Feedback - Unbound Crafting

[MrkGrismer]

I have to say I think that anything that can drop randomly should be able to be crafted unbound. Otherwise the crafting system is missing the point, that point being (IMO) of allowing a person to trade their time for eliminating the 'luck factor'

[dkyle]

I will say, I did not expect Bane to be cut, but as I think about it, given how some have made a huge fuss about how adding Bane (Type) makes a weapon that is better then GS, I can see how Turbine might be inclined to eliminate that Shard from going to the open market. I might not even be surprised that if people make a bigger stink about it, that Turbine might consider removing the Bane Shard from crafting all together just for "Gear Balance" issues.

There's no indication they were "cut". They're just not in yet.

Again, the cap is only 75 out of an eventual 150. Bound Banes start at 41, Unbound seems to add about 35, making the lowest level Bane 76, and above the cap.

There's no point in discussing "missing" enchantments until the crafting level cap has clearly exceeded the point where it could reasonably be expected to occur.

[Impaqt]

Skill shards are WAY too expensive to create.....

Strongly dislike the completely arbitrary ML assignments.

Still feel the XP level up grind is too tedious.

[dkyle]

Skill shards are WAY too expensive to create.....

Strongly dislike the completely arbitrary ML assignments.

Agreed on the skill shards.

But apart from some weirdness with caster weapons, Base Price Modifiers are consistent with loot-gen BPM, and BPM is translated into ML with a consistent formula. Just not the same formula loot-gen uses.

[Lurdlurd]

I would like to know: Would you be in favor of a "bind to account on equip" on all the unbound items to minimize the influence on market, if it goes with easier HL craft?

[Merrill_Greeneshade]

I would like to know: Would you be in favor of a "bind to account on equip" on all the unbound items to minimize the influence on market, if it goes with easier HL craft?

The unbound items are exactly the same as the bound items which is BTC. The only difference in the shards are that one says bound to account and the other doesn't. The only difference in the items is that one says Bound to Character on Acquire and the other says Bound to Character on Acquire and Bound to Character on Equip (which is really unnecessary).

And this I am personally in favor of.

[Ungood]

There's no indication they were "cut". They're just not in yet.

Again, the cap is only 75 out of an eventual 150. Bound Banes start at 41, Unbound seems to add about 35, making the lowest level Bane 76, and above the cap.

There's no point in discussing "missing" enchantments until the crafting level cap has clearly exceeded the point where it could reasonably be expected to occur.

While I will agree there is little point in discussing what was cut and not cut from Unbound until the system is live.

However, You are incorrect, Plant Bane, & Halfling Bane are both level 40 Shards, which would make it 75th (if it was +35)

But the use of the phrase, 'lowest level" bane can be taken as misleading, as "Lowest level" bane weapons could be considered, "Lesser" Bane, which start at level 9.

As I said, I do not play on that server, but I am wondering now, if the Lesser Banes are available as that would be more informative then any kind of hyperbola about things that might be released in the future.

[Impaqt]

Agreed on the skill shards.

But apart from some weirdness with caster weapons, Base Price Modifiers are consistent with loot-gen BPM, and BPM is translated into ML with a consistent formula. Just not the same formula loot-gen uses.

I'm talking about the completely no fomula system they used to determine that "Holy" should be Level 37 and "Pure Good" is L43 and such.

THere is no consistency with what the game generates at what levels. Low level effects should be low level crafting recipes. Instead the Devs decided to base item crafting levels on "Whats good and what sucks"

[Yaga_Nub]

There's no indication they were "cut". They're just not in yet.

Again, the cap is only 75 out of an eventual 150. Bound Banes start at 41, Unbound seems to add about 35, making the lowest level Bane 76, and above the cap.

There's no point in discussing "missing" enchantments until the crafting level cap has clearly exceeded the point where it could reasonably be expected to occur.

I'm sure that I just missed this but crafting is going up to level 150? Why?

[Cyr]

I'm talking about the completely no fomula system they used to determine that "Holy" should be Level 37 and "Pure Good" is L43 and such.

THere is no consistency with what the game generates at what levels. Low level effects should be low level crafting recipes. Instead the Devs decided to base item crafting levels on "Whats good and what sucks"

Yup, that is my main objection at this point to how to the crafting system mechanics also. If an effect sucks then it should be a lower ML modifier on items also. Consistency is what matters here. If they want to keep gimped effects at inappropriate MLs fine, but then make the crafting formulas for the better effects at those MLs comparable to the junk ones.

[Cyr]

I'm sure that I just missed this but crafting is going up to level 150? Why?

Turbine has bought shares of Logitech.

[dkyle]

I'm talking about the completely no fomula system they used to determine that "Holy" should be Level 37 and "Pure Good" is L43 and such.

THere is no consistency with what the game generates at what levels. Low level effects should be low level crafting recipes. Instead the Devs decided to base item crafting levels on "Whats good and what sucks"

Oh, then I disagree entirely.

The BPM of an enchantment is not an indication of how "good" it is. It's a penalty on enhancement bonus that is weighed against the bonus the enchantment brings.

For example, on Handwraps, +3 Holy is actually better than +1 Holy Burst. The cost of Holy Burst (an extra +2 enchantment bonus) is not returned by the extra damage from the Burst (~1.05 per hit).

The only logical way to value Shards is according to how "good" they are, and that necessitates some ranking. It may be arbitrary, but basing it on BPM would be even more arbitrary.

It would be like ranking cars strictly according to their price, without paying any attention to what they actually do.

[Yaga_Nub]

Turbine has bought shares of Logitech.

I know this is going to sound like I'm yet again bashing the devs but....

Why would you make some with 150 levels (really 450)?

100 I can understand. That's a nice round number and it should be easy to fit all the different recipes into 100 levels of crafting in three different schools. Once again the devs are trying to out-smart themselves and make something unnecessarily complicated.

I'd rather see 100 levels and instead of unbound shards/item recipes being a higher level version of a bound recipe, make it so that at levels 95 to 100 you can craft "cleansing stone" that unbind an item so it can be sold.

[dkyle]

I know this is going to sound like I'm yet again bashing the devs but....

Why would you make some with 150 levels (really 450)?

100 I can understand. That's a nice round number and it should be easy to fit all the different recipes into 100 levels of crafting in three different schools. Once again the devs are trying to out-smart themselves and make something unnecessarily complicated.

My guess is 100 for the highest bound shard (Vorpal perhaps), and 150 for its unbound version.

I'd rather see 100 levels and instead of unbound shards/item recipes being a higher level version of a bound recipe, make it so that at levels 95 to 100 you can craft "cleansing stone" that unbind an item so it can be sold.

So instead of a gradual gaining of ability to craft better and better unbound items, you'd prefer you get nothing, until you've ground the entirety of the crafting level progression, at which point you can craft everything unbound?

No thanks.

I see no particular reason why we should cap at a "round" number like 100, instead of 150.

[Cyr]

Why would you make some with 150 levels (really 450)?

100 I can understand. That's a nice round number and it should be easy to fit all the different recipes into 100 levels of crafting in three different schools. Once again the devs are trying to out-smart themselves and make something unnecessarily complicated.

I'd rather see 100 levels and instead of unbound shards/item recipes being a higher level version of a bound recipe, make it so that at levels 95 to 100 you can craft "cleansing stone" that unbind an item so it can be sold.

Personally I would just prefer if you walked over to the unbound altar, put in the normal bound ingredients and got out an item with a slightly higher ML that was unbound. That way it would follow the normal method of progression which puts bound gear at lower ML's then comparable unbound gear and get rid of extra stuff. Then again silly extra recipes will make the mindless crafting grind go by faster so whatever.

[NeutronStar]

I haven't tried Lamma yet, but after reading Lamma my reaction to the discussion is:

While I agree with many of the theories discussed here, they are premised upon very knowledgeable players, and the assumption that crafting should "cost" or be a "challenge."

It would be a grave mistake in game balance to assume that the vast majority of players were very knowledgeable about what specific items are "the best" (Holy/GEOB, etc.) and it would be another mistake to not understand that crafting is not just a means for generating weapons and items, but it is a way for players to find a sense of accomplishment with a new activity besides adventuring.

If you make it cost too much, it won't be fun, and will only be used by a select few. If you focus on making it "fun" by providing a sense of "accomplishment" you will make a happier player base and create a more positive "public relations" reaction to the crafting system.

Its very much a mistake, IMO, to apply such measures as "the typical player will attain X in a week", or "this doesn't cost enough for me or challenge me enough", as gaming experiences can vary so widely.

I guess what I'm saying is, for the good of DDO, remember the broad picture, and that this is in the end supposed to be "fun." I -am- glad so many people are thinking about this deeply and giving it very serious thought.

Now to go have a peek at unbound shards for myself and see if I just stuck my foot in my mouth...

Well said. +1

[Impaqt]

Oh, then I disagree entirely.

The BPM of an enchantment is not an indication of how "good" it is. It's a penalty on enhancement bonus that is weighed against the bonus the enchantment brings.

For example, on Handwraps, +3 Holy is actually better than +1 Holy Burst. The cost of Holy Burst (an extra +2 enchantment bonus) is not returned by the extra damage from the Burst (~1.05 per hit).

The only logical way to value Shards is according to how "good" they are, and that necessitates some ranking. It may be arbitrary, but basing it on BPM would be even more arbitrary.

It would be like ranking cars strictly according to their price, without paying any attention to what they actually do.

Whats a BPM?

By your logic Holy Burst should be a lower crafting level than Holy?

Can +3 Not be added to Holy Burst?

I dont follow you at all here...

What I'm talking about is


Pure Good is pretty common for L2-6 characters..
Holy is pretty common for Level 4-8 characters...
and Holy Burst is Pretty common once you get up to l8-12

Why isnt the Crafting progression Similar?

AS far as adding +1, +2, +3 etc etc, I find that to be a separate mechanic. and seems to be working just fine..

[Yaga_Nub]

...
I see no particular reason why we should cap at a "round" number like 100, instead of 150.

Because it's nothing more than psychology. Since it has nothing to do with DnD, they could make it only 20 levels if they wanted to or 1000 but they didn't they choose 150 for some god forsaken reason. Have you actually tried crafting? Why worry about making levels so small that you craft two items and you're at the next level? It's a waste but they know that psychologically we are smiling when we level up because people like to be rewarded. So I'll see your comment and say I see no particular reason why we should cap at 150; why not 20? Why not 42? Why not 99? Why not 1000? Why not 9000?

[dkyle]

Whats a BPM?

Base Price Modifier

Holy's is +2, Holy Burst's is +4, for example.

You add the BPM of every effect, plus the enhancement bonus, and that gives you that + in the top right corner. Based on that, we get the ML and its base price.

It's what I assumed you meant by "level" of effect.

By your logic Holy Burst should be a lower crafting level than Holy?

Not at all. Most weapons benefit more from Holy Burst than +2 and Holy.

Pure Good is pretty common for L2-6 characters..
Holy is pretty common for Level 4-8 characters...
and Holy Burst is Pretty common once you get up to l8-12

Why isnt the Crafting progression Similar?

That's a product of the BPM of those effects. PG is +1, Holy is +2, Holy Burst is +4, and lower level items will tend to have lower BPM effects.

PG is common at lower levels than Holy, but is still in some ways better because there are so few DPS suffixes, other than banes.

Have you actually tried crafting?

I have certainly tried crafting. I leveled to 35 or so in Divine and Arcane, crafted a bunch of Holy Banes, and have mostly set it aside because I felt leveling further was a waste, and that the Devs would make it easier to level, so why not wait. Looks like I was right, given the new Unbound shards.

Why worry about making levels so small that you craft two items and you're at the next level? It's a waste but they know that psychologically we are smiling when we level up because people like to be rewarded.

Why shouldn't we like to be rewarded?

Why shouldn't there be a gradual progression of small levels?

Why would 20 huge jumps be better?

So I'll see your comment and say I see no particular reason why we should cap at 150; why not 20? Why not 42? Why not 99? Why not 1000? Why not 9000?

Indeed why not.

They made their arbitrary choice. Now you say that 100 would be a better arbitrary choice. Why?

In the end, some choice has to be made. I see little reason why 100 is better than 150. I have no argument that 150 is the ideal number (although the "size" of levels do mostly feel right to me), but I'm not the one suggesting that the Devs should have done differently.

[Merrill_Greeneshade]

So when you say BPM you are referring to the Enchantment Level? Is BPM something the devs came up with or something that someone on the forums decided to coin? It's awful misleading regardless when it comes to the crafting discussion. Price to me refers to something monetary. I initially assumed that it had to do with how the platinum values of items were determined for random generated loot.

EL would make more sense to me if we were using an acronym to describe shard levels.

MEL for the level of a craftable blank...After all that is pulled right from the item description (Maximum Enchantment Level - All Words Capitalized).

IF BPM is carrying over from a Random Generated discussion I don't think it applies very well to the new crafting discussion. After all my +2 Flaming Scimitar of Lesser Undead Bane has a "BPM" of +4, a plat value of 2 plat, and is unsellable.