| 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 110 | 120 | 130 | 135 | 150 | 180 |
1 | 39.00% | 37.00% | 35.00% | 33.00% | 31.00% | 30.00% | 29.00% | 28.00% | 27.50% | 26.00% | 23.00% |
10 | 48.00% | 46.00% | 44.00% | 42.00% | 40.00% | 39.00% | 38.00% | 37.00% | 36.50% | 35.00% | 32.00% |
20 | 58.00% | 56.00% | 54.00% | 52.00% | 50.00% | 49.00% | 48.00% | 47.00% | 46.50% | 45.00% | 42.00% |
30 | 68.00% | 66.00% | 64.00% | 62.00% | 60.00% | 59.00% | 58.00% | 57.00% | 56.50% | 55.00% | 52.00% |
40 | 78.00% | 76.00% | 74.00% | 72.00% | 70.00% | 69.00% | 68.00% | 67.00% | 66.50% | 65.00% | 62.00% |
50 | 88.00% | 86.00% | 84.00% | 82.00% | 80.00% | 79.00% | 78.00% | 77.00% | 76.50% | 75.00% | 72.00% |
60 | 98.00% | 96.00% | 94.00% | 92.00% | 90.00% | 89.00% | 88.00% | 87.00% | 86.50% | 85.00% | 82.00% |
70 | | | | | 100.00% | 99.00% | 98.00% | 97.00% | 96.50% | 95.00% | 92.00% |
Danpal, I've noticed this same thing. I have some tamers I use only for training. Their antique jewels are at 0 durability, but they still convey the stat bonuses (bonii?). I don't bother repairing them.I have one guy I dont use much but has had the same ring. Its been 0/255 and the bracelet is 0/245 for years
Can you repair jewels with any other deed apart from tinkering?I believe this is true, at least refereeing to my experience. Nothing was ever written about this as usual.
Its also worth noting that a 120 blacksmith repair deed has more chance than a 100tinkering(cap).
Same thing with 180blacksmithy repair deed which will beat a 120blacksmithy at almost 100% chance.
So you will more likely fail repairing using carpentry-fletching-thinkering (cap100) vs tailoring (120), not even sure if the devs are aware about this
Apparently, stated in this post :Smithing? Hard to believe but will try out of curiosity.Can you repair jewels with any other deed apart from tinkering?
Where the hell did you read that? Did you test it? I don't have to. Jewelry is made by tinkers, therefor they use a tinker repair deed.Apparently, stated in this post :Smithing? Hard to believe but will try out of curiosity.
Yesterday at 8:20 PMWhere the hell did you read that? Did you test it? I don't have to. Jewelry is made by tinkers, therefor they use a tinker repair deed.
THis is true the more that is repaired on the item the more chance of a fail or a reduce in the top end max durability (IE x/255 becomes x/254). If you aren't repairing much you have a higher chance of not losing a top end so is it better to wait to 20-30 and almost always lose 1 durability or repair at 200/255 and maybe not lose one? I don't know. Someone needs to do some tests.I've been told it is best to repair legendary jewels around 30-50 durability because the failure chance increases the lower it gets. Is this true or a myth?
Original Post talks about repairing legendary jewelry....Where the hell did you read that? Did you test it? I don't have to. Jewelry is made by tinkers, therefor they use a tinker repair deed.
Second post answering the question directly above it second line...I've been told it is best to repair legendary jewels around 30-50 durability because the failure chance increases the lower it gets. Is this true or a myth?
And finally....Its also worth noting that a 120 blacksmith repair deed has more chance than a 100tinkering(cap).
So you will more likely fail repairing using carpentry-fletching-thinkering (cap100) vs tailoring (120), not even sure if the devs are aware about this
The durabilities drop from just about anything(skill use, mana regen, stamina use, ect.), but the jewlery will only take damageDanpal, I've noticed this same thing. I have some tamers I use only for training. Their antique jewels are at 0 durability, but they still convey the stat bonuses (bonii?). I don't bother repairing them.
Sorry the dude did not understand the convo. No one said you can repair a jewel with a Smith deed.Original Post talks about repairing legendary jewelry....
Second post answering the question directly above it second line...
And finally....
Maybe don't be so quick to be so smug when a player asks a question that could have very easily been interpreted as such?