Suggestion: allow deconstruction of named items to base

[wax_on_wax_off]

I suggest to allow deconstruction of a named item to its base item. This would be a purely aesthetic exercise which would allow us to strip off all the affects on a named item and craft more desirable ones on top of it. This would allow use of many named items with unique graphics that would otherwise not be used.

Named items with adjusted base stats may need to be excluded, reverted to normal base or allowed to be crafted upon though perhaps with very high level requirements or other constraints (silver bow for example).

Quite a few armour suits have really nice unique looks but don't get used because they are basically vendor trash, this would be a great fix

[SisAmethyst]

I see some problems with this:
1. named items in the AH that don't match the original named item anymore
2. stripping of properties for which no recipe/ingredient exists makes it probably harder to code
3. crafting items with a lower min. level then other items because the base is named
4. creating issues if an item is epiced but not fit the original item anymore

Why not like in ToEE be able to give a crafted item an alias name instead?

[Jaid314]

I see some problems with this:
1. named items in the AH that don't match the original named item anymore
2. stripping of properties for which no recipe/ingredient exists makes it probably harder to code
3. crafting items with a lower min. level then other items because the base is named
4. creating issues if an item is epiced but not fit the original item anymore

Why not like in ToEE be able to give a crafted item an alias name instead?

it shows that you haven't played with the crafting yet.

1. it won't need to be the named item. in fact, it almost certainly won't be. instead, it should generate a blank item with the same appearance/slot.
2. he's asking to strip it down to the bare bones, to create a blank. ie a chaosblade would become just a regular khopesh.
3. the item is stripped of *everything*. it won't *have* any min level or properties to price out. it will be just a blank, waiting for enchanting, just like any other item you strip. at most, it might have a material.
4. turns it into a blank. all you need to do, is have it give it the exact same stats as a regular item of that kind, and not change the model it references. problem solved.

i don't see how this could be unbalancing. in programming terms, you aren't really modifying an item so much as you are generating an entirely new one anyways; none of the stuff other than material (since no named weapons/armor have guild slots) from the old item needs to stay the same.

[wax_on_wax_off]

it shows that you haven't played with the crafting yet.

1. it won't need to be the named item. in fact, it almost certainly won't be. instead, it should generate a blank item with the same appearance/slot.
2. he's asking to strip it down to the bare bones, to create a blank. ie a chaosblade would become just a regular khopesh.
3. the item is stripped of *everything*. it won't *have* any min level or properties to price out. it will be just a blank, waiting for enchanting, just like any other item you strip. at most, it might have a material.
4. turns it into a blank. all you need to do, is have it give it the exact same stats as a regular item of that kind, and not change the model it references. problem solved.

i don't see how this could be unbalancing. in programming terms, you aren't really modifying an item so much as you are generating an entirely new one anyways; none of the stuff other than material (since no named weapons/armor have guild slots) from the old item needs to stay the same.

you forgot the /signed part of your positive response

[Quanefel]

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of them allowing for named/raid items to be stripped for base components but not to be made as blanks. In fact, they should produce more components when stripped than normal vendor trash loot.

[Kriogen]

I suggest to allow deconstruction of a named item to its base item. This would be a purely aesthetic exercise which would allow us to strip off all the affects on a named item and craft more desirable ones on top of it. This would allow use of many named items with unique graphics that would otherwise not be used.

Named items with adjusted base stats may need to be excluded, reverted to normal base or allowed to be crafted upon though perhaps with very high level requirements or other constraints (silver bow for example).

Quite a few armour suits have really nice unique looks but don't get used because they are basically vendor trash, this would be a great fix

Or there could be a crafting recipe that would alow you to copy-paste looks only.

[SisAmethyst]

it shows that you haven't played with the crafting yet.

1. it won't need to be the named item. in fact, it almost certainly won't be. instead, it should generate a blank item with the same appearance/slot.
2. he's asking to strip it down to the bare bones, to create a blank. ie a chaosblade would become just a regular khopesh.
3. the item is stripped of *everything*. it won't *have* any min level or properties to price out. it will be just a blank, waiting for enchanting, just like any other item you strip. at most, it might have a material.
4. turns it into a blank. all you need to do, is have it give it the exact same stats as a regular item of that kind, and not change the model it references. problem solved.

i don't see how this could be unbalancing. in programming terms, you aren't really modifying an item so much as you are generating an entirely new one anyways; none of the stuff other than material (since no named weapons/armor have guild slots) from the old item needs to stay the same.

I did indeed play around with the crafting, but maybe either I misunderstood the OP or you misunderstand me

1. Using 'disjoint' on the item will strip off every prefix, suffix and enhancement, but the item itself stay intact. So it keep things like the base-material an guild-slots (and probably even the look, which I indeed haven't tested yet), preparing it for crafting. This if I understand is one of the reasoning of doing this to a named item at all as it should preserve the look of an armor or weapon. This would then most likely as well keep the name as this name neither include the prefix nor the suffix. It is in fact the old item, just the 3 properties are cleaned. Also it would mean to probably keep the damage dice or crit profile, which of named items is sometimes different then from a regular one. To just convert a SoS into a plain simple Greatsword wouldn't gain you anything. The Name is a fixed element of a named item with its own unique loot table entry and therefore if allowed to 'disjoint' will lead to issues.

2. For what purpose if not to keep one of: the name, the damage dice, the crit profile, the look, a special property that can't be stripped like the guild slot? Otherwise it would be just like throwing this weapon away and get from Korthos a masterwork Khopesh. As of right now it looks like that the item really is taken as is and just the prefix and suffix element are removed together with the enhancement. A named item has no prefix or suffix, which would mean to add additional checks if certain properties stay on the item (Guild slot, damage dice, crit profile...) or not and it certainly is a likely place to get an exploitable error at this step. The guild-slot is just an example of a property that is not affected by the disjoint which already tell us that it is somehow attached differently to the item.

3. How you know how the minimum level of a named item is coded to the named items? Maybe it is a property like the guild augment slot that just add a '-2' to the item. You know how the guild-slot is coded on the item? Maybe the suffix and prefix part is coded on a item in a way that you can easily set those to null, but the additional information like augment slots and minimum level is stored somewhere else. As said in (2) doesn't make any sense if you would strip it from everything as it would be cheaper and less troublesome if you just get a masterwork weapon from Korthos. Why then bothering Dev time to implement additional fixes or have the danger to get it exploitable?

It is your assumption that 'in programming terms, you aren't really modifying an item so much as you are generating an entirely new one anyways' and I just say your assumption may be wrong. I don't believe they replace the item with a new one. That would afaik mean that they would have a table where for each weapon a corresponding blank is referenced which would be a total overhead. I indeed believe that the item itself stay the same, but all fields that refer to a enhancement, prefix or suffix get cleaned. A named item has however properties that don't fall in this category but all that property would need to be cleaned as well. Or as you suggest, you would need to add code that make actually a copy of the item but then this copy will probably not keep the look.

4. This is under your assumption that the graphics is just a simple reference and that the Epic Stone of change not for example use this kind of reference to check if an item is Epic or able to made Epic.

I just think it is far more tricky then it sounds like, especially if you look how often properties of new items get mixed up and need quite some work to get them corrected. If they implement this and by accident the crit-profile of a SoS get transfered to a blank then you can be sure the hell will be loose. And for the huge amount of named items you would need to add a ton of additional checks to prevent this.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to have the look of a named item that provide me nothing special transfered to an own crafted item. But I however doubt it is that easy to implement the strip of named items compared to the danger of an exploitable error.

[Alabore]

C'mon, we're all thinking: disjoint drow hunter armour and place whatever suits your fancy on it.

...

Ah, this bard can be dreaming...



...

/signed.
One potential issue: we could deconstruct some named items on lama; not sure about implications of keeping original item name.

[SableShadow]

Or there could be a crafting recipe that would alow you to copy-paste looks only.

If each and every bit of the new crafting is completely borked, getting this still turns it into win.

[Matuse]

I shall turn all armor in the game into the elocator's habiliment!


RAAAAGH!

[Jaid314]

I did indeed play around with the crafting, but maybe either I misunderstood the OP or you misunderstand me

1. Using 'disjoint' on the item will strip off every prefix, suffix and enhancement, but the item itself stay intact. So it keep things like the base-material an guild-slots (and probably even the look, which I indeed haven't tested yet), preparing it for crafting. This if I understand is one of the reasoning of doing this to a named item at all as it should preserve the look of an armor or weapon. This would then most likely as well keep the name as this name neither include the prefix nor the suffix. It is in fact the old item, just the 3 properties are cleaned. Also it would mean to probably keep the damage dice or crit profile, which of named items is sometimes different then from a regular one. To just convert a SoS into a plain simple Greatsword wouldn't gain you anything. The Name is a fixed element of a named item with its own unique loot table entry and therefore if allowed to 'disjoint' will lead to issues.

2. For what purpose if not to keep one of: the name, the damage dice, the crit profile, the look, a special property that can't be stripped like the guild slot? Otherwise it would be just like throwing this weapon away and get from Korthos a masterwork Khopesh. As of right now it looks like that the item really is taken as is and just the prefix and suffix element are removed together with the enhancement. A named item has no prefix or suffix, which would mean to add additional checks if certain properties stay on the item (Guild slot, damage dice, crit profile...) or not and it certainly is a likely place to get an exploitable error at this step. The guild-slot is just an example of a property that is not affected by the disjoint which already tell us that it is somehow attached differently to the item.

3. How you know how the minimum level of a named item is coded to the named items? Maybe it is a property like the guild augment slot that just add a '-2' to the item. You know how the guild-slot is coded on the item? Maybe the suffix and prefix part is coded on a item in a way that you can easily set those to null, but the additional information like augment slots and minimum level is stored somewhere else. As said in (2) doesn't make any sense if you would strip it from everything as it would be cheaper and less troublesome if you just get a masterwork weapon from Korthos. Why then bothering Dev time to implement additional fixes or have the danger to get it exploitable?

It is your assumption that 'in programming terms, you aren't really modifying an item so much as you are generating an entirely new one anyways' and I just say your assumption may be wrong. I don't believe they replace the item with a new one. That would afaik mean that they would have a table where for each weapon a corresponding blank is referenced which would be a total overhead. I indeed believe that the item itself stay the same, but all fields that refer to a enhancement, prefix or suffix get cleaned. A named item has however properties that don't fall in this category but all that property would need to be cleaned as well. Or as you suggest, you would need to add code that make actually a copy of the item but then this copy will probably not keep the look.

4. This is under your assumption that the graphics is just a simple reference and that the Epic Stone of change not for example use this kind of reference to check if an item is Epic or able to made Epic.

I just think it is far more tricky then it sounds like, especially if you look how often properties of new items get mixed up and need quite some work to get them corrected. If they implement this and by accident the crit-profile of a SoS get transfered to a blank then you can be sure the hell will be loose. And for the huge amount of named items you would need to add a ton of additional checks to prevent this.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to have the look of a named item that provide me nothing special transfered to an own crafted item. But I however doubt it is that easy to implement the strip of named items compared to the danger of an exploitable error.

1) the item does retain the look, guild slots, and material. everything else is gone. if there was a nonmagical way to make an 18-20/x3 greatsword, then that would be the standard greatsword. the sword of shadows has superior stats (as do all the other items with similar numbers on them) specifically because they are magically boosted to have those stats. if you disjunction them, they lose those stats.

2) the look remains. pretty sure that's even been explicitly stated somewhere... the item you craft will look the same as the item you disjuncted. that's reason enough for many people; i know one person who wishes he could deconstruct hooked blades because they're the only khopesh he likes the look of.

3) eh, it's actually been stated somewhere. you aren't modifying your item. but if you need a way to tell, consider for example when you upgrade a silver flame talisman. if your old one was locked, and had the adamantine ritual 3 times, and was in the very last slot in your inventory, the new one will:

a: have the same rituals, be locked, and show up in the same inventory slot, as you would expect for a modified item (this happens, for example, when you use up a charge on a given item and the item is modified).
b: lose the rituals, not be locked, and show up in the first open inventory slot you have, as you would expect for a completely new item that you just picked up and added to your inventory.

take your time, there's no rush. this applies for pretty much every 'crafting' situation in the game. they are, in fact, taking away the old item and replacing it with a new one that has the same stats plus a little bit more (or less, in the case of disjunction)

4) when crafting, the new item has the same appearance as the old item. whether this is accomplished by having an assortment of possible item appearances and matching up which one the new item should point to, or simply telling it to point to the old item, is not particularly relevant. the simple fact is that the stats of a named item and the appearance of said named item are not attached to each other, and can be separated. for example, i happen to have a +4 ghost touch greatsword that looks exactly like the sword of shadows. it isn't a sword of shadows, obviously (more's the pity), but it has the same appearance.

and if you read the OP, it's very obvious that he just wants the appearance. that's what "purely aesthetic" means.