Fan Faire Write-up, Part 3: Crafting Masteries and Misc.

[KyrosKrane]

Jewel-Crafting Mastery and other craft masteries

While discussing JCM with Rytan (Ryan Barker), I mentioned tradeskillers' irritation are at how restricted this ability is. He said he's open to making JCM available to all classes, or adding similar abilities for the other tradeskills. He wanted to restrict these new abilities to certain classes again, but I argued strongly against that. Rytan simply replied that not all classes are meant to have all abilities, and I pointed out that tradeskills are the one area where all classes stand on equal footing -- save for the current lock enchanters have on JC due to this AA. In the end, nothing definite came of the conversation, but he did mention he could use some feedback on how to proceed with this.

My personal preference would be to make a new tab on the AA interface labelled Tradeskills. Move New Tanaan Crafting Mastery and the existing craft masteries into there, and add a new craft mastery for each tradeskill. Make all abilities in this tab purchasable by anyone, and make them count as general AA's for the purposes of AA titles and opening up archetype abilities.

Any other thoughts or ideas regarding this topic?

----------------------------

Miscellaneous

Another proposed idea was to create a "Swiss army knife" sort of tool. This was discussed in the context of super-trophies, but the idea stands by itself too. When you right click on this item, you would get a "toolkit" for that tradeskill. For example, the smithing mod item would have a right-click that would summon a Smithing Hammer, File, Chisel, etc. If implemented on the super-trophy, each tradeskill mod item could summon tools appropriate to the tradeskill. The devs didn't seem to like this idea, but it was popular with the crowd -- there were multiple calls for a tinkered "Ak'Anon Army Knife." =)

Tradeskill con colors are meant to represent your chances of success at making an item, not your chances of getting a skill-up. Thus, items will con green when their trivial is equal to or less than your modified skill. This means that if you have a geerlok or other tradeskill mod item equipped, you can get skillups from items that con green.

For the same reasons discussed in the super-trophies post, there are no plans to raise tradeskill abilities past 250 (or 252 modified) at this time.

[Kronepsis]

I can completely understand not wanting to summon tradeskill tools. That would mean they would have to duplicate every single recipe that uses the original tool to use the summoned tools--either that or the summoning items would be summoning money every time.

[Flabbo]

Change sellback value of files and other tools to 0 coin. Really... who cares if you lose an extra 10pp while gming smithing lol. There ar eplenty of recipes in the lower area; some lose more money than others. The convenience offered far exceeds the minor inconvenience for those skilling up. Bear in mind, you can get to 54 for free in the abysmal sea. Whats a file trivial at again? :P

The enchanter aa really annoys me. Their lock on the enchanting process of adamantite, steel, berellium etc is equally annoying. I'm a loot council officer and the head tradeskill person in an elemental guild, so I deal with this junk on a daily basis. Its irritating with my 250 jc to have to seek out a chanter to do combines. Enchanting the basic ores also needs ot be changed. Combining the ore, and a low end mana vial should do the trick. Enchanters still play a role, in fact its EASIER for them to, as they can bazaar mule the vials, which stack, and would be used for all ore, as opposed to enchanted ore, which doesnt stack. The difference is, you dont have to leash one down while you are doing a lot of combines.

[Renjah]

I was and will always be against adding Trade Skill abilities like JCM to only certain classes. It gives a small population free run of the market. Lets say the gives Rangers a Tailoring Mastery AA. WOOHOO for me but for every non ranger tailor thri long hard work of getting 250 skill now is all for nothing. Everything they make I can make easier. This means they no longer want tot ailor because the chance for fail is higher than for Rangers. Like Jewelery is now I NEVER use Jewelery because I can get an enchanter with JCM to make it fo rme with less fails. If JC wasn't so easy Id be angry that I got it to 250.

Personally I think JCM3 should either:
1. Be open to ALL classes
OR
2. Get rid of it and refund the AAs to enchanters who bought it.

For me it gives them too much control over one whole trade skill. Yeah you can argue that they are meant to be master jewelers because they can enchant metals. Lets use the same logic on other classes....

I want Fletching Mastery because Im a ranger and we use bows and arrows all the time!

He wants Tailoring Mastery because he is a druid and druids are in tune with narute and should be able to fashion skins and hides into terrific armor!

He wants Smithing Mastery because hes a strong warrior and all good Smiths are strong people who like to beat on things.

See how crazy this would be? If they gave out more mastery AAs you would get mastery in ONE skill and the other 6 you worked so hard on would be wasted. Heaven forbid you be the class who gets Brewing Mastery instead of Smithing or some other trade skill with a MUCH higher earning potential!

(Not to say Brewing is bad but hey compare the economic differences!)

[Dunthor Warsmith]

Splitting up tradeskill AAs between classes brings back the pre-Tanaan days, basically: you get the "1750" club by having 7 chars, each 250 in a different skill. If they split up the crafting mastery AAs, it would reproduce the same thing: 7 chars to get the "1750, 50%" club, each of the appropriate classes to have a different Crafting Mastery.

With things like Tanaan and Aid Grimel, it seemed like they were moving forward with the "tradeskills on one char" idea and away from the "1 full account need for tradeskills" (7/8, close enough).

Splitting them up is a valid path, but one I really hope the devs don't go down.

[Myrron]

I have to agree with the phrase "not all classes are meant to have all abilities" personally. I think allowing characters to pick one of the seven trades to gain "Mastery" in is enough. If a paladin wants to get Mastery in smithing, fletching, or even baking, that's fine. I don't like the idea of restricting certain classes to certain trade masteries like chanters are now, but I also hate the idea of allowing all classes to "master" all seven trades. If there's a way to allow people to select one of 7 AA abilities (Baking Mastery, Brewing Mastery, Tailoring Mastery, etc...) and upon making their choice, disallowing any of the other six to be bought, I would support that. Or something similar.

--Myrron

[Maevenniia]

Tradeskill Crafting Mastery AAs are necessary to even the playing field. All players should have a chance to purchase TCM3 for the skill of their choice, with the exception of the ‘restricted’ skills (alchemy=shaman, poison making=rogue, tinkering=gnome, spell research=spell caster)

In my opinion, this is how it would work:

You could only choose one and only one skill to get TCM3. Chanters would be refunded JCM3, (Shamen would be refunded Alchemy mastery, Rogues would be refunded Poison mastery) and they could choose to re-purchase it or go for TCM3 in another skill instead.

Shamen, rogues, gnomes and Int Casters would have the additional option of their class specific skills in terms of what skill they could choose TCM3 for , but they could not have TCM3 in more than one skill. For example, if a Gnome rogue wanted to re-purchase Poison Mastery, he could not get TCM3 for Tinkering too (or for any of the other skills for that matter.) They already have the advantage that only they can use that skill, which should be sufficient.

List of theoretical TCM AAs, 3 levels

Alchemy Mastery (shaman only)
Baking Mastery (all)
Brewing Mastery (all)
Fishing Mastery (all)
Fletching Mastery (all)
Jewel Crafting Mastery (available for ALL, not just enchanters)
Poison Mastery (Rogues only)
Pottery Mastery (all)
Smithing Mastery (all)
Spell Research Mastery (all)
Tailoring Mastery (all)
Tinkering Mastery (gnomes only)

[Graal]

There is absolutley no reason at all for anyone to be relegated to mediocrity in Jewelcrafting just because they are not enchanters. This becomes even more important if additional Tradeskill masteries are added. I will be VERY unhappy if Tailoring or Smithing get a class restricted Mastery that completely negates the huge amount of time I spent learning those skills.

You really dont want to see a VERY unhappy Ogre....really.

[Quichon]

Heck, look at Tailoring. Some would say Druids would be the class for it, others would say Monks. After all, Cured Silk, Wu's, Pantherskin, all are monk only (or monk/bst) items, in fact that's why I started tailoring as a monk was so I could make my own armor.

No one is going to be able to settle which tradeskill should go with which class, and there would be some classes that would get left out because there are more classes than tradeskills.

Make them all free for all (except the class-specific skills like alchemy and poisons)

[Myrron]

For that matter, in general half of druids might favor tailoring but the other half would probably favor baking. Like most have said, keeping class out of it really is the best thing to do, in my opinion.

--Myrron

[Verdandi]

I agree with Maev, with one exception. I agree that there should be masteries for all the tradeskills, that they should all be available to all the classes, and that one character should only be able to get one. I know a lot of enchanters who don't like having JCM, wishing they could have smithing or something else. Assigning one skill to each class at random, more or less, would be highly unpopular. I disagree that shamans, gnomes, and rogues should not be able to get the mastery for their restricted skills as well as one of the general ones. The restricted skills have never prevented someone from participating fully in regular tradeskills at the same time. (Except perhaps financially!) I could never justify getting Alchemy Mastery over Smithing Mastery, since Smithing is by far more profitable to me and more useful to my guild. But it would be absurd for me to have to go to another shaman to make me potions. Keeping everyone to just one mastery in the regular skills would be enough restriction, in my view.

[KyrosKrane]

Question. How would you guys feel about splitting up the three levels of crafting mastery? Make each level independent.

So, you could get one level of crafting mastery in each of three tradeskills.

Or, you could get two levels in one tradeskill and a single level in a second tradeskill.

Or, you could get all three levels in one tradeskill.

This allows some degree of specialization for those who want to focus on one skill, and still gives an advantage to those who spend the points but want to spread their skills around.

The costs should remain the same (3/6/9) regardless of whether you get your levels in one tradeskill or multiple. You would not be able to get more than three levels total.

I'm not sure how to handle the race- or class-specific tradeskills though ... I'll defer to Verdandi on that one. I rather like her idea.

[Sylphan]

In the pre-fanfaire thread there was posted the idea that the super-trophy should increase success rates on combines. Sort of an item version of Jewelcraft Mastery. At that time the thinking was that it would be a good idea... enchanters would still have the advantage of using either AA or trophy for that effect. But when the topic came up at FF it was decided that they didn't want to add such a thing because it would reduce the advantage given by Jewelcraft Mastery. Sorry folks, I believe this whole notion of increased success (yyy mastery) for everyone has been shot down by the devs.

[Sylphan]

I have a few fanfaire notes to add to KyrosKrane's. I probably should have posted sooner, but I kept waiting for his 'part 2'.

The devs have no interest in adding any recipes that would need 1750 skill to complete, other than the super-trophy (and Aid Grimel). I think you heard this one wrong, Kyros.

They will, however, consider adding more potato recipes. And might add a way to break down velium weapons into bricks of velium.

They have no interest in adding more recipes for recharging items, such as the one for the Mystic Cloak.

New skillup recipes for raising tailoring 190-250 are very likely. The robes were just for casters, the new recipes would be for everyone.

They'll review cultural armors (again) and try to fill in the gaps, including adding froglok cultural. Two years ago I believed, one year ago I still had hope, but this year I merely observed their facial expressions as they said it so that I could better detect the rest of their lies.

They will 'check' drop rates for spiderling silks, rockhopper hides, coiled springs, PoP temper components, and Rune of Zephyr. They'll also consider reducing the number of tempers needed for PoP plate armor to be more in line with PoP chain armor (but not anytime soon).

They will consider changing merchants to have rotating stock (FIFO). But they rejected the notion of any more complicated scheme, such as having junk items get rotated out while tradeskill items stay in stock. They also rejected the idea of putting the hidden slots back... 80 items is the new limit.

They can add tokens for more types of bags. They can even add stats to bag tokens so buyers can see what they're buying. They seemed optimistic that they might actually add this soon.

They really like the idea of an autoequip area for the bank (actually I'd call it an autobank area). This was one of the few good new ideas to actually come to light AT the fanfaire.

They still grin widely and say 'I can't talk about that' or 'I'm not going to tell you' when anyone asks about trolls getting their city back.

[Ngreth Thergn]

They can add tokens for more types of bags. They can even add stats to bag tokens so buyers can see what they're buying. They seemed optimistic that they might actually add this soon.

More properly, they indicated that cold add soemthing to the lore (or notes?) field to indicate what the bag is.