Effective Trivials of GM armor accounting for success caps

[KyrosKrane]

Random thought, maybe it may lead to something ...

Let's assume purely for the sake of argument that we do eliminate the caps, and let's further assume that the devs want to make non-visible slots have cultural options ...

How would you feel about making the BP and legs have, say, 60-70% success rate with 300 + mastery 3 +15%, the wrists more or less where they are today, and the new items added in to bridge the skillup gap?

I haven't really thought this through, to be honest. It's just a thought that occurred to me. But it may be a way to bring both ideas together into one camp.

Top tradeskillers get the benefits of their skill; the BP and legs would effectively be their domain. People close to the top would be able to make bridge recipes (like shoulders or backs or belts) with the same success rates as the top tradeskillers, due to a lower trivial and not the caps. And people still skilling up could do easy stuff like wrists and gloves, again at max success due to trivials.

Think that would be worth exploring?

[Angelsyn]

Sadly, the in-game description of the Mastery AAs (and all OoW AAs) does not have any info on when you can get level 2 or level 3. Unlike the in-game description of the PoP AAs, for example.

However, I do believe that it is not true that you need to be level 70 to get Mastery 3... as this would be unbalanced compared to JCM for Enchanters. I do know that you need to be level 70 to get Salvage 3, however.

As for arguing for the elimination of the Mastery AAs... well, I kinda am. Especially if they do in fact require level 70 to get Mastery 3.

I do like the "Success rate softcap" idea. Mastery serving to increase success caps (rather than reducing fail rates) would require almost every new recipie to have some sort of success cap on it, just to allow Mastery to continue to have some value.

[Fonceur]

The change that would make me happy is if Mastery also reduced success caps.

Same here, the mastery should be applied at the end of the computation... Maybe add a check, to make sure the person has atleast a modified skill 2/3rd of the trivial, to avoid someone with 0 skills and Mastery 3 from having a 50% success rate...

[Aeght]

Random thought, maybe it may lead to something ...

Let's assume purely for the sake of argument that we do eliminate the caps, and let's further assume that the devs want to make non-visible slots have cultural options ...

How would you feel about making the BP and legs have, say, 60-70% success rate with 300 + mastery 3 +15%, the wrists more or less where they are today, and the new items added in to bridge the skillup gap?

I haven't really thought this through, to be honest. It's just a thought that occurred to me. But it may be a way to bring both ideas together into one camp.

Top tradeskillers get the benefits of their skill; the BP and legs would effectively be their domain. People close to the top would be able to make bridge recipes (like shoulders or backs or belts) with the same success rates as the top tradeskillers, due to a lower trivial and not the caps. And people still skilling up could do easy stuff like wrists and gloves, again at max success due to trivials.

Think that would be worth exploring?

That is an option, but to be fair they would have to happen at the same time. And why wouldn't you prefer the newer recipies be exclusively high skill?

While your counter-proposal would address the substance of the problem it would still be more disruptive, and would still likely result in major market changes with respect the existing recipies.

Aeght

[Angelsyn]

That is an option, but to be fair they would have to happen at the same time. And why wouldn't you prefer the newer recipies be exclusively high skill?

While your counter-proposal would address the substance of the problem it would still be more disruptive, and would still likely result in major market changes with respect the existing recipies.

Aeght

Take a long look at the changes to Alchemy...

Based on what has been said, this is the scope of changes planned for Tailoring (though clearly not the type of changes ).

You should expect disruptive changes... it would be nice if the end result were a good, logical progression without any arbitrary gaps or arbitrary success caps.

That, in my opinion, is what this thread will assist (however slightly) in bringing about.

[Aeght]

Take a long look at the changes to Alchemy...

Based on what has been said, this is the scope of changes planned for Tailoring (though clearly not the type of changes ).

You should expect disruptive changes... it would be nice if the end result were a good, logical progression without any arbitrary gaps or arbitrary success caps.

That, in my opinion, is what this thread will assist (however slightly) in bringing about.

And yet success on OoW augments is still capped is it not? Despite the fact that they are makable using alchemy?

What other alchemy recipies had capped success rates before the revisions?

Aeght

[Bobaten]

I think what Aeght is saying is why make the new items lower trivial, while upping the trivials on old items? DoN armor will be 1 1/2 years old by the time the revamp comes out, so rather than inserting DoN quality bridge items, leave the DoN GM armor as the bridge and add new higher quality (and higher trivial) items. Sure the BP and legs are usually the best items from a set, but the new items won't be from the same set.

[Aeght]

I think what Aeght is saying is why make the new items lower trivial, while upping the trivials on old items? DoN armor will be 1 1/2 years old by the time the revamp comes out, so rather than inserting DoN quality bridge items, leave the DoN GM armor as the bridge and add new higher quality (and higher trivial) items. Sure the BP and legs are usually the best items from a set, but the new items won't be from the same set.

Agreed.