New Mass Imbue/Enchant spells

[Lilosh]

I love being in the EQTC channel.

Before work, I heard the news, and misunderstood.

Grabbed 500 plat, ran to Shady's Spot, found the new vendor, and bought Plains Pebble, Emerald, Star Rose Quarts, and Jade.

Scribed the first two (heh), then realized that, as a druid, class restrictions still applied to the other two.

My only question is, What's the logic behind ZERO sellback? All things considered, it worked out fine, since they kept the "Contamination" to just a couple vendors, but except for Bugs, why make Non-expansion spells No Drop?


-Lilosh

[Moraganth]

When the imbues went live, imbue ivory was the only one that was 34... the increased mana cost on the mass one is probably leftover from that screwup.... kinda a second generation screwup.....

Well no. The old Circlet was intended to work that way, then devs decided it was too powerful and made a new item that worked a little differently and discontinued the old.

Wasn't that it was too powerful, but that griefers were using it's instaclick to create spam to make people go ld. This was the time where this novel greifing was happening a lot (yes, they're are those idiots in the world), and the reason that things like jboots now can't be repeatedly clicked for a buff.. without getting the "too soon" message.

[Mukkul]

If you look on the actual spell info it says diety..

Spell: Mass Imbue Amber
MAGIC ITEM NO DROP
Charges: 1
Level Needed: 29
Skill: Alteration
Mana Cost: 600
WT: 0.1 Size: SMALL
Class: CLR SHM
Race: ALL

Spell: Mass Imbue Amber
Level: 29
Skill: Alteration
Mana Cost: 600
Cast Time: 10.0

No mention of deity anywhere. Lack of deity identifiers, high expense, no drop status -- that combination makes these scrolls quite unfriendly to players. The new scrolls should have the same deity identifiers that the single imbue scrolls have.

If you try to scribe the wrong Mass Imbue spell now, it scribes the spell the whole way but aborts at the very end with the message "You're not following the correct deity to scribe this scroll." and the spell does not go in your spellbook.

[bearcaller]

I don't post often but this one just has my ire up.

If they can make it so you can't scribe it how hard would it be to make it so that you cant mem it? Or cast it for that matter. Since SOE fixed the group casting bug wouldn't it be just as easy to enter code for the spells checking diety as opposed to level? IMHO it is extroardinarily unfair to those who were unable to scribe the new spells while they were "unfixed" to leave those versions of the spells (as well as the single cast ones) in the game.

You want to be able to imbue amber? Go level a CT worshipping shammy to 29. That is part of the game. You want to be able to do every imbue that a cleric can? Fine, go get yourself a second account and you will have enough character slots to actually do it. And I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for those people who ran out and bought all the spells they could "pre-nerf" if they couldn't get their pp back if a change was implemented. They new that they weren't supposed to be able to scribe those spells, but did so anyway.

[scarbrowed]

While I'm bummed I missed out on the chance to imbue emeralds with my druid, I would like to thank Absor for posting. This site has always been an important part of my enjoyment of EQ, and it's good to see SOE giving it the attention it deserves.

[Aldane]

I don't post often but this one just has my ire up.

If they can make it so you can't scribe it how hard would it be to make it so that you cant mem it? Or cast it for that matter. Since SOE fixed the group casting bug wouldn't it be just as easy to enter code for the spells checking diety as opposed to level? IMHO it is extroardinarily unfair to those who were unable to scribe the new spells while they were "unfixed" to leave those versions of the spells (as well as the single cast ones) in the game.

It won't happen, because it would require significant recoding for something that SOE likely believes is a minor aspect of the game. To illustrate: how long was the level restriction work-around seriously influencing the low-level game? Answer: since the release of Luclin, and it's took them until last month to "fix" what was likely a serious issue to them. Why would they even bother with this issue, as trivial as it is? Just to satisfy the sense of justice of those who are angry because they didn't get a chance to scribe the spells, when the number of people who scribed them is probably so few? I don't think so.

You want to be able to imbue amber? Go level a CT worshipping shammy to 29. That is part of the game. You want to be able to do every imbue that a cleric can? Fine, go get yourself a second account and you will have enough character slots to actually do it.

Personally, I think that diety restricted imbues are poorly implemented anyway and that diety restrictions should be removed from all imbues. Imbues are poorly balanced, in that some imbues are worth far less than others. For example, if I am a Karana druid doing tailoring, my Imbue Plains Pebble is not going to do me much good. However, if I am a Tunare druid doing tailoring, I have the benefit of imbuing emeralds and doing solstice robes all the way up. Then there are deities who have few people to do the imbues, making it difficult if not impossible to find imbued gems for those dieties. Yes, the imbues give the game a certain RP flavor, but, IMHO, RP considerations (or encouraging interdependence) does not justify the current lousy implementation of imbues. SOE should just remove diety restrictions and allow all members of a given class cast the same spells.

And I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for those people who ran out and bought all the spells they could "pre-nerf" if they couldn't get their pp back if a change was implemented. They new that they weren't supposed to be able to scribe those spells, but did so anyway.

Somehow, I think if you had the opportunity to scribe the spells, you wouldn't feel this way. Or would you have not scribed them, had you had the opportunity? My wife's cleric missed out on scribing the imbues, but she and I are not railing for nerfs/fixes for those that did. More people imbuing means more imbues available, more tradeskilling for us to do, and more reasonable prices for the imbues.

Regards,

Aldane Aglond
Ayonae Ro

[Maesembra]

Somehow, I think if you had the opportunity to scribe the spells, you wouldn't feel this way. Or would you have not scribed them, had you had the opportunity? My wife's cleric missed out on scribing the imbues, but she and I are not railing for nerfs/fixes for those that did. More people imbuing means more imbues available, more tradeskilling for us to do, and more reasonable prices for the imbues.

A very key point. A cleric with multiple imbues is beneficial to the tradeskill community at large. Most people don't really care if they can do the imbue or if someone else does it for them, as long as they can get the imbued items when they need them. (Although the new mass spells are supposed to mitigate the problem somewhat, I suspect most people would rather have somebody else do the imbues :P ). My cleric was only level 28 and nearly broke, but I managed to pick up the 3 spells I most wanted and then found a really great group and leveled up to 30. All in all, I was quite happy.

[Zeralenn]

My cleric was one of those that, due to my living in the right time zone and being on EQ because I work for myself and decided to play EQ over lunch, and because I was on the serverwide EQTraders channel and got a tip, ran over, purchased, and scribed all the cleric-enabled imbue gem spells.

Guilty as charged, but not feeling guilty.

Why did I do it? I know a couple different human smiths who have trouble finding the weird imbues. Now I have a unique way to help them out. I can also help out other friends, guildies (and even other EQT denizens who ask me nicely).

I am tired of bugging the two people in my guild who can do emerald imbues to do them for me. I now don't have to run a Tunare cleric or druid to do it (already having a Bertox cleric and a Karana druid, it's nice not to have to waste my time making a character I'll never play just to be self-sufficient in one stupid process).

I did it for one word: convenience.

Hang me for it in effigy if it makes you feel better. I honestly don't care.

...Zera

[Serenya]

Aye, convenience. I have a Tunare Druid who is 30, and occasionally played, and my main, a Brell Cleric. I was in the process of leveling a karana druid to 29, because the only karana druid in my guild is on an extended absence and I can only occasionally find the imbued pebbles in the bazaar. My husband, who has zero interest in clerics, was leveling an Innoruck DE Cleric so he could imbue sapphires for the DE SK Smith in the guild, who is making armor for the many DEs in our guild, none of whom are clerics. Unfortunately, I've never seen imbued sapphires in the bazaar, and don't even know a DE cleric.

[Arbrelax]

My only question is, What's the logic behind ZERO sellback? All things considered, it worked out fine, since they kept the "Contamination" to just a couple vendors, but except for Bugs, why make Non-expansion spells No Drop?


-Lilosh

I concur on this point. Ok, So I' a dope ops: for not reading the 'fine print" on the spells but as I often do I sent my Druid (who is far more mobile) to buy his Mass Imbue Emerald spell and while he was there - also pick up some of the Chanter spells for my chanter alt. Druid often makes the rounds as soon as Chanter dings, buys spells and drops in the bank slots for chanter.

Then to my horror :shock: they won't go (due to No Drop status) into the universal bank slots AND the vendors will not buy them back. Don't understand why these spells should be No Drop when they are not part of an expansion and are available to any who have the most basic set ups?!? :?

I did petition and the GM first took a while to figure out what I meant and then "after checking" responded that it was an "intentional design" feature. He DID concur with my reply that I would hold onto them in my bank in the hopes that this design "feature" would be undone in a future patch. NOTE: in case you are wondering, because it is the main subject of this thread, these are post deity fix spells so I'm not trying to take advantage of that "feature".

I have also e-mailed the Development Team urging them to consider changing this, IMHO, nonsensical restriction at the same time as they get around to fixing the non-stacked metals enchantment bug mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

[Ndaara]

i do like to RP. And it doesn't make any sense from a RP standpoint that anyone but the appropriate deity worshipper could imbue gems.

For reasons already stated above, the deity restriction does NOTHING but make it annoying to work on tradeskills.

If the deity restriction MUST be kept, then please make it possible for anyone worshipping that deity to imbue gems for them, not just clerics, druids, and shamans. Exclude monks, rogues, and warriors if you must (since they don't have spellbooks).

There are enough restrictions that we've managed to work around. There are enough items which do not make sense, RP wise, but which make our tradeskill lives easier. There are plenty of inconsistencies.

I'm not looking for Monty Haul conditions here. I'm not hoping everyone can do everything anytime. But I'm hoping to level the tradeskill field just a bit, and stop giving certain race/class/deity combinations severe advantages over other combinations.

Sure hope this didn't end up being a rant, i am not angry, i've enjoyed paying lvl 29 halfling druids hefty sums to imbue plains pebbles for me. really, i have! And perhaps the mass imbue spells with fix the availability issues. i hope so!

[Bennan]

Hehe, well I missed the whole thing . If I knew about it I would of logged on and bought all the spells. Would of made much easier, and I would not have any qualms about it either...

[Reflan]

I'm VERY mad at the way they fixed this.

I had never heard of there being a possibility to scribe imbues that don't apply to your religion when I ran one of my characters over to EC tunnel and bought mass imbue adamantine for my chanter and a friend's chanter at 83pp each. I bought mass imbue emerald for my druid, mass imbue jade for my shaman, mass imbue amber for a shaman friend of mine.

I have NEVER bought a no-drop spell from a vendor before, and I've been playing from not too long after the game started. There was no precedent for vendor spells being no-drop and I had no reason to suspect what was about to happen.

Now I'm out hundreds of plat. And I STILL have to pay 83pp to get each spell I STILL need.

Great money sink, SOE. Way to go on that fix.

[JMorgana]

There was no precedent for vendor spells being no-drop and I had no reason to suspect what was about to happen.

Actually there WAS a precedent for this. When PoP first came out, ALL of the PoK port/TL/gate spells, wizard AND druid, were no-drop...bought a pair of the druid ones for my hubby's druid when I bought them for mine, only to discover the no-drop tag when I tried to give them to him.

Do I agree with it? No. I think either ALL spells should be no drop, or NONE of them should be. I could see the roleplaying logic to making spells no drop, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. But I think it's WAY messed up for some to be no-drop and others not to be.

[Dunthor Warsmith]

There was no precedent for vendor spells being no-drop and I had no reason to suspect what was about to happen.

There is precident. As a paladin at least, my new Planes of Power vendor-bought spells were No Drop. I didn't look at the other class spells, but I think they were nodrop as well.

I thought there was one more set of my (paladin) spells that had been No Drop, but I can't think of what.