Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
Failing an upgrade should not destroy the item 100% of the time...
-
Madae✭✭Fair point, but if that's the case, they should have just made it a requirement to use the max amount to upgrade it and not even worry about lower %'s... because obviously, it isn't worth losing the item and reagents to begin with.
So, yes, I understand where you're coming from, but part of this system is redundant and serves no purpose if you're going to practically force people to keep it at 100% to avoid losing anything.
To add on this; I think we're going to end up seeing the market reflect this situation by keeping prices higher rather than what it could be based on the fact that no one will want to risk losing items during the process... If reagents were more common, losing them, and the item, wouldn't be such a big deal. Instead, you'll see the prices considerably higher, I think, and no change in the amount of great items available since the only thing that's holding it back is time (the amount of time it takes to farm those extra mats to get it to 100%, which really doesn't mean jack in the long run since they will be somewhat prevalent, albeit expensive, at that point).
Ultimately, I don't see why anyone would argue for the current system over what I propose, because the market will adapt to the limitations we currently have by no one in their right mind risking the loss of the resources required (thereby making the current system, and the option of lower percentage, pointless). I don't see how anyone could agree that paying more is a good thing... except in the case that you think it will make things "too easy", which will be pure crap when this game has been out for a year.Edited by Madae on April 2, 2014 9:43AM0 -
demonlkojipub19_ESO✭✭✭✭✭demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »I think the ability to raise the chance of success up to100% by adding more upgrade components makes it a fair system. There is also the skill to increase the chance of upgrade success, meaning less would be needed to make it 100%. If we were unable to get it to 100% I would agree that losing the equipment woulda been crappy.
Fair point, but if that's the case, they should have just made it a requirement to use the max amount to upgrade it and not even worry about lower %'s... because obviously, it isn't worth losing the item and reagents to begin with.
So, yes, I understand where you're coming from, but part of this system is redundant and serves no purpose if you're going to practically force people to keep it at 100% to avoid losing anything.
its just "Dat RNG". You can succeed 6 times in a row at 20% chance, and fail 3 times a row at 80% chance. It remains that each time you dont go up to 100% you are gambling and accepting that gamble if you choose to attempt at less than 100%. I Myself would just wait until I have enough to make it 100%
A good compromise, however, would be to make it so the risk of losing the item is gone at certain %'s. say after 60% the chance to lose the item vanishes, meaning you can spend more upgrade mats to first get higher chance, then eliminate risk of loss, then eliminate risk of failure. Maybe something along those lines.Edited by demonlkojipub19_ESO on April 2, 2014 9:43AM1 -
Madae✭✭demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »A good compromise, however, would be to make it so the risk of losing the item is gone at certain %'s. say after 60% the chance to lose the item vanishes, meaning you can spend more upgrade mats to first get higher chance, then eliminate risk of loss, then eliminate risk of failure. Maybe something along those lines.
I would be very happy with that compromise. Great idea.
1 -
reagen_lionel✭✭✭✭I'd much perfer that instead of destroying the item, the items max durability will constantly decrease by a percentage per failure.
So even if you do get a blue or purple quality item. It could still have a durabilty so low, that you'd have to keep repairing it often.0 -
Catdrexion✭✭✭Nothing is more aggravating than trying to purchase expensive reagents and then losing your item and the reagents in the process. The chance of that happening should be way lower than it is, and what should happen a vast majority of the time is you just lose the reagents (like Dwarven Oil). I wouldn't mind if there are still "critical failures" and the item is gone, but it should not happen all the time.
I respectfully disagree.
In many games, it's just gather X amount of Y, then press craft. Having a chance to lose it all adds more to the entire experience as a whole and a kind of thrill that you only really get when rolling the dice. If you want to ensure that you never fail, you can put points into the skills which improve your chances of success or just gather more of the tempering agents.
I'd also like to point out that even in the good ol' days in the real world that things went with manufacturing, especially blacksmithing, so it adds a degree of realism which appeals to me as a roleplayer.
Besides some of the sillier methods of getting the actual materials (I'm looking at you "Dwarven Ore") the crafting system is fantastic, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.1 -
Arandear✭✭✭I feel pretty netrual on this to be honest, but I understand what you mean. Wouldn't mind if they made it easier to upgrade stuff, but am happy with it to stay how it is.0 -
cliveklgb14_ESO✭✭✭
Do you think you're being helpful?
... in addition to it not even being relevant to the discussion.
His point is completely relevant when discussing that it doesn't need to be changed, and the negative can be completely avoided. You are complaining about it 5 days in, on loot you are going to out level in a matter of hours.
It is too early to weight whether works or not yet. Wait a couple months after people are max level, and guild markets are going with materials before.It's not about what the system does, it's about what could be changed.
Except his point shows that it doesn't need to be changed, the "problem" can be completely avoided by having all the mats.0 -
cliveklgb14_ESO✭✭✭
Fair point, but if that's the case, they should have just made it a requirement to use the max amount to upgrade it and not even worry about lower %'s.
??? There are those of us who have no problem with the risks though.
If I'm upgrading a white to green, I don't care if I miss a few and lose the item while leveling up, especially if I'm crafting the items anyway.
If it is something I really want to make sure I get a success on, I'll use more mats.
If it isn't I'll use less and take a chance.
Again we know the risks, and should act accordingly.
0 -
demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »A good compromise, however, would be to make it so the risk of losing the item is gone at certain %'s. say after 60% the chance to lose the item vanishes, meaning you can spend more upgrade mats to first get higher chance, then eliminate risk of loss, then eliminate risk of failure. Maybe something along those lines.
I would be very happy with that compromise. Great idea.
Um nope!
No compromise is good compromise. The system is made this way because succeeding will be rewarding but at a gambling cost. You know you're gambling and you get rewarded if you succeed but you also get punished if you fail. Games that use win/fail reward mechanics will hold in the long run. While games that only use win/win reward mechanis get boring really quickly. This is why TESO should hold it's ground on many of the win/fail mechanics. Simply because it makes it a more interesting game and doesn't just reward players for the smallest amount of effort.0 -
cabbageub17_ESO✭✭✭But losing the item means very little it is the reagent that is so valuable. So while what you propose is interesting it doesn't really move the bar.0
-
Please do not change. Nothing will be worse for the crafting economy than easy button for upgrades. Elder Scrolls are always about risk/reward.0
-
Madae✭✭So many funny people on this board that think something simple like this, in the name of fun, will be the death of this game. Get a grip.0
-
Anzer✭✭✭
Why, because they disagree with you? You're the funny person here, saying the system needs to change; they're just saying it's perfectly fine the way it is. *shrug*So many funny people on this board that think something simple like this, in the name of fun, will be the death of this game. Get a grip.
I mean, you could just put some of those skill points into your preferred craft and not worry about it as much.NA Server:
Anzer - Nightblade Tank / Zander - Dragonknight Tank / Selvaria - Sorcerer Healer / Rozalin Black - Templar Healer0 -
DaknarSoul ShrivenI'm just unlucky. I've also tried with 80% multiple times and had it fail. But that was more a limitation on what I had to use. I just don't think it should fail at 100%. It hasn't for me, but others have said it has for them, and that's just wrong if true.0
-
Zakua✭✭✭I understand the frustration, I have lost a few items...but now I just save up to get the 100%...takes time but seems worth it.0 -
Madae✭✭I understand the frustration, I have lost a few items...but now I just save up to get the 100%...takes time but seems worth it.
Well, it's the only way so far, so I'll just have to deal and hope a compromise can be made. I'm not bothered either way... but then again, I also haven't been playing for the last few days, so the initial shock has completely worn off.
0 -
Metrobius✭✭✭I think the system worls fine as is. You get fair warning when attempting an item upgrade and you always have the option of using enough of the reagents to assure success.
To me, the most important thing is to insure that the time and effort required to craft the best items justifies the high quality of the end product. This is how zos can allow us to craft the best gear instead of sinking to the LCD of mmo crafting where drops are almost always better than crafted gear.
I love wearing what I have crafted and I am so lookimg forward to farming mats when my main is at max level so I can level alts in the best possible gear. I hope in the future zos can add even more depth to the crafting system, such allowing us to refine materials further to get bonuses to base armor value, or maybe making alloys that effect the appearance of the finished peice. Or maybe a secondary trait or enchant slot to add a visual effect or a bonus to a specific ability.
I want to see a future in TESO where almost no 2 peices of gear are exactly alike because crafters have so many choices, and buying a peice of gear from a crafter is a collboration where the buyer works with the crafter to customize a peice to fit thier build, playstyle and aesthetic needs.
Removing choices and depth/complexity probably won't lead to this.0 -
Cowthulu✭✭Sure it is:
80% Chance for each try not for all together. So the 6 times you had no luck and the 20% Chance of failure crushed your item
Yes, I'm aware of probability theory.
Using this theory, the chances of getting 6 fails out of 6 trials where the chance per trial is 80% is 1 over 5 to the 6th power, or .000064 out of 1, or .0064%.
Scientifically, the chances are greater that there is some inaccuracy to the 80% quoted chance then there are of me failing 6 trials in a row.
Actually, that is not correct at all.
The chances of every single instances is 80%. At no time does a previous attempt have anything to do with your chances. It is a common mistake, but this is what we refer to as mutually exclusive events.
Math is fun.1 -
Aimeryan✭✭Sure it is:
80% Chance for each try not for all together. So the 6 times you had no luck and the 20% Chance of failure crushed your item
Yes, I'm aware of probability theory.
Using this theory, the chances of getting 6 fails out of 6 trials where the chance per trial is 80% is 1 over 5 to the 6th power, or .000064 out of 1, or .0064%.
Scientifically, the chances are greater that there is some inaccuracy to the 80% quoted chance then there are of me failing 6 trials in a row.
Actually, that is not correct at all.
The chances of every single instances is 80%. At no time does a previous attempt have anything to do with your chances. It is a common mistake, but this is what we refer to as mutually exclusive events.
Math is fun.
No, its binomial probability, and his math is fine.0 -
Madlark✭✭I can confirm that items still break even at 100% chance. Just lost a helmet.
The least the developers could do is put a 99% instead of 100 to let the players know they still CAN lose their stuff.
Disappointment of the day =/
GM - [Trade, PC EU] The Forbidden Cleavage - pm to join0
