Tradeskill split

Melodie

Tecton, along with my previous question about what the trade-in value of licence tokens will be, I'm also curious, for others sake more than mine - would you consider reducing the price, once all the refunds are done and stuff, of the forging hammer? Since it will no longer vary stats at all, it seems fair to make it the same price as gloves of harvesting or similar artefacts, around 300 credits or so. Either that or add some sort of additional function.

Darktalon

Melodie said:

Darktalon said:

Its possible I missed an answer to this but what happens with tattoos on the back from inkmilling? One of my back tattoos is an artifact one, do I just loose it entirely or is it moving to another skill?

That was answered half a dozen posts ago right on this page!

Bluef said:

Tharvis said:

Bluef said:

One more quick question that I couldn't find the answer to (or may have overlooked - sorry if this is a repeat): What happens to the tattoo spots on the back? Players who had trans inkmilling relied on those. Some people may even have artifact tattoos on them. 

@bluef Canvas will be moved to tattoos, T said that a few posts back

Thanks - I totally missed it somehow!

Heh was scanning through for Tecton posts, not reading others much. Missed his answer. Thank you.

May

Meg said:

Personally, as a trans concoctions druid I would rather have the lessons back than have the new skill transed. I'm not a combatant and never have been I would prefer to put those lessons towards the new Harvesting/concoctions skills than have a new combat skill. Is there any way that can be made an option?

I so agree with this, can we have that choice?

Azor

Melodie said:

Tecton stated earlier that a full list of what gets refunded will be up next week. They're still considering what all gets refunded and the window you'd have to be in (originally you would have had to have bought the artefact, like the hammer, in the last 4 irl months, but this is being reconsidered, so we won't know the full details until they release the list).

Thanks, I must have skimmed past that one. It's good to hear they're reconsidering, because the position you mention doesn't make sense to me--someone who bought a tradeskill artefact in the last four month could have the benefit of knowing that changes are coming, whereas someone who bought one of these years ago (like me) would have had no idea at the time.

Tharvis

May said:

Meg said:

Personally, as a trans concoctions druid I would rather have the lessons back than have the new skill transed. I'm not a combatant and never have been I would prefer to put those lessons towards the new Harvesting/concoctions skills than have a new combat skill. Is there any way that can be made an option?

I so agree with this, can we have that choice?

@May, @Amarillys asked this on.. the first or second page, T replied to shoot him an email about it 

Addama

Meg said:

Personally, as a trans concoctions druid I would rather have the lessons back than have the new skill transed. I'm not a combatant and never have been I would prefer to put those lessons towards the new Harvesting/concoctions skills than have a new combat skill. Is there any way that can be made an option?

I'm hoping this is an option.

I can see how it was all modeled around Knights, and being that nobody in their right mind goes Knight just for Forging, it would make sense that Forging lessons go straight into Weaponmastery.  But for other classes that supply curatives - especially people who can't afford to buy credits to re-train the mini-skills - this could be a dealbreaker.

Valentinus

Addama said:

Valentinus said:

@Tecton

After having read all of this, I don't believe this was asked, so I'll go ahead and drop it in.

Since synthesis and transmutation will be getting their own tradeskill designations, what will become of extraction and metallurgy within the Alchemy skillset?  Will it be replaced/adjusted with something new or do you plan to simply remove it?

It was answered in the OP, Extraction goes into one mini-skill, Metallurgy into another.

I don't believe there has to be an adjustment to Alchemy to compensate for this, as Extraction/Metallurgy had no combat consequences and thus the skills don't need a combat buff.

I do believe that non-comm Alchemists should get a lesson refund rather than a straight transfer into their new third skillset, as they'd probably rather drop the lessons into the new mini-skills.

Oh, must have missed that bit while reading.

Anyway, I hadn't asked that because I was interested in a "combat buff", I merely asked if it would be replaced with something else or removed altogether.  Thank you for your response, though.

Meg

Tharvis said:

May said:

Meg said:

Personally, as a trans concoctions druid I would rather have the lessons back than have the new skill transed. I'm not a combatant and never have been I would prefer to put those lessons towards the new Harvesting/concoctions skills than have a new combat skill. Is there any way that can be made an option?

I so agree with this, can we have that choice?

@May, @Amarillys asked this on.. the first or second page, T replied to shoot him an email about it 

I missed that one somehow let me look back

Tharvis

Tecton said:

Amarillys said:

Tecton said:

Silas said:

Also, are there any people who rolled an alchemist/serpent/whatever primarily to forge, who transed their tradeskill first (or exclusively)? Will those people be given the new PK skill regardless?

From the looks of it, nobody is in that situation. And yes, the transition to the new skill will apply to everyone.

My only skill transed is Transmutation and all the rest I have transed are miniskills (tailoring, jewellery, gathering, and nearly inkmilling.) I'm 100% squarely in the boat of a person who is in this situation...

We should be able to work something out. Feel free to drop me an email, and we can discuss it.

@Meg @May

Suladan

Tecton said:

Suladan said:

A suggestion: Instead of automatically transing the 3rd skill that's being replaced, why don't you just give the person the lessons? Some people that aren't combatants might not care if they have the 3rd skill, but getting the lessons out of that will help in defraying the cost of re-learning all the trade skills they -do- want. And if people want the third skill then they just spend half an hour learning it with the lessons they get. Gives the guy the option rather than deciding for them.

Well, the intention was to save some time and effort on your end by not having to relearn things. Sarapis and I will discuss options over the next few days, and try to come up with a solution for people in this situation.

@Meg @May

Cooper

Anyone who has multiple tradeskills right now should be able to have 100% of what they have now for no further cost after this change. This is an awesome thing you guys are doing in increasing class variety, etc. but the players who have already invested their time in money should not have to invest more time and money just to get back to where they were with tradeskills.

Kenway

Does Weaponmastery give the same boost to damage/tohit/speed that weaponry and chivalry do? I remember it being discussed as a possibility durring the open test server but it was all pretty vague at the time. Does it in fact give the increase or did the abilities get enough of a stat scaling that this is not neccessary?

Edit: to clarify currently knights require all the speed tohit and damage boosts they can get to be the best fighters. With now all three skills going towards combat will we still need to trans weaponry to be optimal fighters.

Aegoth

@Tecton: Is there going to be a replacement skill for Necklace of Purity? It's pretty essential for magi combat, especially when dealing with super-artied affliction classes

Blujixapug

I like that tradeskills will be limited. In theory this encourages people to trade with one another, the type of dealings and circulation that are important for an economy to be an economy. If anything, giving people 2 tradeskills (rather than just 1) and allowing them to buy more tradeskills seems overly generous. People are discussing omni-skilled "self-sufficiency" as though it's a positive term, and it might be from an individual's perspective, but I think it's harmful from the perspective of community-building and socialisation.

I am unhappy about design-based tradeskills being lumped in with the rest. Tailoring, Jewellery, and Cooking were never money-makers for most people, with a huge initial cost (200cr = 1m+ to earn back before anything is profit), high design costs, low profit margins, the creative writing requirement, and serious difficulty getting goods to market without a shop to sell from. You didn't take Tailoring to get rich, you took it to be able to design things.

I am concerned that some tradeskills will not be economically robust. Transmutation is currently an example: no meaningful environmental scarcity for primes means there is nothing preventing a massive glut of supply, nothing preventing alchemists from endlessly undercutting each other, and the bottom falling out of the market. (If there was meaningful environmental scarcity, an alchemist could sell cheaply, but only until they ran out of stock.) Cheap goods are nice for buyers, but that must be weighed against keeping tradeskills desirable for sellers too.

Previously, the difference between alchemical and natural curatives was mainly just the city-based division between alchemists and forestals. With the skills being separated from those classes, it now seems more pronounced how identical the products of Harvesting/Synthesis and Concoctions/Transmutation are. Will there perhaps be a new Concoctions-only potion or Synthesis-only mineral added, to help differentiate those skills?

Tecton

Melodie said:

Tecton, along with my previous question about what the trade-in value of licence tokens will be, I'm also curious, for others sake more than mine - would you consider reducing the price, once all the refunds are done and stuff, of the forging hammer? Since it will no longer vary stats at all, it seems fair to make it the same price as gloves of harvesting or similar artefacts, around 300 credits or so. Either that or add some sort of additional function.

The more that I look into the new situation, it's more apparent that the hammer of forging won't have a place, so we'll probably do a full refund for all hammer owners.

Tecton

Aegoth said:

@Tecton: Is there going to be a replacement skill for Necklace of Purity? It's pretty essential for magi combat, especially when dealing with super-artied affliction classes

Yes, there's an entire new skill coming to replace it (and the rest of enchanting)  

Tecton

Kenway said:

Does Weaponmastery give the same boost to damage/tohit/speed that weaponry and chivalry do? I remember it being discussed as a possibility durring the open test server but it was all pretty vague at the time. Does it in fact give the increase or did the abilities get enough of a stat scaling that this is not neccessary?

Edit: to clarify currently knights require all the speed tohit and damage boosts they can get to be the best fighters. With now all three skills going towards combat will we still need to trans weaponry to be optimal fighters.

The weaponry skill boost still applies, yes. The weaponmaster skill does not provide any additional boosts to accuracy.

Rispok

Dairune said:

So, have you guys considered how this might impact the House centred around crafting things?

Don't worry about Wu-Tang Investments. We diversify our bonds.

Grandue

Can we have artifact armor now?

Tecton

Blujixapug said:

I like that tradeskills will be limited. In theory this encourages people to trade with one another, the type of dealings and circulation that are important for an economy to be an economy. If anything, giving people 2 tradeskills (rather than just 1) and allowing them to buy more tradeskills seems overly generous. People are discussing omni-skilled "self-sufficiency" as though it's a positive term, and it might be from an individual's perspective, but I think it's harmful from the perspective of community-building and socialisation.

I am unhappy about design-based tradeskills being lumped in with the rest. Tailoring, Jewellery, and Cooking were never money-makers for most people, with a huge initial cost (200cr = 1m+ to earn back before anything is profit), high design costs, low profit margins, the creative writing requirement, and serious difficulty getting goods to market without a shop to sell from. You didn't take Tailoring to get rich, you took it to be able to design things.

I am concerned that some tradeskills will not be economically robust. Transmutation is currently an example: no meaningful environmental scarcity for primes means there is nothing preventing a massive glut of supply, nothing preventing alchemists from endlessly undercutting each other, and the bottom falling out of the market. (If there was meaningful environmental scarcity, an alchemist could sell cheaply, but only until they ran out of stock.) Cheap goods are nice for buyers, but that must be weighed against keeping tradeskills desirable for sellers too.

Previously, the difference between alchemical and natural curatives was mainly just the city-based division between alchemists and forestals. With the skills being separated from those classes, it now seems more pronounced how identical the products of Harvesting/Synthesis and Concoctions/Transmutation are. Will there perhaps be a new Concoctions-only potion or Synthesis-only mineral added, to help differentiate those skills?

We changed transmutation a few months ago to be less of an open faucet in terms of prime availability. It's still more bountiful that herbs are, but there's also another step involved with synthesising the primes into usable minerals. It may take some time for the market to reflect this, based on the (frankly, ridiculous) previous availability. 

As for more meaningful differences, we've got some plans for further diversifying these in the future, but they won't be part of this change. You can consider this the first step in facilitating such a change!

Tecton

Grandue said:

Can we have artifact armor now?

Yes, artefact armour is on the cards!

Trey

Tecton said:

Melodie said:

Tecton, along with my previous question about what the trade-in value of licence tokens will be, I'm also curious, for others sake more than mine - would you consider reducing the price, once all the refunds are done and stuff, of the forging hammer? Since it will no longer vary stats at all, it seems fair to make it the same price as gloves of harvesting or similar artefacts, around 300 credits or so. Either that or add some sort of additional function.

The more that I look into the new situation, it's more apparent that the hammer of forging won't have a place, so we'll probably do a full refund for all hammer owners.

Will the hammer still make forging twice as fast?

Tecton

Trey said:

Tecton said:

Melodie said:

Tecton, along with my previous question about what the trade-in value of licence tokens will be, I'm also curious, for others sake more than mine - would you consider reducing the price, once all the refunds are done and stuff, of the forging hammer? Since it will no longer vary stats at all, it seems fair to make it the same price as gloves of harvesting or similar artefacts, around 300 credits or so. Either that or add some sort of additional function.

The more that I look into the new situation, it's more apparent that the hammer of forging won't have a place, so we'll probably do a full refund for all hammer owners.

Will the hammer still make forging twice as fast?

Nope!

Kresslack

Does this also mean that with all the changes relating to Weaponry, people will have to rely substantially on class skills for hunting, opposed to the use of non-class based weapons as a generalized method of killing things?

Ruth

Can I be a plant-loving, oakstone-enemied heathen Mhaldorian and take up concoctions and harvesting? (I just want to know if those tradeskills will have any player restrictions. I swear.  )

Addama

In case nobody else noticed, Moghedu and Manara are no longer cavernous areas, so finding massive caverns without aggressive denizens to extract a glut of primes is a lot harder.

It's not really the same thing as limiting supply (especially if anybody regardless of class can have Extraction) but it's a step in the right direction.

Tecton

Kresslack said:

Does this also mean that with all the changes relating to Weaponry, people will have to rely substantially on class skills for hunting, opposed to the use of non-class based weapons as a generalized method of killing things?

People should be relying on their class skills for bashing, yes. There's some cases where weaponry is a better option, and shouldn't be, and that'll be fixed in the very near future.

Tecton

Ruth said:

Can I be a plant-loving, oakstone-enemied heathen Mhaldorian and take up concoctions and harvesting? (I just want to know if those tradeskills will have any player restrictions. I swear.  )

I can see Sartan hovering his finger over his shiny red zap button from here.

Tecton

Addama said:

In case nobody else noticed, Moghedu and Manara are no longer cavernous areas, so finding massive caverns without aggressive denizens to extract a glut of primes is a lot harder.

It's not really the same thing as limiting supply (especially if anybody regardless of class can have Extraction) but it's a step in the right direction.

Not sure if anything actually changed there, as far as I'm aware nothing has, but that's not what I'm talking about! When the skill first went in, there were no per-room limitations, so every alchemist could extract in every room every day. We added them all into a standardised system (ANNOUNCE #3965), which means that there are now per-room limits on resources as well (which we've been monitoring and tweaking based on supply).

Blujixapug

Madelyne said:

please [...] consider grandfathering in those who already might have learned multiple mini-skills and trade skills (i.e. inkmilling, gathering, cooking, tailoring, and jewellery). This is a wonderful opportunity going forward, but making a global change that affects that any players seems more like a punishment to be dreaded than something over which a lot of people are excited.

Grandfathering over multiple tradeskills would make limiting tradeskills borderline pointless. If their goal is to end self-sufficiency and encourage trade - people participating in the market, instead of just learning Gathering to get what they need for themselves - that doesn't work if many power-players already have all the tradeskills they need.

This will be a hard and painful change, but softening the blow that much would undermine the reasons for making it.

Cooper said:

Anyone who has multiple tradeskills right now should be able to have 100% of what they have now for no further cost after this change. This is an awesome thing you guys are doing in increasing class variety, etc. but the players who have already invested their time in money should not have to invest more time and money just to get back to where they were with tradeskills.

People should have their full investments returned, and get full refunds for any redundant tradeskill artifacts. And I think design-based tradeskills (Tailoring, Jewellery, Cooking) need some special treatment. But letting people hold onto half a dozen tradeskills violates the spirit behind the change.