Crafted Gear starting at +2 or +3 non exceptional

Am I the only that is crafting gear that is standard and comes out as a +2 or +3 in case of chest piece? Seems odd. Makes it hard for non-crafters to know what they're buying.

 

Yeah, basically every component type that produces stats gives a plus. I do not like.

An item that only takes cloth bolts would be +1. An item that takes cloth bolts and cloth straps would be +2. An item that takes yard of leather, leather straps, and a metal binding is +3.

 

Now you mention it, yes.

 

maybe would be better if basic mats components only gave +0 while constants gave +1

 

This is the way it used to be, and hasn't been for a while. Word I have had is that this is now WAI.

 

yeah. I noticed the change last night when I was looking at my todo chest. Many of my unenchanted / unmasterworked items are +2 or +3 now. Guess I should read the patch notes more

 

Made a +18 Carapacian chest, and after a repair it is +19. Not sure exactly when it happened, so it probably has something to do with a recent patch and not my repairing it.

 

I posted the following post in the bug forum, but it's probably more appropriate here.

If this is working as intended, then I recommend reconsidering those intentions. In my opinion, more distinct components does not deserve a higher "+" level. For example, my crafted, unexceptional Epic Cloth Armor have the following "+" values:

+1 Cotton Epic Cloth Boots
+2 Cotton Epic Cloth Gloves
+2 Cotton Epic Cloth Helm
+2 Cotton Epic Cloth Leg Armor
+1 Cotton Epic Cloth Chest Armor

Why should Chest Armor (10 Bolts of Cloth) be lower "+" value than Gloves (3 Bolts of Cloth and 1 Cloth Strap)? It's even worse when comparing to other "styles" of cloth armor. For example, unexceptional Augmented Cloth Armor would have the following "+" values:

+2 Cotton Augmented Cloth Boots
+2 Cotton Augmented Cloth Gloves
+1 Cotton Augmented Cloth Helm
+3 Cotton Augmented Cloth Leg Armor
+3 Cotton Augmented Cloth Chest Armor

This system is going to be super confusing, especially for new players.

I appreciate the efforts to make the displayed "+" value to reflect the value of the crafted items. But I would advocate for returning to the system before Friday's patch:

+1 for Exceptional Item (increased durability)
+1 for Socketing a Gem
+1 for Minor Enchantment / Masterwork
+2 for Major Enchantment / Masterwork
+3 for Enchantment associated with Socketed Gem
-1 for Failed Enchantment / Masterwork

Thank you for your consideration.

- Lao Tzu

 

I thought socketing only gave a +1? That has been my experience with most things, although maybe it is different for 2-handed vs 1-handed? What is the +2 for MW? Again, from my experience minor MW's give +1, and majors +2, the same as enchanting. The rest of it I totally agree with you; the '+' values seem to be arbitrary and don't give the player any idea as to their power. The negative value for durability is a big problem, as it tends to not reflect the power of the item that has been Enchanted/MW'd. Maybe there should be a textual description for items; Hardened, Sturdy, Decaying, Brittle, etc.

 

You're correct, I left out the +1 for socketing a gem. The "Socketed Enchantment" I referred to is the enchantments associated with a particular gem, such as "Life Heal" and "Mend" for a Chest Armor of Thaumaturgy.

Once again, I think you're right. I've mostly been masterworking cloth armor lately, which only have +2 masterwork bonuses. Other items have more options for masterwork bonuses. I've edited my post to reflect these changes.

I have less of a problem with this decision. It's analogous to the +1 given by exceptional item. The lower "+" also indicates to players that the durability may be decreased without having to expand the bonuses to see how many enchantment/masterwork failures an item may have had.

The extra textual description isn't a bad idea. The only problem is that many items already have lengthy textual descriptions (such as "Carapacian Augmented Cloth Chest Armor of Thaumaturgy"). Making it any longer wouldn't fit in my spreadsheet anymore. ;-)

- Lao Tzu

 

Ah ok...I guess that is the same kind of thing I get for Tempestry; Fire Resistance, OnHit(Fire Resistance)

LOL...I agree. I just think that there could be a better way to detail the durability issues. Maybe it could be displayed like this: Carapacian Cloth Chest Armor +14(-2) or +14/-2
This would be shorter but still differentiate between the power of the item and the durability.

The Durability is already listed prominently, without even having to expand the attribute list; 21/32(Max 35)
Currently, seeing a +1 on an item one would expect to see no enchants/MW's, but you may see 2 or 3 of them. The negatives due to durability hide the true power of the item. Basically, it's not reflecting the power of the item, but takes negative values(Failures), and subtracts them from positive values(Successes.) So, at a glance, seeing a +3 item gives me no indication how many successful modifications have been made, nor does it indicate how many failures the item has endured. It would be nice if the plusses displayed on an item better reflected the items state.

 

The +# never meant a damn thing tbqh. I purposely trolled the hell out of a bunch of iron daggers I made to sell back to the NPC's after I was done ench/mw'ing them to raise my skill level with all kinds of garbage stats. Did they have a high + #? Sure! Do I think they were better than a base iron dagger? Nope, not in the slightest lol.

Realistically the +# isn't important as it has no correlation to the stats on the gear. IMO it only really exists to confuse and possibly get people that don't understand it to spend a lot of gold on crap simply because "Wow +15, it MUST be good!"

 

I agree for the most part. If you are just looking at raw power then a +15 is good(if you weren't including the -1's for failures.) But, a good way to look at it is, "One mans(or womans) +15, is another mans +5." A +15 item may have lots of different attributes on it, but they may be ones that are useless to me. Whereas, I may have a +9 item that has the 3 attributes that I was looking for. Some gear may have stats that are better geared for a mage, some an archers,etc. The +# system, the way it was before, at least gave you an idea of how many enchants/mw's might be on it, but now, a +1 could have 3 or 4 enchant/mw's on it, which doesn't help me out at all. Normally, I wouldn't look twice at a +1 item, but now I have to expand the attributes list to see what is on the item. The new system gives absolutely no clear information as to the status of the gear.

 

I understand the purpose of using the numbering system, but it doesn't accomplish what it set out to do. I get that we don't want items to be called "Hardened Maple Handled Bronze Headed Exceptional War Hammer of Strength" but "War Hammer +7" isn't any better. The item name already tell you how many parts its made out of, a War Hammer is two parts, we don't need it to be called War Hammer +2 just because of this. We could use color coding and limited prefixes. Crafted items become green. Exceptional Crafted items become Blue. Socketed items get their suffix. Enchanted Items become Purple. Masterworking adds +'s to the name.

War Hammer = Shop Bought war hammer with no material modifiers.
War Hammer = Crafted war hammer with material modifiers.
War Hammer = Crafted exceptional war hammer with added durability.
War Hammer = Crafted, enchanted war hammer.
War Hammer = Crafted, enchanted exceptional war hammer.
Any of the above with a suffix = socketed
Any of the above with a + = masterworked

 

I like the color coding idea, but why only use the + for MW's? You can have several Enchants on an item as well. How about a combo; +2/3; First number could be Enchants, and second for MW's. They can pretty much drop the failures affecting the plus of an item, as durability is already displayed.

 

Sure, I didn't know you could have multiple enchants. But yeah, most amount of helpful information in the fewest characters.

 

ugh! STOP messing with things that are completely unnecessary and fix bugs!

 

Some would argue that since it didn't reflect material properties, that was a bug.