Adornments comments

Discussion in 'Tradeskill Discussion' started by ARCHIVED-Domino, Jul 26, 2007.

  1. ARCHIVED-Domino Guest

    Deson wrote:
    No promises AT ALL that anything will be done about anything posted in this thread, but if, as Deson does, you feel adornments need tweaking in terms of what is available and what classes get which ... here is a thread to post about it. But IF time permits tweaking of adornments, this is the thread where I'll look to get ideas on what's missing or not working.

    Please include as much detail as possible.

    Examples of helpful comments:

    • "There are no +INT foot slot adornments and this is desperately needed because dirges get an achievement bonus on having intelligent feet. Sages should get this adornment because they are lacking recipes."
    • "Tinkers get all the good bow adornments and nobody wants the tailor ones. Remove bow adornments from tailors entirely and give them instead a wider range of chest slot adornments, these adornments should add +alcohol tolerance, +safe fall, or +stamina."
    • There seems to be a peculiar lack of nose slot adornments. Ideal stats that could be added to the nose slot would be +parry, and +block, especially for big-nosed tanks.
    Examples of comments which will be ignored:
    • Fix adornments!
    • I'd really like to be able to make level 5 jewelry items for all slots {or insert favorite non-adornment-related request here}
  2. ARCHIVED-Deson Guest

    Fix adornments! Heh, seriously, this caught me off guard but want to say thanks for opening it up. It will take me some time to recompile all my complaints into a more coherent flow for a post so I'm just saying thanks again and I'll post more substantively later. If you still have access to the old forum archive though most my complaints are a rehash from the thread I made there.

    I'm somewhat happy with the adornment system with one exception...
    Please allow us to search thru the millions of adornments on broker for our slot/level we want to adorn. Heck I dont even know half of the possibilities because I have to scroll thru a hundred pages to find the slot item I want.
  4. ARCHIVED-ashen1973 Guest

    The non-upgrading, +1% adorns (i.e the tier5 +1% heal crit shield adorn, and the tier6 +1% heal crit head adorn) could be spread more evenly across the classes.
    Would be nice if every class had at least one of these in tier 5 or 6.` Leg and foot slots seem to have a minimum of good quality adorns, so maybe add some to these slots.
    Definatly agree that weaponsmiths should receive some of the weapon adorns that transmuters currently get. Maybe give transmuters some new waist slot adorns, as this is another slot with minimal usefull adorns.
  5. ARCHIVED-Epic_Hero Guest

    Resist adornments need to either be scrapped or given a drastic improvement. For the slots that have very few adornments like cloak, forearms, chest, you could make adornments that add +300 to each resist and make it Fabled, or even resist proccing adornments. Also, for the love of God please do something with the T6 ring adornments. You have a TREASURED adornment for +70 power, and one for +70 HP. Then you have one that gives +35 to both power and HP and it is FABLED. Anyone can see the problem with this. Two of the fabled ring adornments do the same exact thing as if you got one of each of the treasured adornments. The Fabled one should have been +50 to both, period.
  6. ARCHIVED-Pibu Guest

    DominoDev wrote:
    Not sure I like the idea of Sages getting the +int to feet but as a long nosed dirge rat I love the way you are thinking haha
  7. ARCHIVED-Xalmat Guest

    A short list to start off.

    You can't get the +stat you want for all pieces. For example:

    * +INT is only available on earrings and wrists.
    * +wis is the only option for helms.
    * For Rings, your only choice is resists, +hp, or +power. Not even a stat.

    Adornments aren't always spread across all tiers. For example, breastplate power regen adornments are only available from tier 5, not tier 1-4 or tier 6-7. A +block adornment is only tier 6.

    When examining an adornment, it is not clear what tradeskill class can make them without looking it up outside the game.
  8. ARCHIVED-MW2K2 Guest

    I personally don't like the way adornments were allocated full stop. Some adornments have more than one crafter who can make them (INT neck slot anyone?) and some stats/slots don't have an adornment at all.

    I'd like to see a better sorting of adornments by slot per crafter. IMO, this would facilitate an easier means of knowing what got duped, what got missed (and there are a LOT of things I feel are missing), etc.

    For example...

    All Ring and Wrist slot adornments are allocated to the Jeweler.
    All Neck and Ear slot adornments are allocated to the Alchemist.
    All Chest and Leg slot adornments are allocated to the Armorer.
    All Throwing Weapon and Cloak slot adornments are allocated to the Tailor.
    (Better) Melee weapon and Hand slot adornments are allocated to the Weaponsmith.
    All Bow and Shield slot adornments are allocated to the Woodworker.
    All Head and Feet slot adornments are allocated to the Provisioner.
    All Waist and Forearm slot adornments are allocated to the Sage.
    All Symbol and Shoulder slot adornments are allocated to the Carpenter.

    I'm sure I've missed slots but you get the picture. And they of course don't need to be in that order but having each class get specific slots they govern would go far further in lessening the confusion I know *I* feel when I start looking on my various chars for adornments to make and wondering, "who makes this stat adornment for this slot or does it even exist?" It also gives each craft a solid adornment market and players will be able to say, "Ok, thisandthis crafter makes thatandthat adornment so that is who I need to look for to make it for me." Whereas right now, the only thing I know for sure is that my Alchemist makes the + all stats chest adornment and search me if I know what any of my other crafters make.

    Aloow transmuters to make EVERY adornmet! It's their tradeskill class!!
  10. ARCHIVED-Liyle Guest

    I would like to see adornments complement the customizing of a character to make them more unique. For example, I make a Wizard. Wizards are an elemental-based class. What I would like to be able to do with adornments is to skew my Wizard towards Ice and cold damage by adding those dimensions to her gear. I find that what is available to me for adorning my staff is Fire (Molten) which is appropriate enough for Wizards in general, but not for the flavor of Wizard I personally want to build. It seems that adornments are the little things used for tweaking a bit here and there, so there needs to be a complete line of all the "pluses" for each major category, esp for weapons.
  11. ARCHIVED-Beldin_ Guest

    There are ONLY INT adornments for earrings .. afaik. There are no "cheap" (means nothing with just stats .. only fabled legendary) adornments for neck,belts and ranged slot items :(
  12. ARCHIVED-Mighty Melvor Guest

    ZUES wrote:
    Um no. Transmuters should only transmute. THAT is their tradeskill, not making adornments.
    Please move the transmuting adornments to weaponsmiths. This kills two birds with one stone. Weaponsmiths get useful adorns, transmuter can skill up on transmuting.
    Currently, transmuters have to hoard their transmuting raws to skill-up their transmuting skill. This, in turn, makes transmuting raws extremely expensive and hard to obtain. The only people that I have seen (and I am one of them) that actually benefit from the current transmuting scheme are people with multiple crafters on the same server.
    Please, PLEASE, make skill ups only come from transmuting items, and give weaponsmiths something to do.
    Ex. Tier 6
    For argument sake, I'll assume that creating an lvl 55 adornment with my lvl 55 transmuter will yield a skill up 50% of the time. Since I need 1 powder and 9 frags to create a treasured item (10 breakdowns), adjust the skill-up for transmuting at tier 6 to 5% per transmute. 5% x 10 transmutations = 50%. Doing this allows the raws to be put on the broker AT REASONABLE PRICES, so people new and old can compete in the adornment market. It also eliminates the inane amount of weapon adornments that currently flood the market, since its the only thing transmuters can make to skill up.
    Please lower the skill-up chances of transmuters, but don't make them CRAFT for it.
    More raws for tradeskillers, less weapon adornments on the market, cheaper treasured adornments on the market.....WIN/WIN/WIN :thumbup:
  13. ARCHIVED-Deson Guest


    In trying stretch the limited available effects of adornments out there seemed to be three combined plans: placements by effect, placement by slot and "Holy crap! we need to give this guy something". I'm a firm believer that either the adorns should have gone either entirely to transmuters or to the primary trades. I'm also a strong advocate of market based placement recipes. I think the logical placement by markets would go a long way into bringing more reason to both customer ability to search and crafter expectations.


    Ok really, 1 resist adornment is enough. Likewise as another posted earlier, things like having 2 treasured adorns being greater than or equal to, and by virtue of that more versatile than a fabled adorn, is something to be fixed as well. Where an effect is duplicated, reduce the adorns to one with multiple placement options- this also includes weapons and, in the case of those ring adorns, make it more worthwhile or scrap it. Also in this, why exactly are raw stats restricted by slot? Resists as well should have a broader application than they currently do.


    As quoted, I don't at all care for the fact that the alternate trades compete with the primary trades in the fashion they do;it's really no contest. What the primary trade adornments seem to have in their listing is trying to replace the effect of imbuing. Since thats no longer an issue with imbues sticking around, I think those adorns should be scrapped. The effect they work behind isn't exactly popular either and as evidenced by requests(lack there of) on my woodworker for bow adorns, the procs are just plain better.

    How would I address all these? Well there is no easy out that definitively resolves the issues. Still....:

    • Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers
    That these two classes even have adorns severely limits the markets of the primary trades. Transmuting uses them as level fodder, thus destroying weaponsmiths and it can be argued that adorns go against the implementation of tinkering as a convenience and self- enhancement skill and that they also negatively affect woodworkers. Removing adorns from both and redistributing them to the appropriate classes would increase the viability of primary trade adorns and remove potential tradeskill competition from non-tradeskillers.

    Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical

    • Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature.
    You still get a lot of clarity here and remove a heavy amount of back and forth of who should get what. I really don't think I need to go into all the negatives of this option though.

    Assuming the first option is what's taken, markets should be divided either by slot or by effect. I have no opinion on by slot primarily because it causes major issues with what I said earlier about removing redundancies. Effects on the other hand would go like this:

    • Weaponsmiths- all melee weapon procs/effects
    • Woodworkers- all ranged procs/effects
    • Sage- spell procs/effects
    • Alchemists- resists
    • Jewelers- stats
    • Armorers- defensive adorns i.e. mit adorns, defensive procs
    • Tailor- Raw health/power
    • Provisioner- power/health regens
    • Carpenter-skill increasers/misc effects
    That's a rough list. There is a real difficulty in coming up with a logical placement model that's fair because of how classes overlap each other in some cases and in others the class doesn't have a clear correlating market to base the adorn in. I do have another list but that involved the actual tradeskill classes themselves being reworked. I also had a broader picture in mind of adorns being expanded beyond their current rather limited effects/ranges to include for instance taunt/de-aggro procs and temp buffs like the imbued rings have.
  14. ARCHIVED-Rijacki Guest

    I need to ponder my posting here.. but, to help others with concrete information:

    There is a -great- site for all the adornments: Kangamitzi -

    Of the top of my head, though...

    I really do wonder what weaponsmith got on the former dev's last nerve so badly that weaponsmiths seem to have gotten the short stick at every turn with and since LU#24. Their consumable, thrown ammo, was given to another class, their over-all stock was reduced (and without much variance in the ones left other than appearance and barely that), and then the one thing that could have given them a small bone tossed their way, adornments, were put into direct competition with the added secondary class as their sole -grind- items. That's really gotta bite.

    So... the classes I think could use the most adornment lovin' are weaponsmiths and sages. There's only 1 non-weapon adornment for weaponsmith and that a fabled. Sages also really could have used some variety recipes and adornments could have been them.

    About the adornments themselves...
    In addition to the ring comment already covered...

    There isn't much variety or way to individualise a character with the existing adornments. For a lot of slots (cloak, head, hands, boots, belt, chest) there are too few adornments to give any choice at all. It would be nice to have a more than 1 stat choice and more than a couple resist choices for most of those.
  15. ARCHIVED-Domino Guest

    Deson wrote:
    Are either of these really an option at this late stage though? When many people have invested literally hundreds of platinum* into transmuting, to remove the only thing that transmuters currently DO from level 25-70 seems to be a really unpopular option. Equally, I see people choosing their tradeskill class and levelling up because "their guild wants that class's adornments". If a thread about how all your characters can now sell on the broker is already well past 10+ pages of ranting and bringing up the NGE, I dread to think how either of these suggestions above would go over. :shock:

    Sometimes unpopular decisions are necessary for the game's balance, yes, but despite what some choose to believe, we are definitely not in favour of "nerfs" where they are not absolutely necessary for game balance, and I haven't yet seen anything to convince me there's absolute necessity in this particular question. Since we can't go back in time and rewrite history, I'd hope there's some better compromise in between the two extremes. Though, if you do find a time machine, let me know, I'll be the first in line ... ;)

    Thanks for the specific adornment details everyone -- the ring example, and the note that INT is the only option for earrings, are just the type of details that are helpful.

    * either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better
  16. ARCHIVED-Meiox2 Guest

    DominoDev wrote:
    It would be the first time, that SOE cares about that tradeskillers loose plat/time because of changes they make.
    If I would be bitter, I would say its because the secondary tradeskill classes are more tailored to adventurers ;-)
  17. ARCHIVED-Deson Guest

    I consider them an option. I also advocated them much much earlier. Just because a problem has been around a long time is not a reason to not correct it.I'll leave the comment there to avoid a thread derail. As I said with classes, if you find a way to make it all work out under the current scheme great! I'll hail you as a miracle worker. Personally though, I just don't see you getting around issues that stem from what can only be described as bad planning and implementation.Fixing these issues now will save you great headache later on.
  18. ARCHIVED-Sykophrog Guest

    Domino, IMO and from what I've observed the +resist adorns are practically useless. I dont know of anyone who actually uses them myself, and even though I do have gear specific for certain resists for raids I still dont use them. +100 to one specific resist type is not worth whatever else you can put into the single adornment slot, in fact, IMO its not worth the money spent on the adornment (whether buying the parts, the whole adornment, or simply the money you would lose from selling the components on the broker if you have said components).
    Ideas for fixes:
    1) Remove the resist adornments altogether and replace them with other common "treasured" adornments such as +14 stat.
    2) Seriously improve the resist adornments. I have no idea what is balanced but I would probly not consider a single resist adornment unless it was very large, for the simple reason that adding a bonus to ONE resist for the ONE slot on the item makes that particular bonus very very limited. I would not consider it IMO unless it was like +500 or something like that.. others opinions may vary of course.
    2b) Instead of boosting the resist really high for one adorn.. why not make it a bonus to all resist and something more moderate. For some item types that have no adornment I'm not all that thrilled about (eg: I'm a cleric.. haveing +sta or +agi on boots does give me SOME effect... but its rather minor considering my class) I would love to have something that might be +75-100 to all resist types. In either 2) or 2b) the point is that +100 to 1 resist is IMO too small to be worthwhile.
    Another idea that deals with adornments (and I hope is not off-topic). But what about making some items have a variance in slots? Like more than 1 slot.
    Another idea a bit along those lines is that I have noticed that there are no charm-slot adornments. Instead of adding in adorns for charm-slot items (or ignoring the catagory altogether) I think it would be wonderful to have either a dropped (or even crafted) charm item that has no stats at all, but can accept any adornment that exists (not including weapon mod adornments). Such as: I really like the +40 Heal hand / neck adornment, now I can put one of those on the blank charm to make my own custom charm item! or That +spell proc adornment for the neck is great, I wish I could have another on some other slot, oooo I made a custom charm!
  19. ARCHIVED-Deson Guest

    After much thought, I want to include adornment solvents as discussed here. After spending some time reviewing my personal EQ1 experience with them and talking with friends from that game, I still think that solvents would increase overall sales volume and allow a freer development of situational adornments- or rather, adornments being used situationally by players.
  20. ARCHIVED-DasUberFuzzy Guest

    not awake enough post a detailed retort on how the whole distribution of adornments vs class is flawed, and i'm sure someone else will/has posted it. but i do have a couple new suggestions that this seems like a good place to throw up. weapon smith's should get racial bane adornment (well, 1 for each tier, damage scaled) that works off your completed L&L list. nothing amazing, just gank the code for the imbued weapon damage and make it do that head slot adornments that make it a light source (ala mining lamp) OR let alch's make adornments for the common torch's that colorize them (ala the tish tinker color'd torchs from TS) (i realize this will make you have work around your "all charm slots are ornate" code to unflag torches) another idea, change the stop point for skill up via melting (break down transmuting) from the odd 100 (which isnt even a tier line i might add) to something higher. not all the way, but like upto the end of t5. this leads me to this statement, i believe that there should be more emphasis on transmuters melting stuff to make parts for others, and less on their what legendary/fabled adornments they get.

Share This Page