV? I don't think it does.

What is the rule that requires striding to only work on boots? Is it because boots go on feet and feet do the striding? Great, I can live with that.

So, how did the mage manage to put striding onto a ring? Is it because rings go on fingers and fingers are like toes and toes are on your feet and boots go on feet and feet do the striding? I'm starting to have trouble here.

But, if it is then why can't I put striding on gloves. After all gloves go on hands and hands have fingers and fingers are like toes and ... feet do the striding.

I'm willing to accept that magic should follow its own rules and have said as much. IMO those rules should be clothing has "clothing" magic and jewelry has "jewelry" magic and weapons have "weapon" magic. And, in some cases the magic doesn't care if it is clothing or jewelry or weapon -- as an example, stat increases.

But wait, I've said all of that. And you've objected only to end up trying to make your points the two that I already made: that there are physical laws that we observe but can be overcome by magic AND magic follows its own rules.

So admit it. Secretly you wish you were me don't you.


You're a funny guy.

:D

[Dendrix]

In the original 3.5 crafting system, effects do have an affinity for certain slots, but this can be overridden by paying extra. This might be something worth incorporating; provide some way to pay extra to put effects in unusual slots.

The effect of paying more in D&D 3.5 means that the item costs more of your wealth by character level guidelines.
That would loosly trnaslate to an item with a higher minimum level in DDO

The effects to go into an "off affinity slot" should be costed at double the increase to the minimum level of the item

[dkyle]

The effect of paying more in D&D 3.5 means that the item costs more of your wealth by character level guidelines.
That would loosly trnaslate to an item with a higher minimum level in DDO

That would only serve to make it useless. Most worn-items are only worth anything because of their ML. An ML11 +6 STR item is worth a lot, an ML13 +6 is moderately valuable, an ML15+ +6 item is vendor/deconstruction trash.

3.5's cost system has only loosely been translated into ML in DDO.


The effects to go into an "off affinity slot" should be costed at double the increase to the minimum level of the item

That would be extremely excessive. Off-affinity only costs 50% more in 3.5, not double. That amount of price increase would reflect only about +2 ML at most, given how DDO's base prices scale.


But I don't think it's very useful to try to directly import 3.5's cost structure into DDO. They're too different. Give it a reasonable increase in cost, and it'll be well enough balanced. Increasing required crafting level would be one option. Requiring a special ingredient, or an actually rare/valuable ingredient like a Lightning Split Soarwood, could be another option.

It doesn't need to be that much. Off-affinity items aren't that powerful.

But increased ML would be a bad idea.

[dkyle]

Alright, so how does this differ from my POV? I don't think it does.

What is the rule that requires striding to only work on boots? Is it because boots go on feet and feet do the striding? Great, I can live with that.

So, how did the mage manage to put striding onto a ring? Is it because rings go on fingers and fingers are like toes and toes are on your feet and boots go on feet and feet do the striding? I'm starting to have trouble here.

Not that it matters much, but the rule is: most item slots have specific affinities, but rings are "wildcards" and can be enchanted as though they were any other worn-item.

[hermespan]

He's saying allow, say, Blindness Immunity, on any clothing or jewelry, not just goggles. Don't restrict enhancements to the items lootgen restricts them to.

For a limited set of enhancements, I don't see a big problem. It would allow crafted gear to be special without needing to be strictly better than lootgen gear.

Just don't allow, say, Seeker or Sneak Attack on crafted clothing or jewelry. Powerful effects like that should remain the domain of named items, and crafted/lootgen weapons.
seeker is already on the bloodstone which is a trinket.

[Setin_Myways]

From a developer's standpoint it involves breaking the world into the three groupings of clothing, jewelry and weapons. From there all existing prefixes and suffixes are dumped into one bin, two bins or all three bins depending on how Turbine wants to define them and Turbine's analysis of how it might affect game balance. Crafting devices simply permit prefix and suffix combination as long as they match the bin's listing for a particular item type.

Determine minimum level, subtract 2 for bound to character/account and Bob's your uncle.

My guess is the current system requires there be some type of existing object, so the main reason that you cannot create any object of any combination is that you need to have an existing 'version' of this object, i.e. you can only create an item that already exists. so when I put ingredient a and ingredient b in the crafting device it creates an instance of 'SomeObjectDefinitionThatExists'. So if this is the approach, then you need to have all the object definitions to make things.

In NWN, we created a system that took blanks and added the properties to them. This was a very complex system and we had an object type for each possible blank, and you could add any one of the 50 or so properties to the blanks, but they required progressive advancement, i.e. you needed to add +1 before you could get +2... of course we did not need to do it that way, as we were directly removing or adding a property to an item (you do not want a sword that is =1 and +2, so you need to remove the existing + and add the + you want... making them progressive made this logic less likely to mess up because it detected the current value and incremented it).

Even though this was all dynamic to add properties, how that property worked on the item was still controlled by the nwn engine. So i could add +2 AC to any object, but if it was a necklaces, it was always natural ac, boots, always dodge, and most everything else deflection.

I have no idea how the DDO engine is coded and if they can add or remove properties to a generic item. I had to discover and write all the methods to do this... very, very time consuming to say the least. we pretty much created a custom api....

So you cannot say what the designers can and cannot do. They may have this all departmentalized and the people that create items are limited by a tool because the guy that would need to create the new methods is working other high priority stull like classes, prc, and spells...

[Monkeytoe]

Blindness immunity boots just doesnt make sense imo and though it may prove useful to some people I think has a certain logic the way it currently is.

Ever heard of tremorsense?
I hate the item restrictions, I hate the prefix/suffix restrictions also.

[Therigar]

Perhaps there could a special Remove Restriction shard that removes the location restrictions of selected abilities on not weapon items.

I'm just an old school, retired US Army, computer programming geek. So maybe I don't know much about anything. But,

To build any item requires three to five characteristics.

1) Item plus bonus, such as a weapon's +1.
2) Item prefix description, such as a weapon's Vorpal attribute.
3) Item description (maybe subdivided into metal type and item description), such as a weapon's Cold Iron Greatsword.
4) Item suffix, such as a weapon's Of Lesser Undead Bane.

Put those together and you have defined the item -- +1 Vorpal Cold Iron Greatsword of Lesser Undead Bane.

In the case of most non-weapon items the plus bonus isn't used. And, in the case of weapons and armor the description can also include a metal type so that it is a 3a and 3b situation.

But, in simple terms that is all that is needed to formulate any magic item in DDO and it really describes the crafting system U9 introduces.

To make crafting work it is a simple -- and I have to stress this word simple because from a programming perspective it is simple -- task to make a list of all plus bonuses, all prefixes, all item descriptions and all suffixes. And, it is a simple task to separate these into tables that are cross referenced by the item type so that only items of a specific type can have specific plus bonuses, prefixes, descriptions or suffixes.

Only slightly more difficult is using the same routine/call for any specific effect as has previously been coded to make sure that the right on use effect occurs. For example, you would want to make sure that our +1 Vorpal Cold Iron Greatsword of Lesser Undead Bane procs a +1 bonus to hit and damage with vorpal effects on natural 20 while bypassing the appropriate DR and adding 1d6 added damage against undead. You want to use the existing routines/calls in order to avoid rewriting code. This, if done correctly, helps prevent code from breaking. It also enables updating of code to apply universally by having everything in one location for any specific effect.

An example of why this is important is graphics induced lag. If the graphics effect of an Ice Storm induces lag then changing the graphics can reduce lag. You only want to update the code one time in one location and you want anything calling on an Ice Storm to use that same code.

So, completely apart from the philosophical discussions on the laws of physics and magic there is nothing whatsoever from a code writing perspective to prevent full crafting using the U9 model. Even restricting crafting as I've suggested to "clothing", "jewelry" and "weapon" magic (and I should add "armor" as well) -- or to subgroups in the case of weapons or armor which seems reasonable -- is easy both in concept and in coding.

The greatest amount of work is in the crafting recipes for each of the shards and in assigning arcane, divine or elemental characteristics as well as working out the numbers and types of ingredients. This is a self-inflicted wound on Turbine's part because they've chosen to make it somewhat complex by the introduction of a dozen or so ingredients and to further complicate it by mixing in various collectibles that already existed prior to U9.

I'm not faulting Turbine in this because it reinvigorates the hunt for collectibles and makes many of them worth gathering now. And, it provides a way to make the most powerful effects difficult to craft which has a gameplay benefit.

Having what are effectively 4 tables for each of the 3-5 item characteristics is much more efficient than needing tables for each item slot. The alternative is 3-5 tables for each item slot. That ends up being more tables and a lot of repeated entries for characteristics that are not restricted based on the item's type.

Developmentally it is a smarter use of resources to program the crafting so that you have clothing, jewelry, weapon and armor groupings. It is faster, less repetative in table entries and simple because you only have limited code to cross check for accuracy and conformity to naming issues when it comes time to make the various system calls to proc effects.

So, what OP asks for is sensible not only in the philosophical realm but also in the practical realm of wise use of DDO development resources.

This last explains why it won't happen. Turbine's developers are among the least capable. Tell me again why greensteel crafting is broken. Wait, we don't know.

[kernal42]

Alright, so how does this differ from my POV? I don't think it does.

I don't know. What is your PoV? Before this post it was unstated and unclear, muddled by accusations that I have a computer. I'm still wondering what you meant by that statement, by the way.


And you've objected only to end up trying to make your points the two that I already made: that there are physical laws that we observe but can be overcome by magic AND magic follows its own rules.

No, I've objected to your antagonization. I never argued against the need for consistency. In fact, that is the only thing I have argued for, and which I stated before you ever did.

-Kernal

[dkyle]

seeker is already on the bloodstone which is a trinket.

A named item.

Named items are special, and should remain so.

I only favor a limited relaxation of the affinity requirements of jewelry and clothing. Currently, the crafting is beholden to the same rules as the lootgen. I think some flexibility can be afforded, but not the point of putting weapon effects on worn items. That should remain the domain of named items.


I'm just an old school, retired US Army, computer programming geek. So maybe I don't know much about anything. But,

I don't think the person you responded to has doubts that it would be possible to program crafting to allow non-affinity, or to violate prefix/suffix limits. The only questions are whether it's a good idea to do so, and how to design the game so that it can be done in a balanced way. The person you were responding to was proposing an option for the latter, and had nothing to do with computer programming issues.


My guess is the current system requires there be some type of existing object, so the main reason that you cannot create any object of any combination is that you need to have an existing 'version' of this object, i.e. you can only create an item that already exists. so when I put ingredient a and ingredient b in the crafting device it creates an instance of 'SomeObjectDefinitionThatExists'. So if this is the approach, then you need to have all the object definitions to make things.

Doubt it. There are probably a trillion different possible items, from lootgen and crafting, especially when you factor in Ice games, and Stone of Change recipes.

I suspect each item is simply a list of its abilities. The prefix/suffix limits are limitations of the loot generator, and intentional limits of game design, not limitations of what items can be represented.

[Setin_Myways]

Doubt it. There are probably a trillion different possible items, from lootgen and crafting, especially when you factor in Ice games, and Stone of Change recipes.

I suspect each item is simply a list of its abilities. The prefix/suffix limits are limitations of the loot generator, and intentional limits of game design, not limitations of what items can be represented.

so you are thinking that the engine is more likely to generate a unique item every time it creates an item, from no existing blueprint or the random loot is pulled from a table of existing blueprints that is set for a given area and lvl combo? I am betting on the latter.

every item you have is an object with many properties, like its graphic representation in addition to how it functions. it makes more sense to pre-generate all of this and then have loot generators and such pull items from this list. I doubt that when I open a chest, all the items are piecemeal together dynamically, rather than pulled from an existing table of item blueprints.

It is also likely these objects are created and destroyed frequently to reduce the amount of memory used in instantiating any given object, so an item in inventory is a pointer to a blueprint with maybe some attributes like charges stored with it, and when that item is equipped and its properties become relevant to the game engine, then it is instantiated. but anyway, i do not think any of us know enough about how the engine is programmed to do more than speculate.

[Therigar]

The only questions are whether it's a good idea to do so, and how to design the game so that it can be done in a balanced way. The person you were responding to was proposing an option for the latter, and had nothing to do with computer programming issues.

The proposal is unnecessary complication because there is no evidence that allowing players to craft without slot restrictions within the broad categories will be unbalancing.

If the foundational reason is flawed then the solution is flawed -- as it is in this case.

Let's say that striding can go on some clothing as well as some jewelry but that there are no current striding items that are armor or weapons. There is no game balance reason it cannot or should not go on any clothing item or any jewelry item. It only means that it cannot and should not go on any armor or weapon item.

To argue as some have that the reason is because it hasn't been done before or isn't that way now defeats the entire purpose of having crafting. We didn't ask for crafting so that we could duplicate random loot. We asked for crafting so that we could customize based on our character's needs and available slots.

Might as well roll back to pre U9 if we don't have fully customizable crafting. Maybe that would fix the greensteel bug.

[dkyle]

so you are thinking that the engine is more likely to generate a unique item every time it creates an item, from no existing blueprint or the random loot is pulled from a table of existing blueprints that is set for a given area and lvl combo? I am betting on the latter.

It's really quite simple to have an object that lists multiple properties, and have those properties be generated dynamically.

And there is a blueprint: the lootgen system. It knows to assign an item type, an enhancement bonus if applicable, a metal type if applicable, an appropriate prefix, and appropriate suffix.

Doesn't mean every possible combination of type, enhancement, metal, prefix and suffix are pregenerated. That would be absurd.

And a set list? You mean someone actually typed "+3 Thundering Byeshk Light Hammer of Vertigo +6 with a tiny slot RR: Halfling" into a table, and then moved onto "+3 Thundering Byeshk Light Hammer of Vertigo +6 with a tiny slot RR: Human"? And generated these tables for every chest, in every quest, and every wilderness area?


every item you have is an object with many properties, like its graphic representation in addition to how it functions. it makes more sense to pre-generate all of this and then have loot generators and such pull items from this list. I doubt that when I open a chest, all the items are piecemeal together dynamically, rather than a pulled from an existing table of items.

It makes absolutely no sense to pregenerate trillions of items (between lootgen and crafting), only a fraction of which will ever exist.

Why shouldn't they be pulled piecemeal together? Do you really think a half dozen random number generations, and a few pointer operations, are that complicated?

[Therigar]

I doubt that when I open a chest, all the items are piecemeal together dynamically, rather than pulled from an existing table of item blueprints.

Actually, it makes less sense to do it the blueprint way because it is more costly both in terms of development (every item has to be pre-created individually) and in data storage (every item has to be stored multiple times for each chest). Some development cost is avoided thru code reuse but it is still a lot more costly in development time and effort than dynamic loot generation.

Dynamic loot generation also makes much better sense from both a conceptual and coding perspective because you only need a few, non-repetative tables and you control the depth of the table access based on the chest's loot level -- which you determine for each character separately based on their level and whether they have a loot bonus.

Except for named items, which have separate probabilities and have to be blueprinted, standard loot is most probably generated dynamically. This explains why dual boxing a quest like Missing gives low level loot to my L4 character that I park at the quest entrance while my L20 character clears the mobs. Only named loot occassionally jumps out for that lowbie while the rest of the loot is at or near his level. Meanwhile the capped toon pulls quest level loot to go along with the occassional named item.

Of course, Turbine's methods are a mystery to me and what I think should be easy they manage to make hard. So, maybe they do blueprint each and every item and preload each and every chest. Maybe the only dynamic thing is determining how many items you'll get and which of several crappy loot tables they'll consult.

And, the constant creation and destruction might add to their lag issues. So you may be correct.

@ Setin,

I didn't read your NWN post until after I made this reply. I'm guessing that you blueprinted in NWN. :)

[dkyle]

The proposal is unnecessary complication because there is no evidence that allowing players to craft without slot restrictions within the broad categories will be unbalancing.

There's no evidence that it won't be unbalancing. All we can do is argue theory and principles.


Let's say that striding can go on some clothing as well as some jewelry but that there are no current striding items that are armor or weapons. There is no game balance reason it cannot or should not go on any clothing item or any jewelry item. It only means that it cannot and should not go on any armor or weapon item.

Sure there is. Any limitation or rule plays a role in game balance. To suppose that removing one would have no effect on game balance at all is absurd.

I simply believe that the effect is minimal enough to warrant allowing it. But, I think it makes sense that crafted items that duplicate loot gen items should cost less than crafted items that cannot be found from lootgen.

Smaller supply of +4 STR helms than +4 STR gloves implies a higher price, since the demand for both can be expected to be similar. When you have a game system establishing a price, it's best to assign one that reflects a reasonable "market price".


Might as well roll back to pre U9 if we don't have fully customizable crafting. Maybe that would fix the greensteel bug.

Crafting serves a purpose as it is now. You might not think it serves sufficient purpose, but it is not necessary to remove all restrictions for it to be useful.

[Therigar]

I never argued against the need for consistency. In fact, that is the only thing I have argued for, and which I stated before you ever did.


Do you ever tire of being wrong?

My first post in this thread was in response to your post here.

I said,


We can accept that even magic is subject to the laws of physics so puncturing cannot be crafted onto a bludgeoning weapon or slashing weapon. But it makes no sense that magical effects on clothing are somehow only able to work on cloaks and boots or that effects on jewelry only works on rings and trinkets.

What is the physical law that prevents the magic from working?

You will note that I refer to the laws of physics -- which you do not mention at all until you make what you think is a clever reply to my posts here.

And, you'll note that I say that we can accept magic is also subject to those laws -- something you phrase as magic having its own set of laws in your post here.

So you are trying to argue with me and concluding that you must be correct by calling up the points I made in my very first post. Then you have the audacity to claim to have made the observations first.

Maybe you've forgotten this exchange:



What is the physical law that prevents the magic from working?

The question is an irrelevancy. It's just as meaningless to ask " What is the physical law that allows magic to work?" because there is no sensible answer to either.

The only important thing in terms of having a world that makes sense is continuity. For example, if you can't get puncturing on a maul now, you shouldn't be able to get puncturing on a maul tomorrow, and you shouldn't have been able to get puncturing on a maul yesterday. If this consistency is removed, then there are effectively no rules worth caring about.

Now, there is a difference between "does not exist" and "cannot exit". For example, maybe a blindness-ward helm *could* exist, but does not yet. Unfortunately, this is a distinction we can only speculate over.

-Kernal

Now, your own words show that you are a troll since your position was that having laws governing magic was irrelevant and that maintaining continuity was the only important thing. Yet, when I showed that continuity in your usage was related to maintaining the status quo -- proven by your blindness-ward helm example -- and that continuity in that context only comes from ignorance (the world is flat) and that if you'd lived by that principle you'd have no conveniences (computer use) what did you do? You told me what I already had said -- there are laws of physics and magic reasonably conforms.

Don't pretend that you are helping the discussion or that you held the original position. Both are wrong, as you are.

[Therigar]

My guess is the current system requires there be some type of existing object, so the main reason that you cannot create any object of any combination is that you need to have an existing 'version' of this object, i.e. you can only create an item that already exists. so when I put ingredient a and ingredient b in the crafting device it creates an instance of 'SomeObjectDefinitionThatExists'. So if this is the approach, then you need to have all the object definitions to make things.

In NWN, we created a system that took blanks and added the properties to them. This was a very complex system and we had an object type for each possible blank, and you could add any one of the 50 or so properties to the blanks, but they required progressive advancement, i.e. you needed to add +1 before you could get +2... of course we did not need to do it that way, as we were directly removing or adding a property to an item (you do not want a sword that is =1 and +2, so you need to remove the existing + and add the + you want... making them progressive made this logic less likely to mess up because it detected the current value and incremented it).

Even though this was all dynamic to add properties, how that property worked on the item was still controlled by the nwn engine. So i could add +2 AC to any object, but if it was a necklaces, it was always natural ac, boots, always dodge, and most everything else deflection.

I have no idea how the DDO engine is coded and if they can add or remove properties to a generic item. I had to discover and write all the methods to do this... very, very time consuming to say the least. we pretty much created a custom api....

So you cannot say what the designers can and cannot do. They may have this all departmentalized and the people that create items are limited by a tool because the guy that would need to create the new methods is working other high priority stull like classes, prc, and spells...

Well stated and informative.

I agree that what Turbine can actually do is likely not what I think they should be able to do and that is entirely related to the fact that they are 5 years into the game.

Even your NWN example makes me cringe/smile because it is overly cumbersome. I understand why you did it that way but it is illogical to me -- just as it was logical to you at that time and maybe still is. What it demonstrates is that in coding there are multiple ways to achieve similar end products and often the reason we do it one way and not another is simply because we never thought of the alternative.

[Therigar]

Any limitation or rule plays a role in game balance. To suppose that removing one would have no effect on game balance at all is absurd.

:)

I'm not sure that there's a game balance role in the way loot is generated. Balance sort of implies conscious decision making about how an item affects the game and I'm hard pressed to believe that this goes on for any random generated loot.

I do think that it goes on to some degree with named loot, especially named loot that meshes multiple (normally exclusive) properties onto a single item. The new Harbinger loot (http://ddowiki.com/page/Harbinger_of_Madness) comes to mind. I hope that before they introduced the loot they thought about game balance.

But random loot, which is essentially what U9 crafting duplicates....

I don't think you can really use game balance as an argument against giving unrestricted crafting with the U9 model.


I simply believe that the effect is minimal enough to warrant allowing it. But, I think it makes sense that crafted items that duplicate loot gen items should cost less than crafted items that cannot be found from lootgen.

I agree. Lost in the forum threads is a post where I object to the potential for profit taking that can come from crafted items. I'd be good with them being valued at zero and unsaleable.

[Therigar]

Crafting serves a purpose as it is now. You might not think it serves sufficient purpose, but it is not necessary to remove all restrictions for it to be useful.

Well, if they fix the handwraps issue this will be a true statement. Every monk on every server is waiting to craft holy burst silver threaded handwraps of some form of evil outsider bane. :D

[Setin_Myways]

i think i am not explaining myself clearly, but anyway, when i say a unique object, I mean a completely new dynamic item that is pieced meal together, rather than a predefined blueprinted object, that might be of type sword for example, with each predefined property having a set of options available, so there is not an explicit, singular '+3 silver vopal shortsword' that is pulled from a list, but rather the lootgen generates random numbers based on factors like char level, dungeon level, additional factors like loot gem or current game bonuses (loot enhanced weekend) , so you open a chest and a set of numbers are generated, and these numbers determine how the object is instantiated... like 4, 3, 5, 2 so the 4 tells it to use the base object type 4, so you get a ring, and the ring blueprint, which is predefined, knows how to interpret the 3, 5, and 2... and you get your piece of loot. But the ring object has been predefined and it always produces the same property when it sees a 3 in the first slot. this is different that if it is purely dynamic and it piecemeals items together without any predefined property sets, looks, and other properties.

but my point is the object blueprints are predefined, so you never get a random sword of featherfall or a vorpal ring. It is the blueprint defintition limitations/standards that determine what can be built.

[Therigar]

but my point is the object blueprints are predefined, so you never get a random sword of featherfall or a vorpal ring. It is the blueprint defintition limitations/standards that determine what can be built.

You are right, I misunderstood. I completely agree that a blueprint has to exist.

This is very similar to what I tried to explain when I talked about an item having 3-5 characteristics. Those characteristics (I used +1 Vorpal Cold Iron Greatsword of Lesser Undead Bane) define the blueprint. The characteristics of +1, Vorpal, etc get filled in dynamically.

So, yes, I see your point regarding blueprints now. I think we're talking the same point using different words.

My point is that you really need fewer of them if you allow any item of the appropriate type to have any characteristic. And the blueprints apply only to random loot and not to named loot -- which must be uniquely created and defined.

[dkyle]

I'm not sure that there's a game balance role in the way loot is generated. Balance sort of implies conscious decision making about how an item affects the game and I'm hard pressed to believe that this goes on for any random generated loot.

The game balance significance is in how they are generated. It's not strictly random. It follows rules. Certain enhancements only appear in certain slots.

An item that provides a bonus in an unusual slot has some benefits over an item in a common slot. I sometimes find it hard to fit +STR, +CON, False Life, and Fortification items at the same time prior to level 11, due to slot conflicts. That means I sometimes go without one of those. If I can move those to whichever slot I want, however, it becomes easier to fit them all, and my character is more powerful for it.

That's hardly an issue of "overpowered", but it is a change in game balance.


But random loot, which is essentially what U9 crafting duplicates....

Part of game balance is how loot can be acquired. There's a big difference in how much of an impact +4 Holy Silver Khopeshes of Evil Outsider Bane have on the game pre-U9 and post-U9. Pre-U9, they were extremely rare, and very valuable. Now, they'll be much more common.


Well, if they fix the handwraps issue this will be a true statement. Every monk on every server is waiting to craft holy burst silver threaded handwraps of some form of evil outsider bane. :D

That'll be nice, but it is already possible to craft worthwhile things.

[dkyle]

but my point is the object blueprints are predefined, so you never get a random sword of featherfall or a vorpal ring. It is the blueprint defintition limitations/standards that determine what can be built.

Are you talking about how the lootgen works, or how items are represented in the database or memory or wherever, once they've been generated?

That might be how the lootgen system works, but I doubt it's how items are ultimately stored once they're generated. It would be bizarre to represent items as a list of numbers that must be run through a set of blueprints to decipher. More likely, items are just given a list of enhancements they have, perhaps as a list of mutation IDs, or pointers to mutation description structures.

Basically, I doubt the games data structures make the existence of gloves of health impossible. The lootgen is just configured to never generate them.

[Setin_Myways]

@ Setin,

I didn't read your NWN post until after I made this reply. I'm guessing that you blueprinted in NWN. :)

in nwn, you had not choice. every unique item required a unique blueprint. our method allowed the users to create millions of different items, but these items did not have a unique id or blueprint, only the base item did. So we had to have a unique base for each item type, like shortsword or ring, which all had a predefined look and such and the same resref, or blue print name. a person had to then add properties to these items, and we had a crafting system that let you change the look of any item (and this had to be done prior to adding any properties or it messed things up) but if you had 21 shortswords on toons the mod, they all had identical resrefs even though they had unique properties... and these properties only existed on the instantiated object. The bags and chests in nwn do not store the object normally, so if you put a 'defined item' in a chest or bag, when it came out, it was the base item and lost all customization... this was done to reduce mod size as every unique item added to a mods size and they had limits... so we had to make it so a char did not put these items in bags, chests or on the ground... and store what they did with them in a db so the char could talk to an npc and get a lost item back (or deconstruct an item so you could change item properties as you leveled and such or make an acid blade for one area and retool to sonic).

But this was due to the limitations of the aurora toolset. When you make games, you often make a toolset that other folks use to make the content. you have folks that create and enhance the toolset and other folks that use the toolset to make the world... so I am saying the current limitations or more likely do to the toolset.

[Therigar]

But this was due to the limitations of the aurora toolset. When you make games, you often make a toolset that other folks use to make the content. you have folks that create and enhance the toolset and other folks that use the toolset to make the world... so I am saying the current limitations or more likely do to the toolset.

And what we have to work with is the product of the people who use the toolset. Meanwhile what is being asked for might be impossible until the toolset is upgraded by the people who create and enhance the toolset.

[Therigar]

An item that provides a bonus in an unusual slot has some benefits over an item in a common slot. I sometimes find it hard to fit +STR, +CON, False Life, and Fortification items at the same time prior to level 11, due to slot conflicts. That means I sometimes go without one of those. If I can move those to whichever slot I want, however, it becomes easier to fit them all, and my character is more powerful for it.

I really don't think Turbine's staff even thinks about this and I think the impact of marginally more powerful characters on the game would be trivial in any case.

I understand your point regarding balance, I just don't think it is a reason not to give the type of crafting that we're discussing in this thread.

I find Setin's engine point to be more persuasive (although I must say that I think in this case even that isn't the issue).

[Setin_Myways]

Are you talking about how the lootgen works, or how items are represented in the database or memory or wherever, once they've been generated?

That might be how the lootgen system works, but I doubt it's how items are ultimately stored once they're generated. It would be bizarre to represent items as a list of numbers that must be run through a set of blueprints to decipher. More likely, items are just given a list of enhancements they have, perhaps as a list of mutation IDs, or pointers to mutation description structures.

Basically, I doubt the games data structures make the existence of gloves of health impossible. The lootgen is just configured to never generate them.

i think it is more likely to have every item stored as a list of numbers and depending on where that item is determines how it exists in the 'instantiated' world of the game. so I get an item that is 12345 and since it is in a chest slot object, which knows to display the correct icon and name. When i examine it, the examine object knows how to determine what to display based on the numbers, when i put it in inventory or bank slots, they too know how to interpret this code. only when it goes in a body slot does it, instantiate and interact with the game engine via my toon. if everything stated as objects in a single form, do you know how much memory each toon would need? also, how would the game engine be able to tell the difference between a ring on your finger and one in your pack? they have to change as the move from a finger slot to a backpack slot...

i think it is more likely that the objects do make the combinations 'impossible', until the objects are changed.

[khaldan]

An item that provides a bonus in an unusual slot has some benefits over an item in a common slot. I sometimes find it hard to fit +STR, +CON, False Life, and Fortification items at the same time prior to level 11, due to slot conflicts.

Claw gloves/Claw bracers/False life belt or necklace of contemplation is hard to fit in? O.o

I guess jidz can make life a bit harder on a monk, but then claw gloves/necklace of contemplation/fort belt/con ring should work fine.

[dkyle]

if everything stated as objects in a single form, do you know how much memory each
toon would need?

Why would you need to know this in advance? Dynamic memory management is nothing new. Are you familiar with linked lists? They can grow dynamically to fill any available memory. The ultimate size isn't needed to start with.


also, how would the game engine be able to tell the difference between a ring on your finger and one in your pack? they have to change as the move from a finger slot to a backpack slot...

Have an "equipped" flag on the item? Or have an array of slots that represent inventory, with pointers in them that point to the object representing the item.

[Therigar]

Are you talking about how the lootgen works, or how items are represented in the database or memory or wherever, once they've been generated?

That might be how the lootgen system works, but I doubt it's how items are ultimately stored once they're generated. It would be bizarre to represent items as a list of numbers that must be run through a set of blueprints to decipher. More likely, items are just given a list of enhancements they have, perhaps as a list of mutation IDs, or pointers to mutation description structures.

Basically, I doubt the games data structures make the existence of gloves of health impossible. The lootgen is just configured to never generate them.

Up until your last paragraph I think you, Setin and I are saying essentially the same thing just using different words and experiences to express ourselves. We have some confusion because of those differences but underneath it all I think we are talking very similar concepts.

As for that last paragraph.

As I see it the blueprint for a clothing item might include:

a) graphic (which itself includes color, shape, etc)
b) prefix
c) item type (which itself drives graphic choice)
d) suffix
e) shard slot
f) race restrictions
g) class restrictions
h) hardness (which itself includes material type)

This makes a "blueprint" that defines any clothing item.

Against this there are separate tables that list all of the possible values that a thru h can have. Maybe there are 20 graphics in the graphics table which separately calls on 6 colors and 5 sizes to give 20*6*5 variations. We already know that there are 5 clothing types (head, cloak, waist, hands, feet) which define helm/hat/circlet, cloak, belt/girdle, gloves and boots.

Anyway, you get the idea. For each item a thru h there is a corresponding table with all the possible values.

At lootgen each table is accessed and each part of the blueprint is filled in. Sometimes the value is empty. This is why some clothing items are race restricted and others are not, or why some have shard slots and guild levels while others don't.

What you end up with is a randomly generated piece of loot that starts as a blueprint and ends up with detailed information. Now this method may differ in some ways from how you or Setin might design things but it conveys the same concept of a template that is overlaid with specific details.

And, all of us are saying that this overlay takes place dynamically at lootgen (I think we're all saying this).

OK, so why do I disagree with your last paragraph?

Because gloves of health is impossible now because health isn't a suffix that can go on the gloves template because it isn't in the data table so it cannot ever be looked up. So, in fact, the data structure doesn't make it impossible but the data itself does.

And, I think that this is because a different blueprint is used for gloves than is used for boots or belts or hats or cloaks. Each clothing type has its own template, I think, rather than the clothing type itself being just an object in the template.

This, as in Setin's NWN example, probably makes (or made) sense to the design team at some point in time. But, resource wise it actually isn't so good for us as players because it means there are duplicate tables for prefixes (5 of them) rather than just 1. Same for suffix.

The engine might recognize that some things are duplicates and reuse the same code. But the separate prefix and suffix tables explain why gloves don't have health.

Does that make sense?

[Therigar]

Why would you need to know this in advance?

Because it impacts server saturation. You need to be able to reasonably predict each character's memory needs in order to allocate sufficient space in each instance without waste. The better you do this the larger the population you can handle on each server.

Dynamic allocation doesn't handle this with maximum efficiency. It makes it easy but not efficient. And constant reallocation increases server-side lag because the code is inefficient.

Sorry, that's the old school programmer in me -- always looking to run the most code in the smallest amount of space.

[Therigar]

Have an "equipped" flag on the item? Or have an array of slots that represent inventory, with pointers in them that point to the object representing the item.

I like these solutions.

Traditionally we would have written specific information to the client side and called on it there rather than storing it on the server side. Server side would only store periodic snapshots and load the most recent snapshot on each new log in.

But, again, I think that the storage issue isn't really at the core of this and neither are display/equip issues.

FWIW, I would have all items in an array accessed by pointers.

[Setin_Myways]

Why would you need to know this in advance? Dynamic memory management is nothing new. Are you familiar with linked lists? They can grow dynamically to fill any available memory. The ultimate size isn't needed to start with.



Have an "equipped" flag on the item? Or have an array of slots that represent inventory, with pointers in them that point to the object representing the item.

but the game engine has to know to respond to the item in certain slots, i.e. change your appearance, make you featherfall or whatever. So the act of putting the item in your toon slot rather than a chest slot or a backpack slot changes the way it interacts... you do not need the 3d graphic representation of a sword in a bank slot, why have it exist in memory? So does it make more sense to have an inventory slot or a toon body slot know how to respond to a very small item that is represented by codes(or a parameter list to the slots method) so when I put my 2 handed sword in my hand, it knows to make the sword in my hand, and engage all the mechanics involved with this, or if i put it in my inventory, it knows it no longer needs any of what was used to interact, but only the icon and description?

and the memory size is not so much about where to put it, like the link list reference, but each item would have different memory requirements based on its 3d representaion, so does it make sense that one char that has inventory full of 2 handed swords takes more memory than an inventory full of rings?

[Therigar]

i think it is more likely to have every item stored as a list of numbers and depending on where that item is determines how it exists in the 'instantiated' world of the game.

Consider the word THERIGAR. Now, there is nothig special about that word. It is just a string of letters. But, in the computer each letter breaks down to a binary string of some specific length and structure. We can access the R by knowing the binary string, or the hex equivalent, depending on how far up thru the layers we want to go.

Right now as you read this message you see R. So, in a fundamental way Setin is correct that every item is stored as a list of numbers and these, depending on their place in the sequence, define the object.

RHEIGATR uses the same letters and the same underlying binary but is different from THERIGAR because of the sequence in which those letters appear. By changing the sequence we change the object.

What both of you are saying, I both think and hope, is that we only need to know the binary string in order to know what object we are looking at. What Setin is saying (again, I think/hope) is that we don't instance unless we are looking at/using the object being described.

So, if a +3 Icy Burst longsword is in my inventory I don't generate the code needed to fight with it. I just leave it sit as a string of numbers. On equip I dynamically generate the code so that I can now use its attributes in combat. On unequip I destroy everything down to the original string of numbers and replace it with whatever new item's attributes that I've equipped.

If I have to have an instance for every item then I dramatically increase my space requirements.

Just like it makes sense to have each item stored as an object in an array and referenced by pointer it also makes sense to not instance the item until it is referenced.

[dkyle]

but the game engine has to know to respond to the item in certain slots, i.e. change your appearance, make you featherfall or whatever. So the act of putting the item in your toon slot rather than a chest slot or a backpack slot changes the way it interacts...

Sure, but I don't see how a single number that somehow reflects the random numbers used to generate the item is any better than a pointer to an object in memory that represents the information that is currently needed.


you do not need the 3d graphic representation of a sword in a bank slot, why have it exist in memory?

You don't. Why do you think you might? I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Also, 3D models are client side. The server probably remembers a simple appearance code for each item. Any of the data to actually render a sword is stored in data files on your local computer.


So does it make more sense to have an inventory slot or a toon body slot know how to respond to a very small item that is represented by codes(or a parameter list to the slots method) so when I put my 2 handed sword in my hand, it knows to make the sword in my hand, and engage all the mechanics involved with this, or if i put it in my inventory, it knows it no longer needs any of what was used to interact, but only the icon and description?

That sounds like wise optimization, but I don't see how your method helps this at all. All of that could be done with an item ID that points to a list of item properties.


and the memory size is not so much about where to put it, like the link list reference, but each item would have different memory requirements based on its 3d representaion, so does it make sense that one char that has inventory full of 2 handed swords takes more memory than an inventory full of rings?

I doubt the server cares at all what the memory requirements of the items 3D representation are. It tells the client what item to draw, and the client does it.


So, you think items are represented by numbers generated at random, and those numbers, cross-referenced with tables of drop-rates for the specific chest it came from, reference properties of those items.

Then how do the Risian and Stone of Change modifications work?

Do they transform the item number in some way? For stone of change, is there now an additional code for every recipe? For Risian, a new code for each stage of the Superior Glaciation IX recipe? All 45 stages?

That would all be trivial if items were simply represented by a list of their properties.

[dkyle]

Because gloves of health is impossible now because health isn't a suffix that can go on the gloves template because it isn't in the data table so it cannot ever be looked up. So, in fact, the data structure doesn't make it impossible but the data itself does.

To avoid confusion, I meant Health Gloves, not Gloves of Health. I can see why a prefix and suffix might be treated differently in data due to how they're displayed in the item name.

But I don't see any reason why a Gloves item data structure couldn't point to the Health mutation data structure, even if lootgen would never produce a Gloves item data structure that does.


But the separate prefix and suffix tables explain why gloves don't have health.

The intended game design is why gloves don't have health. They copied the affinities from 3.5, and that's what they decided. There's no reason to believe gloves can't have health on them. They just didn't let the lootgen generate them.

[Therigar]

That would all be trivial if items were simply represented by a list of their properties.

Hmm. It seems that you assume Setin's number is an index of some sort used to reference some master table. I assumed it was the properties list in binary form.

I can see no advantage to having an index number for each item and doing a lookup in order to retrieve a properties list. In fact, that seems counter intuitive because it adds extra processes.

However, it could make sense depending on numbers. At some point an exhaustive set of indices pointing to shared characteristics is more efficient than separate character based lists each with their own unique item descriptions.

[Therigar]

To avoid confusion, I meant Health Gloves, not Gloves of Health. I can see why a prefix and suffix might be treated differently in data due to how they're displayed in the item name.

But I don't see any reason why a Gloves item data structure couldn't point to the Health mutation data structure, even if lootgen would never produce a Gloves item data structure that does.

The intended game design is why gloves don't have health. They copied the affinities from 3.5, and that's what they decided. There's no reason to believe gloves can't have health on them. They just didn't let the lootgen generate them.

Well, it feels like we are arguing but I think we're saying the same thing. It seems irrelevant whether 3.5 allowed health on gloves since it seems irrelevant whether we believe 3.5's random loot tables were the only tables ever used and never modified by DMs anywhere.

Irrespective of that issue the simple reality seems to be that Turbine doesn't have Health in the prefix/suffix list for Gloves. So that explains why gloves don't have health regardless of whether it is a prefix or a suffix issue.

And, we are agreed that there is no reason to believe gloves cannot have health on them. This was the entire philosophical bit about laws of physics and magic. Unless there is an underlying magical law regarding either gloves or health then there is no reason the two cannot exist on a DDO magic item.

[kcru]

a) graphic (which itself includes color, shape, etc)
b) prefix
c) item type (which itself drives graphic choice)
d) suffix
e) shard slot
f) race restrictions
g) class restrictions
h) hardness (which itself includes material type)

This makes a "blueprint" that defines any clothing item.

Anyway, you get the idea. For each item a thru h there is a corresponding table with all the possible values.
...
And, I think that this is because a different blueprint is used for gloves than is used for boots or belts or hats or cloaks. Each clothing type has its own template, I think, rather than the clothing type itself being just an object in the template.




VERY unlikely that they define the same effect in different ways on different items. It'd be a huge waste of resources rather than pointing the prefix to "EffectX" and suffix to "EffectY."


But even your template is a little wrong I think. For examples, Bracers can be both Conjuration and Evocation focus. How is that possible if they can only be Prefix OR Suffix? I think each item is defined with a list of up to X effects and Lootgen is programmed to pick appropriate Effects based on some rules and by types. Bracers and Staves have been allowed different rules than most items. I have stripped prefix essences that contained 2 Prefixes (even though only the first was used in its name.)


"Named" items probably use the exact same item template as random stuff, but the effects have been set up by hand instead of run through the Lootgen mechanism, so there's more freedom. It's not that Lootgen or the crafting system CAN'T do it, it's that it hasn't been programmed TO do it.




Then how do the Risian and Stone of Change modifications work?

Do they transform the item number in some way? For stone of change, is there now an additional code for every recipe? For Risian, a new code for each stage of the Superior Glaciation IX recipe? All 45 stages?

That would all be trivial if items were simply represented by a list of their properties.

Yep. And I'm certain that they are. Whether the eldridtch rituals have a dedicated "slot" for the effect, or it just gets tacked onto the master list is somewhat academic.

[Bobthesponge]

/most definately not signed

I stopped reading after page 2 because this was getting repetitive. The main argument for the OPs suggestion is "Magic can do anything!". The main reason for the OPs suggestion is that people don't want to make choices.

Remember that this is a game. Omnipotenc is dull enough in real life - it will kill DDO and any other game if it is allowed. What people are asking for here is the ability to fix gaps in their gear so that they don't have a to make a choice and leave themselves vulnerable to certain situations. We can get pretty powerful as it is so there is no need to be greedy and expect everything.

Remember that this a game and games have rules that define what you can and can not do. Soccer would be much easier if you could use your hands but that defeats the purpose. Poker would be much easier if you could draw cards more than once but that is not the game. This is a game based on a fantastical, magical construction and must have limits. Every single book or story that contains magic, from LOTR to the Bible to Discworld to the D&D based books have one vital thing in common: magic has to be limited. There is nothing satisfying in waving your hand and wishing everything you want without any limitation of consequence. The only people who think like that are 5 year olds who don't know any better.

[dkyle]

I stopped reading after page 2 because this was getting repetitive. The main argument for the OPs suggestion is "Magic can do anything!". The main reason for the OPs suggestion is that people don't want to make choices.

No, the main argument is that it would make crafting more interesting and more useful without making it overpower lootgen items.

If you truly think slot affinities are so core to DDO game balance that losing them would make us nigh unto gods, I could see why you'd oppose it. But I just don't see it. it's a minor part of the game, that plenty of named items already let us bypass.

Crafting is pretty limited right now. This is a way to make it a little more useful.

The "magic can do anything" argument is merely a rebutal to objections that it can't be done because "magic doesn't work that way". A lore rebutal to a lore objection.

The primary argument is about game design.

[Setin_Myways]

Hmm. It seems that you assume Setin's number is an index of some sort used to reference some master table. I assumed it was the properties list in binary form.

I can see no advantage to having an index number for each item and doing a lookup in order to retrieve a properties list. In fact, that seems counter intuitive because it adds extra processes.

However, it could make sense depending on numbers. At some point an exhaustive set of indices pointing to shared characteristics is more efficient than separate character based lists each with their own unique item descriptions.
actually, my list if numbers would be a series of one char parameters to an objects constructor, so each number would be the parameter to set a given part of the object. so if we were talking a weapon slot, if i pull an object from my inventory, it evaluates the first parameter and if that parameter is not what expects, does not allow you to drag the item into it because the first parameter would tell the slot which blueprint to call. If it was the right type, then it looks at the second, 3rd, 4th parameters for the +, the prefix and the suffix. It also tells the graphics engine to now change your appearance and other things to reflect the effect of the item on the toon interacting with the game engine world. this is a really simplified example.

As for what is client side and what is server side, i would believe much more exists in the server than in the client. I know this was very true in a server based environment in NWN. I assume the reason we get individual instances for ourselves or a party is due to this as well, When you look at the reason given for TWF being changed to address lag, do you think this is because the processing needed to be do all the collision math is handled by the client or the server? when there is a lag spike, it usally hits everyone regardless of the client processing power. Sure, i can effect performance by tweeking my own display, but the majority of the game resides on the server. Why can't you play an offline version for example? because the entire mod exists on the server, not the client.

anyway, think we are beating a dead horse and check out the release notes for the new patch to lama

[Therigar]

actually, my list if numbers would be a series of one char parameters to an objects constructor, so each number would be the parameter to set a given part of the object. so if we were talking a weapon slot, if i pull an object from my inventory, it evaluates the first parameter and if that parameter is not what expects, does not allow you to drag the item into it because the first parameter would tell the slot which blueprint to call. If it was the right type, then it looks at the second, 3rd, 4th parameters for the +, the prefix and the suffix. It also tells the graphics engine to now change your appearance and other things to reflect the effect of the item on the toon interacting with the game engine world. this is a really simplified example.

As for what is client side and what is server side, i would believe much more exists in the server than in the client. I know this was very true in a server based environment in NWN. I assume the reason we get individual instances for ourselves or a party is due to this as well, When you look at the reason given for TWF being changed to address lag, do you think this is because the processing needed to be do all the collision math is handled by the client or the server? when there is a lag spike, it usally hits everyone regardless of the client processing power. Sure, i can effect performance by tweeking my own display, but the majority of the game resides on the server. Why can't you play an offline version for example? because the entire mod exists on the server, not the client.

anyway, think we are beating a dead horse and check out the release notes for the new patch to lama

Well, this shows the limits of being an old school guy and not staying up with all the different methods -- especially with object coding which was still on the newer side of things when I retired.

As for server vs client side I agree that more seems to be done on the server side, including stuff that I would have expected to take place client side. One simple reason for this is it prevents hacks -- or makes it extremely difficult in any case.

And yes, it is down to just a sort of sit around the bar and talk over beers sort of thing. If we drink enough and talk enough we'll solve the world's problems. :)

[steelblueskies]

physical laws for crafting. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm
done. now to modify them for game balance. yes thats right, we are modifying the laws of physics to fit our needs(if you will excuse the stretching of the analogy).

body slot affinity ? from the srd:
Body Slot Affinities:
Body Slot Affinity
Headband, helmet Mental improvement, ranged attacks
Hat Interaction
Phylactery Morale, alignment
Eye lenses, goggles Vision
Cloak, cape, mantle Transformation, protection
Amulet, brooch, medallion,
necklace, periapt, scarab Protection, discernment
Robe Multiple effects
Shirt Physical improvement
Vest, vestment Class ability improvement
Bracers Combat
Bracelets Allies
Gloves Quickness
Gauntlets Destructive power
Belt Physical improvement
Boots Movement

so what class is seeker given that one has been a point of contention among the froobs who want ddo, without the dnd? answer, haven't found seeker as a standalone or castable modifier in the srd. we also do not have an amalgam to the bloodstone itself therein.

as to the limits on enchantment to items, aside from the practical limit on cost, it would be far and away beyond prefix/suffix/socket/race restriction. affinities affected cost according to THE RULES, with much rarer exclusions on properties per one item if the cost was met centered on opposing effects not coexisting.

as for logic beyond that let us consider what we do have available and if it makes any sense.

blindness immunity cannot be crafted onto a necklace in the system. not vision or discernment i guess. could be attained through body modifier, so belt or chest should work, as should cloak.. oh well.

next

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/84/screenshot00237.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/screenshot00237.jpg/)

and yet other efficient metamagics get screwed by comparison.

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/4545/screenshot00236f.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/830/screenshot00236f.jpg/)

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7739/screenshot00235.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/screenshot00235.jpg/)

why the inconsistency favoring healers getting versatility?

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5215/screenshot00234.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/155/screenshot00234.jpg/)

spot on boots, belt, gloves. well that clearly departs from restricting things to only affinity slots now doesn't it.
from a practical perspective those arguing the restrictions are based on what makes sense just lost all ground. the day your footwear makes you see hidden things better... then again if that were plausible true seeing wouldn't be trinket or goggles only now would it?

reinforcing this we have
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/7246/screenshot00233.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/846/screenshot00233.jpg/)

goggles and helms that make you jump better! yay.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1658/screenshot00230.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/screenshot00230.jpg/)

and hear better..

next we can look at things like wizardy, magi, and power. they do the same thing nominally. so they should have similar or identical slot usage and availability right.. go ahead and look those up yourself. then compare to named loot, and even random lootgen carrying the modifiers.

continuing on..

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1894/screenshot00226.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/screenshot00226.jpg/)
we can craft or obtain this in some fashion for almost every slot, yet here it's restricted to some odd places. hmm.

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/669/screenshot00225.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/860/screenshot00225.jpg/)

we can resist elements in nearly all slots, but...

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/6367/screenshot00228.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/screenshot00228.jpg/)

we can only absorb it with a trinket or shield, unless....
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/311/screenshot00210.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/screenshot00210.jpg/)

so negative energy absorbtion is special somehow? seems conclusive its the amont of % not the mod don't you think?

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/7461/screenshot00223.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/screenshot00223.jpg/)

we can get this on belts, armor, a certain trinket. are you really going to claim the ability to put featherfalling anywhere will overpower things?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/448/screenshot00222.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/151/screenshot00222.jpg/)

missing from list: trinket and necklace.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6703/screenshot00219.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/screenshot00219.jpg/)

only linking the one lifeshield. basically if you want to put it on a bow you are screwed. why can i toss it on an offhand weapon, but not a bow, when it procs when I get hit not when i hit something else??

if you really examine it, the listing not only of levels for mods, but their application points really does need a ton of rework.
if a dev were to say " hey toss us a list, with constraint x, y, z" i think we'd do it in a heartbeat to get this cleaned up and useful.
and the +2 spell school foci belong up where deathblock is on the level list, and deathblok where the school foci are. i hate to say it, but it's a glaringly true thing.

moving on: you saw how the fix to the risia icy burst kit stripped greensteel of the icy burst even if it should have it? means they set up a script to strip modifier of reference x, off all items with type y.
that should be a big hint as to how the internal handling is set up. but to help you along, you can also consider their localization system. display strings are just that, strings referenced by the mutation on the item. i reason you fellows grasp how that can work, and usually does. continuing on the fact the icy burst kits didn't work on named loot, we can presume named loot is in one of two categories. either a simple reference string to another lookup table, or a single flag on an item. we can derive which by considering what we see when we copy/paste a chat linked item. the whole funky unique identifier that differs even for multiple links of the same unique gear piece. which means each item has flags for its' properties, and each item instance is unique. this also explains why stone of change rituals work without being a huge headache systems side/code/server side.

means they can track the items on a case by case basis as well if they chose to for some reason.

----------
so where does all that and the additional hints in the crafting implementation leave us?
what shards apply to which slots is a matter of flags on the shards, handled by the crafting device, in much the same fashion as the icy burst kit. for further fun confirmation of this mechanic look at the recipes as they appear in the dreamforge crafting device at present. suppressed power - this mod removed. other mods listed as added one by one, with outrageous yellow text claiming each added(unsupressed) modifier will add 3-9 to the base level of the item. i think that's a holdover somebody missed. and frankly it must be, as the titan's grips i upped using the new barter interface would have been min level 18+9+3+5=35 if the yellow text was correct.
gonna have to run back in there and screencap that again just for you fellows, only reported the bug until now.

all that said, it boils down to balance and utility. and a great many modifiers need a serious revamp on where they may occur. many things seriously belong on any body slot, but not weapons, and a very few weapon/shield only mutations really ought to be available on some body slots.

at the same time, someone needs to make a pass on the epic augment crystals and give them some available modifier love.(if not the base epic items themselves.)

okay run to riot. i tossed food for thought out there. could have done it more concretely but imageshack was starting to crawl for me, so i shortened it down a long ways.

and yes i get game balance versus d&d rules versus simply rationality and consistency. i maintain that many things should be difficult to obtain in the system. but they should be possible within the artificial bounding of prefix/suffix we have been strapped with. our most productive result should come from taking each mod, and holding some forumite discussion on if and how far loosening its' slot application would break things.

example, i still contend that seeker +2 available on a number of body slots would be fine as a high level crafting option, but seeker +4 or greater should remain restricted. feather falling on the other hand should be available in any slot, as should deathblock.(to a limited degree they are already through epic augments, unfortunately this excludes almost all locations they would actually be useful, as at 20, raids and epics are the content to run, and frankly, neither mod is incredibly important full time at that point)

one other thing. i even went and used images to help illustrate a couple points. if you are "tl:dr", please hold it in until you bother to do the reading, thanks.

[Therigar]

physical laws for crafting.

Body slot affinities are deliberately broad, abstract categorizations, because a hard-and-fast rule can’t cover the great variety among wondrous items.

Which supports the idea that you should be able to craft clothing attributes on clothing, jewelry on jewelry, weapons on weapons and armor on armor. The rule is very explicit that the chart is vague on purpose because "a hard-and-fast rule" can't work.

Or, maybe we just craft robes. The robe affinity -- Multiple effects.

[Setin_Myways]

Well, this shows the limits of being an old school guy and not staying up with all the different methods -- especially with object coding which was still on the newer side of things when I retired.

As for server vs client side I agree that more seems to be done on the server side, including stuff that I would have expected to take place client side. One simple reason for this is it prevents hacks -- or makes it extremely difficult in any case.

And yes, it is down to just a sort of sit around the bar and talk over beers sort of thing. If we drink enough and talk enough we'll solve the world's problems. :)

pretty old-school myself - spent my first 5-8 years programming COBOL until I got on a web project. coding for the web when people were expected to have a 14.4 modem at best has me very 'old skool' to a lot of the youngsters that come about, but they never had to really think minimalistic-ally about size or computer memory and processor, let alone bandwidth. I am by no means a game programmer - all business and eCommerce, but running a NWN world
for 6 years gave me a pretty good perspective. I would have avoided this topic normally, but i hate when people say Turbine developers suck or coding this would be easy. We have no clue what they have to work with in their organization. All i know is i really enjoy this game. The new patch is addressing some more of my concerns and this BETA is really shaping up.

[societal]

Some of these arguments are flawed. You can put greensteel recipe on any armor slot or ANY weapon. You can put deathblock on any armor with triple-neg. The results are different on armor and weapon, but they are not limited to specific slots or weapon types for continuity. Epic augment slots is another example. There is 'some' plan here but some of it makes sense while some seems random.

[kernal42]

i think it is more likely to have every item stored as a list of numbers and depending on where that item is determines how it exists in the 'instantiated' world of the game. so I get an item that is 12345 and since it is in a chest slot object, which knows to display the correct icon and name. When i examine it, the examine object knows how to determine what to display based on the numbers, when i put it in inventory or bank slots, they too know how to interpret this code. only when it goes in a body slot does it, instantiate and interact with the game engine via my toon. if everything stated as objects in a single form, do you know how much memory each toon would need? also, how would the game engine be able to tell the difference between a ring on your finger and one in your pack? they have to change as the move from a finger slot to a backpack slot...

i think it is more likely that the objects do make the combinations 'impossible', until the objects are changed.

While this is a reasonable technique, I find it highly unlikely that it is employed in DDO for a variety of reasons.

For example:
When an item is changed, unless the devs go through special effort the change is not retroactive (see epics).
The language the devs use to reference this process really sounds like the old item is being destroyed and a new one, with the correct properties, is destroyed.
If adding augments changed the object the item referenced (so that it references one with the appropriate augment), I would expect to see some case(s) where the referencing was mixed up. This is not the case.
Instead, there is the case where one of the augments is mixed up, but wrong consistently.

These are all evidence that the item in your inventory is a unique item with all of the appropriate properties saved on that particular item instance. Furthermore, this is an obviously necessary method of coding for at least some properties, such as temp/perm damage. Rather than mix and match systems, it makes more sense to have consistency.

Cheers,
Kernal

[kernal42]

If we drink enough and talk enough we'll solve the world's problems. :)

Except the imminent beer shortage!

Haven't seem Shaamis in awhile...

[danzig138]

I disagree, certain objects/items have an affinity with certain effects. Blindness immunity boots just doesnt make sense imo

Sure, but why can't I put negative energy absorption on a necklace? Can they just not imagine a magical amulet that absorbs some energies? They can imagine a magical amulet that generates a magical field that manages to help deflect attacks. And as someone noted with giant screencaps, why can I put a skill bonus on just about anything? I don't have a problem with item/effect affinity, I just think they current setup could use some revision. I'm pretty okay with weapon effects staying as is (even if I really want a telekinetic light repeater of bone breaking).

In the original 3.5 crafting system, effects do have an affinity for certain slots, but this can be overridden by paying extra. This might be something worth incorporating; provide some way to pay extra to put effects in unusual slots.

My first thought is to simply up the value by +1 for an unusual slot. Blindness ward is +2. Want it on your boots for some reason? +3.

I'd also like to see provisions for race and alignment requirements for modifying the item level, and while wishing, multiple prefixes and suffixes.