Artisan Charm

[Danedori]

There is no way to calculate the stats differently on the charm to make the curve steeper when nearing 2100 that wouldn't nerf somebody, short of raising the stats for the 2100's (which I am not advocating at all. I think the stats are fine where they are.) Basically, to make the curve steeper, you would have to increase the distance between the stats for a 2100 vs. a 1750. But if you don't increase the stats for a 2100, the only way to achieve this would be to lower the 1750.

Danedori

[Taaxi]

Avoidance or something?

I completed my charm, but am on the fence about using it. I have the maxed out Arena Charm and I don't like the prospect of losing the Avoidance and Regen that it has. I DO like how the artisan charm has the 2 slots-- if not for this, I wouldn't have even bothered to make it. I am 2100 and I have slipgear and maxed out Adventure Stone. I went ahead and augged the new charm and I get 50 AC 50 to all stats, 40 to all saves and 375 hp/mana/end. Great stats, but I am still thinking of going back to the arena badge for the effects.

[gildana]

I like the linear progression.

I also proposed something (Quoted below) in the eqforums board and sent to Ngreth for review. What are your opinions?

http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/...=317199&page=2

What if you added those others, Poisonmaking or Alchemy or Tinkering or Spell Research as...

If higher than your lowest base 7, will substitute for your ONE lowest in it's place. In other words...

Example:
Baking 200
Blacksmithing 200
Brewing 200
Fletching 200
Jewelcraft 200
Pottery 200
Tailoring 180 (Biggest Pain to raise)

Poisonmaking 300, Tinkering 300 (Gnome Rogue for example) would get 6 skills at 200 and one at 300 (Substituting 300 Poisonmaking for 180 Tailoring) for an average of 214.29. Is that much of an overbalance? It gets ya one gimme for your effort.

If you think that's TOO generous, if skill is higher, it can substitute for your highest other skill... Given the previous example 211.43. (180, 200x5, 300 for 7 skill numbers used in calc.)

[Posatrocible]

Woah, wait a sec, I am confused.

So Gildana, you are saying that right now, Alchemy, for example, will not be caluculated into the artisan charm's stats?

I have been actively gathering parts (and failed one attempt so far) based on my calculations that my 300 alchemy will help pull up the artisan charm's stats (other skills are all at 200 save smithing at 250). Is this a wrong assumption?

[Pootle]

I would 'guess' that the Artisan charm just looks at those skills that are avaliable to everyone!

[Gorse]

Woah, wait a sec, I am confused.

So Gildana, you are saying that right now, Alchemy, for example, will not be caluculated into the artisan charm's stats?

I have been actively gathering parts (and failed one attempt so far) based on my calculations that my 300 alchemy will help pull up the artisan charm's stats (other skills are all at 200 save smithing at 250). Is this a wrong assumption?

Correct, it does not look at alchemy, it only checks the levels of the seven basic tradeskills available to all races/classes. (Baking, Blacksmithing, Brewing, Fletching, Jewelcraft, Pottery and Tailoring.)

[Elyssanda]

Alchemy has it's own charm, as do poisonmaking, and tinkering. The artisan charm broad skill version is for the base 7 skills that everyone can get. It wouldn't be fair to everyone else in the game if they included those 3 skills.

[Catweazel]

Artisan Charm

Can someone please explain the history behind the "7 original" tradeskills?

1. Why is fletching included when poison making or alchemy isn't? (I know everyone can fletch and only rogues and shamans can do their thing, but why can everyone fletch?)
2. Why is (was) fishing not included?

Note - I was interested in the lore behind this decision.

On a similar line, can someone explain why the charm is not maxxed for 9 tradeskills as opposed to 7? Again, I understand that not everyone today can learn 9, but every other charm seems to have a twist to max it. Surely a character that skills up 9 tradeskills to 300 deserves more of a charm reward than one skilling 7.

I realise the charm is in game "as is", I am not looking to argue about its value , I am interested in why (lore or history) 7 not 9, and why any 7 best from 9 was not considered.

Finally, I have been looking for a thread on 2700/63. Do such tradeskill hero's exist?

[Gorse]

Can someone please explain the history behind the "7 original" tradeskills?

1. Why is fletching included when poison making or alchemy isn't? (I know everyone can fletch and only rogues and shamans can do their thing, but why can everyone fletch?)

My guess is that because no matter the choice is, someone is going to complain. Adapting it to the basic seven allows for everyone to have the opportunity earn it (thus limiting the complaints to only the people that have the other available and feel they should have more because their / race class is special).

2. Why is (was) fishing not included?

Note - I was interested in the lore behind this decision.

Fishing is not one of the basic trade skills. And it is capped at 200. There probably is no lore behind that decision, other than it's not one of the basic seven tradeskills so was not included.

On a similar line, can someone explain why the charm is not maxxed for 9 tradeskills as opposed to 7? Again, I understand that not everyone today can learn 9, but every other charm seems to have a twist to max it. Surely a character that skills up 9 tradeskills to 300 deserves more of a charm reward than one skilling 7.

See part 1 and reference issues in the past which have restricted or limited players and has caused animosity from the decisions (reference Tunare and later Karana fletching).

I realise the charm is in game "as is", I am not looking to argue about its value , I am interested in why (lore or history) 7 not 9, and why any 7 best from 9 was not considered.

Probably not a lot decision. And if you realize the the charm is in game "as is" the you should also recognize that sometime decsions are made the way they are, even if the are not always the popular ones, or the ones we would prefer.

Finally, I have been looking for a thread on 2700/63. Do such tradeskill hero's exist?

Yes there are a few. But since they are restricted to only gnome rogues or Int casters, the numbers are limited.



All that said, I'm pretty easy going about pretty much all the game. I accept things as they are and just deal if I don't necessarily agree with the implementation.



Gorse

[Ursawraith]

Fletching was included because everyone CAN make bows and their arrows. Its use of a tradeskill was to make mundane-ish items. From a lore/mystique aspect only Shaman could do alchemy because only they understood its trasmutive and mystical properties. Rogues were the only ones bold enough to make the dubious poison and only gnomes and their tiny hands had an aptitude for tinkering.

Research was limited mainly to the intelligence casters and their brain pans.

At the time of original EQ Fishing did not actually have any type of combines that could be preformed. It was similar to begging in that is was (and still is) level capped. Combines were added to tackleboxes later in EQs history.

Hence there are only 7 trades and Everybody can do that have no limitations on.

[Ngreth Thergn]

And with Current code... fishing > 200 does nothing for fishing... Maybe some of the combines using fishing skill become easier... but the actual act of fishing does not improve past 200.

[Posatrocible]

The trade specific charms pale in comparison to the artisan charm (and rightly so) in one major area: only room for one augment.

I really wish that Gildana's idea would be looked at more closely. It seems lame to punish "extra" tradeskills like Alch and poison-making by not including them in the stats for artisan's trophy. If it's a coding issue, then so be it. But if not, I don't see why a charm that rewards peoples' tradeskills efforts shouldn't include specific tradeskills simply because not everyone can do them.

Take the top 7 skills period... including fishing if it is in your top 7.

[Catweazel]

Artisan Charm

Fletching was included because everyone CAN make bows and their arrows. Its use of a tradeskill was to make mundane-ish items.

This is the bit I don't understand!!

Why would fletching originally not have been limited to Rangers because of their "woods and hunting" lore?

My guess is that because no matter the choice is, someone is going to complain.

I was more interested in why the "original 7" term is used. Did poison and alchemy come in a later expansion? Did someone at Verant decide 7 for everyone was enough? Or did it just happen and no-one knows why? Did Rangers initially complain that their "class defining skill" was usable by the masses?

[Bobaten]

In the past, the class tradeskills operated under different rules from the other tradeskills.
1. They were level capped, you could only get 5 points of skill/level, with a minimum starting level (the mininum starting level still exists).
2. You could spend points at your trainer to take them all the way to the cap.
3. They had lower caps than the other tradeskills (not completely sure on the poison cap, I know it was up to 250 before DoN).
4. They didn't count against the "One tradeskill over 200" rule (still true).

The one racial tradeskill (Tinkering) was much more like the other tradeskills, though it did have the bonus that every gnome over level 16 starts with a skill of 50.
It was not until the launch of DoN that the class tradeskills were revamped to be true tradeskills. Now once you reach the minimum required level, you can take them all the way to 300, and you can no longer spend points at your trainer above skill 20.

[Qaladar Bragollach]

AFAIK only research and poison making could be trained at a trainer. Was not true of alchemy or tinkering.