Your thoughts about the new skill-up formula

[Bolas]

I got hit with the double whammy.

I had substantially more combines from 0 to 265 than those that did them after the formula change.

And now I have more combines to go from 265 to 300 than those who did them before the formula change.

I'll end up as the tradeskiller that did the most combines to get from 0 to 300 in every tradeskill.

-Bolas

[Bolas]

I think the original poster's point is valid. For tradeskillers already past 220 or so, the changes were a bad deal all around. Here's what they got:
1. More competition from traders who have an easier progression to 250
2. Harder skillups from 250 on.
It's kind of unpleasant to hear these described as balancing each other out, since both those are bad things for those who have already built the skills.

I had several tradeskills already past the penalty levels before the change, but I really don't mind. It makes more sense this way.

Yeah exactly the problem.

We're TRIPLE PENALIZED. More combines in the past (0 to 200's) compared to someone wanting to catch up. More combines in the future (200's to 300) compared to someone that did them right when the expansion came out. And more people able to catch up to where we are now due to the change in the skill up rates for the previous stuff, so more competition to sell the few things we can actually make and more competition to buy the supplies for the stuff we want to make and the stuff we'll skill up on.

Bleah.

-Bolas

[Justmenow]

I think the new skill up formula and the changes that are coming to the trivials of recipes benefit the level 70 players and hurts the level 65- players who don't have access or can't solo the zones that the 260-300 recipes require and who don't have stats above 300.

[YurienStonebow]

if anyone is interested i ahve psoted my skill up path in pottery from 54-188. you can see what my resutls look liek and then see if it is working like intended

[Macnair]

The analogy is badly flawed. The payoff of tradeskills isn't how fast you can skill up (unless you're doing tradeskill for the sake of just skilling up) but rather what and how efficiently you can make something.

Hmmm. Lots of people collect all the components to do 100 combines on mistletoe sickles or arctic wyven masks. What's the payoff that motivates them to do this? The hope that they will succeed in making these elite items, or the hope that they will raise their skills?

[Phantron]

The hope that by skilling up you can make stuff that does have a value more successfully.

[YurienStonebow]

most of the things made under 250 isn't worth the cost of materials

[Qaladar Bragollach]

Not strictly true... personally I tradeskill just for the sheer goal of gaining the skill. I've lost more money than I ever made at tradeskilling. Aid Grimel earring, 8th shawl, and a few research only spells are the only item I've ever gotten from tradeskilling that I actually used. Aid Grimel earring is the only one I'm still using currently and that won't be forever.

[Macnair]

The hope that by skilling up you can make stuff that does have a value more successfully.

Well, sure, most of us hope that we will some day make money in game when we sell the high value stuff we make.

But that's not what actually happens in the meantime, for the vast majority of us, is it?

The current payoff is not that we can make high end gear and sell it. Instead, the only real payoff in the present time is simply the advancement of the skill.

And for that: the amount of work has been increased, the payoff is lower, and the promised improved-skillup-chance bonus is ... someday, maybe.

Just as my analogy suggested.

[Phantron]

It's still wrong even if you're doing it for the sake of skilling up because there are way too many real life parallels where the cost of improving at the top is significantly higher than improving at the bottom. It is harder to skill up at the top because just about everything in this world gets harder at the top, not easier.

[Macnair]

It's still wrong even if you're doing it for the sake of skilling up because there are way too many real life parallels where the cost of improving at the top is significantly higher than improving at the bottom. It is harder to skill up at the top because just about everything in this world gets harder at the top, not easier.

OK, I'm clear on the fact that you think the present situation is good, because it reflects that in the real world people are happy to do more work and get less for it. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.

I continue to think that as people move up they are not happy to do more and get less for it. I think that's what the minimum-chance-to-skillup bonus is supposed to balance. But since that bonus is postponed until some indefinite future, the problem remains.

So I guess we'll have to leave it that we disagree about this.