Does Anyone Think Crafting is Too Slow?

[darkstarpoet1]

the only thing that really does not make sense to me is the hq on an item. the one thing i would really love to see changed is instead of hq materials adding anything to the quality it goes directly to the durability. it would give a hard number to strive for for getting a hq item.

say for example hitting 150 quality would be a hq+1, 250 would be a hq+2, and 350 would be a hq+3. by starting out at 0 quality on each synth would make using bold and your special abilities worthwhile when trying to hq the item you are creating. that would actually make hq part of learning your skill not blind luck by crafting during only the full moon for a hq. it's horrible to sit and craft doing 350+ quality repeatedly to get no hq, but yet get a hq while hasty handing or standard bashing.

if they want some randomness once you hit your hard number for the hq you receive a percentage chance of the next level hq hq during the touch up stage. in other words you didn't get 250 so you don't get the sure +2, but with touch ups you have a chance at that hq and if not at least you got the +1 from the craft.

to me a hq(high quality) means the crafter spent time and effort not only to create your item but went above and beyond to give you an exquisite piece of gear not a random luck of the draw. i use going directly to durability instead of quality because if you give an inexperienced goldsmith with no training a piece of pure gold what would you think is more likely they do with it. would they make a multi million dollar ring with inlays and designs or a chunk of gold that had been partially burned and somewhat melted?

[Raijin]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I would consider myself a serious battle character, and I also have multiple max ranked battle classes. It's a bit of a necessity given the cross-classing nature of the armory system.

Nonetheless, I agree with the sentiment that all things being equal, skilled players who are better at playing the game and who can effectively utilize strategy and critical thinking should be able to achieve greater things than your average "joe public" player.



Indeed, we all have different tastes, and some activities appeal more to some than to others. There may be many differences between the battle classes, but not so much with the crafting classes. The differences between the playstyles of a gladiator and a conjurer are much more striking than the differences between an alchemist and a carpenter. There really isn't all that much to the crafting process that isn't just a variation of "press 'enter' over and over again". We can do better than this.



If they quit because of a lack of things to do and because of the battle system, that also means the joy of crafting wasn't enough to make them stay.



Umm...ok. You mad or something?

the problem is ith your vision of the crafting system as a whole.

ignoring the fact that you have to actually use your skillset to get most sp/hour on skill synths, you forget the fact that with crafting you always have tradeoffs.

Do i want sp/hour? do i want money? do i want quality? these are all things that a crafter has to ask himself and check if hes willing to trade off. if you want sp hour then the best bet is synths much higher than your level and attempt a high degree of success. the method by which this is achieved is standard. bold and rapid carry too many risks
at those levels. If you want HQ, then you skill with synths lower than your rank and use appropiate bold and rapid in addition to skillset to go for HQ and make some money. Want do dothe same thing with only a marginal percentage of HQ, then target synths that are on your level.


This is the same thing that comes out of the abandon/repeat leves. you get more sp with the tradeoff of less "fun" factor and less point gains.

Choose your poison

[darkstarpoet1]

Indeed, we all have different tastes, and some activities appeal more to some than to others. There may be many differences between the battle classes, but not so much with the crafting classes. The differences between the playstyles of a gladiator and a conjurer are much more striking than the differences between an alchemist and a carpenter. There really isn't all that much to the crafting process that isn't just a variation of "press 'enter' over and over again". We can do better than this.

but wouldn't you agree that a more accurate comparison would be a conjurer and gladiator compared to miner and alchemist? you have dom/dow that work together and doh/dol work together. i'm just trying to look at both sides as i have multiple r50 battle classes, but i keep striving for my wvr and have stated many times that to me hitting r50 on my weaver feels like much more of an accomplishment than both of my 50 battle classes combined. it may have alot to do with it being slow and tedoius, but i do enjoy crafting. if i didn't i can promise i wouldn't. i am also one that tries to find the fun parts in what we have now and try to give ideas of what i feel we could expand off with it.

[Raijin]

the only thing that really does not make sense to me is the hq on an item. the one thing i would really love to see changed is instead of hq materials adding anything to the quality it goes directly to the durability. it would give a hard number to strive for for getting a hq item.

say for example hitting 150 quality would be a hq+1, 250 would be a hq+2, and 350 would be a hq+3. by starting out at 0 quality on each synth would make using bold and your special abilities worthwhile when trying to hq the item you are creating. that would actually make hq part of learning your skill not blind luck by crafting during only the full moon for a hq. it's horrible to sit and craft doing 350+ quality repeatedly to get no hq, but yet get a hq while hasty handing or standard bashing.

if they want some randomness once you hit your hard number for the hq you receive a percentage chance of the next level hq hq during the touch up stage. in other words you didn't get 250 so you don't get the sure +2, but with touch ups you have a chance at that hq and if not at least you got the +1 from the craft.

to me a hq(high quality) means the crafter spent time and effort not only to create your item but went above and beyond to give you an exquisite piece of gear not a random luck of the draw. i use going directly to durability instead of quality because if you give an inexperienced goldsmith with no training a piece of pure gold what would you think is more likely they do with it. would they make a multi million dollar ring with inlays and designs or a chunk of gold that had been partially burned and somewhat melted?

for this to happend they would have to change the coeffiencients in whcih you gain aetherial sparking and the degree of success/fail in both bold and rapid. that is not an issue

the real issue is that there has to always be a degree of uncertainty in HQ items, because if it doesnt exist, then HQ would be the new NQ.

I agree with you that the material HQ rate is bull and they should at least add touch up to try and fix that. however if you look at it closely, most materials are nto in a 1 to 1 ratio, most are in an 1 to 12 ratio, which is probably taken into account when you attempt to make HQ 3.

In order to increase HQ rate for materials they would have to decrease the output of said material, making crafting harder by reducing the circulating products.

All of the above constitute a BIG change on how the system works and its mechanics. I cant really say if its good or bad, but theres a proposal out in the table.

[darkstarpoet1]

for this to happend they would have to change the coeffiencients in whcih you gain aetherial sparking and the degree of success/fail in both bold and rapid. that is not an issue

the real issue is that there has to always be a degree of uncertainty in HQ items, because if it doesnt exist, then HQ would be the new NQ.

I agree with you that the material HQ rate is bull and they should at least add touch up to try and fix that. however if you look at it closely, most materials are nto in a 1 to 1 ratio, most are in an 1 to 12 ratio, which is probably taken into account when you attempt to make HQ 3.

In order to increase HQ rate for materials they would have to decrease the output of said material, making crafting harder by reducing the circulating products.

All of the above constitute a BIG change on how the system works and its mechanics. I cant really say if its good or bad, but theres a proposal out in the table.

i see why you say the hq would become the new nq if all crafters were even and every one of them had the same skills abilities and effort put into the craft, but wouldn't it also make it more of a skill than pure luck does?

i was looking more at right now if i use all +3 mats i start off with high quality and high durability therefore standard bashing is still the best method to finish the item then just multiple touch ups for chance at a hq. by using the suggested method, yes, you would start off with high durability, but at 0 quality. this would make the crafter decide where to stop using bold and where to begin with finishing to get the touch ups. it would make it a skill to get a hq item not pure luck of the draw. it would make the crafting aspect of the game more engaging in my own opinion. i think that would help solve some of the issues, but not all of them of course.

that would make it to where if i got a +3 piece of equipment someone would say who did this or how did you get that? you could be proud of your craft not just hoping for dumb luck to grace that piece of gear you made. it would also give the people that actually spent the time to craft and learn the abilities and what they do an advantage over the people that botted their way to 50 by actually allowing skill to play some role in the game for a change.

[Rentahamster]

ignoring the fact that you have to actually use your skillset to get most sp/hour on skill synths,

But you can also program a bot to press 'enter' for you all day long - I don't think this is a good vulnerability to be had.

This is the same thing that comes out of the abandon/repeat leves. you get more sp with the tradeoff of less "fun" factor and less point gains.

I am taking into account the concept of tradeoffs, I did not forget.

Tradeoffs between quality/SP/profit are totally fine, and I encourage that. I just don't want to see a tradeoff for "fun". In a game, that is an unacceptable tradeoff.

It's also a failing on the part of devs that they created a system that is so easily exploited by script kiddies and bots.

[Joe_Cool]

Does Anyone Think Crafting is Too Slow?

If they sped up the crafting process, they should decrease the SP gain.

Yeah it takes longer to craft and gather but there are reasons why. One of them being that crafters and gatherers can make gil much faster than a melee/war job/class.

Another is that the longer it takes to rank up crafting and gathering, the more "supplies" you will see being sold. And this helps many other players, the economy, and the availability of that item you may need.

[Magiksmurf]

Good thing this is a game cause i would say its way to fast considering making one armor should take a couple of days.

[Lerris]

I love the complexity of the recipes, and the multiple stages to achieve a finished product.
However, one-click synthesis ( as per XI ) has been replaced by a tedious multi-click process, which I enjoyed at first but quickly became bored with ( it being an exercise in waiting for maker's muse to turn up on the menu ).

However, has any other MMO even attempted to make crafting more interactive/fun? Gotta give them credit for trying.

[bsphil]

Yo dawg i herd u like repetitive tasks so we put a minigame in ur crafting so you can grind while you grind.