PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Granted or negated Wishes => Topic started by: Durwyn on August 19, 2007, 04:18:53 pm
-
Greetings,
after a day of crafting, i could only make some Q90 and 100 weapons..but i was...disgusted almost to see that harnquist price for them is the same as the normal...wouldnt it be logic that more quality the weapons have, better the price is?
i dont know how it would work...maybe according to their 'specific' names like "common" "inferior" "superior" or so. or by quality from 50 - 100, 100-150. it doenst really care to me if at least something is done to add something in the crafting sector :thumbup:
Good evening.
-
I agree with Durwyns wish.
To be more explicit on the "why": Gaining crafting skills is a lengthy process - and comparing the crafted weapon with the looted ones it is hard to keep the motivation to invest fiurther time in that skill. So at the moment it is more or less the intrinsic motivation keeping few crafters to keep their studies. I strongly pledge for a more obvious reward for the crafter's investment of time and trias. This will be achieved by matching the NPC price for any crafted item (let it be ingot, stock, weapon, armor, ...) to the actual quality. In this case the price for a worn out sword or armor (of q 25/50) will also be reduced.
I suggest a linear relation to the actual quality ( 50/50 steel stock is 60 trias, 300/300 steel stock is 6 timeas a much, so 360 trias ). But is this is too complicated a match to the quality name (inferior, common, standard, superior, ...) is also fine.
Just my $0.02.
Yolantha
-
While it is true that greater quality materials are worth more than those with lesser quality I think that the same processes should not generate such a disparity in the raw material. Indeed I think the raw materials ought to be more generic as there is only so much quality gain possible by re-smelting. In my mind there should be only 4 or 5 steps in quality of the raw materials instead of 300. The range of qualities might be the same as it is now but the graduations ought to be coarser. I think this because, for example, with steel the greatest change in quality comes from the particular alloy with different alloys having different qualities. For the elements it usually takes different procedures to gain significant improvement in purity. If you want to implement new process chains to increase the quality that is a different story.
I do agree and have mentioned elsewhere that the final product should be valuated according to its current and maximum quality.
-
Prices vary with quality now.