How do you think about to restrict using Powder of Fortifying on imbued items?

[athos_uo]

Some Japanese craftspeople fear that implementing Imbuing without restriction might lead to an overflow of uber items. I suppose that devs also think of it and will be setting certain hedges to prevent people from being able to craft uber items by Imbuing too easily, but my fear won't wear away because I know how diligently Japanese people play the game. They play even the game literally *diligently*. Even if devs set quite a high hedge for them, they will expend enormous time to go over the hedge. And once items are crafted, they are never destroyed because of Powder of Fortifying under the current design.

So I think that using Powder of Fortifying on imbued items should be restricted, under the condition that items of the same level should be crafted relatively easily by Imbuing. If an uber item will be replaced with another item of the same level by Imbuing, players would be able to accept this restriction with ease, then there would emerge a circulation of items.

Therefore I would like to ask devs to introduce restriction of using Powder of Fortifying on imbued items.

 

[Aran]

I think it's a horrible idea, and you should be ashamed for having it.

 

[Maplestone]

There are really two paths the devs can take with imbuing: make it a runic-level slog to get the highest end items or make the items easier to make but more vulnerable to wear and tear.

Powder of fortifying severely restricts the design space available for adding items to the game since everything is effectively permanent. The main reason it is required is that its practically impossible to replace a non-artifact item with a similar item, which messes up characters badly since at mid-level play, we tend to build our character and playstyles around the items we have. If imbuing allows crafters to create reasonably consistant item builds, it becomes safe to remove PoF from the game.

I'm leaning towards agreeing that imbuing should be PoF-free.

 

[KoolAidAddict]

Think they already said PoF free. That once it is crafted it will have a certain amount of durability to start with, and be repairable, but not able to be powder'd.

This idea I actually like. Makes ya want / have to hunt for more imbuing pieces to make backups.
Question Im wondering tho....when said item is close to going poof, can we UN-imbue the uniques and start over in a new basic piece?

 

[Nexus]

I wouldn't object to a middle approach to this... Let it be POF'ed To max durability (255) one time. To keep people from complaining that it opens the door for scams, bring back Item ID wands and the skill...when you ID an item it would tell you if it's been fortified....

 

[Pickaxe Pete]

Unfortunately, melee fighters would be greatly disadvantaged versus non-contact players (bards, tamers, mages and archers). Melee fighters can lose 100 durability on an item in just a few minutes versus many foes. This level of wear and tear would need to be rebalanced at minimum to 'get rid of' powder on anything that will see use.

 

[Belmarduk]

Introducing even more unbreakable items is making the crafting/market situation even worse.
Greetings Belmarduk

 

[athos_uo]

I think it's a horrible idea, and you should be ashamed for having it.

I think that seeing an overflow of uber items would be more horrible. How do you think this should be solved?

If imbuing allows crafters to create reasonably consistant item builds, it becomes safe to remove PoF from the game.

I'm leaning towards agreeing that imbuing should be PoF-free.

Thanks for a thoughtful and constructive view!

Think they already said PoF free. That once it is crafted it will have a certain amount of durability to start with, and be repairable, but not able to be powder'd.

Oh, really? I might have missed that statement of devs. Was this stated in Seattle? Has Leurocian confirmed that? It would be very nice, if you or someone could show me where I can find the statement.

Unfortunately, melee fighters would be greatly disadvantaged versus non-contact players (bards, tamers, mages and archers). Melee fighters can lose 100 durability on an item in just a few minutes versus many foes. This level of wear and tear would need to be rebalanced at minimum to 'get rid of' powder on anything that will see use.

I think this is the most typical view from warrior-side. But wouldn't you accept it, if good items are crafted by Imbuing relatively easily and successfully than ever?

 

[Dungeon Explorer]

Some Japanese craftspeople fear that implementing Imbuing without restriction might lead to an overflow of uber items. I suppose that devs also think of it and will be setting certain hedges to prevent people from being able to craft uber items by Imbuing too easily, but my fear won't wear away because I know how diligently Japanese people play the game. They play even the game literally *diligently*. Even if devs set quite a high hedge for them, they will expend enormous time to go over the hedge. And once items are crafted, they are never destroyed because of Powder of Fortifying under the current design.

So I think that using Powder of Fortifying on imbued items should be restricted, under the condition that items of the same level should be crafted relatively easily by Imbuing. If an uber item will be replaced with another item of the same level by Imbuing, players would be able to accept this restriction with ease, then there would emerge a circulation of items.

Therefore I would like to ask devs to introduce restriction of using Powder of Fortifying on imbued items.

i think this is a terrable idea no offense meant but any piece that can't be repaired forever i wont even bother using so i say pof should be used on all armor and weapons and shields or what have you forever and with out any restrictions.

 

[Lore Master]

i think this is a terrable idea no offense meant but any piece that can't be repaired forever i wont even bother using so i say pof should be used on all armor and weapons and shields or what have you forever and with out any restrictions.

i completely agree with you Dungeon Explorer in my opinion its a complete waste to use something like armor or weapons that will eventually go poof because you cant use pof on it so i wont use it either.

 

[drinkbeerallday]

How do you think about to restrict using Powder of Fortifying on imbued items?

well for starters you need to be awake. a healthy breakfast might help as well. maybe a small cup of coffee for that caffeine boost.

other than that it shouldn't be too difficult. just have at it. this is the USA no one is going to tell you how to think

 

[drinkbeerallday]

Some Japanese craftspeople fear that implementing Imbuing without restriction might lead to an overflow of uber items.

that's a good thing. it should be as easy as possible to make the best suit possible.

i want the best items to be so common that people don't even bother insuring them anymore.

it will make UO much much better and more like it was pre-AOS without the need for a pre-anything shard.

 

[phantus]

i think this is a terrable idea no offense meant but any piece that can't be repaired forever i wont even bother using so i say pof should be used on all armor and weapons and shields or what have you forever and with out any restrictions.

i completely agree with you Dungeon Explorer in my opinion its a complete waste to use something like armor or weapons that will eventually go poof because you cant use pof on it so i wont use it either.

Which is exactly the results you see with the poll numbers(at this time) That will change of course as any poll is easily manipulated.

What you find is the 10 people who really want this idea of everything breaking are vastly more vocal than the majority of people who don't want to spend all their UO time looking to replace gear or they don't plan to line their pockets with gold from selling said weapons/armor.

This idea that it is fun to lose things is really only favored by a very small percentage of players. Thing is, many of them are extremely vocal about it and post their opinions on these boards which is one of the few avenues of communications with the developers.

The best part is many of the people will boast of playing the game for 10 years and that it was better and the people who disagree must not have played then. This is hardly the case. The majority of the people that play UO are veterans but some act as if anyone that doesn't agree with them are 1 year n00bs. Funny stuff.

 

[Harb]

There are really two paths the devs can take with imbuing: make it a runic-level slog to get the highest end items or make the items easier to make but more vulnerable to wear and tear.

I haven't commented on anything stemming from the town hall meeting as it seems too early in the development process to do so (a "tightrope" in itself), and information required to make accurate assessments as of now is unavailable. A lot of "if's" come to mind in all discussion. "If" imbuing allows for runic level crafting, will it involve properties not available to the item set, e.g. can regens be imbued into a weapon? "If" not, will future artifacts have more of these type properties to offset high-end imbued crafted items? I stay true to some priciples, empower players, never "nerf," diversify, balance, and allow for all playstyles/ choices. I loathe restriction/ exception, so at the onset of the discussion, vote "no" on restricting powders with these weapons/ armor. For now, my preferred view is a) normal properties only, b) restricted only by caps, c) fortifiable, and d) a relook at benefits and process for runic crafting tools. Remember, "uber" is always a relative term. But we'll have to see as more information is avaliable!

 

[Nexus]

Which is exactly the results you see with the poll numbers(at this time) That will change of course as any poll is easily manipulated.

What you find is the 10 people who really want this idea of everything breaking are vastly more vocal than the majority of people who don't want to spend all their UO time looking to replace gear or they don't plan to line their pockets with gold from selling said weapons/armor.

This idea that it is fun to lose things is really only favored by a very small percentage of players. Thing is, many of them are extremely vocal about it and post their opinions on these boards which is one of the few avenues of communications with the developers.

The best part is many of the people will boast of playing the game for 10 years and that it was better and the people who disagree must not have played then. This is hardly the case. The majority of the people that play UO are veterans but some act as if anyone that doesn't agree with them are 1 year n00bs. Funny stuff.

While I'll agree with the idea of High Quality Items being available easily, I cannot agree with them lasting forever. Simply put, once (x) amount of items are in circulation and bought up, what is the point of the skill or any crafting skills for that matter? For the handful of new players that arrive each year? I mean right now, yes items last forever and there is a large trade in High Quality items making a select few tons of gold...but once Imbuing comes if it's anything like it sounds these people won't have as much an edge over everyone else. By having items wear and tear, and eventually break you open the door for everyone to trade. People who invest the points in the Imbuing skill can compete with everyone else to a much larger degree. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Imbuing replace Runics for Craft skills, in addition to breakable items. Let PoF stick around for the Artifacts and what not that are limited time only items, but open the door for a free market on everything else and not just for the people that either buy or somehow manage to claim 30 -100 Barbed Kits a week and watch prices plummet to a reasonable level.

 

[It Lives]

Sounds like I will be getting rid of a lot of jewels.

Sounds more like a skill where I can direct what I want where I want it, rather than a random chance of some elite item.

Intensity is based on the players (real skill).

I am sure the Intensity will be balanced with consideration.

I voted no restriction

 

[Gideon1016]

thats what spring cleaning is for. Getting rid of the mass items.

 

[Nexus]

thats what spring cleaning is for. Getting rid of the mass items.

That would work but spring cleaning..well at least the event is rather limited on what you can actually turn in. Good Weapons and armor outside artifacts aren't on that list.

 

[Pickaxe Pete]

Unfortunately, melee fighters would be greatly disadvantaged versus non-contact players (bards, tamers, mages and archers). Melee fighters can lose 100 durability on an item in just a few minutes versus many foes. This level of wear and tear would need to be rebalanced at minimum to 'get rid of' powder on anything that will see use.

I think this is the most typical view from warrior-side. But wouldn't you accept it, if good items are crafted by Imbuing relatively easily and successfully than ever?

In my post, I provided a way it could work, instead of just saying 'no' like everyone else. That is, rebalance durability loss so that melee types of damage have a very low chance of reducing durability. A 10 point loss of durability for a full day of battle would be acceptable, for example.

If durability loss is left the way it is and powder were disabled from these new items, a warrior would go through a suit a day, even with repairs (figuring the typical 50 durability on items to start with). And, you know the best imbued items will be very expensive, even if they are common. I wager a full 'ideal' suit will cost millions for years to come.

 

[Beefybone]

The devs have tried adding crap that can't have POF used on it, and all those items now sit unused in the back of people's closets, so to speak. Go ahead and do this, but don't expect anyone to use imbuing.

 

[Gildar]

High-end items should flood the market.
High-end items should also flood out of the market.

Hopefully imbuing will be reliable enough to make it so people can create the items that people want when the people want it... even under a high-demand situation such as no-Powder of Fortification, Self Repair = Self Repair / 5, and no item insurance. Having a cycle in the economy once more would be a great thing for crafters and merchants, and being able to find great suits easily would be a great thing for combattants.

 

[athos_uo]

I haven't commented on anything stemming from the town hall meeting as it seems too early in the development process to do so (a "tightrope" in itself), and information required to make accurate assessments as of now is unavailable.

They say that Imbuing is the "big new crafting change". If so, they should hear our feedbacks at early stages of development. It would be too late, after solid designs are drawn already. Basic concepts can be discussed even in this stage. I think that the essential problem of crafting consists in lack of circulation of items.

In my post, I provided a way it could work, instead of just saying 'no' like everyone else. That is, rebalance durability loss so that melee types of damage have a very low chance of reducing durability. A 10 point loss of durability for a full day of battle would be acceptable, for example.

If durability loss is left the way it is and powder were disabled from these new items, a warrior would go through a suit a day, even with repairs (figuring the typical 50 durability on items to start with). And, you know the best imbued items will be very expensive, even if they are common. I wager a full 'ideal' suit will cost millions for years to come.

This issue should be certainly addressed. I think, imbued items should have quite a high durability at first when crafted. Actually, items introduced recently on which PoFs can't be used had all the most durability.

The devs have tried adding crap that can't have POF used on it, and all those items now sit unused in the back of people's closets, so to speak. Go ahead and do this, but don't expect anyone to use imbuing.

The reason why items introduced recently on which PoFs can't be used are not used, is because items themselves are not so attractive, not because PoFs can not be used on them. If items themselves were very attractive, people would use them.

 

[Connor_Graham]

The reason why items introduced recently on which PoFs can't be used are not used, is because items themselves are not so attractive, not because PoFs can not be used on them. If items themselves were very attractive, people would use them.

Not true. Several of the 10th Anniversary artifacts were pretty nice, but with them eventually breaking, they don't get used because people don't want to have to replace them again.

 

[Maplestone]

The devs have tried adding crap that can't have POF used on it, and all those items now sit unused in the back of people's closets, so to speak. Go ahead and do this, but don't expect anyone to use imbuing.

One problem is that they introduced RARE items that were non-powderable. You can't replace any of those items easily (at least I can't - I've only had 2 10th anniversary drops since the original event ended and neither were the item I wanted to replace, having worn through it fairly quickly).

The other problem is that it's not uncommon for me to burn through 100 durability in an expedition on a warrior. With PoF, I keep max durability up around 250, so my equipment is always good for a couple of expeditions. Non-powderable items feel like they have to be constantly repaired, cutting short adventures because of wear and tear.

 

[athos_uo]

Not true. Several of the 10th Anniversary artifacts were pretty nice, but with them eventually breaking, they don't get used because people don't want to have to replace them again.

No. For example, let's look at Dragon's End:
- Dragon Slayer
- HCI 10%
- DI +60%
- Fire resist 20%
- Cold Damage 100%

Slayers are sometimes a distraction. HCI is capped at 45%, and if you are a Sampire it is needless. DI is capped at 100% and even HQ weapons have already 40%. Yes, fire resist is good, if it lacks in you suits in total. Cold Damage is useless if you cast CW. ...And after all, this is too slow and has no leeches, which is a fatal defect in these days.

Jaana's Staff is a mage weapon with spell-channeling, but these properties are needless for macers without magery, and mages would prefer Staff of the Magi or Swords of Prosperity.

Macers would prefer a Diamond Mace with applicable properties to Jaana's Staff or Katrina's Crook.

...If these weapons were really attractive, we would wear out them to durability 0 and get other ones. We don't do it, because other weapons are more effective.

One problem is that they introduced RARE items that were non-powderable. You can't replace any of those items easily (at least I can't - I've only had 2 10th anniversary drops since the original event ended and neither were the item I wanted to replace, having worn through it fairly quickly).

The other problem is that it's not uncommon for me to burn through 100 durability in an expedition on a warrior. With PoF, I keep max durability up around 250, so my equipment is always good for a couple of expeditions. Non-powderable items feel like they have to be constantly repaired, cutting short adventures because of wear and tear.

This is certainly an issue to be addressed for warriors. This issue should be rebalanced not olny as a problem of crafting, but also as a problem of fighting in general, as Pickaxe Pete states. For example, imbued items should have a high durability at first when crafted, as already mentioned. And the rate how the durability reduces should be addressed as warriors could accept. I think it can be tweaked before SA is released.

 

[phantus]

While I'll agree with the idea of High Quality Items being available easily, I cannot agree with them lasting forever. Simply put, once (x) amount of items are in circulation and bought up, what is the point of the skill or any crafting skills for that matter? For the handful of new players that arrive each year? I mean right now, yes items last forever and there is a large trade in High Quality items making a select few tons of gold...but once Imbuing comes if it's anything like it sounds these people won't have as much an edge over everyone else. By having items wear and tear, and eventually break you open the door for everyone to trade. People who invest the points in the Imbuing skill can compete with everyone else to a much larger degree. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Imbuing replace Runics for Craft skills, in addition to breakable items. Let PoF stick around for the Artifacts and what not that are limited time only items, but open the door for a free market on everything else and not just for the people that either buy or somehow manage to claim 30 -100 Barbed Kits a week and watch prices plummet to a reasonable level.

The way you speak and the general way I'm seeing people talk it beginning to trouble me. I have no faith that imbuing is going to in any replace artifact quality items or is it going to make it so suits are easy to replace. I'm afraid people are expecting more out of it than we are going to get.

The problem without our item/decay system is not that items don't decay or break it's the fact that a suit can contain all the wanted properties a person can need instead of havin to choose between them. When a mage can get a 70's suit with 40lmc, 100lrc 45dci 3/6 etc, etc, etc you know the system is borked. There are many players that already have these suits. Why will them give them up in the future? No reason.

 

[Harb]

The way you speak and the general way I'm seeing people talk it beginning to trouble me. I have no faith that imbuing is going to in any replace artifact quality items or is it going to make it so suits are easy to replace. I'm afraid people are expecting more out of it than we are going to get.

As earlier, we do not have adequate information on how imbuing will work to really know much for the moment, so all we can do is guess and speculate. We share the concern above, I also am concerned it will be insufficient. I believe the skill and process should be "hard." I also believe it should be restricted to normal properties to allow for continued artifact significance. I believe imbuing must provide maximum intensity of normal properties. I believe items must be fortifiable. With all of the above, runic crafting kits must be relooked.

One of the primary considerations solidifying these conclusions is the current duped hammer issue. Items as described above are in the game today, and there are a lot of them. We're at least two months into this issue now, and there are still unscrupulous players pushing armor, weapons, bows and the hammers themselves into the game. Nothing is being done. I've been reporting the same vendors, with the same products, who are restocked daily, for a couple weeks now - nothing. This is after the issue was supposedly resolved. Nothing.

So, if imbuing comes out in a blasé manner, it merely adds insult to injury. Yes, I'm concerned, both about value of the imbuing system, and the timeliness of the effort - personally I'd prefer not to wait for the rest of SA to get this one into the game!

 

[BartofCats]

why do you think that an imbued item will be able to have fort powder used on it anyway?? maybe an imbued item will be like the Redeemer sword where it cant be fortified, just repaired. Personaly i would like to see more items breaking. I dont think that anything should be fortified. But alas... it wont happen.

 

[Harb]

why do you think that an imbued item will be able to have fort powder used on it anyway?? maybe an imbued item will be like the Redeemer sword where it cant be fortified, just repaired. Personaly i would like to see more items breaking. I dont think that anything should be fortified. But alas... it wont happen.

The problem Bart is one of balance. Dragons and spellbooks don't break. Armor on a mage will attrit much slower than on a warrior, and on a skilled tamer, won't attrit at all. I kind of take the opposite view, if anything, I feel things attrit too rapidly for certain character classes. But frankly it's one of the things about as good as we've seen it, so my vote would be to leave this one alone. And lets not forget, some things hold such value and are so difficult to get, that "breaking" through gameplay would be more than a minor irritant for many. For many more, things would simply go into storage. No nerf needed! Make the game fun, I suspect chasing back over the ground you've already crossed isn't how most see enjoying their valued time.

 

[athos_uo]

why do you think that an imbued item will be able to have fort powder used on it anyway??

I'm not sure if you reply to me...

Because items in this world are normally fortifyable. Some items can not have PoF used on themselves but they are anormal, e.g., like 10th anniversary AFs or Melissa Cloak. And devs don't mention it until now. So I think we can suppose that imbued items can have PoF used on themselves as normal items.

And I think that it will be too late after the design is drawn solidly and we should start discussing now about it . If most players agree with me, it might be able to influence devs.

 

[Beefybone]

I bought 10 million gold worth of Tokuno dyes to get my suit looking the way I like it. If imbued items can't be fortified, I will never wear them. I don't want to go back to looking like a clown, and I won't waste expensive dyes on temporary items.

 

[Winker]

POF has to work on the items. A suit is hard enough to get right without loosing parts

 

[Eslake]

The argument of people having all 70s 100%lrc suits with high mr and DCI is counterproductive to those of you saying PoF is a bad thing.

As long as there are those already playing who have such suits that can be PoF'd, there is no point arguing that future items should not be allowed the same increased-perpetual lifespan.

 

[RenaLynne]

Im feeling stuck in the middle on this one. I agree using expensive dyes and getting your suit to look just right is difficult. On the other hand, as a crafter it would be nice if business picked up a little.

 

[Mr Fix It]

not a good idea at all i also will not wear or use something that cant be repaired as many times as you want.

 

[Violence]

Ok, Death Penalty/Insurance Removal/Breakable Items threads are actually FAR MORE ANNOYING THAT ANY OTHER TYPE OF THREAD AT THIS POINT.

If an item can't last forever, I don't want it either.

 

[Connor_Graham]

Ok, Death Penalty/Insurance Removal/Breakable Items threads are actually FAR MORE ANNOYING THAT ANY OTHER TYPE OF THREAD AT THIS POINT.

If an item can't last forever, I don't want it either.

QFT

I'm getting sick of the same tired reasons.

 

[kelmo]

*shakes head* I am glad I play Siege.

 

[Beefybone]

Frankly, all you greedy crafters coming in here going "You don't need to keep the gear you've spent months or years assembling, do you? I wanna sell you more!" can go get bent.

 

[kelmo]

Frankly, all you greedy crafters coming in here going "You don't need to keep the gear you've spent months or years assembling, do you? I wanna sell you more!" can go get bent.

Have you considered single player games?

 

[Gildar]

Frankly, all you greedy crafters coming in here going "You don't need to keep the gear you've spent months or years assembling, do you? I wanna sell you more!" can go get bent.

If you could spend a day or two to reliably get an exact replica of that gear... would you have the same problem?

 

[Connor_Graham]

If you could spend a day or two to reliably get an exact replica of that gear... would you have the same problem?

A day or 2 that you can't play that character because they lost something that right now they would never lose?


Yeah, I know I'D have a problem with that.

 

[kelmo]

I would not.

 

[kelmo]

I would shop around with my favorite Crafters. Up and running in moments. Siege strategy is to have the back up gear ready.

 

[Thorodin]

The poll question and answers are rather confusing themselves. Are you for or against a restriction? I chose yes. I am either for or against it.

 

[Beefybone]

If you could spend a day or two to reliably get an exact replica of that gear... would you have the same problem?

I wear a very distinctive Tokuno-dyed suit of mostly-artifact platemail that I assembled at the cost of most of my personal funds. Making things such that this suit could be replaced (at reasonably low cost) on one or two days notice would require a total overhaul of pretty much every aspect of the game.

 

[Beefybone]

Have you considered single player games?

Have you considered a nice economic sim? I'm sorry, but the rest of us don't consider you selling us armor to be the pinnacle of multiplayer gaming.

 

[kelmo]

Have you considered a nice economic sim? I'm sorry, but the rest of us don't consider you selling us armor to be the pinnacle of multiplayer gaming.

I rest my case. No further comments.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

Have you considered single player games?

GENIOUS!!!!

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

I rest my case. No further comments.

BLAM BLAM!!!

PWNT!