Utterly absurd: better for cannith crafting to be on a gimp artificer?!

[NytCrawlr]

Agreed, but it does resemble PnP far closer than any other crafting system in the game. If you wish to argue for true PnP crafting, I will back you 100%, but in the meantime Cannith crafting is what we were given in its place.

You'd have me as an ally as well.

[danotmano1998]

I have already demonstrated that, at least in my case, starting over saves on essences. If you believe there is fault in my argument of that point, point it out. But not having a "full breakdown" of all resources is not one.

We agree then. For your case and some others, starting over may be the best move. This is not true of all crafters, nor is it required. If you should choose to start over, then yes indeed, your efforts have been wasted. If you do not, then your efforts were not wasted. Either way it is a choice, one you have to make.

If you choose not to be the absolute min/max best in crafting, then you have wasted nothing.
If you decide you want every single possible point, then yes. Your Artificer will not be quite as powerful as it could be. (Gimp? Debatable. Non-optimal? Sure.)

What we're trying to point out repeatedly here is that these are choices, ones you have to make for yourself. Nothing is required. Nothing is being taken away from you.


I can see that you've thought this through, and that from your perspective, you feel as though you've been cheated. There's no amount of debate or logic that can possibly dispute that point, as those are your personal feelings, so I'm going to give you a +1 and wish you a very good day sir on your trek to be an optimal crafter.

edit: I'll have to give you that +1 when my timer cools down. Sorry about that.

[Zachski]

Grinding an Artificer to 131/128 crafting (depending on whether you use the marks or not) before even being allowed to level him up is, in my opinion, a clear discouragement of making a crafting bot.

Since crafting cost and time is "so high" (apparently, even with being lowered) and you always start at level 1, meaning you always get 1 bonus on the least expensive level.

Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? Anyone dedicated enough to do this should have the benefit of doing it.

No one is forcing you to reset. Just like no one is forcing you to stop playing your character until the update happens, bringing in the increased First Time EXP boost for doing quests.

Funnily enough, there is one good thing I can say about crafting bots: they consolidate everything into a nice little package so that you don't have to worry about which of your characters is higher in what. This is convenient.

At the same time, you have all but admitted that you have nothing bad to say about crafting bots, just that "There's no good points about them, therefore it MUST be bad"

That's definitely black and white thinking Haven't you ever heard of "neutral"?

Ah well, this thread is getting ridiculous. The logic of why it's appropriate AND beneficial for an Artificer to get a crafting bonus has to deal with people setting up strawmen about why it somehow isn't, by comparing it to things like loot bonuses and having your crafting levels forcefully taken from you and stuff which doesn't actually relate at all to the situation.

[dkyle]

Um.. Why is this true?
If you go this route, then aren't you negating those "free" levels by maxing anyhow?
How is this better than just continuing?

By including the bonus CLs, I meant, XP for 130, plus 20 bonus CLs, to reach 150. Not XP for 150 plus bonuses for 170. That would indeed be a very silly thing for someone to do.

A character sitting at 130 worth of XP, plus the bonuses, is better off than a character sitting at 150 worth of XP, when the cap is raised, because he will need fewer XP to cap again.

We agree then. For your case and some others, starting over may be the best move. This is not true of all crafters, nor is it required. If you should choose to start over, then yes indeed, your efforts have been wasted. If you do not, then your efforts were not wasted. Either way it is a choice, one you have to make.

It's a choice between wasting past effort, and wasting even more future effort. Either way, it's a waste. And I think it's pretty obvious what the better choice is.

If you choose not to be the absolute min/max best in crafting, then you have wasted nothing.

Yes I would be. I would be wasting my effort when I need to spend more essences to gain more XP than if I had started over.

[NytCrawlr]

More high level XP, in place of fewer low level XP, obviously implies more essences. I have shown that, in my case, starting over saves on XP. It therefore saves on Essences.

Ok, I'll give, you have certainly shown that. I was hoping for an essence = n XP breakdown, but that is probably asking too much.

Basically, if not starting over costs 1k XP per essence, and starting over costs that plus 500 XP per essence but eventually levels out, I want people to see that, and then decide for themselves.

My earlier contention, and what started all of this, is how you and others are selling this (and maybe it was just more of the others, it's all a blur at this point). For you it is a waste, fine, your entitled to your subjective viewpoint. What others have to decide though is it a waste for them, and ultimately I think the whole thing would have been perceived better if it wasn't labeled with such doom and gloom and outrage.

Whether you like it or not, and I will say it till I am blue in the face, everyone who participated in crafting at this point participated at their own risk since it was an open beta, myself included, that is why I took it slowly, just like I do everything else in this game. I didn't buy a lot of essences off the AH, I didn't deconstruct everything, and I bought very few products from the store to help me with said crafting. It's a shame so many spent so much on this part of the game, but cest le vie, and ultimately, those that participated only made it better for everyone.

Should you be compensated in some way? I don't think so, you didn't have to participate.

[Jahmin]

lol. I'm not sure about your definition of "advantage" and "better", but if one class reaches the same point alot quicker and save many million plat then yeah, that class is better and have an advantage at that task.

Do not confuse better at leveling up crafting with better at crafting. They are distinctly different. There is the potential for an Artificer (or a Human, or a Human Arty) to level crafting easier, but that does NOT make them 'better crafters'.

"They should be good at crafting because they should be good at crafting" is not a convincing argument I'm afraid.

In the absence of anything else, it certainly is. It is definitely better than "they should not be better crafters than me" or my personal favorite "sure they are crafters but that does not mean they should be good at crafting"

Sure, why not.
Ofcourse they are, don't be silly.
Turbine is providing incentive to roll a crafting bot that should never be played in the actual game (quests/raids). That is a undisputeable fact. Do you think that is a good thing?

Ignoring that it is not a 'fact' (let alone an undisputable one laugh) whatsoever, and that Turbine neither encourages nor discourages any behavior (outside adherence to the CofC/EULA) you are by admittance fine with them encouraging behaviour YOU agree with, but not fine with them encouraging behaviour YOU disagree with. Really? And you wonder why your 'argument' is flawed.

Turbine is NOT encouraging people to roll a crafting bot; nor have they ever encouraged people to roll a hagglebot either. People have the choice to do so, and some take advantage of it - many however, do not. Many people play their bots in quests too. Indeed many people also have mule characters...

The two coincide.

Laugh, hardly.

Well, you have shown that you don't fully understand the implications of the bonuses, so your conclusion isn't that meaningful.

Or far more likely, you have failed to provide any evidence that you are correct, let alone prove it so. Indeed, this is most probably because YOU fail to understand the implications of the bonuses.

No, it isn't. Gameplay should always come first. Ofcourse they should try to keep it DnD as much as possible, but never do something that will make the game worse just because the lore says so,

More opinion

[danotmano1998]

By including the bonus CLs, I meant, XP for 130, plus 20 bonus CLs, to reach 150. Not XP for 150 plus bonuses for 170. That would indeed be a very silly thing for someone to do.

Yeah, sorry. I was editing that one while you were replying. That line is no longer in the post. Please disregard it.

[Full_Bleed]

OK, well, I don't have 90. If I did, I wouldn't be starting over.

While I am in general agreement with you in most of your contributions to this thread (and others on this issue), I think you are capitulating on that issue too quickly.

Read the post I put a few above this one and ask yourself: In a crafting system with an indeterminate ceiling and and indeterminate cost for crafting anything in the top 30 levels for the purpose of gaining XP, how can you be certain that 75 or 90 is the correct cutoff?

If 75, roughly half of the 125 cap right now (by xp) is the current cuttoff, who's to say that when the cap is 200 that 125 wouldn't be the point you should have started over? What if crafting in the post 150 or 200 range requires inordinately large amounts of resources that you wouldn't have to spend if you had the "right" class/race?

Given that general foresight, anyone who plans to craft to the ceiling (whatever it might end up being) should be looking forward to what the true value of the +20 is likely to be, not necessarily looking only at what it is *right now.*

[dkyle]

Grinding an Artificer to 131/128 crafting (depending on whether you use the marks or not) before even being allowed to level him up is, in my opinion, a clear discouragement of making a crafting bot.

Why is that a discouragement? If you're jonesing to level an Artificer right now, just level a different, non-crafting one. You won't even have to waste feats on him.

The only added cost is the character slot. If you're so chock full of characters that you don't even have a singe bank character, I suppose this could be an issue. But that doesn't seem like the usual situation for most people.

Since crafting cost and time is "so high" (apparently, even with being lowered) and you always start at level 1, meaning you always get 1 bonus on the least expensive level.

Huh? Are you confused on how the bonus CLs work?

They always apply to the most expensive levels, because they always stack on top of your actual earned XP.

The reason waiting to level is optimal is because you can level using lower level, more efficient recipes. But even if you cap your craftingbot to 20 before crafting at all, it's still a huge bonus to reaching your desired crafting level sooner and cheaper.

No one is forcing you to reset. Just like no one is forcing you to stop playing your character until the update happens, bringing in the increased First Time EXP boost for doing quests.

XP earned now, running quests, will not be wasted once U11 comes. You lose some potential XP, but gaining XP now has clear benefits that, for most people, would outweigh waiting.

On the other hand, I have gained nothing out of the ~10k XP I've earned past CL35.

Funnily enough, there is one good thing I can say about crafting bots: they consolidate everything into a nice little package so that you don't have to worry about which of your characters is higher in what. This is convenient.

Why would anyone split up their crafting schools before? There's no good reason to do that. That consolidation was always available.

At the same time, you have all but admitted that you have nothing bad to say about crafting bots, just that "There's no good points about them, therefore it MUST be bad"

Craftingbots aren't terrible. But they're also not, in any way that I can see, good. Why is leveling an obvious, boring character to 20 and never questing with it again something to be encouraged? How does rewarding that make the game better?

In general, I'd say that rewards for doing easy boring things are not good for the game. A game should reward fun and challenging activities.

[dkyle]

While I am in general agreement with you in most of your contributions to this thread (and others on this issue), I think you are capitulating on that issue too quickly.

You're right.

I should've said "I wouldn't start over yet".

I have no interest in unbound crafting so if I were already at 90, I'd just sit there until there was a clear reason to go higher. At that point, I'd decide whether I should start over.

But to anyone who's in it for the long haul, yeah, I shouldn't be so certain that 90 is the cutoff. That gets into a lot heavier math, and it seems likely that the real cutoff would be higher.

The silver lining for me is that I have an easy, if still thoroughly disappointing, choice. I should obviously start over. If I were at 90 and actually cared about leveling into unbound crafting now? Yeah, that's a tough one.

[Jahmin]

The main problem is the advent of crafting bots. That will strictly make the game worse.

Opinion and utterly without proof. We have no idea if this will create craftbots or if that will make the game worse.

Oh wait; actually we do have the data on that: craftbots CURRENTLY exist on live and have NOT made the game worse.

Hagglebots exist and have not made the game worse.
Craftbots exist and have not made the game worse.

So really, your argument is that U11 is going to 'invent' something that already exists and that this 'invention' is going to suddenly make the game worse despite craftbots not actually making the game worse on live. Notwithstanding all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and FACTS to the contrary this is your 'main problem'? Wow...

[Zachski]

Huh? Are you confused on how the bonus CLs work?

They always apply to the most expensive levels, because they always stack on top of your actual earned XP.

Actually, I was not aware of that. And Aaxeyu wasn't, either, apparently, judging by one of his previous posts.

That actually makes more sense and makes this better, in my opinion.

The reason waiting to level is optimal is because you can level using lower level, more efficient recipes. But even if you cap your craftingbot to 20 before crafting at all, it's still a huge bonus to reaching your desired crafting level sooner and cheaper.

Alright, fair enough.

On the other hand, I have gained nothing out of the ~10k XP I've earned past CL35.

Other than the ~10k XP that you've earned. Which still puts you ahead of a level 1 Artificer, meaning that you're still ahead of the race.

Why would anyone split up their crafting schools before? There's no good reason to do that. That consolidation was always available.

This is also true. Which makes me wonder why this thread exists.

Craftingbots aren't terrible. But they're also not, in any way that I can see, good. Why is leveling an obvious, boring character to 20 and never questing with it again something to be encouraged? How does rewarding that make the game better?

How does it make it worse?

In my opinion, it makes it better because it gives you an option. Unlike Haggle Bards, Artificers don't actually have to sacrifice much to get their bonus crafting levels, you just have to get to level 20. Sure, you have those three feats you can take, but you don't have to. It's an insignificant bonus compared to the Artificer simply being an Artificer.

A "crafting bot" could very well be any artificer because of that +20

In general, I'd say that rewards for doing easy boring things are not good for the game. A game should reward fun and challenging activities.

So, wait, doing quests to earn EXP to level to 20 is rewarding fun and challenging activities. Doing quests to earn EXP to get to level 20 to get 20 bonus crafting levels, despite entailing much the same activity (aside from the crafting you do on the side) isn't rewarding fun and challenging activities?

You're free to make a Maker Artificer if you want, but personally, the feat cost just isn't worth it to me. Suddenly, my Artificer, should I choose to make one, is a crafting bot while still being a properly geared character because he isn't sacrificing a single thing to get better at crafting, just relying on his natural levels.

[dkyle]

Other than the ~10k XP that you've earned. Which still puts you ahead of a level 1 Artificer, meaning that you're still ahead of the race.

Except that my crafter is further from the finish line, so no, he's not really ahead. They may start at the same point, and my crafter has already started, but craftingbots have such an enormously shorter distance to go, that I'm still better off starting over.

This is also true. Which makes me wonder why this thread exists.

Huh? Since when is this thread about crafting all three schools on the same character? Why would anyone even argue about that? I'm so confused...

It's an insignificant bonus compared to the Artificer simply being an Artificer.

Only if by "insignificant" you mean exactly the same. The feats give +10. The Artificer gets +10. They stack together to make +20.

So, wait, doing quests to earn EXP to level to 20 is rewarding fun and challenging activities. Doing quests to earn EXP to get to level 20 to get 20 bonus crafting levels, despite entailing much the same activity (aside from the crafting you do on the side) isn't rewarding fun and challenging activities?

Leveling any character is easy. It's the stuff you do after that that is challenging. A craftingbot has little reason to do that stuff.

And yes, I would consider leveling a gimped character to 20 that I'll never play again much less fun then leveling a real character that has a future.

[Zachski]

Only if by "insignificant" you mean exactly the same. The feats give +10. The Artificer gets +10. They stack together to make +20.

Oh. I was under the impression that the dragon marks provided +1 and the Artificer got +1 per level. Mea culpa.

Leveling any character is easy. It's the stuff you do after that that is challenging. A craftingbot has little reason to do that stuff.

And yes, I would consider leveling a gimped character to 20 that I'll never play again much less fun then leveling a real character that has a future.

Then... don't level a gimp character to 20. Level a full character to 20 and then use feat swap shards to switch in the dragonmarks.

Huh? Since when is this thread about crafting all three schools on the same character? Why would anyone even argue about that? I'm so confused...

My point is that this thread seems to be whining about players dedicating a character to crafting, when... not doing so is kinda silly in the first place.

[dkyle]

Then... don't level a gimp character to 20. Level a full character to 20 and then use feat swap shards to switch in the dragonmarks.

First, that is expensive. Do you realize how expensive level 20 feat swaps are?

And second, it's still a character with no future. The feats need to remain to get the crafting bonuses, and as long as the feats remain, it's a character that is gimped compared to a real Artificer that doesn't take the feats.

And my issue isn't leveling a gimped character. Plenty of characters are underpowered while leveling them, but work well at cap. My issue is leveling a character with no future playing the primary focus of the game: questing and raiding.

My point is that this thread seems to be whining about players dedicating a character to crafting, when... not doing so is kinda silly in the first place.

No, it was kinda silly to dedicate a character to crafting in the first place.

Crafting, as initially released, was entirely bound to character (outside a marginally useful exploit). If you wanted a Holy Silver EOB for your Barbarian, you had to level crafting on that specific character. Crafting was, in fact, initially quite useless on a "dedicated" crafter.

And, I still don't see what leveling all three schools on a single character has to do with anything. Why would anyone not do that, whether on a dedicated crafter, or on a primary melee?

[Jahmin]

Here's 2 facts:
The change will encourage crafting bots.
The change will makes peoples efforts wasted.

Opinion - and both have been proven false, in this and every other thread on the subject.

We use those 2 undisputable facts as arguments for why the change is bad and should never happen.

I know English is not your first language, and that is cool. I am not nearly as good in my secondary languages as you. That said, it is clear you have no understanding of 'undisputable' - please look it up.

Your only argument is "so it is written and so shall it be" which ofcourse isn't realy an argument in the first place.
You can't come up with a real argument so instead you try to make our sides arguments look like "non-issues", which you completely fail at for that matter.

Actually RAW is a very valid argument, pretty sure there are a few religions based around that in fact. Regardless, the only 'fail' has been your lack of compelling arguments. In the absence of anything else there is no reason not to try and follow the rules; if there WERE a reason to not follow the rules then there would be something to debate - as you have been unable to produce a valid reason, the rules as written remain.

That's absolutely ridicolous. Every sane person understands that gameplay is more important than lore. There are tons of deviations from the PnP to make the game better.

Yes, yet sadly not every sane person understands that crafting and haggle bots are not worse for the game. There are also tons of deviations that make the game worse.

I would rather put it "This addition is bad because it'll make people play in a way that nobody really likes."

Really? You are now so presumptuous that you can tell me how I like to play? Thank you! I never knew that all this time I was wasting doing something I enjoyed was really something I dislike. What a revelation! Thank the Sovereign Host - you have freed me from my previously very enjoyable pastime and have now shown me that actually it was quite boring. Quite seriously, all this time as a haggle bot roleplaying a shopkeeper I thought I was helping people holding the weapon shop open, buffing them and chatting with my clientele. I cannot wait to tell them that I can reroll as full ****** DPS!

Or we can let people play the way they enjoy playing and spend as much or as little on it as they want.

It shouldn't be a crafting class. It's a fully functional class even without any bonuses to any crafting. So just let go of the idea that it's a crafting class.

There is no reason Artificers should NOT be a crafting class. Yes, the class would only need minor tweaking if crafting was removed (a reversion to their proper spell progression perhaps) to be playable, but that would only make it a non-crafting class in function. If the Devs did NOT want a crafting class, there are plenty of other class options they could have explored even excluding Druids: Psions? Would have been my first choice because sometimes it does take a Kalashtar and there are two updates dedicated to the Quori & their invasion. But the Devs CHOOSE a crafting class to go with Cannith Crafting and as such it makes sense that they get some form of crafting bonus.

If they want to make such characters, then by all means! Do it! But Turbine should not add incentives to do so (meaning that they should not encourage people to do it).

Here's a direct question for you, and I hope you will finally give me an answer: Why is it good to encourage players to make crafting bots?

If there were incentives to create haggle & craft bots, then yes Turbine would be encouraging them; as there are no such incentives Turbine is not encouraging them. It is a choice, and that choice has a cost.

The question is difficult to answer simply because it is not germane and is premised upon an utterly flawed understanding of the issue. But if we ignore the evidence to the contrary, then it is good to encourage bots because it presents a choice.

[Jahmin]

The discussion was about Wizards and Sorcs (and other casters) not gaining any bonuses to Cannith crafting even though you need to cast spells to craft. Barbarians, Fighters, etc., can't make items via UMD in PnP, but in DDO, they can Cannith craft just as well as Wizards.

So really once again you do not know what your argument is. Instead of being mad that Artificers get a crafting bonus, you are ****ed that non-casters get to craft. OK, fair enough I agree with you about that.

1) No way in hell I'm TRing my GS and Epic geared Barbarian into a craftingbot.

Choice - how great it is

2) You need to stay a craftingbot to keep the bonus levels. And you're nuts if you think a completionist is going to want to be a craftingbot for their final life.

Choice, but in actual fact you can swap out feats are you level increases (which it will continue to do so) and eventually even TR back out of the class too!

3) Having to TR to get the bonuses instead of making a first life craftingbot is still losing out. It's still dramatically more effort than if the player had never started crafting at all.

OH, so having a craftbot has a DIFFERENT cost to leveling crafting after all!

No, TRing is not a general solution to the problem. In many cases, it's an even worse option than starting over with a fresh craftingbot.

Opinion

[Jahmin]

So we're down to two core arguments..

1. Turbine is forcing me to waste all the time and plat I spent on my first crafter, because Artificers are the obvious choice for crafting due to bonuses.

2. Turbine is encouraging people to make a character that, because they choose to take the crafting feats, will be gimp and therefore, unplayable.

I'm not going to dispute point #1 any more, I think there are already plenty of good points made in this thread.

But I would like to address argument #2.
Has anyone designed a min/max crafter? Leveled it to 20th? Taken place in raids and epics?
How gimp is gimp? Is there any hard data which conclusively proves how much dps/ playing viability they actually lose? (I'm not trying to be smart, I'm very curious as to how much information is available.)


On that note, here's a thought... What if Turbine made the crafting feats bonus feats rather than regular feats? Then argument #2 will be completely negated. Nobody will need to make an "unplayable gimp" crafter. Thoughts?

You should dispute #1 since that is where their biggest flaws in thinking are.

That said, to address #2, having tried it on Lameia a max crafting Human Artificer is not gimped at all. The Marks of Making allow the 'craftbot' to recon his pet, party Warforged and using Construct Essence even himself - pretty much the same benefits a Halfling gets from his Dragonmarks of Healing. Even better, unlike the Halfling, the craftbot does not have to invest in additional Dragonmarks if he does not want to and can instead save them for an 'oh ****' moment.

With their 5 bonus feats the craftbot can easily ensure they also have all the required feats as well (casting + either range or melee DPS feats) and the craftbot still brings all the Artificer infusion/spell buffs. Just like a Bard hagglebot still brings all his songs & spells as well.

Sure, the craftbot could use those three feats for something else (3x toughness for example), but it is not as if they NEED those additional feats. Ultimately unlike a Hagglebot (SF: Haggle, Negotiator, etc) a Craftbot actually can make use of his feats.

But in any event, #2 is not the problem - #1 is where their thinking is flawed.

[dkyle]

So really once again you do not know what your argument is. Instead of being mad that Artificers get a crafting bonus, you are ****ed that non-casters get to craft. OK, fair enough I agree with you about that.

I'm thrilled that non-casters get to craft. What did I say to suggest otherwise? Because it certainly wasn't what you quoted.

Once again, you completely miss the point.

My point is that a precedent was set when Cannith crafting was first introduced: Cannith crafting is not PnP crafting. Therefore, the precedent was that bonuses to PnP crafting would not necessarily become bonuses to Cannith crafting.

Choice - how great it is

Not all choices are good. A choice between a terrible option (wasting tons of rare bound gear), and bad option (wasting past effort leveling crafting), and another bad option (continuing with a crafter that will waste effort in the future) is just bad.

Choice, but in actual fact you can swap out feats are you level increases (which it will continue to do so) and eventually even TR back out of the class too!

No, your level will not increase at any remotely significant rate unless you actively level yourself, which defeats the whole point of getting the bonuses in the first place.

Once you stop actively leveling, and just craft useful stuff, you'll quickly stop getting any XP from Shards, and get it only from deconstructions, which is such a tiny trickle it won't get you to higher levels in any reasonable amount of time.

OH, so having a craftbot has a DIFFERENT cost to leveling crafting after all!

Well, duh? Have I said there wasn't?

It's a cost that reasonable people can consider "less" than leveling a non-craftingbot.

Opinion

Again, well, duh? Of course it's an opinion. That's like calling gravity just a "theory".

There is nothing wrong with opinions. They're the whole point of discussion. Do you have a good reason why my opinion is not valid, or is unreasonable, or is founded in faulty logic?

[Jahmin]

Pointing out that you're fundamentally misunderstanding a point is a "typical power-gamer defense"?

No. Being told that a subjective opinion is fact is a typical power game response however.

If you find yourself "typically" being told "no, that's not at all what I'm saying", perhaps the problem lies with you.

Although not applicable to me, perhaps you are trying to delude others as you have yourself by simply repeating the same falsehoods again and again...

It's an opinion, sure, but calling it "quite subjective" blindly denies the objective facts its based on. I will, provided I craft long-term, spend fewer essences by starting over, than continuing on. This is a fact. In doing so, I will have wasted the majority of the effort I've already put into crafting. This is a fact.

Facts? The fact that YOU (might) be better off starting over means that EVERYONE is better off starting over. That 'fact'? The fact that your currect crafting investment is only wasted if YOU CHOOSE to start over? That 'fact'? Or the fact that you had access to easier recipes and quick XP that Artificers will not. That actual fact?

The only "subjective opinion" here is my opinion that leveling a new character to 20 is preferable to grinding tens of thousands of high level crafting XP, and spending enormous amounts of essences. Would you say that is an unreasonable opinion?

Of course it is unreasonable. Sure it might make sense for you, and if we accept that you are not trolling then you believe it is, but that does not mean everybody does.

They are changing the game to punish previous effort, and reward starting over. It is very fair to blame them for that.

I can accept how you see them as 'changing the game'; I cannot accept how you can say that is punishing previous effort. If anything the people that did not previously craft (such as myself) are at a significant disadvantage compared to those that crafted previously. If anything non-crafters should be in up rage over the previous crafting nerfs. Indeed, ALL crafters should be - but you would rather whine about an addition to crafting that you are CHOOSING to take advantage of. Priorities...