New Recipes for all classes - FUEL

[Valdaglerion]

<p>The preliminary question is simple - are fuel merchants truly intended only as money sinks? If they are then the remaining point of this posting is moot as it will more than likely never be considered. If they arent....</p><p>Fuel is still the one component in the TS world you must purchase and therefore is still a factor in proftability. With the outcry for more recipes, fuel seems to be one area that could be addressed and would benefit a majority of the classes from a production standpoint and all classes from a usage standpoint.</p><p>Some of these fuels could add back in class interdependency and make them interesting. For example:</p><p>Sage: could make paper. Materials would be wood (tier of wood determines the output tier for paper) and water (requires the harvesting buckets from the carpenter).</p><p>Tailors: could make sandpaper. Materials would be paper from the sage and harvested sand (we have tons of beaches in ever tier zone - add a sand node.</p><p>Carpenters: could make harvesting buckets for liquids (these tend to be only low end anyway so make the water and cows in the lower zones have harvest nodes for milk and water). Could also make the incense sticks for varying wood products.</p><p>Woodworkers: Could also make the varying kindlings form wood also. Could also make the fibres for tailoring from varying roots and razors made by weaponsmiths.</p><p>Weaponsmiths: Could make razors with a fine cutting edge from ores and water. Could make coal from varying woods and loams with waters.</p><p>Armorers: Could make glass from sand and kindling from woodworkers</p><p>Jewlers: make bottles and jars from glass from armorers and ore for "lids"</p><p>Provisioners: could make incense "scent" from varying fruits, roots and water. They would package them in bottles.</p><p>Alchemist: make varying tiers of incense from woodworker sticks and provisioner "scents"</p><p>Obviously this isnt complete but I hope it illustrates a point. With only pristines now being allowed anyway on new recipes, I, for one, would like to see some interdependency brought back into the game without asking for a major overhaul to the current system. This might help to build some nice artisan colonies and boost actual trade within the TS instances and not just on the broker. </p><p>Thoughts?</p>

[Lilj]

I prefer we don't have interdependencies. I lived in that era and I hated it. So I will leave it for those that want interdependencies to comment on your actual suggestions for it, since it is silly if I do <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Valdaglerion]

<p>Which is why I made the suggestion as an augmentation to the current system rather than a replacement of it. In adventurig you can do things solo/group/raid. The more people involved the better the rewards. I was hoping that this would introduce a similar system. If you want to play solo you can buy your fuels from the merchants and you can also make the components to sell to other artisans, win-win.</p><p>If you choose to build networks with other players (group content, raid not so much, yet anyway) you would work in trades to lower your cost of productions by making fuels.</p><p>Just a thought...</p>

[Bloodfa]

Hate to say it, but the first time they tried it, that system failed miserably.  I originally only wanted to make a Jeweler, but found that I needed to make so many other components that one led to another to another and before I knew it, half a dozen tradeskillers.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't tradeskill if I didn't like it at least a little, but when the T2 wash's were going for 2 gold apiece <i>when you could find them</i>, making an Alchemist was no longer optional.  And if they were to take that step backwards towards interdependency, the cries would go up to remove the vendors because player X can't sell his fuel for less than the vendor, and it's not fair, and ..... well, you see where I'm going with this.

[Rijacki]

fuels aren't actually a money sink since the NPC merchant will "buy back" a crafted item for fuel costs and all writs will, unless you botch them, return at least fuel cost. It is, however, a starter barrier and a means of giving crafted items at least a basic intrinsic value (theoretically it's foolish to sell something for less than fuel costs since you can get that minimally from an NPC). Even when the recipes are changed to no item for less than pristine, you will still get at least fuel cost for 1 to 3 lines of success.

[Rijacki]

double post - connection must have hiccuped

[Looker1010]

<p>Back in the day, when EQII was a young game, we had a lot of that. All spell writers had to make paper for their spells to be scribed onto. Jewelers made glass poison vials for alchemists, etc. </p><p>Interdendency was a disastrous failure, and rightly so. You cannot and should not try to force people to work together. Instead most crafters made more crafters so they could handle their own crafting needs.</p><p>I think fuel prices are too high and that, at high levels, recipes require way too much fuel. BUT, I'd rather have that than what the OP is suggesting, even as an adjunct. </p><p>No fix needed here since nothing is broken. Just my 2cp.</p>

[Meio]

It would be like bringing back WORTs, just that this time every class would have one of it. In my opinion WORTs has been the most borings subs. If they bring back a kind of subs/interdependence it should be the 'interessting' subs where you would get back the feeling that you assemble a item from realistic components and not a generic one. But I don't think they will ever go back to that route, which is sad. I guess the only 'interdependance' and 'subs' we will see will be drops for adventurer.

[Aurumn]

<p>Interdependence issues aside, I think adding new node types and altering existing mobs (ie. cows for milk) would be an unnecessary addition of complexity. I would hate to have to find storage for paper, sand, etc along with all the other harvestables we already have to juggle. </p><p>As it is now, even if it does take an outlay of funds for fuel, you are guaranteed that fuel is <u>always</u> available from the wholesaler for the <u>same</u> price, in any quantity you might need. This at least lays a stable foundation for pricing strategies. Once you recover fuel cost, you can set any sort of profit margin you're comfortable with. Personally I don't find it prohibitive to pay for fuel. I wouldn't be tempted in the least to sink time into crafting what I can readily buy at a reasonable price. Not that I'd be against a reduction in the amount of fuel needed for higher tier recipes. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[bensilvi]

Why do we need to make TS hard?? They removed the subcombines already why introduce something like this??

[Valdaglerion]

Mondary@The Bazaar wrote: <blockquote>Why do we need to make TS hard?? </blockquote><p>I am sorry but this made me giggle. If I had a dime for every thread where people complain about how easy the game is I coud retire. So see this comment was in such contrast it was amusing for a change. </p><p>It was only a suggestion to add a layer of complexity to the game for those seeking more of a challenge and a willingness to work together to build those artisan communities. It was never stated the fuel merchants should be taken out, people forced to play a certain way, etc. It was suggested as an addition for those who OPTED to play in that vein.</p><p>Seems the general concensus is for easier not more challenging...which is interesting since there are people so vehemently opposed to multi-classing which in some ways would be easier.../scratch head</p>

[Jesdyr]

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>fuels aren't actually a money sink since the NPC merchant will "buy back" a crafted item for fuel costs and all writs will, unless you botch them, return at least fuel cost. </blockquote> No .. it is a money sink. It just is not a money sink for leveling. It removes the fuel cost of all consumable items (food,drinks,totems,..).

[Feanox]

I'd rather see them remove the fuel items alltogether and just charge us at the craft station itself.  Having another item to worry about just seems odd since they simplified crafting.  It's not like you can't just pop around the corner and get the stuff anyway, why not just make it that much simpler?

[Bloodfa]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote>Mondary@The Bazaar wrote: <blockquote>Why do we need to make TS hard?? </blockquote><p>I am sorry but this made me giggle. If I had a dime for every thread where people complain about how easy the game is I coud retire. So see this comment was in such contrast it was amusing for a change. </p><p>It was only a suggestion to add a layer of complexity to the game for those seeking more of a challenge and a willingness to work together to build those artisan communities. It was never stated the fuel merchants should be taken out, people forced to play a certain way, etc. It was suggested as an addition for those who OPTED to play in that vein.</p><p>Seems the general concensus is for easier not more challenging...which is interesting since there are people so vehemently opposed to multi-classing which in some ways would be easier.../scratch head</p></blockquote>My concern would be with the follow-up 4 months later, when Player-X decides to start a drive to remove fuel from the brokers because it's making it too hard for him to make a buck at it, and NPC's shouldn't charge less than his quality product.  All you need to do is read the PvP sections to know that sooner or later, it would happen, and on the off chance somebody in management/developing/SONY's-CEO's-grandson picked up on that idea and considered it worth doing ... the system breaks down.  Again.

[bensilvi]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote>Mondary@The Bazaar wrote: <blockquote>Why do we need to make TS hard?? </blockquote><p>I am sorry but this made me giggle. If I had a dime for every thread where people complain about how easy the game is I coud retire. So see this comment was in such contrast it was amusing for a change. </p><p>It was only a suggestion to add a layer of complexity to the game for those seeking more of a challenge and a willingness to work together to build those artisan communities. It was never stated the fuel merchants should be taken out, people forced to play a certain way, etc. It was suggested as an addition for those who OPTED to play in that vein.</p><p>Seems the general concensus is for easier not more challenging...which is interesting since there are people so vehemently opposed to multi-classing which in some ways would be easier.../scratch head</p></blockquote>Hey i am all for more complex and challening game play but for tradeskilling no thanks.

[Meio]

<cite>Looker1010 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Back in the day, when EQII was a young game, we had a lot of that. All spell writers had to make paper for their spells to be scribed onto. Jewelers made glass poison vials for alchemists, etc. </p><p>Interdendency was a disastrous failure, and rightly so. You cannot and should not try to force people to work together. Instead most crafters made more crafters so they could handle their own crafting needs.</p><p>I think fuel prices are too high and that, at high levels, recipes require way too much fuel. BUT, I'd rather have that than what the OP is suggesting, even as an adjunct. </p><p>No fix needed here since nothing is broken. Just my 2cp.</p></blockquote>You mean SOE should remove all group and raid content, because its bad to force people to work together in a MMO ? ^^

[Calthine]

That's comparing apples and seagulls.

[Liyle]

The only time you need to eat the cost of fuel is for items you are making to be used in game. Otherwise the WO system pays you back price of fuel plus a commission even for the ones that are not timed. If you are doing first combines for the extra XP then you can vendor and getting your fuel money back, but WO's are definitely the best way to go after that.

[Meio]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's comparing apples and seagulls. </blockquote>Good argument <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> People made more crafter to get out of the interdependence in crafting. People dual box to be able to 'enjoy' group content alone.

[mappam]

<p><span style="color: #99ffcc">I can see this working IF it were an ADD-ON = what I mean:</span></p><p><span style="color: #99ffcc">IF a crafter needs Candles as fuel - S/he will need candles, parafin candles, wax candles etc for different Tiers. As the crafter gets higher in Tier the fuel gets more expensive.</span></p><p><span style="color: #99ffcc">So say the Tradeskiller(s) can make fuel - (candles in this case) Each Tier of the fuel needed is a different candle - ALSO each crafter would get recipes for the right Tier (Tier one would be candles - T2 Wax candles etc).</span></p><p><span style="color: #99ffcc">Flip Side = the crafter needs to buy fuel. The amount of fuel and the cost of this fuel gets higher as the Tier (experience) of the crafter goes up. (EXAMPLE ONLY) So say a recipe calls for 20 Beeswax Candles (cost is getting Really Expensive!) BUT this crafter can buy a Better QUALITY candle from a Tradskiller and only needs 10 for the same recipe.</span></p><p><span style="color: #99ffcc">If done right = this could be a Win/Win - the TS'er would get new recipes PLUS the crafter would get better quality and need less.</span></p><p><span style="color: #99ffcc">Kind of the same thinking as the "store bought" food and arrows.</span></p>

[Crinaeae]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Which is why I made the suggestion as an augmentation to the current system rather than a replacement of it. In adventurig you can do things solo/group/raid. The more people involved the better the rewards. I was hoping that this would introduce a similar system. If you want to play solo you can buy your fuels from the merchants and you can also make the components to sell to other artisans, win-win.</p><p>If you choose to build networks with other players (group content, raid not so much, yet anyway) you would work in trades to lower your cost of productions by making fuels.</p><p>Just a thought...</p></blockquote>  I LOVE the idea!  Having the same system WITH the option to have an interlinked system.  That way those who hate having to rely on other ts classes to finish their project, and it can be a big pain, can just buy from the merchant the way they do now.  But, those of us who are intrigued by all of the ts classes working can do so as well.  Everyone but the developers who would have to develop it and put it in game, win.

[Calthine]

<cite>Crinaeae wrote:</cite><blockquote>  I LOVE the idea!  Having the same system WITH the option to have an interlinked system.  That way those who hate having to rely on other ts classes to finish their project, and it can be a big pain, can just buy from the merchant the way they do now.  But, those of us who are intrigued by all of the ts classes working can do so as well.  Everyone but the developers who would have to develop it and put it in game, win. </blockquote> Heh, I remember the number of crafters who <i>swore</i> they would never make their own WORTS and builds when the secondary skills were introduced. Didn't work, lol.

[Valdaglerion]

<p>Good points and insights from all. Just a few more personal opinions -  </p><p>(1) Somewhere down the road people will clamor for fuels to be removed from merchants because they cant sell their components for profit. - These arent meant to be a profit generating item directly. They are made to be an indirect profit generator by lower the cost of your finished item. (make your own fuel versus buying it)</p><p>(2) This is not a money sink. - I understand you can sell back items to the merchant for basically the cost of fuel. It becomes a money sink though for items you actually intend to use for sale and not use as a grind to level. For instance, a provisioner recipe in T7 takes 10 Rosewood Kindling. The current cost of fuel dictates a minimum price for selling the item and dictates profit margins. Profit margin should be flexible based on effort, meaning you have the option to increase your profit margin by expending more time and effort to make your own fuel or buy your fuels and make less profit.</p><p>I further understand from another thread that there are many people in this forum with multiple and in many cases high level crafters. It is possible that artisan communities will not grow as readily because people can still enjoy heroic/group content solo by working around it with multiple toons but for those coming up through the ranks it provides options for another game play style.</p>

[Lilj]

I wonder if this won't demand an extraordinary large amount of work to change, for imo very little benefit. We are talking about 1 recipe per tier per profession, but all recipes need to be changed to be able to handle two types of fuel. After reading Dominos descriptions of some of the sheets and how long time it can take to change things, I have a feeling a change like this could be a real b*tch to make.

[Valdaglerion]

<cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote>I wonder if this won't demand an extraordinary large amount of work to change, for imo very little benefit. We are talking about 1 recipe per tier per profession, but all recipes need to be changed to be able to handle two types of fuel. After reading Dominos descriptions of some of the sheets and how long time it can take to change things, I have a feeling a change like this could be a real b*tch to make. </blockquote><p> This wouldnt require two types of fuel. I am not for making this harder than it needs to be. I suggest keeping it relatively simple. You can either make Rosewood Kindling or buy it. If you buy it the cost is like 12g per stack and makes roughly 10 recipes. If you make it you invest the time and make an extra 1.2g per recipe.</p>

[Jesdyr]

Valdaglerion wrote: <blockquote><p>If you buy it the cost is like 12g per stack and makes roughly 10 recipes. If you make it you invest the time and make an extra 1.2g per recipe.</p></blockquote> Lets just look at what this would really do to crafting. lets say rosewood currently sells for 1s on the broker and it takes 50 rosewood to make that stack of fuel that costs 12g. This means that rosewood now has a min value of 24s and will most likely rarely sell for less than that on the broker (since it has a value now).  However many people also need that same material to make their items. Lets say it takes 5 rosewood to make 1 item. suddenly the "cost" just for the rosewood in that item is 3g60s. Before it was only 2g45s (including fuel). This means the money is all in the harvesting (as it is now). This change would not really help the crafter unless the supply of materials is so high it forces the price well below the new value of the harvestable. If the idea is to set a min value on harvestables, then the easier way is to just remove the "no value" tag at set a vender value. This is much less code and would end up with almost the same effect.

[Valdaglerion]

<cite>JesDer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Valdaglerion wrote: <blockquote><p>If you buy it the cost is like 12g per stack and makes roughly 10 recipes. If you make it you invest the time and make an extra 1.2g per recipe.</p></blockquote> Lets just look at what this would really do to crafting. lets say rosewood currently sells for 1s on the broker and it takes 50 rosewood to make that stack of fuel that costs 12g. This means that rosewood now has a min value of 24s and will most likely rarely sell for less than that on the broker (since it has a value now).  However many people also need that same material to make their items. Lets say it takes 5 rosewood to make 1 item. suddenly the "cost" just for the rosewood in that item is 3g60s. Before it was only 2g45s (including fuel). This means the money is all in the harvesting (as it is now). This change would not really help the crafter unless the supply of materials is so high it forces the price well below the new value of the harvestable. If the idea is to set a min value on harvestables, then the easier way is to just remove the "no value" tag at set a vender value. This is much less code and would end up with almost the same effect. </blockquote><p>Why quote the broker when talking about effects? Markets fluctutate constantly. The price of rosewood fluctuates between 2cp and 24s now on my server currently and has forever. Market fluctuations are a result of many variables. Fuel cost is constant because it is currently a controlled sink via fuel merchant NPCs.</p><p>Fuel recipes would be an added profit bonus for those willing to exert effort to actually play and harvest. These are not meant as a replacement to the current fuel merchant, that would disrupt the current playstyle for many people. Further, if/when the price of rosewood exceeeded the benefit of using it as fuel, it would no longer be used for fuel except by those harvesting it for free. Those harvesting their own materials would further be rewarded by the increased price of goods generated by those too lazy or unwilling to harvest their own materials. A rise in price for non-consumable products is not a bad thing either. Many classes would revel in making their products profitable again.</p><p>Personally, I am looking forward to the new selling changes coming live soon so we can really start seeing just how profitable our individual toons are.</p>

[Jesdyr]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote> Markets fluctutate constantly. The price of rosewood fluctuates between 2cp and 24s now on my server currently and has forever. Market fluctuations are a result of many variables. Fuel cost is constant because it is currently a controlled sink via fuel merchant NPCs. </blockquote> But this would put a value on the items and would increase the broker price. You would no longer see it at 2cp because that would be selling it at a huge loss. That is the point. It would hurt crafters who do not harvest because it would drive up the cost of materials on the broker.

[Valdaglerion]

<cite>JesDer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote> Markets fluctutate constantly. The price of rosewood fluctuates between 2cp and 24s now on my server currently and has forever. Market fluctuations are a result of many variables. Fuel cost is constant because it is currently a controlled sink via fuel merchant NPCs. </blockquote> But this would put a value on the items and would increase the broker price. You would no longer see it at 2cp because that would be selling it at a huge loss. That is the point. It would hurt crafters who do not harvest because it would drive up the cost of materials on the broker. </blockquote><p> Truly - I doubt you will see anyone buying raws on the broker unless they are very cheap to use to replace the fuel merchants. Reason - too much time and effort involved. If I can buy rosewood kindling from the merchant for 24s why would I consider buying the raws for anywhere close to that price on the broker with the intention of then spending crafting time turning it into fuel?</p><p>What you are more likely to see is the people who do harvest and end up with surplus putting the rosewood kindling on the broker at competively lowered prices to compete with the fuel merchants to turn their excess into additional profit thus benefitting more crafters, including those that dont harvest. </p><p>This helps further the creation of artisan communities.</p>

[Lilj]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote>I wonder if this won't demand an extraordinary large amount of work to change, for imo very little benefit. We are talking about 1 recipe per tier per profession, but all recipes need to be changed to be able to handle two types of fuel. After reading Dominos descriptions of some of the sheets and how long time it can take to change things, I have a feeling a change like this could be a real b*tch to make. </blockquote><p> This wouldnt require two types of fuel. I am not for making this harder than it needs to be. I suggest keeping it relatively simple. You can either make Rosewood Kindling or buy it. If you buy it the cost is like 12g per stack and makes roughly 10 recipes. If you make it you invest the time and make an extra 1.2g per recipe.</p></blockquote>In your first post you have suggestions for all 9 professions and what kinds of fuels they could make, and since we today only have 6 types of fuel (kindling, candles, incense, coal, sandpaper, filament) some would have to make new types? And my point still stands about the mess it could create in the database. Each recipe should be 'set' to be able to accept both the crafter made fuel and the bought fuel and those two types are not the same (database wise). If I create an item that uses crafter created fuel, what is the sell-back value on it? The fuel cost? But we don't know what the fuel cost is on player crafted fuel. What will the cost be, will player crafted fuel require fuel itself? And if as you suggest player crafted fuel is simply the same as the bought, what is the point? It is boring and without any imagination. This is a tad confusing, because first you suggestion new fuel types and now you say it is the same. I'm sorry, I simply don't get the idea behind this suggestion. I see a lot of work for nothing.

[Ronin SpoilSpot]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>This wouldnt require two types of fuel. I am not for making this harder than it needs to be. I suggest keeping it relatively simple. You can either make Rosewood Kindling or buy it. If you buy it the cost is like 12g per stack and makes roughly 10 recipes. If you make it you invest the time and make an extra 1.2g per recipe.</p></blockquote> If I understand you correctly, the player made fuel should need fewer fuels for the same recipy. Then it <b>is</b> two different types of fuel, whether they have the same name or not. And it won't work for the reason others have already pointed out: Fuel is the base unit of the economy. They buy and sell back at the same value everywhere. Prices of crafted items are derived from the fuel used. You can't make cheaper fuel any more than you can make cheaper dollars. If the "cheaper" dollar could buy the same things, it would have the same <i>value</i>, and then it won't sell any cheaper anywhere. The only case where player made fuel could become a viable alternative is when you make it for yourself. That would be completely counter to your wish for interdependency (which I too have tried and didn't like and don't want back in any flavor). /RS

[Valdaglerion]

<p>Sheesh people - let me clarify this and make it as simple as I possibly can:</p><ol><li>Fuels exist currently. You buy them from a vendor for a set price</li><li>With new receipes (see OP) you can use existing raws to make sub-combines which are then in turn used to make the same fuels which currently exist.</li><li>There is no difference in quality, the fuels are the same</li><li>Only difference in game play would be making your fuels for free by spending time making them instead of buying them from a merchant. </li></ol><p>END RESULTS:</p><ol><li>More recipes for players</li><li>Cheaper fuel cost</li><li>Potential for trade between classes in the making of subs and finished fuels</li></ol><p>Things not suggested:</p><ol><li>Different types of fuels and differing buy backs - unnecessary complication</li><li>Modifying existing recipes to use differing amounts of fuel - again, added complexity - not needed</li></ol><p>That is all I am talking about. New recipes with a potetial to make your own fuel and instead of buying from the merchant. Simple. Dont try to make it harder than it has to be...</p>

[Ronin SpoilSpot]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>That is all I am talking about. New recipes with a potetial to make your own fuel and instead of buying from the merchant. Simple. Dont try to make it harder than it has to be...</p></blockquote>The fuels would still have to be different from standard fuels. If they are exactly the same, then you can vendor-sell them at the price of normal fuel, which leaves no reason to ever broker them or even use them yourself. Just sell them and use the money to buy fuel when you need it. If introducing player made fuel shouldn't be just a money making machine, the created fuel should probably have little or no intrinsic value. It should be less than the value of whatever ingredients were used to make the fuel (and obviosuly that recipy u ses no fuel).  So either it's a new fuel object, requiring all recipies to be adapted to accept it, or it's not, and it's just a way to make money. Don't try to make it simpler than it has to be <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> /RS

[Calthine]

What fuel would you use to make the new fuel?

[dartie]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote>What fuel would you use to make the new fuel? </blockquote><p> Gnomish portable solar-powered workbench.</p>

[Domino]

Looking at a time vs rewards point of view, I definitely think that I could spend my time better than in making recipes for fuel, and sorting out all the pricing complications related thereto.  It's rather hard to picture the crafting community getting all that excited by new recipes for ... fuel.  <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[ChickenCasual]

<p>Dont change anything. the crafting system is good as it is. if ppl wanna whine that it aint hard anough. then go transmuter.</p><p>only thing that is needed are more things to make for many of the crafting classes. Woodworker and Armorer and the like.</p><p>2. make the items more usefull. Make something like super duber uber gear. but to make it you also need special this and that and loads of it. pehaps even some special drops. that only exist in raids! </p>

[Ronin SpoilSpot]

Duka@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote><p>Dont change anything. the crafting system is good as it is. if ppl wanna whine that it aint hard anough. then go transmuter.</p><p>only thing that is needed are more things to make for many of the crafting classes. Woodworker and Armorer and the like. 2. make the items more usefull. Make something like super duber uber gear. but to make it you also need special this and that and loads of it. pehaps even some special drops. that only exist in raids! </p></blockquote><p>I don't know why armorers are always mentioned as having too few recipies. We have 51 non-rare per tier (at in the end, the first tiers are missing some items from some sets) and just as many rares. That's more than five per level on  average, if you are only doing normals. That's nowhere near the two or less per level of woodworkers and carpenters. I'm all for making items more usefull, but I really don't want the viability of any tradeskill class to be bound to raid drops, because then I'm never going to be viable. Now, if we had an ultra rare harvest ... <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> /RS 'likes to harvest, not to raid' </p>

[Beldin_]

Ronin SpoilSpot wrote: <blockquote>I don't know why armorers are always mentioned as having too few recipies. We have 51 non-rare per tier (at in the end, the first tiers are missing some items from some sets) and just as many rares. That's more than five per level on  average, if you are only doing normals. That's nowhere near the two or less per level of woodworkers and carpenters. </blockquote>Thats however by far less than the 24 receipes that sages normally have. 5 Receipes means maybe 20% and after that the long grind starts. Also armorers craft much slower then carpenters/woodies, so carpenters are at least much better at grinding writs.

[evhallion]

<cite>Valdaglerion wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Sheesh people - let me clarify this and make it as simple as I possibly can:</p><ol><li>Fuels exist currently. You buy them from a vendor for a set price</li><li>With new receipes (see OP) you can use existing raws to make sub-combines which are then in turn used to make the same fuels which currently exist.</li><li>There is no difference in quality, the fuels are the same</li><li>Only difference in game play would be making your fuels for free by spending time making them instead of buying them from a merchant. </li></ol><p>END RESULTS:</p><ol><li>More recipes for players</li><li>Cheaper fuel cost</li><li>Potential for trade between classes in the making of subs and finished fuels</li></ol><p>Things not suggested:</p><ol><li>Different types of fuels and differing buy backs - unnecessary complication</li><li>Modifying existing recipes to use differing amounts of fuel - again, added complexity - not needed</li></ol><p>That is all I am talking about. New recipes with a potetial to make your own fuel and instead of buying from the merchant. Simple. Dont try to make it harder than it has to be...</p></blockquote>Ok lets go one step simpler then. The basic Idea is to invest time to increase profit by eliminating the cost of fuel. The simplest way to do this is to simply have harvestable fuel. Like as a provisioner I have always wondered (from a RP point of view) why I can't simply go cut down my own rosewood kindling. So in your own words "Dont try to make it harder than it has to be..."

[Jesdyr]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Looking at a time vs rewards point of view, I definitely think that I could spend my time better than in making recipes for fuel, and sorting out all the pricing complications related thereto.  It's rather hard to picture the crafting community getting all that excited by new recipes for ... fuel.  <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote> I coudnt agree more .. Also what he doesnt seem to get is that with the "same as vendor" that means it sells for the same price. This would cause a large problem for t7 raws since they would have a high enough value that just grinding fuel to sell to the vendor would become a nice option. I would not doubt if a good amount of the raws on the broker are the leftovers of someone farming for rare harvests. If these could be quickly turned into profit, I am guessing they will be. I am not saying this is a bad thing.. I am saying this will hurt crafters. It will make crafting profitable without having to sell to players.

[Valdaglerion]

<p>Ok folks. Conceded...no one else thinks the fuel recipes are a good idea. Done...moving on...</p>

[Hukklebuk]

<cite>Looker1010 wrote:</cite><blockquote><b>I think fuel prices are too high and that, at high levels, recipes require way too much fuel.</b> BUT, I'd rather have that than what the OP is suggesting, even as an adjunct. </blockquote>Particularly when 70% or more of what is crafted is sold back to the vendors as fodder.  Frankly (IMO) rare combines should use a whole lot more raw material rather than twice the fuel... as far as regular recipes 7 fuel cost to create the item nets you 7 fuel cost when you sell the garbage off to a vendor....  If something is there for the sake of being there, it's unnecessary.