Effective Trivials of GM armor accounting for success caps

[Carmaris]

(2) 300 skill was not considered in the formula when they determined the hard caps

When did they raise the skill cap to 300? Was it pre or post DoN? Or was it when DoN was released? Because if it was post DoN, then it makes sense that the 300 skill cap wasn't considered...

(BTW, I don't know the answer to this question; quit shortly after GoD was released, just came back a few weeks prior to PoR.)

[Kahmon]

When did they raise the skill cap to 300? Was it pre or post DoN? Or was it when DoN was released? Because if it was post DoN, then it makes sense that the 300 skill cap wasn't considered...

(BTW, I don't know the answer to this question; quit shortly after GoD was released, just came back a few weeks prior to PoR.)

The skill cap was raised the day DoN went live.

The fact is that having a success cap punishes those who worked hard to get their skill higher. Mods aside, higher skill should equal higher success.

[Denidil]

The skill cap was raised the day DoN went live.

The fact is that having a success cap punishes those who worked hard to get their skill higher. Mods aside, higher skill should equal higher success.

that's exactly why i'm proposing the trivial adjustments

i'll do those recalulations soon - right now i'm working on my gnome's tinkering so i get a better success rate on Battle Bow Cams!

[Bobaten]

The counter argument is that mastery AA's are a substitute for master level skill.

I do agree that you should need 300 skill for max success, I don't agree that mastery aa should be required for max success. Currently you have a choice of getting one or the other, your proposed changes would require both. Yes I know you are proposing higher than current success rates, but we all know that the people with the highest success rates set the expectations in the market.

[Portlis]

Ok, for someone who is terrible at math, can you guys help me understand exactly what skill levels I would need to reach this "success cap"?

I currently have blacksmith + tailor masteries both at 3. Also have the +8% trophies for both.

What skill level do I need for max success at BP/Greaves?

How about helm/boot/sleeves?

Bracers?

Also, is there a formula you guys are using to figure this out. Perhaps I could understand better if I knew what you were doing with these #'s.

Thanks.

[Bobaten]

Just using the calculator on the main site. With an 8% mod, 243 is high enough skill with mastery 3 (which you are probably past if you have an 8% mod). With a 15% mod and mastery 3, you hit max success at skill 228.

[Wymp]

The counter argument is that mastery AA's are a substitute for master level skill.

Mastery AA's should simply be a bonus to your craft .. whether at 300 or 250 or even 50 skill. They should never be allowed to function as an alternative to having higher skill, in my opinion.



I do have to agree on the main idea here, though.

I'd much rather see the "success cap" removed and have the system fully skill-based using high trivials, instead.

There absolutely should be a benefit to having the highest skill possible, and the current system (for cultural, at least) for determining success rate doesn't give much incentive to go past the mathematical boundary .. let alone all the way to 300.

[Denidil]

The counter argument is that mastery AA's are a substitute for master level skill.

I do agree that you should need 300 skill for max success, I don't agree that mastery aa should be required for max success. Currently you have a choice of getting one or the other, your proposed changes would require both. Yes I know you are proposing higher than current success rates, but we all know that the people with the highest success rates set the expectations in the market.

Mastery AAs are 18 AAs that should give you a BONUS to your success rate - that's why i pick my desired trivials based on 300 skill + 12% mod

AAs should be a BONUS - if that means you cannot maximum out the success rate on an item without (or even with) them then that's the intention

take the
Composite Treant Laminate Recurve Bow Staff for example

408 Trivial
300 Unmod Skill: 45.5%
300+12%: 81.5%
300+15%: 90.5%
300+Mastery 3: 72.75%
300+12%+Mastery 3: 90.75%
300+15%+Mastery 3: 95%

[Fonceur]

The counter argument is that mastery AA's are a substitute for master level skill.

No it should not, it's like saying you can either become an M.D. by studying for years or you can just pay 100k and buy a diplomae online, both being equal... I don't think so...

[Elfdruidess]

GM armor was created from day 1 from the perspective of the adventurer (lvling / exp) and not the tradeskiller.

It is Grandmaster armor for sure. But Grandmaster "adventurer". Not Grandmaster "tradeskiller".

take the
Composite Treant Laminate Recurve Bow Staff for example

408 Trivial
300 Unmod Skill: 45.5%
300+12%: 81.5%
300+15%: 90.5%
300+Mastery 3: 72.75%
300+12%+Mastery 3: 90.75%
300+15%+Mastery 3: 95%

The 408 trivial looks at the math from a tradeskiller perspective. And we all know who designed it.

The GM armor hard caps are calculated from an "adventurer" perspective. It's more like Aid Grimel (there's the GM symbols quest) than a tradeskill line.

Proposing a change of trivial for GM armor is proposing a change in perspective (from "adventurer" to "tradeskiller"). And this is the point that needs to be emphasized to the devs before we can hope for any changes.

[Bobaten]

The AA's ARE a bonus. They are NOT required to reach max success on DoN cultural. Your proprosed changes would make them required to reach the a new maximum possible success rate, while at the same time lowering the success rates of people who are at the current max success rate. In short, you are asking to recieve a bonus for yourself, while punishing others. You keep brushing aside the punishing others part as an unfortunate side effect. The fact remains that no recipes from DoN require skill above 250 if you get the mastery AA's, however, they also don't require the mastery AA's if you choose to skill up to 300. 251-300 is an alternative choice for making DoN combines.
For newer combines, there are some combines that do benefit from having both skill and AA (1 listed so far, but I believe the Harmonagate JC combines will be that high too (/em braces for the non enchanter jewelers)), but I still don't think that is a good excuse to take away successes from others on older combines.

[KyrosKrane]

Consider this example. Your gear currently has, say, 300hp per item. A new expansion comes out, and all excited, you go out and raid the mobs in it. The first raid boss dies, and a 400hp item drops! Woot, what an upgrade! You get the item, equip it ... and scratch your head. Your total HP hasn't changed. You make sure it's not an aug problem, you make sure of everything ... you equip a 400hp item and your total hp only goes up 300. What's going on, you wonder? Is it bugged? Is there a mistake?

Months and months later, the developers finally acknowledge, "We feel 400hp items would be overpowering and would trivialize the content they drop in. Therefore, 25% of the HP in those items won't actually add to your HP totals. Maybe, in a future expansion, we'll make some encounters where that extra HP will be enabled."

Can you imagine the outcry from the raid community if something like that happened?

It's simple. You do NOT mess with progression. Getting a higher skill, a higher mod, a higher mastery level, should ALWAYS mean something. People acquire these items with the knowledge and intent that they now have a better chance of making item X. A hidden cap, not revealed until players more or less forced the devs to acknowledge it, is flatly unacceptable.

These caps mean that progression is meaningless. There is no need to progress beyond a certain point, because you will never gain a benefit from it. This is WRONG, pure and simple. EQ is a progression based game, whether that progress is raid targets or item power or player skill. Remove that progression incentive and you remove the reason to play.

Bobaten mentions the aspect of punishing tradeskillers. This is not true. People who have high skill and no mastery have the same success rate as people with low skill and mastery. Progression has been rendered irrelevant. Particularly with the double exp periods, it's not unreasonable to get 18AA in 2-3 days of normal exp. Can you claim that it's possible to get from 250-300 in smithing or tailoring in 2-3 days?

By removing the caps, you restore the aspects of progression. You allow the true definer of difficulty to rule again -- the item trivial. People at lower skill levels have basically been getting a free ride. Based on the measures that we knew, success rates were unnaturally low for the highly skilled people -- they were the ones really getting punished by the caps. Remove the caps, and you restore the balance.

Frankly, the hidden caps are game-breaking for the tradeskiller. They devalue the extra time and effort the tradeskiller puts into his craft. The game already has two mechanisms to control item difficulty: drop rate and trivial. We don't need a third, hidden, secret one that blatantly disregards everything tradeskills have ever used as a benchmark of success.

Now, I'll freely acknowledge that removing the cap would also require rebalancing the trivials. This is where the balance aspect would come in. Success rates become determined by the trivial, so by adjusting that trivial, a point could be found where lower-skilled or AA'ed people would have fair success rates, whereas top skilled people would have good success rates. People with both skill and AA should have the best success rates, but again, the AA should be a bonus, not a requirement, for tradeskills.

[Denidil]

The AA's ARE a bonus. They are NOT required to reach max success on DoN cultural. Your proprosed changes would make them required to reach the a new maximum possible success rate, while at the same time lowering the success rates of people who are at the current max success rate. In short, you are asking to recieve a bonus for yourself, while punishing others. You keep brushing aside the punishing others part as an unfortunate side effect. The fact remains that no recipes from DoN require skill above 250 if you get the mastery AA's, however, they also don't require the mastery AA's if you choose to skill up to 300. 251-300 is an alternative choice for making DoN combines.
For newer combines, there are some combines that do benefit from having both skill and AA (1 listed so far, but I believe the Harmonagate JC combines will be that high too (/em braces for the non enchanter jewelers)), but I still don't think that is a good excuse to take away successes from others on older combines.

Now you're turning this into a personal attack. My smithing skill is 220 and i do not have any smithing AAs. The AAs currently DO NOT REDUCE FAILURE RATE ON GM ARMOR when you have 300 skill. This is clearly not in line with the rest of tradeskills and should be corrected.

You're correct - my changes would make them required for maximum success however just skilling up to 300 and having your 12% trophy would get you the same success rate as you have today so drop the attitude - as of right now they've been effectively NERFED.

Nothing is preventing you from skilling up to 300.


NO MORE TURNING THIS THREAD INTO AN UBERS vs CASUALS DEBATE!

[Bobaten]

The AAs currently DO NOT REDUCE FAILURE RATE ON GM ARMOR when you have 300 skill. This is clearly not in line with the rest of tradeskills and should be corrected.

Actually, the AA's do not reduce the failure rate on any pre PoR combine for any tradeskill if you have 300 skill. At this point there is exactly one confirmed recipe (the composite laminate staff) where a tradeskiller with 300 skill gets any benefit from the mastery AA's.
I btw, am neither a GM smith or tailor, I am a GM tinker. The AA's are not currently an option for me, but they would also not currently benefit me for more than 1 combine, and that's not likely to be a combine I will ever need to attempt again. My disinterest in adding tinkering AA's blinded me to a more personally affecting argument: Raising the trivials on the DoN GM armor would also allow tailors and smiths to get a better success rate on the armor than tinkers.

As far as smithing or tailoring to 300 in 2-3 days.. getting to 290 is fairly easy if you are a race that uses yttrium or shissar scales, you might need an extra week for 290-300.

[Denidil]

i'm a half elf - so i don't have that easy skillup path