Feedback - Crafting - Update 10, Patch 1

[BangsLiekWhoa]

why cant we just not remember the crafting and remove it all together. it has been more trouble than anything.
make crafting gear only so people wouldnt complain. its also much easier to just take it out and make the balance equal.

in terms : make crafting gear only A.
B. remove crafting altogether so people will do less complaining and more shrouds!

Something tells me that those of us who have spent time & resources to level crafting would disagree with getting rid of it. We like it. Even though there are some kinks, and we may not like all the new ingredients required... It still beats hoping to get random loot near as good as what we can craft or having to buy it on the AH.

Also, even with the new ingredient changes it is still a viable option to make a good boss beater with Cannith Crafting rather than making a MinII GS weapon. One just costs more time leveling crafting while the other requires more time running shroud. It gives us options. For a guy like me with young children, I don't get to play as much as I used to. For this reason, making DR breakers with Cannith Crafting is preferable to making a MinII since I can't run shroud as much as I can level crafting.

The argument that crafting causes people to run less shrouds is wrong also. 1: I see many shrouds every night on the LFM. 2: Shroud is a decent quest to run for stuff to deconstruct for crafting since it has 12 chests in it.

[Cyr]

A BtC item produced from BtA and Unbound ingredients is quite different than a found BtC item. It's nowhere near as meaningful a restriction.

I see little justification for the BtC of crafted items to count towards reducing ML.

True. That is why I am now advocating Cannith Crafted items be like true BtC items when determining ML which would have things like +6 str and moderate fort on a ML 9 item.

It is pretty clear though that a BtC item is more restrictive then a RR item though no matter it's origin.

[dkyle]

It is pretty clear though that a BtC item is more restrictive then a RR item though no matter it's origin.

They're different. An RR item can be used on other characters, but possibly not the character you actually want it on. A crafted item can't be used on other characters later, but can definitely be used on the character you want it on.

Overall, I don't see BtC warranting any more discount than RR would apply on crafted accessories.

But BtC is definitely not enough to override the incredible power crafting gives in making custom weapons. The most significant restriction random weapons have is actually managing to find the right ones, and getting just the right crafted weapons is hugely easier than finding them randomly. The restriction of BtC is utterly irrelevant compared to that.

[EllisDee37]

Regarding the ML. I've been avoiding answering that one because it's complicated. Let's start off with this: the goal was to have the min level on crafting items be 1 less than random treasure. That said, it turned out to be tricky do to. We have someone trying to solve the situation but the way the random treasure system assigns min levels is wonky. To be honest, I'm now getting worried we won't solve this, but that's not an official conclusion (just me being echoing my thoughts).

Just subtract one from the potential of all five enhancement bonus shards -- from +1 to +5 to +0 to +4 -- and you've solved 99% of the weapon and armor ML iisues without impacting anything else. If this can't be worked out for some reason, create five new shards from scratch to replace them with. (eg: "+1 Enhancement" instead of "+1 Enhancement Bonus.")

[Cyr]

Overall, I don't see BtC warranting any more discount than RR would apply on crafted accessories.

My perfect balance point would be as follows...

• Basic cannith crafted gear = same ML as basic RR random loot
• basic cannith gear + festival recipe/ritual = higher ML as basic RR random loot with same
• Expensive recipes allow basic cannith gear with upgrades to have same ML as basic RR random loot with the same upgrades

I think that this would make cannith gear not outclass the best random loot (as it would still be unbound and tradable which for twink gear is a consideration) while attaching real costs to the best of the best twink gear in cannith crafting making the BtC restriction mean more (note it already is relevant from the base item perspective and the festival upgrade perspective).

[Seikojin]

I can understand the problems with Min Level. There are soo many variables in the random loot tables that make for different ML's.

Thinking about how loot is generated, I could see some shortfalls that lead to this disparity. I don't think my comments, that may expose mechanics, is forum post friendly. So I will PM.

I, despite how little I have put into crafting, think it should be here. I remember mentioning it to people as a want and part of the reason I didn't play the game as much.

[Aelonwy]

On the other hand, random weapons can be genuinely rare and valuable, even without an RR. This is because they actually benefit from synergies between prefix, metal, and suffix, whereas on accessories, anything but a pure prefix or pure suffix is almost always vendor trash. The ability to choose that combination on crafted weapons makes them inherently potent. They're great even with the +1 ML cost. Putting them at a -1 ML compared to random is just not necessary.

Ideally, crafted weapons would have at least 1 ML below random or the same as random. Perhaps a +1ML is no problem on a crafted weapon that is simply a + with one prefix or suffix. Although, I would argue that whereas random lootgen weapons can have both stone of change and festival frost recipes added to it without changing the ML and crafted cannot makes random very significantly better vs crafted, and rr random lootgen weapons much more so. That aside, I have seen a few crafted weapons suffering more than just 1ML higher than random, upwards of 3 ml higher than a random generated weapon. Each example had a +enhancement and a prefix and a suffix. I could not say if these were cases of mislabled shards or if the combination of +/prefix/suffix added extra levels. Each one was linked in chat so I cannot give evidence of the problem, only that their examples made me less eager to craft weapons in general. *shrugs* If it becomes ONLY +1 ML across the board for weapons, then I would agree not too much of a discentive. However, combinations of shards or mislabled shards adding 2 or more minimum levels to the item is really discouraging.

[dkyle]

Although, I would argue that whereas random lootgen weapons can have both stone of change and festival frost recipes added to it without changing the ML and crafted cannot makes random very significantly better vs crafted, and rr random lootgen weapons much more so.

Good point. The Stone of Change issues seem to be a bug, though, and not intended.

As for Risia crafting, I think the better solution is to allow them to apply to Cannith crafted weapons, than to try to somehow balance a +/- ML against access to a seasonal crafting system.

[BOgre]

Can't there be just a really dumbed-down way to implement minimum level? Do we need a system that mathematically determines it, aiming at the perfect mathematical min level?

I think that if we just use some common sense we could sidestep the issue and still make it fair. Let's see, +1 items with no effects would be useful to level 1-4 characters, while top tier +5 items with two effects would be level 20 stuff, right?

So how about just making a table something like:

     enhancement - prefix/suffix - minimum level
         none              0                none
         +1                0                2
         +1                1                3
         +1               both              4
         +2                0                6
         +2                1                7
         +2               both              8
         +3                 0               10
         +3                 1               11
         +4               both              12
         +5                 0               15
         +5                 1               18
         +5               both              20

This way we don't have to be concerned with the individual prefix's and suffix's relative power, or try to have the computer 'figure out' an appropriate min lvl. You want a +5 weapon with both a prefix and a suffix? you know right away it'll be a lvl20 item. period. you want to make something for your level 8 toon? you know right away the best you can make is a +2 with a prefix and a suffix. period.

[Scraap]

Regarding the ML. I've been avoiding answering that one because it's complicated. Let's start off with this: the goal was to have the min level on crafting items be 1 less than random treasure. That said, it turned out to be tricky do to. We have someone trying to solve the situation but the way the random treasure system assigns min levels is wonky. To be honest, I'm now getting worried we won't solve this, but that's not an official conclusion (just me being echoing my thoughts).

Perhaps take a page from the xoriat crafting interface, and add an ingredient to the bound/unbound devices that removes all craftable (+x) properties in exchange for lowering the ML? At that point it becomes a question of whether you want to keep adding more along the way, or spend more recrafting it as you level, as well, so added optional essence-sink. Basically, finalizing the weapon sets the ml. (Should also solve the risa thing, I'd think)

[Dagolar]

To fix this, I think you should make a second set of prefix and suffix disjoining potions. One that gets lessers specifically, and one that gets greaters. They can still have a variable return, just targeted so crafting is more planned out and less of a lottery.

While we CAN convert greaters into lessers at the moment, I would love to have more control over the deconstruction drops. A simple "Concentrated Dust of Deconstruction" vs "Dust of Deconstruction" with the first focusing on greater drops and the second on lesser would be handy. I don't see this as a particularly demanding thing to have implemented, though.

Perhaps take a page from the xoriat crafting interface, and add an ingredient to the bound/unbound devices that removes all craftable (+x) properties in exchange for lowering the ML? At that point it becomes a question of whether you want to keep adding more along the way, or spend more recrafting it as you level, as well, so added optional essence-sink. Basically, finalizing the weapon sets the ml. (Should also solve the risa thing, I'd think)

Sounds interesting. Could always tagline the flavor text with "This item was crafted by (toon name)" at that point to give it strong presence. In fact, that's probably a good way to handle unbound crafting in general.

[knightgf]

Regarding the ML. I've been avoiding answering that one because it's complicated. Let's start off with this: the goal was to have the min level on crafting items be 1 less than random treasure. That said, it turned out to be tricky do to. We have someone trying to solve the situation but the way the random treasure system assigns min levels is wonky. To be honest, I'm now getting worried we won't solve this, but that's not an official conclusion (just me being echoing my thoughts).

You mean 2 levels less than the original item effect?

I suppose when you have multiple item effects on a item, I guess perhaps its not as easy as putting 4 + 4 together...or, in crafting's case, (4-2) + (4-2). Keep trying though, you might find a solution! If not...I would just overhaul the system anyways, there's too many issues with the original system as it is.

[MrkGrismer]

^^^This - being able to craft outside the current slot restrictions would make it all worth it. even if you needed an 'out of normal slot' shard to do so.

I can think of about 6 threads debating this of the last few months.

Glad to see you are listening and I ma sure you cannot follow every thread.

Shoot yeah, 'double cost' would both be in keeping with PnP (not that that matters) and perfectly acceptable. I would love to be able to put deathward on something other than armor/outfits/robes/shields/helmet. Right now I'm dying for Mabar to come back so I can get it on the cloaks on a bunch of my characters, but if I could craft it onto something it would give me a reason to put more effort into the crafting system, just to be able to do that.

[dkyle]

Can't there be just a really dumbed-down way to implement minimum level?

Your proposal seems just as complicated as what we have now. Currently it's just, each shard has an enhancement level (in theory the same as the 3.5 base price modifiers). Add them up. Double it, subtract one, and there's your ML. Simple process.

Your idea isn't without merit (it looks a heck of a lot like how 4E magic items work; which, to be clear, is not an insult as I very much like 4E), but ultimately is not a good idea for a 3.5-based game. Your system would put a +1 Holy Burst Greater Bane at ML4. That's only 4 less damage per hit than the +5 version, which would be ML 20. Clearly, that's way out of line.

The difference is that in 4E, the non-enhancement-bonus effects on weapons generally aren't as potent as even a +1 base price modifier 3.5 weapon effect. They're little bonuses, not the bulk of the weapons usefulness.

[MrkGrismer]

Regarding the ML. I've been avoiding answering that one because it's complicated. Let's start off with this: the goal was to have the min level on crafting items be 1 less than random treasure. That said, it turned out to be tricky do to. We have someone trying to solve the situation but the way the random treasure system assigns min levels is wonky. To be honest, I'm now getting worried we won't solve this, but that's not an official conclusion (just me being echoing my thoughts).

I have to say I love it when you (or another developer) tell us what, exactly, was intended like the above. At least hen we know when something is WAI or not.

The above statement does make me curious, however, in that it seems to imply that the current crafting system is not just making the same random items as the random treasure system by using an item exchange system to replace the random generator. Instead you guys must have come up with a completely new system that duplicates much of what the random system does. I can kind of understand this when I consider that the random system is probably some pretty old 'legacy code' but I have to wonder if it might be a good idea to merge the two system, even if it means ripping out the old random system and replacing it with a new one based on the crafting engine (once it is in a stable condition).

[Scraap]

Sounds interesting. Could always tagline the flavor text with "This item was crafted by (toon name)" at that point to give it strong presence. In fact, that's probably a good way to handle unbound crafting in general.

To expand on the notion, as a secondary proposal not necessarily linked to the first, they could also check metal type, and require certain 'finishing tools' for lack of a better name at the moment when adding a shard to say, silver.

So a sliver holy weapon would need a holy shard, a silver weapon, and a 'silver shard matrix' to apply the shard specifically to a dr breaker. Given the max ingredients list for the UI seems to be 5, 3 should fit.

[lazyashell]

Everyone,

The train has been stopped. The patch will not ship in its current state.

I will update (probably via a separate thread) when I have more news, but I can say this:

We will NOT require raid loot as ingredients.

We will NOT require bound named items as ingredients.

Many ingredients, and the *amount* of some of these ingredients were out of line.

These changed recipes should have been reviewed by various designers, but weren't (a hole in our process that we have identified and corrected to avoid for the future).

Mournlands did not have an opportunity to see or comment on these changes.

Again, I'll post more info when I have it.

Our sincere apologies for causing panic, and many thanks to all players who offered their well-thought out and constructive feedback on this issue and tried the changes on Lamannia.

"MudFloyd"

Two words:

Thank you.

[BOgre]

Your system would put a +1 Holy Burst Greater Bane at ML4. That's only 4 less damage per hit than the +5 version, which would be ML 20. Clearly, that's way out of line.

Yup, you're absolutely right. It seemed like a good idea at the time, right up to when I left for work and had the same thought as you did about it. Back to the drawing board

[Yaga_Nub]

Shoot yeah, 'double cost' would both be in keeping with PnP (not that that matters) and perfectly acceptable. I would love to be able to put deathward on something other than armor/outfits/robes/shields/helmet. Right now I'm dying for Mabar to come back so I can get it on the cloaks on a bunch of my characters, but if I could craft it onto something it would give me a reason to put more effort into the crafting system, just to be able to do that.

You mean deathblock? You can't put deathward on anything permanently. It's only a clickie.

[Failedlegend]

For example, where did we ever say or infer that we want to punish the majority of players because of a small number of hard core players accomplishments?

I think he was referring to this post

In the past we've underestimated player's abilities and it doesn't help when we see players cap their crafting levels within a day of us raising the limit.

Than responses like these.

That would be less than 5% of the player base though. You should expect those kind of outliers.

Those players who hit the new cap within a day of seeing the level limit raised have truly obscene amounts of gear already (and I'm saying that as a character with some fairly profane amounts of gear myself). They have big amounts of greater and lesser essences just waiting for the cap to be raised. If you count the amount of play time that went into actually getting all of those essences, it's a lot more than one day of "regular" play.

The top 1% of the player base will do just about *anything* within a day of release. The rest of us are taking a lot longer.

As has been said before the hardcore players with all the resources you can imagine will ALWAYS be able to exceed your expectations of their capabilities. That leaves the majoritiy of the player population somewhere in the middle and the opposite extreme of the hardcore playerbase the utterly casual struggling along somewhere in the beginning. Trying to balance things around the hardcore players is probably futile.

By the way Kudos to you for speaking up again.

There will always be a small percentage of the community that destroys anything you put out and that's not limited to MMOs there's people who will beat 40+ Hr RPGs in 1 hour...trusty me just search "Insert Popular RPG Here" Speed run on youtube or google.

The point is balance things based off the majority of your community not the uber power gamers nor should you throw the pendulum to the other extreme and balance for the people who rarely play the pendulum should swing a little bit one way or the other in the middle ground (I don't expect it to be perfectly in the center).

You can't use hardcore players who stockpile thousands and thousands of essences as a yard stick. There will always be the small-but-extreme population that will do it to be 'first' (and to make things before they get nerfed, like when Vampirisim was removed as a level 46 shard).