The Big Change - Tradeskills

Taurnil

You are proficient in the following weapon classes:
Longsword
Broadsword
Shortsword
Scimitar
Bastard
Halberd
Rapier
Battleaxe
Handaxe
Club
Dagger
Dirk
Flail
Mace
Javelin
Lance
Morningstar
Spear
Warhammer
Trident
Whip
Bardiche
Quarterstaff
Blackjack
Unknown


What is Unknown exactly? o.O

Daklore

@tecton @sarapis re: Smelting. Perhaps for consideration, is bringing back smelting(with 50% return, or well, maybe 30%?), but have it only usable on items reaching the end of their life cycle(ie: 10% of their decay left). This allows players to recycle their used armour, prevents forgers benefiting from just spamming forging(granted, they can just wait out the 45-50 months or whatever until they can smelt it instead), but for me, that was a large part of my smelting ability use, second to recycling crap weapons and armour in ye olde system.

Rispok

Sephem said:

This is the list I exported the other day

Design	Category	Required Rank
archaic	Any	Apprentice Blacksmith
...
skull-festooned	Armour	Master Blacksmith

A good start, but already quite out of date unfortunately. Thanks for sharing none the less.

Fitz

Idea: racial armor descriptors available to either smiths of said race, or members of racial high clans.

Rispok

Because everybody other than Rispok would want to wear human leather armour...

Sarapis

Just fyi, the changes that will be going in are:

• Smelting is coming back but will only return 10% of comms, rounded down.
• We're going to let people without the tradeskills have designs transferred to them, as before. Shears, etc will only work on designs you already owned prior to this change.

Valaria

Krypton said:

When I get Master Blacksmith, I'm going to forge only "diabolical pink" weapons.

people might get nerdrage over being slain by a diabolical pink weapon.

Rispok

Sarapis said:

Just fyi, the changes that will be going in are:

• Smelting is coming back but will only return 10% of comms, rounded down.
• We're going to let people without the tradeskills have designs transferred to them, as before. Shears, etc will only work on designs you already owned prior to this change.

So smelt will only return commodities for leatherarmour, chainmail, splintmail, tanks, and fullplate?

eta: Or will things like scalemail have a chance to return EITHER 1 leather OR 1 steel?

Valaria

@Makarios‌ and other hidden coders behind the scene - 

Thanks for your hard work for fixing all those bugs.  

Sarapis

Rispok said:

Sarapis said:

Just fyi, the changes that will be going in are:

• Smelting is coming back but will only return 10% of comms, rounded down.
• We're going to let people without the tradeskills have designs transferred to them, as before. Shears, etc will only work on designs you already owned prior to this change.

So smelt will only return commodities for leatherarmour, chainmail, splintmail, tanks, and fullplate?

If you have no descriptors attached to them or only tier one, that's correct. At higher tiers, not correct.

Ahmet

Tael said:

Skull-festooned?

I can't think of any reason any sane person would accept any other armour.

As far as I recall (since they took away OUR BLOODY LISTS) skull-festooned requires 220 bone per item size. For instance, a skull-festooned fullplate would require 3300 bone. Chainmail would require 1760.

Ahmet

@Sarapis @Tecton Any eta on getting the % to next rank thingy fixed? Or did it the change just end up resetting people to zero progress?

Shirszae

The display is probably just broken. Have patience.

Trilliana

Yae said:

Can we make the scrolls we enchant on show the enchantment in its short description like 'a thick scroll of vellum imbued with waterwalk'?

You are holding:
      scroll81779         a thick scroll of vellum
      scroll106925        a thick scroll of vellum
      scroll116819        a thick scroll of vellum
      scroll95736         a thick scroll of vellum

That way we don't have to do the 'guess which enchantment this one has!' game.
(It was the fourth one, by the way.)

I'm quoting this, especially because as it stands, we'd have to stock them individually if there were different enchantments on them.

Trevize

scroll506409 a thick scroll of vellum                        5    2500gp

                   (Walk on Water)

Seems people aren't having trouble?

Trilliana

Trevize said:

scroll506409 a thick scroll of vellum                        5    2500gp

                   (Walk on Water)

Seems people aren't having trouble?

it works for -my- shop since all I stock is the waterwalking scroll, goof.

BUT if I were to stock 2 of every resist scroll, and PRICE ALL scrollx, they'd stack up.

Trevize

Trilliana said:

Trevize said:

scroll506409 a thick scroll of vellum                        5    2500gp

                   (Walk on Water)

Seems people aren't having trouble?

it works for -my- shop since all I stock is the waterwalking scroll, goof.

BUT if I were to stock 2 of every resist scroll, and PRICE ALL scrollx, they'd stack up.

True. Even with different shortnames, that wouldn't fix that, would it? I think they'd need unique keywords per enchantment? Could be wrong, I've only ever stocked riftables or forged goods.

Trilliana

Trevize said:

Trilliana said:

Trevize said:

scroll506409 a thick scroll of vellum                        5    2500gp

                   (Walk on Water)

Seems people aren't having trouble?

it works for -my- shop since all I stock is the waterwalking scroll, goof.

BUT if I were to stock 2 of every resist scroll, and PRICE ALL scrollx, they'd stack up.

True. Even with different shortnames, that wouldn't fix that, would it? I think they'd need unique keywords per enchantment? Could be wrong, I've only ever stocked riftables or forged goods.

A thick scroll of vellum has the following venoms or magical effects on it:
Fire resistance
drop scroll
price all # 2500 bin 1
You set 6 thick scrolls of vellum to sell for 2500 gold sovereigns each (in bin 1).


the other 5 are the waterwalking enchant... so yes, a shortname makes a difference.

Antonius

Unique keywords would fix the stocking issue, but would still be useful to see what's on them in the short description. I think you need weaponprobe to see the enchant on WARES and not everybody has that.

Trilliana

Also, before anyone goes to the shop Trilli stocks in Hashan - I priced the fireresist scroll as single to have it be sold.

Trey

Potential workaround until something else has been done. Drop all your waterwalking scrolls. PRICE ALL SCROLL <whatever> bin <whatever>. Pick up your scrolls. Drop the new ones in the stockroom, price those, pick up. Repeat, then drop all scrolls. I don't know if that will actually work, but it worked with a separate issue before that I had with stocking.

Trilliana

Trey said:

Potential workaround until something else has been done. Drop all your waterwalking scrolls. PRICE ALL SCROLL <whatever> bin <whatever>. Pick up your scrolls. Drop the new ones in the stockroom, price those, pick up. Repeat, then drop all scrolls. I don't know if that will actually work, but it worked with a separate issue before that I had with stocking.

I'll test that when I can, thanks!

Eld

Antonius said:

Unique keywords would fix the stocking issue, but would still be useful to see what's on them in the short description. I think you need weaponprobe to see the enchant on WARES and not everybody has that.

You need weaponprobe to check them on individual items, but I thought it was weaponlist to see them on WARES. Could be wrong, though.

Trevize

Eld said:

Antonius said:

Unique keywords would fix the stocking issue, but would still be useful to see what's on them in the short description. I think you need weaponprobe to see the enchant on WARES and not everybody has that.

You need weaponprobe to check them on individual items, but I thought it was weaponlist to see them on WARES. Could be wrong, though.

Weaponprobe (last I checked) was for individual items and for wares, weaponlist for your inventory. The reasoning was, as far as I know, weaponlist was added well after WP was made to work for wares.

Trilliana

Trilliana said:

Trey said:

Potential workaround until something else has been done. Drop all your waterwalking scrolls. PRICE ALL SCROLL <whatever> bin <whatever>. Pick up your scrolls. Drop the new ones in the stockroom, price those, pick up. Repeat, then drop all scrolls. I don't know if that will actually work, but it worked with a separate issue before that I had with stocking.

I'll test that when I can, thanks!

Tested, didn't work unfortunately. Oh well!

Sena

Re:weaponlist/weaponprobe

Weaponlist/armourlist (which everyone has now, since it was moved to inept vision) allows you to see the stats on weapons/armour in wares. You don't need weaponprobe. This has been the case since the lists were introduced (and originally they were fairly high in vision).

Weaponprobe allows you to see enchantments in wares. Nothing else works or is required for seeing them. This functionality was introduced years after weapon/armourlist.

Sena

Sarapis said:

As Mak said, attaching longer descriptions to each descriptor isn't something we were able to make work. The descriptions would inevitably be very awkward, and because we wouldn't want them contradicting themselves or using other adjectives that are also descriptors, there isn't much you CAN say about them. Everything would have to be of the same form, and fit in a template like:

"This steel longsword is <blah> and <blah>."

I don't think that's likely to be really any better than now, but with additional work. Say you had one that was vermillion and balanced. What would you insert in there that would work across all armours/weapons that the descriptor might be attached to, will work with any other descriptor, and doesn't use other adjectives that we could use as descriptors, and that fits in that sentence format?

I suspect if you sit down and start trying lots of combinations you'll see the problems we ran into when trying to figure it out, though we gave up pretty quickly I'll admit as it didn't really seem worth it given that you'd still end up with lacklustre descriptions.

If you don't mind attaching a list of 1-30 or so variables to each descriptor (some are simple, like the colours, so they could do with a single adjective, while some would vary a lot between different weapons/armour and would need to be more specifically set), it's definitely workable. Admittedly, it would be very hard to make it work without any overlap between adjectives and descriptors you aren't using (at least without sounding very bland and dull), but I don't think not having the "simple" or "well-made" descriptors precludes the item being simple or well-made, for example. I was actually writing out a full proof-of-concept (since this seemed like an interesting challenge), writing a description template and variables for every single descriptor for longsword and scalemail, but stopped partway through because that's likely still more time/effort than you'd find reasonable.

There are also some problems with that method. It will probably never work with detailed or flowery descriptions, so everything will likely tend to be pretty basic, but it could still be 3-5 sentences and give an idea of what the weapon looks like with its descriptors, which is far better (in my opinion) than nothing. And even if adding new descriptors would mostly only involve filling in a list of variables, there are already more than 200 descriptors to go through, and writing all the description templates for each weapon/armour initially would also be a pretty big task. Then there's my biggest concern; people will have different ideas of how they want a weapon to look. With a hooked spear, one person might want the hook near the tip of the blade, another person might want the hook behind the base of the blade, another person might want 3 hooks on each side of the blade, another person might want the hook to be at the bottom of the spear instead of at the blade, another might want "hook" to refer to a curve in the wood rather than the kind of hook that would pierce/catch something. Other descriptors would be even more contentious.

If that's not going to work (which it probably won't), another option is to let smiths design custom descriptions (with an approval process) for specific item/descriptor combinations. So I could have one custom description for any fearsome, diabolical longswords I forge, another description for my pink warhammers, while everything else just gets the current basic non-description. There would be a credit cost of course (either a one-time cost like the crafting licenses, or a smaller cost for each custom design, or a mix of both), and it could be limited to legendary blacksmiths and to descriptors they've mastered (I imagine that should limit the number of designs you'll have to approve even more than the credit cost). That would add an additional benefit to specialising in certain descriptors, and further differentiate different smiths by letting them add their own unique touch to their items.

Kayeil

I miss my gathering and inkmilling.  I'm not even trying to get new skills, I just want my old skills back.

Aliath

Trevize said:

Trilliana said:

Trevize said:

scroll506409 a thick scroll of vellum                        5    2500gp

                   (Walk on Water)

Seems people aren't having trouble?

it works for -my- shop since all I stock is the waterwalking scroll, goof.

BUT if I were to stock 2 of every resist scroll, and PRICE ALL scrollx, they'd stack up.

True. Even with different shortnames, that wouldn't fix that, would it? I think they'd need unique keywords per enchantment? Could be wrong, I've only ever stocked riftables or forged goods.

Could just colour them depending on the enchantment on the scroll, water walking could be a blue scroll, fire resistence red, etc... There should be enough colours to cover them all

Kresslack

Sarapis said:

As Mak said, attaching longer descriptions to each descriptor isn't something we were able to make work. The descriptions would inevitably be very awkward, and because we wouldn't want them contradicting themselves or using other adjectives that are also descriptors, there isn't much you CAN say about them. Everything would have to be of the same form, and fit in a template like:

"This steel longsword is <blah> and <blah>."

I don't think that's likely to be really any better than now, but with additional work. Say you had one that was vermillion and balanced. What would you insert in there that would work across all armours/weapons that the descriptor might be attached to, will work with any other descriptor, and doesn't use other adjectives that we could use as descriptors, and that fits in that sentence format?

I suspect if you sit down and start trying lots of combinations you'll see the problems we ran into when trying to figure it out, though we gave up pretty quickly I'll admit as it didn't really seem worth it given that you'd still end up with lacklustre descriptions.

What if each descriptor just came with a single line description? Perhaps that would allow them to mesh, so to speak. Ex:

a balanced, vermillion longsword

This weapon has been perfectly balanced, a testament to its skillful craftsmanship. Gleaming a brilliant red, this weapon appears to have been infused with cinnabar.

Things that describe the...well, descriptors (at the risk of sounding redundant) instead of the material the weapon was made out of, or the type, might work better. Especially since they'd be interchangable.

a vermillion, balanced longsword

Gleaming a brilliant red, this weapon appears to have been infused with cinnabar. This weapon has been perfectly balanced, a testament to its skillful craftsmanship.