GU32 info (fixes and bugs add in here)

Since when is it bad when more people craft ? Was this not one of the main arguments "pro removing subs", so that more people will craft and the broker will be full of low level stuff too ?

If it was intendet thsi way, why its called secondary tradeskill profession ? I mean, how can you have a secondary tradeskill profession, if you are missing the first tradeskill profession ?

Probably with the same logic that indicates you don't have to own Everquest in order to own Everquest 2.

I hope you don't believe in that argument. As for the changes proposed, well it's something at least. However, how much more crafting will people do because of them? There will still be very little to do at 70.

It's not bad when more people craft but, there is a major difference between doing something because you enjoy it and doing something because you are "forced" to.There is also a major difference between invigorating a market and flooding it. When the KoS heritages were launched, many people picked up the hammer because their sense of completeness demanded they suffer through crafting not only to get those items, but also to prep for any future activities that also involved crafting. If we still had the old forums, I could show you no fewer than 50 threads by these people that hated crafted but endured it just to get the actual rewards they wanted. In this game since crafting is supposed to be a viable alternative to adventuring and not just hobby, that was a disaster. Removal of subs was something different. The old way was so onerous that people who had genuine interest in crafting just refused to do it. Lower level combines took forever to get into the world just like their higher level counterparts making it next to impossible to convince higher level crafters to produce anything that didn't give xp. The sheer volume of time it took to get an item into the world was prohibitive- ever try to get chainmail in the old system? Or arrows for that matter? The goal of removing subs was many fold; cleaning up a messy database, making it easier to introduce/change items, reducing the amount of time it took to get items into the world and removing an onerousness that existed for it's own sake since subs didn't actually mean anything and seemingly were never going to. The alternate crafts in every way but that single HoC statement were secondary trades(I refuse to call them such now). They gave TS xp, they were tested as TS class based, they launched as TS class based and everything that was made from them-tinkering included- was tradable. Even the fact that so many of the products undercut the primary trades indicates it's not something that was actually built for a wider spread. It wasn't until we saw their true launch incarnation that it made sense for those crafts to capped by adventuring or tradeskill level instead of just tradeskill.The boosts provided by tinkering, since everything was now somehow restricted, made it a worthwhile endeavor for people to grudgingly work up a TS class and transmuting is much more accessible to an adventurer(if you don't want to level on gray combines).Plus, since transmuting is a supply skill, it more than fits both realms. Adventurers would have had great incentive to raise a TS class if this hadn't changed. Every tradeskiller that exists for a reason other than actual tradeskilling hurts the TS market. It's one less customer and one more competitor that doesn't actually care about market flooding or profitable pricing.No one is going to endure the grind for nothing but that's exactly what happens to trades when people do it for something peripheral like heritage quests and tinkering.

I don't think the secondaries ever gave TS XP. But I came to Beta late.

Oh they did. Let me find the patch notes. Edit: Found

They did, even for a few weeks in Live.

I must have not noticed because my Transmuter is Kiana, and a maxed Artisan.

*nod* that would do it. My transmuters were/are both non-70s. I noticed. Without trying, I got at least one or two levels in crafting with my fae transmuter. It was wrong. But I'm surprised you don't remember the long threads on both sides of the subject before and after the fix.

This is my thoughts exactly. I agree the way they did it was 'questionable', but the way things are now, at least in reguards to secondaries being off of either TS or adventure, is the way it should be.

[p]Actually, I do. I don't believe that use of a "secondary" tradeskill requires (or should require) use of a "primary" tradeskill, in much the same way I don't believe you have to ride a "primary" bus route before you're allowed get onto a "secondary" bus route. Another example could be in how SOE has chosen to handle the Achievement trees. You aren't required to fill out one tree in order to use the other. [/p][p]My personal belief is that Transmuting and Tinkering are referred to as a secondary tradeskill for two reasons: 1) they weren't one of the first tradeskills developed (and therefore isn't a "primary" skill) and (2) because you don't create an item that can be immediately equipped or used by itself by an average player (adornments can't be equipped directly; most tinkered items require tinkering skill just to use). To my knowledge, none of the Primary tradeskills create products that can't be immediately used/equipped or which require knowledge of tradeskilling just to use. Those are some fairly heavy restrictions. [/p][p]Really though, this is all a discussion on semantics, in a way that can't be wholly proven without developer intervention. None of us know why the word "Secondary" was chosen, and any discussion on why (including my own) is simply supposition at this point - not justification. [/p]

[p] I disagree that Tinkering was a skill created for any "market", however. In my experience, Transmuting is a skill designed to make coin whereas Tinkering was designed for personal use. The very limitations upon tinkered goods virtually guarantee this. [/p][p]You may not agree with my assessment here, but I believe this was a wholly deliberate and concious undertaking by the developers. I believe they had a pretty good idea what they were doing when they placed tinkering skill requirements upon most of the tinkered goods.[/p][p] [/p]

We would agree if it had been beta tested that way or we were actually informed. I don't think they did it on purpose because to have done such without telling tradeskillers would have been flat out dishonest. Remember, besides that single HOC blurb, all other chat pointed to this being a genuine trade. All indications from beta pointed to it being a genuine trade as well since weren't any of the restrictions you currently see. To have intended this from the start is to have pulled either a nasty bait and switch or one of the most egregious acts of omission since frogloks. The most I'll say is that after they did the end beta rebalance, they realized the only way it would really work is to have restricted it in the ways they did( which to their credit seemed rushed and ill thought out).

[p]Accusations against the developers notwithstanding, all of this goes back to what is and is not a "genuine" tradeskill, anyway. Last I heard, Tinkering and Transmuting weren't labled as "genuine" tradeskills. In fact, I can't find a single instance of any developer referring to any tradeskill as "genuine". There's a few instances of "primary" and a whole lot of instances of "secondary", but not one single instance of "genuine". Color me technical, but doesn't that indicate that you're working from a philosophy on the subject which is wholly your own and not that of the developers? [/p][p]You're obviously free to hold such a philosophy dear and near to your own heart, and certainly others can agree or disagree with such a philosophy, but at the end of the day, it's still your philosophy, and not that which the game is utilizing right now. So arguing over what you personally think is a "genuine" tradeskill would be like arguing what I feel is a "real" guild. Just as I have to account for the fact that a one person guild is thought of as a real guild by SOE, so it would seem that you have to make some concessions to your own thinking on what is or is not a "genuine" tradeskill, at least insofar as Everquest 2 is concerned.[/p][p] [/p]

Kendricke wrote:

We aren't talking about hypotheticals here. We are discussing something we actively saw throughout advertisement and beta. We beta tested the content as tradeskill exclusive and we actively asked what the intent was and if that HoC chat was the final decision. We had 0 reason to believe it would be expanded out to adventurers. We aren't talking semantics, we're talking reality and reasonable expectations based on what's presented. Even the official site that's still up says, "hone your craft with the new secondary tradeskills". Fine, you can say it's ambiguous too but, what exactly would you be honing if you didn't have a primary trade? Even the very name secondary tradeskills implies there are primary trades, base trades if you will, and that the secondaries build on them. If that weren't the implication, why wouldn't they have gone with alternate crafts instead since the other implication, that secondary trades are actually trades and not just self supporting crafts, doesn't apply in any significant way to tinkering.

Let's be clear on this, this is not semantics or philosophy or anything else of that nature. What you asked us to believe is that the dev's planned all along for tinkering to be what it launched as. To believe that is to believe they either intentionally or negligently let a part of their playerbase, customers, believe something they never intended. There was no indication at all, anywhere except that single HoC chat pre-beta that said anything contrary to what we saw.Even they way they launched indicates that tradeskill only was they way they were intended up to the end. To have all those factors out when the feature goes live and to have intended all along for it to be another way asks me to believe this dev team is something they are demonstrably not- dishonest or grossly negligent. I will not accept that until I see it proven.

[p]Neither you nor I are developers, so any arguments over semantics would be academic and hypothetical at best. Therefore, I'm choosing to avoid such a discussion and instead suggest we agree to disagree on our personal beliefs. We may as well be arguing religion, if we're going to argue such concepts as intent or meaning as suggested by wording.[/p][p]As far as "asking you to believe", I did no such thing. What I pointed out was my personal belief, and then I even suggested others (such as yourself) might choose to disagree with my perspective. Of course, you seem to be still concentrating on the secondary tradeskill issue, whereas you keep responding to my comments which were specific to tinkering as a non-market crafting skill. You seem to be taking my words on one issue (whether or not tinkering was intended as a marketable skill) and applying them to another (the issue regarding whether or not secondary tradeskills should tie to artisan class level). [/p][p]You obviously feel differently than I do on the subject. So much the better for honest discourse. However, you're not going to convince me that your beliefs on the subject are right simply by telling me how I'm wrong. Likewise, I don't expect to change your mind on the subject - I'm merely stating my own difference of opinion.[/p][p] [/p][p] [/p]

That's because in the context you mentioned them since you quoted a previous back and forth, led to that point. Believe what you want that's fine and we can agree to disagree. Just realize next time you quote to mention a point that you bring the context of whatever you quoted into your discussion. Had you not quoted the prior argument, it would not have warranted a response. I'm not concerned with the semantics or applying one specific comment you made to any other. I commenting on what happened and what was presented. If you are just looking to make a statement of belief, don't quote prior discussions and drag their context into it. You may also wish to take a look at the argument you are presenting and make sure it's actually on point instead of dragging extraneous issues into a focused debate. What we were discussing before you posted had nothing to do with "genuine" tradeskills or anything of the sort. I would agree to disagree but, since we weren't discussing what I thought we were i can't since it requires a different perspective from the one I thought you were presenting. I'll chalk it up to misunderstanding and just let it go.

I think that describes 99% of our interchanges on the forums. If you make FanFaire, I'm buying the first round.

If they really hate crafting they would 'only' level up, but would probably stop crafting when they are at max level. If someone hates crafting he will not keep crafting and flood the market with cheap products when he is at the level he needs for the quest. Do you do things you don't like for a few silver an hour ? Transmuting is a good example, they compete with weaponsmiths with adorments, but are much faster to level up. Tinkerer compete with woodworker and make better harvesting tools. If they would have first to level up a TS class it would take much, much longer and therefore probably less people would do it and would be a lesser threat to these TS classes. If I want several HQ's I'm forced to raid and group, therefore I really see no problem if people need a TS class for only 1 !!!! Quest. And yes I craft and play since launch.