Madae wrote: »

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.

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.

Madae wrote: »

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.

Madae wrote: »

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.

Madae wrote: »

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.

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.

No, because they're acting ridiculous about it. Grow up, please.

Troll some more, please. It looks good on the report.

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.

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.

Slye44 wrote: »

Taeblin wrote: »

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.

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 =/