Existance of success caps vs existance of tradeskills AAs

[Denidil]

Both of these, success caps and tradeskills AAs violate progression and lore. too a certain extend i think that success caps are largely a reaction to the existance of the AAs, and it's definantly the existance of the AAs that lets a 250 skill individual "exploit" the cap to be able to claim the same success rate as someone who skilled up to 300.

I've also heard, and agree with, the grumbling from lower end people in terms of XP, who reach 300 - but cannot afford the AAs. their grumbling is largely correct.

So, if we could get the caps largely eliminated, would eliminating the AAs (with full refund) be an acceptable trade off, if trivials are adjusted to reflect the lack of the AAs (on trivials that were created with them factored in) and with Salvage being reimplemented as based off skill level, every 100 points of skill = 1 rank of salvage.

[Wyvernwill]

AA's require you to progress your character. How are AA's a problem? At level 51, you can easily gain the AA's you need to purchase Salvage farming. Sure, it takes time, but farming isn't exactly a fast process in most cases.

The same could be said about the Mastery AAs.

As for the change to salvage, it's not really a change I like.

Sure, caps are annoying. I would love to see them gone, but I would just rather see a 500 trivial instead of caps. Ultimately, there is no "exploit" to a cap for the masteries either. That is part of what masteries are meant to do, the down side is that mastery AAs are generally useless at the 300 skill area.

[Sukrasisx]

tradeskill AAs not so easy

AA's require you to progress your character. How are AA's a problem? At level 51, you can easily gain the AA's you need to purchase Salvage farming. Sure, it takes time, but farming isn't exactly a fast process in most cases.

The same could be said about the Mastery AAs.

While I'm not sure I agree with the original poster's idea, I do have to object to Wyvernwill's remark about easily gaining the AAs. First off, not all tradeskillers are even level 51. My Wizard stopped adventuring at level 36, but I've got him up to 244 in spell research and am working on tinkering. He'll never have any AAs though unless I'm willing to powerlevel him up 15 levels.

But even that isn't good enough. My primary tradeskill character only recently dinged 58, and she can't buy any of those AAs either, because for some reason SOE decided you have to be at least level 59 to qualify for any of the tradeskill mastery AAs, and level 60 to get even the first step of Salvage. Dinging 58 was actually a mistake; I should've left her at 57 because the recent changes to AAs mean she was getting AAXP faster at 57, so I ought to have collected a zillion AAs and then levelled her up. But the very idea that I have to achieve XP levels to qualify for tradeskill AAs just rubs me the wrong way.

[Mannwin Woobie]

but I would just rather see a 500 trivial instead of caps

Same here. Personally, I see success caps as more than just an annoyance, they are just manipulative. The whole purpose of skilling up is so you have a better chance of succeeding on a combine than someone with a lower skill. The caps negate all of this and go against everything we have always known about tradeskills.

If there just HAS to be a cap, then I think the caps should also be progressive. So, someone with 300 skill is capped at 75%, but someone with 250 skill is capped at 50% (or whatever). And, it would be nice to see the caps in the combine window (like we see the trivials).

[Wyora]

What the OP is posting would require a huge amount of work on the part of Ngreth and the coders. Not just hours, or even days, but I'm sure weeks. That's time I'd rather Ngreth be working of fixing other issues (DoN cultural drops anyone?) or working on new recipes/quests (revamp of poisonmaking).

As for the levels required to gain AAs (Taanan Crafting, Salvage, Mastery AAs), would you expect a 10 year old kid to have the time, experience and knowledge to have gained Master status in 4,5,6 or even 7 different fields? No, he'd have to grow up some before he'd be able to get that. Same in EQ.

I leveled my gnome up past 60 so she could buy Salvage 1 for her tinkering. Later on I went and got some AAs so she could raise tailoring past 200 and purchase the tinkering mastery AAs. Most likely I won't level her to 65 to purchase Salvage 2. I could, but its a choice. I imagine the time it took me to get those AAs was actually less than the time it would take Ngreth to make the proposed changes.

Similar story with my shaman. She's level 54 and I started doing more tradeskills on her (I'm bored with my maxed main and still want to do tradeskills). I really doubt she'll ever see enough playtime to get tradeskill AAs, so I just accept the fact she'll only get to 200 in all the skills, other than pottery. In hindsight, I really wish I had just stopped at 200 when I was getting her pottery up for the Alchemist charm.

Everything in life is about choices, same in EQ. Everyone has the ability to get levels and AAs, its a choice if you want to spend the time doing it.

[MareeTP]

I disagree with the notion that AAs should be refunded. The characters as a whole should be developed in full - in all areas.

I see it as an exploit to be able to leave a character at level 1 and have full tradeskill abilities equal to someone who has put the time and effort into it to raise their character to 75 PLUS do tradeskills.

Those people putting the time into their characters in all areas deserve to have a benefit that exceeds someone who uses the character for tradeskills only.

I voted no to your proposal.

[Wyvernwill]

While I'm not sure I agree with the original poster's idea, I do have to object to Wyvernwill's remark about easily gaining the AAs. First off, not all tradeskillers are even level 51. My Wizard stopped adventuring at level 36, but I've got him up to 244 in spell research and am working on tinkering. He'll never have any AAs though unless I'm willing to powerlevel him up 15 levels.

But even that isn't good enough. My primary tradeskill character only recently dinged 58, and she can't buy any of those AAs either, because for some reason SOE decided you have to be at least level 59 to qualify for any of the tradeskill mastery AAs, and level 60 to get even the first step of Salvage. Dinging 58 was actually a mistake; I should've left her at 57 because the recent changes to AAs mean she was getting AAXP faster at 57, so I ought to have collected a zillion AAs and then levelled her up. But the very idea that I have to achieve XP levels to qualify for tradeskill AAs just rubs me the wrong way.

If you look at tradeskills in a vacuum and ignore that it is part of EQ, you're right.

The thing that has always rubbed me the wrong way falls in the court of people being able to make things that they are not even conceivably of level to use. Example being a lvl 30 making OoW augments.

Your wizard is another prime example. At his level, 244 research is not going to provide him any spells... you're well over that point. The wizard wouldn't even be able to obtain any of the components on his own, thusly relies on the bazaar or a higher level characters help. That's tradeskilling?

I leveled my necro up as part of working on his research, at the same time, I bought him the AA's he needed as well.

[Twistagain]

If you look at tradeskills in a vacuum and ignore that it is part of EQ, you're right.

The thing that has always rubbed me the wrong way falls in the court of people being able to make things that they are not even conceivably of level to use. Example being a lvl 30 making OoW augments.

Your wizard is another prime example. At his level, 244 research is not going to provide him any spells... you're well over that point. The wizard wouldn't even be able to obtain any of the components on his own, thusly relies on the bazaar or a higher level characters help. That's tradeskilling?

I leveled my necro up as part of working on his research, at the same time, I bought him the AA's he needed as well.

I don't really disagree with your overall viewpoint, but I believe your logic on this particular point to be flawed. Does a gun manufacturer need to be a good marksman to make quality guns? Do CPU manufacturers need to be able to program computers?

I don't believe that an inability to use an item effectively negates the ability to create that item.

Likewise, I don't agree that levels translate to age. They translate to experience in battle. There's no logical relationship between dispensing opponents in battle and the sudden ability to learn more tradeskills.

That said, I don't see a large enough value to removing current AA restrictions to justify the time/effort involved in doing so. I think it was a flawed implementation to begin with...but it's done and over (and has been for years.) Fixing it is more trouble than it's ultimately worth. In addition, lots of people wouldn't be happy with the fix. Some would be downright angry, whether they should be or not.

[Denidil]

Do CPU manufacturers need to be able to program computers?

(nitpicking)

the engineers do - as most IC design these days is done in IC logic languages like Verilog, and all most modern processor are is is a program recorded in circuitry (sorta gross simplication) comprised of fundamental logic gates (AND, OR, NOT). x86 and x86-84 instruction sets are CISC tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISC) as opposed to RISC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC) and implement many complex instructions in hardware.

[Posatrocible]

Same here. Personally, I see success caps as more than just an annoyance, they are just manipulative. The whole purpose of skilling up is so you have a better chance of succeeding on a combine than someone with a lower skill. The caps negate all of this and go against everything we have always known about tradeskills.

Agree 100 percent wholeheartedly. Although, when it comes to Smithing, I must admit I was one of the slackers who benefitted from the success caps. These caps really help keep the selling value of the tradeskills items reasonable so that we can break even with a skill-level significantly under the trivial required. Nobody can sell GM armor just above "cost" considering the number of "built-in" failures. So, despite my failures, even at 230 smithing, I could make GM armor and "compete" with the prices in the bazaar. (usually just breaking even, but that is the goal at this point). I was super happy not to be undercut badly while trying to skill-up.

All of this being said, I would still support a system that did away with success caps. Has there been any official explanation why success caps were chosen over unreachable trivs?

[Denidil]

Has there been any official explanation why success caps were chosen over unreachable trivs?

yes, a long time ago


they needed to limit the rate at which the item entered the game irreguardless of the existance of the AAs - it's the AAs that "cause the problem"

[Twistagain]

(nitpicking)

the engineers do - as most IC design these days is done in IC logic languages like Verilog, and all most modern processor are is is a program recorded in circuitry (sorta gross simplication) comprised of fundamental logic gates (AND, OR, NOT). x86 and x86-84 instruction sets are CISC tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISC) as opposed to RISC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC) and implement many complex instructions in hardware.

Aye, but the workers in the factories aren't necessarily aware of what the logic gates do. The engineers DESIGN the chipsets...but they don't manufacture them (for the most part). The same thing could apply to tradeskills. Someone designs the recipe...and others simply combine them. I don't need to know the chemistry behind gunpowder to know that it explodes...only the person who discovered it would (and even that is a maybe.)

Most homebuilders aren't archetects, and I'd venture to guess that a lot of them have never designed a home. But they can read plans and put the structures together.

[Bupper]

I must admit I was one of the slackers who benefitted from the success caps. These caps really help keep the selling value of the tradeskills items reasonable so that we can break even with a skill-level significantly under the trivial required. Nobody can sell GM armor just above "cost" considering the number of "built-in" failures. So, despite my failures, even at 230 smithing, I could make GM armor and "compete" with the prices in the bazaar. (usually just breaking even, but that is the goal at this point). I was super happy not to be undercut badly while trying to skill-up.

All of this being said, I would still support a system that did away with success caps. Has there been any official explanation why success caps were chosen over unreachable trivs?

This is a great description of the function of success caps. Success caps on items with value to other players keep up-and-comer tradeskillers competitive in the marketplace.

The vision of the developers was that it would be more fun for tradeskillers to skill up making items that were in demand and could fund their cost, rather than having to lose platinum until their skill was in the top echelons. This is a good idea and fair so long as there are enough other valuable items where highest skill does matter.

As for lore, the failure rates for these items can always be explained as deriving from inherent weaknesses in the components rather than the tradeskiller's abilities.

AAs are not the problem. If you want to get rid of success caps, then recommend a different way for tradeskillers to develop mastery without spending a fortune.

[Verdandi]

Personally, I'd be in favor of removing the tanaan AAs and success caps. Levels are based on experience, which is acquired almost exclusively by hunting. (Character age would really correlate to play time, not level. You can learn a LOT by level 10 if you play like a person living in Norrath rather than a toon grinding exp.) Logically, there is precious little reason why hunting skill would have anything to do with tradeskilling skill. Skill at using something would help the maker, certainly, but it's not necessary. What's necessary is to understand the theory of how it should work. It could be argued that the theory is part of what you are learning as you advance your skill. If you have to be able to wear something in order to make it, wizards shouldn't be able to smith plate or chain armor, and warriors shouldn't be able to tailor robes.

It's true that you can't get much of your own materials at lower levels, but that's perfectly realistic. Did medieval (or modern) bakers farm their own wheat and medieval (or modern) blacksmiths mine their own ore? Of course not. Skill at farming or mining aren't much help at baking or smithing.

I would even argue that it makes less sense to tie tradeskilling ability to level than to allow lower levels to excel in tradeskills, because spending time levelling means you are spending less of your time, proportionately, doing tradeskills. A person who spends all day every day tradeskilling should be better at it than someone who spends half of their time hunting and the other half tradeskilling. Not that we would really want to handicap players for getting exp, but that would make more sense than AAs.

Everything in life is about choices, same in EQ. Everyone has the ability to get levels and AAs, its a choice if you want to spend the time doing it.

If everything in EQ hinges on getting exp, then the choice becomes to exp or not play. That's not much of a choice.

I think in the end it comes down to whether you think people should have to "pay their dues" exping before they can profit from high end tradeskills, or whether there should be an option for doing that at lower levels. I, personally, prefer giving people as many options as possible, to encourage as many people to play as possible. I think that makes for a game that is more fun, and stands to last longer.

[olhoss]

I don't so much have an issue with someone at lower level getting high tradeskills as I do with my having a higher skill not making a difference. The success caps nullify the time, effort and expense I have put into raising my skill.

Right now my understanding is that Salvage is the only real tradeskill AA tied significantly to level. (70 for Salvage 3) and I could understand an argument to remove this restriction, or any on the mastery AA (I do not recall if these have level requirements) if they too are level restricted.

Lower skilled crafters already get an advantage with mastery AA as it has a greater positive impact on their success rates than it does for someone with a higher skill. If the difference in skill levels is going to be as rounded off as it is on the more useful crafted items, then there should be some easier and more varied ways to get skill from 275-300. It's at this high end where the bulk of resources are put into skilling up, and the returns for the effort diminish by comparison.