Effective Trivials of GM armor accounting for success caps

[KyrosKrane]

You're forgetting the skillup bonus, though. A lower level smith will fail more after the changes (reducing the number of items entering the world, which would balance the increased successes by high-end people), but at the same time, there will be more plentiful attempts with a greater chance to skill up on each one. Maddoc said he'd consider (emphasis on that, only consider) raising the skillup bonus to keep GM armor as a viable skillup path, if these changes are made.

[Bobaten]

The skill up chances don't matter because the lower skilled smiths won't make the items. Even for the lowest trivial one scale items the lower skilled smith is behind. The smith at 290+8% would a 65% chance of succeeding on a bracer, a 300+15% smith would have a 95% chance. With a 95% success, if the MDS cost 20k, I am sure there would be people willing to sell the bracer for 25k. Meanwhile the average cost for for the 290 smith is 30k. So by attempting to make a bracer, you are in effect spending 5k for a chance to skill up. With the skill up mod that is actually cheaper per skill up than doing the GoD scepter so it might be viable. But move to the 408 trivial items, and the 290 smith now has a 58.5% success rate, while the top smiths still have a 95%. Now the expected cost is 34k for the lower smith while the top smith can still sell it for 25k. If someone is willing to pay 9k for an extra skill up chance it better be a BIG extra.

But all that is assuming you are making the items ahead of time to sell in the bazaar. In my experience most GM armor sales are done by request (often with the customer's material). If one smith has a 95% chance and charges 5k, while another smith has a 58% chance but will do the combine for free, which smith are most going to trust with their scales?
The success caps are the number one thing that make these items viable skill up combines. It's just sad that at the same time they lessen the value of the very skill they help you to get.

[KyrosKrane]

Bobaten, your argument fails simply because the point is EXACTLY that a higher skilled smith should have better success rates. That's kinda the point of this whole thread. If you don't think higher skill should matter, then that's a whole other story.

On the other hand, a smith with skill less than 300 making the armors today most likely has Mastery 3. I don't expect that would change if the trivals are upped; it's the same net situation.

Once again, it's premature to talk about this without working some solid numbers. I need to hit the spreadsheets in the next couple of days.

[Angelsyn]

Let's not forget that this will also alter the success rate on GM Augs, correct?

Yeah, I am at 300 skill in Smithing and Tailoring... but I still say that this is a good idea all around.

Skill should matter. I made all my own GM armour starting back when I was at 290 Skill with only a +5% Mod. Did I worry about success rate? Of course... but I knew that I was pretty-much at the cap, so it didn't matter if I waited or not.

With the change, it will matter. People will work harder to get high skill, because they'll know that it takes high skill to get good results.

Hmm... sounds almost like every other aspect of the game... if you want good gear/xp/whatever, you have to work at it.

[Bobaten]

I do think higher skill should matter. I don't think that 10 points of skill should matter for these combines when it doesn't matter for any other combine from the era these of these combines. We have effectively seen 3 skill cap raises in the last year and a half(masteries, 300, and now 15% trophies for all skills). At the current time only 2 trade skills have any combines that benefit from all 3. I fully expect the next level of smithing/tailoring combines to have high enough trivials to benefit as well. Jewel craft is now producing 140 hp items with +60 total saves(requires a keyed zone tradeable drop). Fletching is now producing 165 hp items with +66 total saves. And all of these have 2 available aug slots, just like the GM armor. When new recipes come, they will be higher trivials than the current recipes, there is no good reason to push the current trivials up. The GM armor is one of the skill up options to get yourself ready to make the next big thing.
I really don't expect these skill caps to go away by the way. I think that the proposed trivials in this thread are still too low to limit the number of GM items entering the world to the current levels. 336 + Mastery 0 is not a good assumption because

with the double exp periods, it's not unreasonable to get 18AA in 2-3 days of normal exp.

A more likely result would be a compromise, raising the trivials, but rather than removing the success caps, raising them so that the best success could be obtained by someone with 300+5% mastery 3 (the best non raid drop skill available at the time these recipes came out). I still don't particularly like this solution because it still:
a) reduces the success chances of people skilling up on these skill up bonus recipes
b) isn't fair to tinkers who don't have the mastery AA (yet) to benefit from the change
c) doesn't leave room for future higher quality, higher trivial items

[Bupper]

The marketplace dynamics that Bobaten describes are true. I am one of the people who skilled up from around 280 to 300 Tailoring largely by making GM augments, taking advantage of the skill up bonus but able to recover my costs through sales because of the success cap.

It would be wrong for me to want this path denied to others now that I've reached my own goal. I do hope that new recipes benefit those who have reached the highest skill levels, but don't take away this skill development path unless it is replaced with another that's equally attractive. This is exactly how tradeskillers should grow in EQ, by plying their trades making goods that others want, rather than recipes that have no purpose other than to support skill ups.

As for the lore explanation, maybe some recipes are just limited by the strength of their materials. No matter how good you are, your materials are going to let you down x% of the time.

[Aeght]

Bobaten, your argument fails simply because the point is EXACTLY that a higher skilled smith should have better success rates. That's kinda the point of this whole thread. If you don't think higher skill should matter, then that's a whole other story.

On the other hand, a smith with skill less than 300 making the armors today most likely has Mastery 3. I don't expect that would change if the trivals are upped; it's the same net situation.

Once again, it's premature to talk about this without working some solid numbers. I need to hit the spreadsheets in the next couple of days.

With due respect, under your scheme, the higher skilled smith would not have better success rates than he has today. That smith would have approximately the SAME success rates that they have today. It is not that you feel that higher level smiths should be more successful on these combines, but that you feel that lower level smiths should be less successful at these combines.

On your way up, you were able to make GM gear at the current success rates, and sell the results on the open market to mitigate your costs. You are saying that in the future (and now that you are past that), future smiths should not have that as an option. Currently, successes help defray the skill up costs. What skill up rate do you propose to compensate for that effective loss of funding?

And again, if the highest chance of success should only be achievable by the highest level of skill, why would that only apply to these combines? Again, every combine has a capped success rate (95%). These combines just have lower caps.

Higher skill should matter, but retroactively changing recipies or trivials is a poor way to do it. I already gave a suggestion of recipies that could be introduced to make higher skill useful again (Cultural non-visible pieces). I am sure there are plenty of other suggestions.

Aeght

[KyrosKrane]

OK, let's get a few things straight here.

First, Bobaten claims that there were no combines in the game that could benefit from 300 skill when it was introduced. This is false. The GM armors were introduced at the same time as the caps, and they most certainly could benefit from 300 skill (absent mastery). Likewise, the Omens augments had their trivials adjusted upwards (retroactively, if I may add) when the cap on alchemy was raised. Previous to that, alchemy had lower trivials than poison making on the augments because alchemy capped at 200 (I think, I forget the specifics, but the trivial change definitely happened).

Second, I did not benefit from GM and Master armors. I reached 300 skill long before I even had completed the quests, let alone did the armors or augments.

Third, it is most definitely feasible today for anyone, of any class and race, to reach 300 skill without touching GM or master armors. It's not easy, and it's not cheap, but it's possible and very doable. The GM and master armors provide a much needed bridge for many races, but they're not the only game in town.

Fourth, my proposal would decrease success rates for smiths who are not max skill. This is fine. The tradeoff for it would be greatly increased supplies for GM armors and an increased chance to skill up, over and above the bonus that's already there. The smith or tailor at 250 + mastery 3 today would fail more, but he or she would also have more attempts and would skill up faster, enabling him or her to get to "profitable" production levels faster. The net is that a person skilling up would waste less money on fails and get skillups more quickly than today.

Fifth, my proposal would increase success rates for top tradeskillers. A top tradeskiller, by definition, has 300 skill, a 15% mod, and mastery 3. The current success rates are achievable today by 250 skill, 5% mod, and mastery 3, or by 300 skill and a 5% mod. They are even achievable at lower level skill if you have a higher mod. Under the new proposal, the current success rates would require a 300 skill tradeskiller and a 12% mod (which is easily achievable via a trophy). A top tradeskiller would have better success rates than the current caps.

Sixth, this does not preclude future recipes from having higher trivials. If the cap is ever raised (and, incidentally, from my discussions with Maddoc, it will not be raised again until substantial changes have been made to tradeskills in general), we will most likely need new recipes with higher trivials to challenge the top smiths and tailors.

[Ikken]

I think I remember Maddoc saying he set the failure cap specifically because he wanted the GM armor to be attainable at the 250ish level. (correct me if I'm wrong Kyro)

I think part of this was because this armor was introduced at the same time the caps were increased. If the success rate had been left alone, potentially it could have been months before anyone attained a high enough skill to make these items. (but again depended entirely upon how much time/money you were willing to devote, but I think this was targeted for the 'average' player).

We've reached a point where the amor is in the market, people can make it readily, there are many 300 smiths on all servers.

The free ride should be over. Yeah, it sucks for smiths like myself who are in the 250ish range. But it should be bad for me. I'm not a 300 smith. Yes, I have Mastery 3, and I should fail 50% less. But I should fail 50% less of the non-capped failure rate of my level.

Hopefully this is changed soon. Otherwise, smiths like myself may not be motivated to move past the 250 point, because we can already make the granddaddy smithing items. What would be the point other than to say hey, I did this?

-Ikken

[Bobaten]

First, Bobaten claims that there were no combines in the game that could benefit from 300 skill when it was introduced. This is false. The GM armors were introduced at the same time as the caps, and they most certainly could benefit from 300 skill (absent mastery).

All of the OoW augment combines were success capped with the release of DoN. The success cap corresponds to the success rate obtainable by someone with 250 skill, mastery, and a 5% mod.
Even without mastery, you hit the success cap by 275 skill. If there was no success cap you would hit 95% cap at 293 skill. And for the record my claim was:

I don't think that 10 points of skill should matter for these combines when it doesn't matter for any other combine from the era these of these combines.

Likewise, the Omens augments had their trivials adjusted upwards (retroactively, if I may add) when the cap on alchemy was raised.

Some alchemists suffered a couple of hard nerfs there to bring things into balance. The trivials for alchemy assumed 210 (200+ 5%), while the trivials for Poison making assumed 252 skill(the old absolute skill cap). Some alchemists had 10% and 15% skill mods though, which allowed them to get a significant advantage over the poison makers. When the skill caps went up, not only did the trivials go up (have to skill up to make something you used to be able to make), the new success cap was actually lower than the success rate previously enjoyed by the top alchemists.

Third, it is most definitely feasible today for anyone, of any class and race, to reach 300 skill without touching GM or master armors. It's not easy, and it's not cheap, but it's possible and very doable. The GM and master armors provide a much needed bridge for many races, but they're not the only game in town.

I agree with you here, since any change to these trivials would almost certainly happen in the upcoming smithing revamp, presumably the GM and master armors would no longer be a needed bridge. If, on the other hand, the revamp eliminates many of the other 290+ trivial combines, the need for this path might actually increase. Honestly though, based on the alchemy revamp, I expect good things from the revamp.

Fourth, my proposal would decrease success rates for smiths who are not max skill. This is fine. The trade off for it would be greatly increased supplies for GM armors and an increased chance to skill up, over and above the bonus that's already there. The smith or tailor at 250 + mastery 3 today would fail more, but he or she would also have more attempts and would skill up faster, enabling him or her to get to "profitable" production levels faster. The net is that a person skilling up would waste less money on fails and get skill ups more quickly than today.

Moving the skill needed to reach "profitable" production levels up by 50 points does not help anyone get there faster.

Sixth, this does not preclude future recipes from having higher trivials. If the cap is ever raised (and, incidentally, from my discussions with Maddoc, it will not be raised again until substantial changes have been made to tradeskills in general), we will most likely need new recipes with higher trivials to challenge the top smiths and tailors.

I am not talking about higher trivial recipes after a skill cap raise (which is not happening anytime soon). I am talking about higher trivial recipes based on the current skill cap. Skill 300+15% and mastery 3 has a reasonable success rate(>60%) on trivials up to 500, and a good success rate(>80%) on trivials up to 450. As it currently stands, the next level of combines will probably be in the 400-425 range (the combines Jewel craft and Fletching just got). Moving our current combines to the 400-434 range would bump the new combines to the 450-475 range.

Hopefully this is changed soon. Otherwise, smiths like myself may not be motivated to move past the 250 point, because we can already make the granddaddy smithing items. What would be the point other than to say hey, I did this?

a) Bragging rights and a title
b) To be ready to make the next set of even better combines.

The GM armors would have been a good example of point b, but no one told us about the success caps. However a more recent example would be wood elf/Karana fletchers and the new bows. The day after I finished my master fletching trophy quest my trophy was evolved to level 7. I could make the 408 trivial bow staffs with nearly twice the success rate of those still struggling past 282. In those early days the bows were selling for 10 times what they are now(before the Druzzil bow even).
Not only that, but it pays to have the skill before it is needed so you aren't trying to skill up at the same time as a bunch of others. All of you rushing to be able to make the latest and greatest items. And all of you bidding up the same skill-up items in the bazaar, or competing for the same camps.

[Angelsyn]

Moving the skill needed to reach "profitable" production levels up by 50 points does not help anyone get there faster.

You know, not everyone is level 70.

Not everyone plays 4-6 hours a day, 3-5 days a week.

Not everyone can "pump out 3 or 4 AAs a play session", even with double-XP.

It's stuff like this that makes me still believe that the Tradeskill Mastery AAs were a mistake.


As for Tinkering... a number of very good ideas have been put forth for how to do a Tinkering Mastery AA, and they are most assuredly looking into it.

[KyrosKrane]

And for the record my claim was:

Heh, sorry, I was responding to an earlier claim I missed. I should have been clearer.

At the time the skill caps went up there were zero preexisting combines across all tradeskills that benefited from 300 skill (even without taking aa into account).

Since the DoN armors were introduced when the cap was raised (and the Omens augment trivials were modified at the same time), everyone made the not-unreasonable assumption that the skill raise was there to make the armors more challenging. In other words, the assumption was that you needed 300 skill (or close to it, depending on your modifier and mastery) to reach max succees on those items.

It wasn't until MUCH later that people collated enough data to detect the success caps. For most of a year, people grumbled about unexpected failure rates and got told by other players it was just bad luck. Finally, one person kept good enough records over several hundred combines that he was able to make an educated guess about the success caps. (And I do apologize to that person, but I don't recall his name off hand. )

The point I'm getting at was that there was no indication when these armors and augs came out that they were anything other than ordinary combines. In fact, I recall Maddoc mentioning at the Fan Faire that they explicitly chose not to discuss the existance of the success caps. They never denied the caps existed, but they also never confirmed it until players had overwhelming supporting data.

I've said before that I might have been mollified had the success caps been explicitly stated (out of game) and justified by lore (in-game). Players have a reasonable expectation that the game will perform according to set rules, and that if we play by those rules, we'll prosper in the game world. The caps, as implemented on the armor and augments, broke those rules. The newer items that use the cap, such as dragon mayo or the jeweler's lens, instead use the success cap creatively to improve player immersion -- in other words, they follow the rules and provide game lore to justify the repetition. This sort of use is acceptable. Invisible, secretive caps that break the rules are not.

[Ikken]

a) Bragging rights and a title
b) To be ready to make the next set of even better combines.

But that's the point Bobaten - these WERE supposed to be the next set of even better combines when DoN came out - but they didn't actually require your skill to be high - it just required you to already be at 250 and grind some AAs. It just shouldn't be.

-Ikken

[Aeght]

Heh, sorry, I was responding to an earlier claim I missed. I should have been clearer.


Since the DoN armors were introduced when the cap was raised (and the Omens augment trivials were modified at the same time), everyone made the not-unreasonable assumption that the skill raise was there to make the armors more challenging. In other words, the assumption was that you needed 300 skill (or close to it, depending on your modifier and mastery) to reach max succees on those items.

It wasn't until MUCH later that people collated enough data to detect the success caps. For most of a year, people grumbled about unexpected failure rates and got told by other players it was just bad luck. Finally, one person kept good enough records over several hundred combines that he was able to make an educated guess about the success caps. (And I do apologize to that person, but I don't recall his name off hand. )

The point I'm getting at was that there was no indication when these armors and augs came out that they were anything other than ordinary combines. In fact, I recall Maddoc mentioning at the Fan Faire that they explicitly chose not to discuss the existance of the success caps. They never denied the caps existed, but they also never confirmed it until players had overwhelming supporting data.

I've said before that I might have been mollified had the success caps been explicitly stated (out of game) and justified by lore (in-game). Players have a reasonable expectation that the game will perform according to set rules, and that if we play by those rules, we'll prosper in the game world. The caps, as implemented on the armor and augments, broke those rules. The newer items that use the cap, such as dragon mayo or the jeweler's lens, instead use the success cap creatively to improve player immersion -- in other words, they follow the rules and provide game lore to justify the repetition. This sort of use is acceptable. Invisible, secretive caps that break the rules are not.

The fact the the success caps were not communicated was a communucations issue. It does not meant the caps themselves are inherrently wrong. The intent was for max success to occur at 250 skill. Just because we had to pry that intent out of them does not change that intent. Wanting to change this on a purely academic/theoretical basis does not change the max success level either.

And if the drops were made more frequent to compensate for such a change, that would only really compensate those at max skill (since they would have the most successes, and thus the most resulting sales).

The fact that you were at 300 before these were introduced is also academic. How many of the markets that financed your progression from 250 to 300 are as strong today as when you made that push? In other words, is it still as easy to finance today as it was for you, assuming GM armour is not available as part of the financing plan? Are you certain you would feel as strongly if this was a nerf to you?

If you want to argue that these recipies should be flagged better and/or the lower caps should be communicated better in the future, well that I agree with completely. Even under your scheme, trival will not mean 'point of max success'... since you would still achieve max success well below the trivial.

Aeght

[Aeght]

But that's the point Bobaten - these WERE supposed to be the next set of even better combines when DoN came out - but they didn't actually require your skill to be high - it just required you to already be at 250 and grind some AAs. It just shouldn't be.

-Ikken

Are you arguing for the abolishment of masteries then?

While these recipies did not require your skill to be max (post DoN) they did require it to be max (pre-DoN). In other words, 'high' is a relative term.

Aeght