Adornments comments

[Domino]

Deson wrote: <blockquote>The current WW/WS vs tinker/transmuting scheme makes much of what they get in that [adornment] department worthless. As said before, I'm hoping for some broader changes to lessen if not out and out reduce that competition but with everything on your plate right now I can see where it wouldn't be an immediate issue. </blockquote> 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: <ul><li>"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."</li><li>"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."</li><li>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. </li></ul>Examples of comments which will be ignored: <ul><li>Fix adornments! </li><li>I'd really like to be able to make level 5 jewelry items for all slots {or insert favorite non-adornment-related request here} </li></ul><img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Deson]

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.

[ZUES]

<p>I'm somewhat happy with the adornment system with one exception...</p><p>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.</p>

[ashen1973]

<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>

[Epic_He]

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.

[Pibu]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote> Examples of helpful comments: <ul><li>"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."</li><li>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.</li></ul></blockquote> 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 <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Xalmat]

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 <i>only</i> 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 <i>only</i> tier 6. When examining an adornment, it is not clear what tradeskill class can make them without looking it up outside the game.

[Snowdonia]

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 <b><i>by slot per crafter</i></b>. 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 <i>know</i> what any of my other crafters make.

[ZUES]

Aloow transmuters to make EVERY adornmet! It's their tradeskill class!!

[Liyle]

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.

[Beldin_]

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 <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Mighty Melvor]

<cite>ZUES wrote:</cite><blockquote>Aloow transmuters to make EVERY adornmet! It's their tradeskill class!!</blockquote><p>Um no.  Transmuters should only transmute.  THAT is their tradeskill, not making adornments.</p><p>Please move the transmuting adornments to weaponsmiths.  This kills two birds with one stone.  Weaponsmiths get useful adorns, transmuter can skill up on transmuting.</p><p>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.</p><p>Please, PLEASE, make skill ups only come from transmuting items, and give weaponsmiths something to do.</p><p>Ex. Tier 6</p><p>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.</p><p>Please lower the skill-up chances of transmuters, but don't make them CRAFT for it.</p><p>More raws for tradeskillers, less weapon adornments on the market, cheaper treasured adornments on the market.....WIN/WIN/WIN <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p>

[Deson]

Placement: 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. Redundancy: 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. Competition: 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....: <ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul>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 <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul>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: <ul><li>Weaponsmiths- all melee weapon procs/effects </li><li>Woodworkers- all ranged procs/effects</li><li>Sage- spell procs/effects</li><li>Alchemists- resists </li><li>Jewelers- stats</li><li>Armorers- defensive adorns i.e. mit adorns, defensive procs</li><li>Tailor- Raw health/power </li><li>Provisioner- power/health regens </li><li>Carpenter-skill increasers/misc effects </li></ul>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.

[Rijacki]

I need to ponder my posting here.. but, to help others with concrete information: There is a -great- site for all the adornments: Kangamitzi - <a href="http://kanga.h0b0.net/adornments/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://kanga.h0b0.net/adornments/</a> 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.

[Domino]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul> </blockquote> 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.  <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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 ...  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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. <span style="font-size: xx-small">* either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better</span>

[Meio]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul> </blockquote> 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.  <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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 ...  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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. <span style="font-size: xx-small">* either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better</span> </blockquote>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 <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Deson]

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.

[Sykophrog]

<p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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!</p>

[Deson]

After much thought, I want to include <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=366900" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">adornment solvents as discussed here</a>. 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.

[DasUberFuzzy]

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.

[Besual]

<ul><li>For some classes it's difficult to find a suited adornment for some slots (ears for fighter ("best" are the +int ones), feet for healer...). A little bit more balancing here wouldn't hurt.</li><li>Resist adornments are way to weak. To make them acceptable they have to improved to +200 all resists (treasured) -> +400 all resists (fabled) or grant a large bonus to 1-2 resists (500-1000).</li><li>Let the transmuter XP on plain damage proc adornments and give all other (including hp / power leech adornments) to the weaponsmith.</li><li>The HP-regen adornments are to low. They have to be at least 10 times better (30 instead of 3). Even then they will have almost no market. </li></ul>

[Aker]

I really need to agree that + resist adornments are useless and should be replaced with something else or just removed noon use them. Have 4 lvl70 crafter and one of them is weaponsmith (my biggest mistake in game) could Domino give us answer to question  Rijacki asked about that class? Not only that class have use only for low lvl alts, top of everything where adornmants when all best of them for weapons where given to transmuters. I forgot 1 thing reward for WS and all his uselessness  (English is not my language, hope I got word correct) is to be one of the hardest class to lvl up. I know Domino sad in 1 thread that is being looked but lot of time passed and still no talks about solution, if it go out in few years might be little late.

[Terron]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul> </blockquote> 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. <span style="color: #ff9900">That does NOT seem to be what transmuters DO. Before T7 what they do is level up. The waste products are then dumped on the broker in the hope of recovering a few silver. They could produce materials for other crafters to use, or to use with their own crafting class but don't currently as they need the materials themselves. Only once they have reached T7 do they currently do that. With both of those suggestions those who have levelled up would still be able to transmute T7 materials. I only support removing adorns from transmuters though. </span>   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.  <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <span style="color: #ff9900">With the first of those suggestions crafting classes would retain the ability to make adornments, so people who have leveled up to be able to make them would not lose the ability to do so. (Except perhaps for tinkerers but I would rather treat them separately from transmuters)</span> 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 ...  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <span style="color: #ff9900"> It would be a big change, but I think removing adornments from transmuters is necessary. Weaponsmiths need something. and the best weapon adornments are the obvious thing they should have. Transmuters would still retain the exclusive ability to transmute, which at T7 is their main function. If they are a crafter they could make them into adornments themselves, but a wider variety would get made than way so there is less chance of a glut and adventurers below the level cap would have a wider range of adornments to choose from. The current system is messy and not much fun. There should be only one system for levelling up transmuting and it should not involve creating large numbers of goods in little demand. There are compromises between leaving the basic system alone and fixing it. Increasing the cap on skill increases purely by transmuting is one, perhaps with a reduced chance of success to keep the cost up. I do not think they are better, though they could be a stepping stone. </span> 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. <span style="font-size: xx-small">* either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better</span> </blockquote>

[Snorm]

<p>I'm a tank (guard) and a transmuter. While I'm familiar with the full lists of adornments, I'll just speak from personal experience addorning out a tank. Just to provide some idea of what my perspective on the game is, I'm mostly a raider and don't do much in the way of soloing and/or questing.</p><p>Concerning the lack of plus stats to various slots, I always thought that was an intentional balancing decision. If I could get any stat in any slot as a treasured addornment, it would be too easy for scouts to just get all +str, or for tanks to go all +agi/sta, or whatever. As it stands, as a tank, I can get a reasonable amount of stat increases in areas I care about (agi/sta, or str if I wanted) without it being huge. When I got my first full set of treasured addorns, I could tell the difference, but it wasn't game changing. However, it would be kind of nice to grab a full set of + stats as a first pass on getting adorned until your gear started to settle out or you had the resources to upgrade to better adornments.</p><p>People rarely replace adornments on items. There is no progression of geting a treasured adornement, and then upgrading all your adorns up to fabled over time like you do with gear at least in part because of the lack of higher teir adorments that make any sense for a particular character in a lot of slots.</p><p>There are only a few really great tank addornemtns. The +2% riposte (which can only go on slashing weapons.. seems to go against the spirit of the recent relaxation of weapon requirements on AA's), +2% parry for wrists, +7 parry on the forarms, +1% block... those are the only slots that really just make a tank better. There is no option to get a full set of fabled addornments and really step up your tanking abilities. As it stands, addornements fall somewhere between being fluff and required in terms of adding abilities to a toon, which is probably where you want them to be, but it is a little frustrating in terms of character progression that most of my addornments are treasured simply because that's the best addornment for that slot. Also, it's somewhat annoying to not have T7 versions of all addornemtns (ring HP and the sheild block are the two I have) The block I can understand as being a little unique and easy to become overpowing, but is it so much to have a +80HP T7 ring?</p><p>Chest addornments are very dull. Practically all classes get the same +6 to all legendary addorn. Similarly with cloak adorns. HP regin isn't worth a legendary adorn to any class (and probably not even treasured), and FTIII is a reasonable treasured adorn. The last slots most everyone adorns is the belt and cloak.</p><p>The only resist adorns are treasured. Given how resists scale, and their effective importance in the game now, this seems low. Also, there are no fabled or treasured resist items. You can only carry so much gear... if you wanted to really take advantage of the resist addorns as somethign more than, 'well none of the other adorns in this slot are really great, and my XXX resist is weak....' You would need tons of gear. How about a fabled ear and/or ring adorns that would give something like 1k to all resists? Or maybe 2k to half of them or whatever. I can carry an extra set of usable rings and ear rings to swap in as needed if I want resists for a particular fight. Point is, I don't know of anyone that has actually put those on any gear. Or maybe just something insane for a single resist. With the gear I have right now, my mental resist is just horrible. I'd drop 70HP for +3000 mental on a ring slot, and I'd certainly ditch the +14 int on both my ear slots =D.</p><p>For tanks, the slots that stand out as being particularly weak are belt, ear, and helm, more or less in that order. 2% haste, even if stackable, isn't huge and probably not worth a legendary addornment.</p><p> The only addornment that I can think of offhand that is just flat wrong is the fabled +35 HP/Power that can be replecated by two lower level treasured addornments.</p><p>I'm not sure what can be done about it now, but people find the addornment system very hard to follow. I find myself repeatedly explaining which components you need for the various addorns, how you get them, and it certainly isn't obvious who makes what.</p><p>As a muter, we have a few really nice adorns, and some that I can't ever see anyone wanting. I'll go over the list and point out the ones I think are weak when I have more time to actually review them</p><p> Is there any hope of getting HQ items adornable? Bone clasped girdle and the cloak of flames are the two that most people are still using at 70. My understanding is that this has to do with them being able to be turned into house items. I know that all of my guildies and myself would be fine with a warning, either when I adorned the item or when I went to make it placeable that said I would lose any adorment on it as a workaround. But you know you would still get a lot of petitions, no matter what the warning said =D Alternatively, you could make the end game items non-placeable and adornable until a proper fix could be put in place.</p><p>Not really relevant here, but dropped and quested adorns would be very cool.</p><p>As an aside, SOE should hold you up as a shining example of how to interact with the community, and the changes you have made are being very well received. I'm not much of a crafter, but my wife and several of my friends in game craft like fiends. They are both very happy with the changes going through since you have come on board.</p><p> Snorm -- 70 Guad</p>

[Snorm]

<cite>Terron wrote:</cite><blockquote>DominoDev wrote: <span style="color: #ff9900"> It would be a big change, but I think removing adornments from transmuters is necessary. Weaponsmiths need something. and the best weapon adornments are the obvious thing they should have. Transmuters would still retain the exclusive ability to transmute, which at T7 is their main function. If they are a crafter they could make them into adornments themselves, but a wider variety would get made than way so there is less chance of a glut and adventurers below the level cap would have a wider range of adornments to choose from. The current system is messy and not much fun. There should be only one system for levelling up transmuting and it should not involve creating large numbers of goods in little demand. </span> </blockquote><p>I hated.. hated with a burning passion in fact, the fact that I needed to craft in order to level transmuting. All I wanted was the ability to mute stuff that would have rotted on our raids if a muter wasn't present. However, it's pretty much imposible to make any money as a muter except for crating the adornments.</p><p>Two possible solutions: 1. make some kind of byproduct to the transmute that the muter could keep.. a dust or something.. fuel, vendor trash (no-trade even lol), whatever. Just something to give me some incentive as a muter to actually go out of my way when someone says 'Looking for a muter to smoosh all my treasured gear' Right now, if you don't know a muter personally, it's hard to get something transmuted simply becuase of the lack of a convienient way to make it worth the muter's time. Early on, people would charge for the service.. now that just makes you look sketchy =D. As an aside, being able to use the commision system for transmuting would be nice.</p><p>2. If this isn't intended, I'm shooting myself in the foot when RoK comes out, but.... Publicise the mechanics of how muting levels more. I could be wrong, but I personally found it MUCH easier to just level on low level combines. They are a lot cheaper to do, and the skill up rate doesn't fall off all that much. I still can't say that it was cheap, but it's far better to grab up the T1 and T2 legendary, mute that, buy up the frags as needed, and make exclusively T1 and T2 treasured stuff. At T1, you can also use any infusions you get w/o any penalty as long as you pristine it (you get back the only powder that would have been used). People flood the market with the treasured and even some of the legendary muter adorns for all levels, which seems to mean that they are using those to level on, which is just plain sillly. Sure, burn off any drops you happen across, but don't buy stacks and stacks of stuff just to level. If people knew this, only T1 treasured and legendary would be totally w/o value.</p><p>Also, I find that pre T7 adorns sell reasonably well. You can put a T4 adorment on T7 gear, and given the cost for T7, a lot of people do that until they can scrounge up the coin. Also, you don't have to be at level 70 to start adorning your toon. Meaning, you don't HAVE to level at a loss making vendor trash. if you are not particularly concerned with the rate at which you level, just make legendary and fabled adorns at whatever tier you are in and level as they sell.</p><p>in any event, I sympothise with the state of the weaponsmith, but transmuters need some reason to exist outside of being the muter-bot for a guild.</p><p>Snorm -- 70 Guard</p>

[Terron]

Adornments are of little importance at the lower tiers, as it is rather wasteful to spend money improving your currently equipment as that is likely to be replaced quickly. By the time you are interested in wanting to adorn stuff the bonuses from the low level adornments are insignificant. It would make sense to scrap most of the T1 and T2 adornment recipes. The main ones to keep would be the weapon adornments, but all the +5 to a resist and +1 to a stat ones should go. Since there is a tendancy for people to give up on leveling transmuting at skill 100 or shortly afterwards the T3 recipes are a little more useful as they give such people something to do with the materials they can produce.

[Deson]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul> </blockquote> 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.  <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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<b> I haven't yet seen anything to convince me there's absolute necessity in this particular question</b>.  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 ...  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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. <span style="font-size: xx-small">* either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better</span> </blockquote>Ok, addressing this directly now. If some things seem out of place it's because it's adapted from a larger case for nerfs/changes and why some classes should go away- both adventuring and trades. What's posted here is an attempt to make it cover just trades and within that, just the adornment changes proposed by myself. Sometimes, nerfs aren't about now but what's to come. When a class exists, an implicit promise has been made to support it. When a class has certain features, an implicit promise is equally made to keep those features and indeed, to keep them unique. Unaddressed problems at their very best just sit. More oft than not though, they grow and find themselves encroaching on issues yet to come. In the case of adorns,promises currently made are to 11 classes. With every addition, with every tweak, the people in those classes are going to want those promises kept. That means what they currently have, they keep; so weaponsmiths  just aren't going to come up with any of the transmuter adornments. When new weapon procs get added, both transmuters and weaponsmiths both are going to try and lay claim to every one that pops up. There is plenty that can be done now to try and differentiate weapon adorns like adding de-aggro procs and even defensive additions but how many ideas begin to encroach into other markets/territories? Couldn't armorer's, or even woodworkers make legitimate claims to both of those? In trying to support what is essentially an over extended idea, dilution occurs. Exactly why are there so many resist adorns? Proc's that do the exact same thing? Overall questionable adornment distribution?  The earlier argument I admit is impacted in this one because  in the current scheme no one is really certain what markets they should be in. Right now you can add anything and just about every class would have a legitimate itemization claim to it because of redundancies and hair splits.How do you rationally expand in such an environment? When it's seen how far reason has to be stretched and how difficult it is to support the status quo,  sometimes those promises have to be renegotiated or just out and out broken. When that happens, it's best to do it when the problem is seen and as decisively as possible.Holding out because people have already invested is asking for more trouble down the line and usually when that investment is significantly larger. People have invested thousands of plat/lots of time now?Well, that number will only go up. T8 is coming, how much more and indeed, with new blood coming in how many more, will invest into the broken system?  The current scheme does not handle expansion well because of all the groups that need to be supported; it's going to need to be touched sooner or later so why not sooner? Touching on previous changes- how many invested heavily into their chars pre-Lu13 or 24? Or for that matter all the other little tweaks that have come?How many players can deny the overall game improvement after LU13? I'd say 24 as well, but to me, it didn't go far enough and has left us with an incomplete change. I only mention because I feel it's a prime example of the issues that arise with incomplete changes that try to preserve a system that needs to be changed. Will I argue the change is absolutely necessary? No. I can't because I don't know what boundaries exist for expansion and  I don't consider myself a miracle worker. Will I argue that the change is a really good idea? Absolutely.  The system has limits, of that I can be sure and the more room everyone has to move around in it, the less they step on each other's toes.  The more clarity given, the fewer fights over what turf belongs to who. The more room people can expand in, the easier it is to expand them meaningfully instead of resorting to half-splits and convolutions of logic. If there's a compromise to be had, I don't see it. More accurately, there isn't a compromise I see that doesn't leave at least one side very upset anyway and isn't merely a delay of inevitable problems. As I said in my initial reply, good luck however you wish to do it and if you can pull it off, you should ask for the title "Miracle Woman". No matter what you decide people are going to be upset.  People might even quit but, people quit after LU13 too. No small number of them are back and grudgingly admit things are better. As long as a change is done right and for the health of the overall game(and if anything the changes you're already doing are closer to NGE than anything said here) it will blow over. Letting it sit though will only serve to make it harder in the future when it really needs to be done.

[hun_gover]

<p>The problem I find with adornments, is that in effect, a lot of the fabled ones are in fact either pointless or should be legend or treasured items, but as an adorn costing close to 10plat to make, they are not worth making.  Giving people a recipe no one would ever buy. </p><p> Woodworker: Fabled :Scintillating Clemency of the Pontiff - When target casts a healing spell, threat to encounter is reduced.  No Priest needs this adorn, its effectively useless.</p><p>Transmuters: The whole collection of Fabled +pierce or slash etc, they give less benefit than the Proc items you grind Transmuters up on and these are Treasured.  10 plat or 50 gold to do more damage?  you choose <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Transmuters: there are a couple of +10 Defense Fabled Adorns for 2-H weapons.  Why would anyone using a Two-Hander want +defense?  Again an adorn no one will use. </p><p>Resist adornments:  Are worthless whatever value you make them.  Almost all AoE's can be ignored now, and in truth there are enough classes on raids who can protect their groups from AoE's.  Either that or just joust the AoE or heal through it.  I dont really know why anyone would choose to up a resist with an adorn if they can find something else that improves their Tanking/healing/DPS.  </p><p>Why give a 2% haste adorn to Jewelers when they can make a 10% DPS neck adorn?  anyone ever equipped the 2%?</p><p>These are just some examples off the top of my head, the problem is that game mechanics has rendered a lot of adorns useless.  And a large amount of useless ones are fabled.  Ideas of things to replace the fabled with are Spell/Heal/Ranged/Melee Crit chance adorns, these would be worth using and making.</p>

[Deson]

Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote><p>The problem I find with adornments, is that in effect, a lot of the fabled ones are in fact either pointless or should be legend or treasured items, but as an adorn costing close to 10plat to make, they are not worth making.  Giving people a recipe no one would ever buy. </p><p> Woodworker: Fabled :Scintillating Clemency of the Pontiff - When target casts a healing spell, threat to encounter is reduced.  No Priest needs this adorn, its effectively useless.</p><p>Transmuters: The whole collection of Fabled +pierce or slash etc, they give less benefit than the Proc items you grind Transmuters up on and these are Treasured.  10 plat or 50 gold to do more damage?  you choose <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Transmuters: there are a couple of +10 Defense Fabled Adorns for 2-H weapons.  Why would anyone using a Two-Hander want +defense?  Again an adorn no one will use. </p><p>Resist adornments:  Are worthless whatever value you make them.  Almost all AoE's can be ignored now, and in truth there are enough classes on raids who can protect their groups from AoE's.  Either that or just joust the AoE or heal through it.  I dont really know why anyone would choose to up a resist with an adorn if they can find something else that improves their Tanking/healing/DPS.  </p><p>Why give a 2% haste adorn to Jewelers when they can make a 10% DPS neck adorn?  anyone ever equipped the 2%?</p><p>These are just some examples off the top of my head, the problem is that game mechanics has rendered a lot of adorns useless.  And a large amount of useless ones are fabled.  Ideas of things to replace the fabled with are Spell/Heal/Ranged/Melee Crit chance adorns, these would be worth using and making.</p></blockquote>I can see someone using +defense on a two-hander if avoidance wise it parsed out to a decent shield. The haste one is a good point though- why isn't it a spell type haste so it can stack?There was a supposed balance issue before but indeed, the item was fairly different when it came up.

[Phoxtrot]

I think the process of getting a full adornment set is too complex, to get the good ones you have to lookup what each class can do and it isn't intuitive at all. Also, transmuters are realy the dupes here. I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. The profits go to the primary tradeskills making the adornments. This may be the fault of the transmuters themselves for not aggreeing between themselves fo r prices on components but this is the way it goes  on eq2,  readily available stuff will go cheap even if   a huge investment was required to start up the process... I would like a simplification in terms of which class create which adornments but that would mean some classes get nerfed. I don't see this happening. Transmuters need love: Ideas: - Allow leveling on transmutation - Allow transmuters to craft adornments recipes of the primary classes using so me duplicate recipes. - Increase skillup chances for blue-white-yellow recipes ... ?

[Calthine]

<cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote> I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups.

[hun_gover]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote><p>The problem I find with adornments, is that in effect, a lot of the fabled ones are in fact either pointless or should be legend or treasured items, but as an adorn costing close to 10plat to make, they are not worth making.  Giving people a recipe no one would ever buy. </p><p> Woodworker: Fabled :Scintillating Clemency of the Pontiff - When target casts a healing spell, threat to encounter is reduced.  No Priest needs this adorn, its effectively useless.</p><p>Transmuters: The whole collection of Fabled +pierce or slash etc, they give less benefit than the Proc items you grind Transmuters up on and these are Treasured.  10 plat or 50 gold to do more damage?  you choose <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Transmuters: there are a couple of +10 Defense Fabled Adorns for 2-H weapons.  Why would anyone using a Two-Hander want +defense?  Again an adorn no one will use. </p><p>Resist adornments:  Are worthless whatever value you make them.  Almost all AoE's can be ignored now, and in truth there are enough classes on raids who can protect their groups from AoE's.  Either that or just joust the AoE or heal through it.  I dont really know why anyone would choose to up a resist with an adorn if they can find something else that improves their Tanking/healing/DPS.  </p><p>Why give a 2% haste adorn to Jewelers when they can make a 10% DPS neck adorn?  anyone ever equipped the 2%?</p><p>These are just some examples off the top of my head, the problem is that game mechanics has rendered a lot of adorns useless.  And a large amount of useless ones are fabled.  Ideas of things to replace the fabled with are Spell/Heal/Ranged/Melee Crit chance adorns, these would be worth using and making.</p></blockquote>I can see someone using +defense on a two-hander if avoidance wise it parsed out to a decent shield. The haste one is a good point though- why isn't it a spell type haste so it can stack?There was a supposed balance issue before but indeed, the item was fairly different when it came up. </blockquote>If I was tanking and wanted DPS I wold use a buckler and 1-h, if I was DPS'ing and not tanking I would want a 2-h with one of the Offensive adorns, I cannot see any situation in game where anyone would use a 2-h with defence adorn.  When you consider the Adorns in light of game mechanics you realise just how many are really of no worth.

[Niende]

<p>I coordinate all of the adorns for all of the characters in a sizeable raiding guild (with plenty of casual nonraiders also). I'll give some feedback based on what adorns my guild actually find useful based on making THOUSANDS (I dont make any to sell on broker so wont comment on profit margins). I wil only comment on final adorn in each line, earlier ones get outleveled so fast hardly anyone justifies the expense (maybe pvp uses them earlier, I dont know I am on Guk). I'll break it down by slot and apologize in advance if I neglect any adorns and for the size of this post but I feel strongly about this topic.</p><p>Head: Virtually everyone takes 100power, a few take 1% heal crit. 14wis isnt as useful as either of those so might as well not exist in this slot. 100 Mental resist is such a small number noone would ever consider it. </p><p>Cloak: Bad slot. Everyone takes 3 Mana Regen if they feel like wasting a legendary adorn here. 3 Hp regen is silly and completely useless/underwhelming. Falling damage is an OK fluff toy.</p><p>Chest: Every single person takes +6 to stats. +1 mana regen or 100 mental or 100 magic are again superweak (not that +6stats is that great either)</p><p>Shoulder: Decent slot with 3 useful choices: 100hp, 14str, damage shield. Other 3 choices are terrible: 14sta which is less than <-- 100hp, or 100poison or 100disease.</p><p>Forearm: OK slot, has 14wis, 7parry, +mit. Again two weak 100 resist options. Mages pretty hosed in this slot.</p><p>Gloves: Good slot, something for everyone. +heals, +spelldamage, 14agi, 1% ranged crit</p><p>Waist: Bad slot. +5disrupt/subj (why no corresponding +ord/min?), +1% ranged crit, +2 haste which is so paltry after it was nerfed it might as well not exist. 2 haste is terrible</p><p>Leg: 14str, 14sta or 100disease or 100poison. Thats a couple of stat choices which arent very useful to many classes. No interesting effects available whatsoever here yet.</p><p>Feet: 14agi, 14sta, 100cold. Same as leg slot. If you want to add some new adorn lines here is definately some room.</p><p>Neck: +spell damage or heat dot on hostile spell. +heals or +ord/min. +1crit, 2haste, or 10dps. You actually have options in this slot Wow. They arent at all balanced so most choices are obvious but this slot is a good slot nonetheless. Hope more slots have actual choices in the future like Neck.</p><p>Ear: 14int or 100to any resist. Come on. 100 resist like everyone has said before, is nothing. Why only int? Why no effects or skills etc?</p><p>Finger: 70hp or 70mana (both treasured) or 35hp/35mana (fabled) That makes no sense whatsoever since fabled nerf. Also can get 100 to any resist again which is terrible.</p><p>Wrist: Good slot. 14 to Any stat you want!  +2%parry or +mit is cool. But 3hit point regen? That is Nothing in Tier7. The 3 reactive healing procs are interesting but noone takes them unless they are experimenting with a solo farming character or something, pretty weak.</p><p>Ranged Weapon: Everyone takes 10dps on pouch or bow pretty much. The multiple versions of +12damage (normalized) arent very interesting. There's also a power syphon which noone has ever asked for. Could have put some +ranged skill here maybe which is overlooked throughout the game. </p><p>Shield: +1%block, damage shield, +1 heal crit, +mit, or weak reactive heal proc. That's a reasonable amount of choices but most just take +block.</p><p>Symbol: +to various damage types, +1 spell crit, +2 power regen (weak), +disruption/subjugation. Most take spell crit or regen. +damage ends up being so tiny once game factors casting time/targets/duration that you dont actually get that much out of it but that is getting off topic. </p><p>Weapons: There are almost as many weapon adorns as all other gear slots combined! Various elemental procs. A few decent defensive choices. +heals and power taps and lifetaps and spell crit and weapon skill. All of these get requested. The 2hander only choices could use some improvement.</p><p>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>None of the weaponsmith weapon adorns ever get asked for EVER. Only weaponsmith adorn that ever gets asked for is the +spell damage neck (lol). I very rarely need a Sage adorn, but they get so many regular recipes I dont feel very sorry for them. Tailor and Armorer by far have the highest number of requested adorns.</p><p>It has been said many times but I'll say it again. 100 to a resist is Nothing in T7. Please do something about them (removal or substantial increase OR something neat like refreshing ward to that damage type which is way better than resist)</p><p>Please look into making Something useful in every slot for every archtype: fighter,priest,mage,scout. Lots of slots are only relevent to a couple of archtypes. It would be GREAT if there was a choice of a couple things for each archtype in every slot but that is probably wishful thinking.</p><p>Meesh - Survivors - Guk</p>

[Deson]

Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote>If I was tanking and wanted DPS I wold use a buckler and 1-h, if I was DPS'ing and not tanking I would want a 2-h with one of the Offensive adorns, I cannot see any situation in game where anyone would use a 2-h with defence adorn.  When you consider the Adorns in light of game mechanics you realise just how many are really of no worth. </blockquote>Oh? So warriors are the only ones who can use 2-handers? Not arguing with the broader point but there are classes that can make use of it. Now that said, them being fabled.....

[Pelda]

<p>Some slots only have a treasured option.  I would think adding a legendary and Fabled option for these slots would make them alot more useful.  As it is right now some of these slots don't add much value if any.  Resists are a bigger issue.  They are worthless to get at this point due to how they work and only adding +100 doesn't do anything.</p><p>Helm slot:  This slot doesn't have any T7 legendary or Fabled adornments.  The only Fabled is T6 and is a 1% heal crit.  Even the treasured ones don't add much value as a tank.  Currently its +power or +mental or +wis.  Adding a Melee based stat would be a start but would love to see a legendary/Fabled one added as well.</p><p>Chest slot: This is an important piece many get.  I'd like to see the adornment for this be just as important.  The legendary +6 to stats is nice.  A good Fabled one to add value to all classes would be a good addition.</p><p>Shoulders slot:  This is almost the opposite of Helm slot where it is very melee based.  Adding something for our casters/healers would be good here.  Even +int/Wis is a start.  The legendary is damage on melee.  Why not a damage on spell as well.</p><p>Leg slot:  Again a critical slot I would like to see an good adornment.  Currently it only has 4 treasured items that are ok.  +resists really don't mean alot.  Otherwise its str/sta.  I wouldn't mind seeing a legendary/fabled adornment added.  Maybe +crit, +melee or even +incombat runspeed.</p><p>Boots: Again no legendary/fabled items.  It currently has AGI/STA and a resist.  Nothing really decent for a caster/healer.  Runspeed/haste/crits would be decent for this.</p><p>Neck:  This is the opposite issue of some of the above.  It doesn't have any treasured items!  Treasured adornments are good to get when you know your going to upgrade the item soonish.  +stats would be good for this.</p><p>Ear: No legendary/fabled items.  +100 to resists really doesn't do anything with how resists work currently.  Only a +int for stats.  Spell haste/melee haste for fabled would be good.</p><p>Waist:  No treasured items.  Again stats or skill abilities would be good for that.</p><p>I think some of the legendary or Fabled adornments could include +aggression, +skill (ie pierce/slash/subjugation etc) as long as its an OK number.  Resists need to go up to make them worth while.  Even a fabled resist at +600 I'd consider or a treasured that has more than just 1 resist may be worth while.  Fabled +hate items would be very valuable with the hate changes coming.</p>

[Lasai]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul></blockquote> 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.  <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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 ...  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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. <span style="font-size: xx-small">* either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better</span> </blockquote><p> I also feel that adorns should be removed from transmuters, and that they should be able to level by doing what they do.. Transmuting.  You would not be removing what transmuters "DO", what they do is provide raw materials to thier main craft or crafter, raws to the market, what transmuters produce in the way of adornments is oversupplied, underpriced bulk grind junk.</p><p>The situation is just going to get worse, and it is by far the most cost intensive and frustrating level up system in the game.</p><p>Economically it is creating a shambles.  Treasured gear and adepts are inflated, raw transmuting materials are inflated, lower tier adorns are hidiously inflated in some cases.  I've sold t3 Prismatic chest adorns for over a plat</p><p>The fact that Transmuters are forced to level on weapons adorns floods the market with stacks of goods priced just over fuel costs.. and make the WS adorns a waste of time.  The current system negates an entire tradeskills adornment recipes.. did you really want that?</p><p>Unpopular?  I think if you actually asked most leveling Transmuters which they would prefer, leveling by grinding tempers.. or leveling by transmuting.. the choice to level by Transmute would be overwhelming.</p><p>On Nektulos the going price for opal shards is 7gold.  These are used to produce tempers you can buy for Fuel cost.  How in the WORLD can you justify a system that forces this type of waste, cost and frustration?</p><p>Time to fix it is now, not let it just grandfather along in this sorry state.  It should have never been set up as it was, and the fact it was let go too long doesnt change that.</p><p>T7 adorns are so prohibitively expensive that they are not being purchased/utilized until a person feels they have thier final piece of armor.  Instead of being used to enhance mid tier or PM armor.. they end up going on the best endgame gear a person thinks they can get.  Nobody is going to put a 9plat adorn on a 2plat Legendary.. Or a 2 plat treasured adorn on a piece of MC.  </p><p>Adorns should be of some value to every level and every playstyle.  At this time (and around t3) they are the playground of the very well financed twink.. or endgame raider.   Was this the intent? </p><p>Price raws and Adorns produced at "Level by Transmute" levels.. T1 and T2.  Then price t3 and up.. and see just what kind of market this leveling system has created.</p>

[Mighty Melvor]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul></blockquote> 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.  <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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 ...  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 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. <span style="font-size: xx-small">* either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better</span> </blockquote><p>I'm not really sure how the first option takes away anything from transmuters.  A transmuter's primary goal is to skill-up, not to make weapon adornments that constantly flood the market and earn zero profit.  Once transmuters skill up to 70, what is their primary function?? certainly not to make weapon adornments.  Their function is to be the transmuter for the guild or raid.</p><p>And changing the skill-up scheme for transmuters (as I suggested earlier) does not make it less taxing to skill-up.  All it does is allow the raws from transmuting to be available to other crafters so that everyone can compete in the adornment market.  Share the wealth I say!  </p>

[Lasai]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote><p> Calthine, that is only true if you fall into the trap of ignoring opportunity cost.  Considering the market value of shards and powders you ground up on the way to maxing Transmuting.. I doubt you have recouped.  Also.. you recouped as a Woodworker.. not a Transmuter.  I suspect the profit from a T7 Reinforced Fastener is a bit better than a T7 temper or binding.</p><p>So, in essense, you haven't "recouped" as a transmuter.  You gained the freedom to produce raws for your main tradeskiller instead of producing skillups.   Honestly.. could you have made up the cost of leveling WITHOUT another tradeskill.. could you have done this solely as a transmuter?  Granted.. Transmuting is a secondary skill.. however, Tinkering, another secondary skill, can be leveled with self harvesting of common raws, even if the amount is staggering sometimes.</p><p>We don't see Tinkers creating level locked alts to farm noob island.. farm named, farm specific levels.  We do see Transmuters having to do that.  That says a ton about the current system.  Right now my Transmuter typifies the system.  Level locked on newb isle for 12000 kills.  Level locked at 19 for that Tiers worth of named farming.  Right now, level locked at 32 for maximization of T4 quest rewards to transmute, and she won't level further until those rewards have been exhausted.  Its a phony system leading to phony gameplay.  Even worse is my good friend's account.  Level 9 locked island twink to take advantage of that transmuting market, Level 13 locked twink to take advantage of Ruins/GY/Cemetary named.. for transmuting market.  Level 19 Locked twinks to take advantage of CL/Wailing/Blackburrow named.. for Transmuting market.  Multiply that times the amount of accounts doing it.. and you can see the real impact of the Transmuting system.  My friend is leveling transmuting by using the gold/raws produced from 4 twinks created to do so.  That is hardly healthy or "intended', at least to me.</p><p>Bottom line is, the main function of a Transmuter is production of raws.  Forcing them to level by adornment grinding ignores this basic function, and creates a very artificial market.</p>

[Rijacki]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote> I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote>It doesn't cost as much, yes, if you only transmute T1 and T2 and use those components to level on.  But.. that also creates -very- inflated prices for T1 and T2 goods or people feeling they're required to have an alt level locked on the island mowing down stuff or harvesting in rings. While I don't think that newbie players are prevented from attaining items like some do (heck, they can sell in the inflated market and then buy what they want.. and no one really -needs- broker goods until T3 or T4), it does give an oddly skewed market and a new player might well be frustrated/confused by the high prices they can get for T1 and T2 stuff with their T3+ stuff not getting much more than NPC buy prices. I agree that the other problem is the utter lack of components for any other class for T1 to T6 because, if a transmuter does 'mute something then, they'll likely keep it for their own crafting skill-ups.  However, without the skill up by crafting aspect, if transmuters only leveled on 'muting, the skill progression would be too rapid, bottable, and the even more isolated only to the very rich.  It's a hard hard hard balance issue.  While I do dislike the effects transmuters skilling only by crafting has, I don't know that there is a better solution. Perhaps, though, if their crafting was making components other classes use and not adornments to be used directly, it would have been better.

[Deson]

<cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote><p> Calthine, that is only true if you fall into the trap of ignoring opportunity cost.  Considering the market value of shards and powders you ground up on the way to maxing Transmuting.. I doubt you have recouped.  Also.. you recouped as a Woodworker.. not a Transmuter.  I suspect the profit from a T7 Reinforced Fastener is a bit better than a T7 temper or binding.</p><p>So, in essense, you haven't "recouped" as a transmuter.  You gained the freedom to produce raws for your main tradeskiller instead of producing skillups.   </p><p>Bottom line is, the main function of a Transmuter is production of raws.  Forcing them to level by adornment grinding ignores this basic function, and creates a very artificial market.</p></blockquote>Her experience tracks with mine.  We both skilled up on t1 items while doing other things. Once I broke t1 I never posted a loss because while I was grinding on t1 combines, I was marketing raws from every tier I could so so effectively.

[Deson]

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote> I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote>It doesn't cost as much, yes, if you only transmute T1 and T2 and use those components to level on.  But.. that also creates -very- inflated prices for T1 and T2 goods or people feeling they're required to have an alt level locked on the island mowing down stuff or harvesting in rings. While I don't think that newbie players are prevented from attaining items like some do (heck, they can sell in the inflated market and then buy what they want.. and no one really -needs- broker goods until T3 or T4), it does give an oddly skewed market and a new player might well be frustrated/confused by the high prices they can get for T1 and T2 stuff with their T3+ stuff not getting much more than NPC buy prices. I agree that the other problem is the utter lack of components for any other class for T1 to T6 because, if a transmuter does 'mute something then, they'll likely keep it for their own crafting skill-ups.  However, without the skill up by crafting aspect, if transmuters only leveled on 'muting, the skill progression would be too rapid, bottable, and the even more isolated only to the very rich.  It's a hard hard hard balance issue.  While I do dislike the effects transmuters skilling only by crafting has, I don't know that there is a better solution. Perhaps, though, if their crafting was making components other classes use and not adornments to be used directly, it would have been better. </blockquote>On Lucan, the market has pretty much settled. While I hate using Lucan as an example because we've always had an odd economy compared to others, it does show the issues aren't universal.  The botting argument has to be dropped. Not only does it come up too much but in this case, it's meaningless. Where's the real difference between gaining skill-ups through transmuting and the current system?Pristine isn't even needed.If anything, removing the crafting aspect makes it more accessible for those who never wanted to craft and those who don't see the logic in consuming the very raws you are supposed to be producing. More practically speaking, at worst, the costs stays the same as it is now; Likely, costs will actually go down for leveling since people aren't consuming so many raws and leveling transmuters are no longer driving up raw prices. I've also considered the option of crafting other subs for actual use but the more I considered it, the more it seemed as pointless as old subs were; a needless component to cover a system weakness and the lack of actual depth.

[Snorm]

Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote>Transmuters: there are a couple of +10 Defense Fabled Adorns for 2-H weapons.  Why would anyone using a Two-Hander want +defense?  Again an adorn no one will use.  <p>...</p><p>Why give a 2% haste adorn to Jewelers when they can make a 10% DPS neck adorn?  anyone ever equipped the 2%?</p></blockquote><p>Defense on a 2 hander isn't a horrible thing. Crusaders in particular still tank wearing 2 handers a lot, and they are starting to put two handers that you could clearly tank in into the game (Axe of Unending War, and the Sword of Pure Valor spring to mind). I'd like to see it beefed up a hair.. +10 Def and +10 parry or something, but that may be asking a bit much. +4% riposte.. dunno. But the point is, in spirit, something that helps you tank with a 2 hander isn't horrible.</p><p>Hate and DPS are completely separate. I'm personally wearing both the 10DPS neck and the 2% haste (and the 10DPS ranged, for what it's worth). They all stack, and the 2% haste belt stacks with the 20% haste 2 hander adorn. My only beef with the 2% belt adorn is that it should either be made treasured or pushed up to 5% or so.</p><p>Snorm -- 70 Guard </p>

[Undorett]

<p>When transmuting and tinkering came out I went transmuting because I loved the idea of being able to customize my equipment, boost stats of myself and guildmates, and I knew we would need someone who would put the time in.  It seems much of the customization has gone away, as in every slot there is one best thing to get.  Many of the resists are too low to matter with the mitigation/resist changes that came out with EoF.  Gear that is relatively easy to obtain gets you near the point diminishing returns really kick in.  My choice is +100 to 1 resist or +70 to health; the 70 health helps me on every encounter and is nearly 1% of most players health at lv70 (some classes such as fighters/priests have quite a bit more I do realize, but the classes with high health tend to have high resists as well - especially priests with the wisdom they tend to have) and +100 to one resist at level 70 is typically less than 1% more mitigation to that element.  For me to be better off with the resist (lets say on a ring), I would need to get all 7 resists on separate rings and switch them in as necessary; however this would not help me vs. all the other damage that could be done to me such as crushing/slashing/piercing.  So you end up being better off adding 70 health (if we are talking about survivability) to your best rings because that is an extra 1% damage that could be done to you before you die against any type of damage.  Due to this I rarely see people use adornments that add to resists.  This goes for many of the other +resist adornments as well.  I believe that they need a small bump in power to make them realistic to add to items over other adornments.  </p><p>One thing I have found to be strange with adornments is that if I was to put one of the fabled adornments for the rings on each of my rings, I would be no better off than putting one of each of the treasured (70health and 70power).  I would suggest that the fabled adornment be changed to having higher total stats than the treasured one.  Also, why do these increase only every other tier rather than each tier?</p><p>Personally I would like to see every slot (as well as every crafting class) have at least a few treasured adornments, one legendary, and one fabled (each could have more than this, but as a rule of thumb at least this many).  </p><p>There are quite a few adornments for melee classes (+haste, +dps mod, +procs on bows etc), but casting classes have it a bit harder.  I would suggest looking at making some more adornments geared to the casters such as +spell haste, +procs to cast spells, etc.  With the new hate changes coming out soon, it may be worth it to look into minus hate procs for spells as well as melee as well as + hate procs (or +hate straight up) that could be added to items (I would suggest not weapons as we have quite a few weapon procs already).  </p><p>Another thing I would like to see eventually would be fabled/legendary adornments that could possibly add to main skills used by each class.  Maybe for a guardian + 50 to their single target taunt, +100 to a wizard's ice nova, +100 to the ward amount from a mystic's single target ward, etc.  This would help further customize people as people would need to choose which skill they needed more if a few adornments for each character were available on the same item.  </p>

[Nahlis]

<p><span style="color: #0066ff">Personally, I really like this idea.  Also, some way to search for Adornments  by slot on the broker would be extremely helpful!</span></p><p>Snowdonia@Runnyeye wrote: </p><blockquote>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 <b><i>by slot per crafter</i></b>. 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 <i>know</i> what any of my other crafters make. </blockquote>

[Finora]

Snorm wrote: <blockquote><p>Is there any hope of getting HQ items adornable? Bone clasped girdle and the cloak of flames are the two that most people are still using at 70. My understanding is that this has to do with them being able to be turned into house items. I know that all of my guildies and myself would be fine with a warning, either when I adorned the item or when I went to make it placeable that said I would lose any adorment on it as a workaround. But you know you would still get a lot of petitions, no matter what the warning said =D Alternatively, you could make the end game items non-placeable and adornable until a proper fix could be put in place.</p></blockquote> Man, this is one I'd love to see. Give a warning both when you adorn it and when you go to change it to a house item. I don't know of anyone that makes their HQ items until they are finished using them anyway (other than when they first got them to see what they look like maybe). If you are done using it then it shouldn't even matter that the adornment is destroyed. If it were a non-HQ item it would have just been vendored, transmuted or feed to your altar anyway with the same result (adornment gone).

[Rathskael]

<p>Why can't the adornments be broken down by a Transmuter? After gaining skill points from making them after level 20, a Transmuter should be able to break them down so that a Treasured item yields 1 fragment, Legendary yields 1 powder and Fabled...nope, who would think of breaking that down! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>That will stop Transmuters flooding the market with those Treasured weapon adornments and give something back for the next combine.</p><p>The +100 resist adornments are probably the most useless items. Might be better to turn it into a ward effect with a sufficient level to help protect the individual. A number of such wards could stack. Treasured ward to protect against 1 of mental, magic, heat, etc. Legendary ward to protect against 1 of noxious, elemental, etc. Fabled ward to protect against all.</p><p>I'm not sure if adornments with a ward would upset game balance, but it would certainly give people another option for some of the slots if they had the choice.</p>

[Agaxiq]

My suggestions: Transmuting: I wouldn't think all of these changes would work, but a few of them would.  (Doing all of them would be too drastic) *  Allow Handcrafted items to be transmuted with a slightly smaller percentage to get a powder. *  Don't increase powder usage in transmuter combines with the growing tiers as much.  (T7 uses way too many powders) *  Allow us to transmute adornments themselves *  Allow us to adorn heritage quest items *  More reaction arts for crafting adornments as a transmuter.  They really should be the same as crafting. *  Allow skillups on transmuting for transmuting past 100.  make them happen 50% as often, but they should still happen. *  Allow us to break down or combine transmuter subs.  For example, combining 4 fragments gives us a powder, 4 powers gives us an infusion - but breaking down a powder gives 3-4 fragments. *  Same thing as above, but allow us to up the tiers.  4 t6 powders combine to give one t7 powder, or something. Adornments: Other than stat bonuses and the occasional +1 spell crit, there are not many choices for casters.  Sure, we can do the +14 INT thing on a few slots, there is a "satisfactory" spell proc on the neck slot (which is fabled but certainly not fabled in quality) - but almost everything else is geared toward melee.  Healers have it bad as well, unless they are a melee healer.  Don't get me started on the "increases spell damage by up to 25" bit those are really bad.  Yes, we get them, because there is no other choice, but they really are no good, certainly not fabled. And of course, the cheapest adornments are the melee ones, because its what the transmuters do to level up!  Its just not balanced enough. Suggestions: *  Bump up the damage on the Neck spell damage proc by quite a bit, or at least have a few other slots that we can add that adornment to. *  Have similar adornments for casters that the melee's have that are made by transmuters.  I'd love to get a hostile spell damage proc on my wand like a melee player can get on successful attack.  Instead of a life tap, make it a power tap.  Melee players have at least 3-4 different choices as well, we get zero. *  Make a straight power-tap on hostile spell adornment. *  The encounter deagro is not enough for a fabled adornment.  It should be 3000 or so at least, or should proc at least 4 times a minute.   If I'm doing 2000dps to an encounter and this procs once a minute for 1000 or so de-hate - thats like a 1% deagro.   I'm sure one could nit-pick my math but ultimately it really does not make a difference. *  Ward procs.  Would love to see a hostile spell ward proc or chance of a stoneskin.  That would be a fabled one. *  As many others have stated, getting something like +100 cold is really worthless.  It would need to be at least 400-500 for anyone to bother, and then yes, we might put it on resist gear we have for specific encounters. *  Charm slots need some adornments *  Would be nice to be able to adorn a strongbox with weight reduction so that casters can actually carry even fractional amounts to a melee.  yes, the coin consolidation is great, but this would be the next step <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  This would be probably be a tinkered adornment, with some clever Gnomish name for the weight reduction. Just some ideas.  Again, I wouldn't expect all of them, but take your pick of the lot <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> agressiv

[Merkad]

A rather minor thing, in the scheme of things, but I always have wondered why the ranged slot was chosen to bear a +dps adornment. Melee types can have their 1-2 procs, plus get the full dps mod from the adornment on their ranged weapon, but ranged types (rather type) just gets the dps mod (since we rarely ever use melee weapons beyond CAs here and there). I seriously doubt any would ever take a proc for the bow. Imo, it would be better to move the dps mods to the rings or wrists (though rings seems to be a better overall choice, since some people like the wrists' defensive adornments) and off the neck/ranged slot. Then add the HP/Power adornments to the neck slot (if it was rings that was chosen). This would still allow +20 total dps mod, HP/Power, and grant a ranged proc. Granted, I am a Ranger and thus I have an obvious bias, but I don't think it is fair that we don't get adornment procs on our bows (unless you are daft and choose that over a 10dps mod). Merkades, 70th Ranger. Siege, Najena. Edit -  I suppose a way to sidestep the work of switching things around, or if say magi dislike the proposed change, would be to just alter the current ranged adorments to feature a proc +the current dps mod, those procs are not exactly a huge dps gain, so I cannot see this as imbalanced. The one who gains the most from it (Rangers) would only be gaining the proc they are currently deprived of.

[KerowynnKaotic]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul></blockquote> Are either of these really an option at this late stage though? *snipped* </blockquote><p>As the Dev Team is so fondly in favor of pointing out .. It is NEVER too late to fix a bad situation. </p><p>I would fully support the Removal of Adorns from Transmuters as long as we could gain skill through Transmuting. (our primary focus)  To balance out skill gain there could be a diminishing returns curve as we skill up .. whereas at skill 5/350 we would have a 80% chance at a skill up on a lvl 3 item .. we would have a 8% chance of a skill up at skill 200/350 using that same lvl 3 item but would have a 80% chance at a skill up on lvl 45 item .. etc .. </p><p>Transmuters don't NEED adorns.   Adorns NEED us!  .. </p><p>As for Tinkerers .. well .. I wouldn't care if the Adorns were removed from them and gave to the WW's .. since My Tinkerer IS my Woodworker .. lol .. but .. you could also give them new adorns that attatch to the Charm Slot (hex / crafting tools & any other none consumeable item) and give them things like +alcohol tolerance, +safe fall, or +Weight Reduction .. silly things like that .. </p><p>Tinkerers are a rather silly bunch, anyway .. </p><p>----</p><p>I'm also in favor of a complete overhaul to the who gets what for Adorns .. something along the lines of what MW2k2 suggested .. </p><p>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.</p><p>Reasons I prefer the SLOTs to be divided is that #1 it would make it easier on the consumer to know who to contact for X-slot and #2 the Stats / Effects can be reshuffled and possibly be given in muliple choices.   In the future those Stats/Effects deemed to good to be easily acquired on every slot can then be given to us in the form of Rarer Books on Adorns.</p><p>IE:  if I really wanted to I could eventually cover myself in +Agi adorns.  </p><p>Options are good.  But, the current set up is rather limiting and overall very confusing.  </p><p>Edit Add:  Oh!  I did a quickly look through the Resist Adorns .. And YES I agree.   The Resist ones are the most worthless ones of the bunch.   They need to be #1 - Muliple Stat Resists (Treasured = 2 / Legendary = 3 / Fabled = 4/all) and #2 in the higher Tiers the bonus needs to be at least increased by 2x .. if not 4x ..  Resists are a very focused upgrade. And, the higher one goes up in levels the more and more resists are required to even get a partial pass on that incoming MOB/PC spell .. </p>

[Morrolan V]

<p>Great thread.</p><p>Many good suggestions here.  As my guild's transmuter, I add my "Agree heartily" to:</p><ol><li>+100 Resist is a joke.  Nobody has ever asked for one of these.  Increase it, make it multiple categories, make it a refreshing ward.  As it is, these can just be removed.</li><li>Ear and waist adornments are quite weak overall.</li><li>Ring adornments are weak and rather broken (2 fabled adornments should be at least 2x 2 treasured.  Having them be equal is . . . wrong.)</li><li>It would be helpful if SOMETHING else could be done with all the adornments transmuters make for leveling.  Making them transmutable themselves seems like the best bet.</li><li>ADD THE TRADESKILL CLASS THAT MAKES IT TO THE ADORNMENT DESCRIPTION!  This is huge, and seems like it would be rather straightforward.</li><li>Fix the broker search functionality.  Totally borked at the moment - no way to search adornments effectively.</li></ol><p>One additional suggestion to add interest to adornments: Set effects for adornments like on the EoF class armor.  There are clearly a very wide range of possiblities here, but it seems like a very good way to add interesting effects with adornments without as much of a chance of creating imbalance.  It would be possilble to add some really powerful effects with a set of 5 fabled adornments for example, but since that would necessarily take up 5 slots, it's less likely to result in overbalance as players min/max the selections.</p>

[Timaarit]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote> I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote>Again I have to disagree with you Calthine. You must mean it takes hardly any capita. You see all the items you spend on transmuting will reduce your available cash. If you didn't transmute them, you could sell them on broker. I remember that you dont count raws as an expense either since you harvest them your self. They still are. For transmuting you need to get the transmutable items your self, the money loss comes from the fact that if you didn't transmute them, you could sell them. If you use materials that you could have sold on broker for 30g to make an item you can sell for 1g, that means you just lost 29g even if you collected the materials off from mobs or nodes yourself and didn't actually pay anything. It is still loss. This really isn't debatable issue, it doesn't matter where the materials come from, they will still have a value on the market and using the materials to make a worthless product will mean an equal loss. In transmuting, tinkering and crafting in general.

[BigChiefJJ]

<cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote>Again I have to disagree with you Calthine. You must mean it takes hardly any capita. You see all the items you spend on transmuting will reduce your available cash. If you didn't transmute them, you could sell them on broker. I remember that you dont count raws as an expense either since you harvest them your self. They still are. For transmuting you need to get the transmutable items your self, the money loss comes from the fact that if you didn't transmute them, you could sell them. If you use materials that you could have sold on broker for 30g to make an item you can sell for 1g, that means you just lost 29g even if you collected the materials off from mobs or nodes yourself and didn't actually pay anything. It is still loss. This really isn't debatable issue, it doesn't matter where the materials come from, they will still have a value on the market and using the materials to make a worthless product will mean an equal loss. In transmuting, tinkering and crafting in general. </blockquote><p>Agree, but to a point - there are always opportunity costs of what you could do with it.  But the amount of money you can get for these items on the broker now are the direct result of transmuters needing them to work with.  How long ago was it that you could find Adept 1's at prices below vender buy back! </p><p>Does this get us to the chicken and egg arguement? </p>

[Calthine]

<cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote> I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote>Again I have to disagree with you Calthine. You must mean it takes hardly any capita. You see all the items you spend on transmuting will reduce your available cash. If you didn't transmute them, you could sell them on broker. I remember that you dont count raws as an expense either since you harvest them your self. They still are. For transmuting you need to get the transmutable items your self, the money loss comes from the fact that if you didn't transmute them, you could sell them. If you use materials that you could have sold on broker for 30g to make an item you can sell for 1g, that means you just lost 29g even if you collected the materials off from mobs or nodes yourself and didn't actually pay anything. It is still loss. This really isn't debatable issue, it doesn't matter where the materials come from, they will still have a value on the market and using the materials to make a worthless product will mean an equal loss. In transmuting, tinkering and crafting in general. </blockquote>I phrased my post very carefully.  My perspective involves strictly cash-out-of-pocket.  I don't believe in opportunity costs for stuff lying around to be picked up.

[KerowynnKaotic]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>*SNIPPED* </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote></blockquote><p>How about we just say that Transmuting is a very expensive skill regardless of whether that cost comes from .. Time Invested,  The Purchase of Items or in the Lost of Potential Income and get back to the original intent of the thread ... </p><p><img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p>

[Deson]

<cite>KerowynnKaotic wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>*SNIPPED* </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote></blockquote><p>How about we just say that Transmuting is a very expensive skill regardless of whether that cost comes from .. Time Invested,  The Purchase of Items or in the Lost of Potential Income and get back to the original intent of the thread ... </p><p><img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p></blockquote>What if I disagree with those perspectives as well? Calthine did it the same way I did essentially. If you are in a hurry then yes, it can be expensive in all those respects- just like everything else in game.  The way we did it though, the only opportunity cost that was lost was the first couple weeks when everything was at ridiculous prices- and most posters here missed out on that one. Calthine worded it carefully, and I actually disagree with that because it glosses over the truth here- it's only expensive if you do it that way . My total investment at best is 30pp(and that's a gross overestimation since I wasn't counting) because I was buying up t1 rares and crafts. However, I know for fact I broke t1 at almost 0 cost and only about 2 hours play and afterward I was raking in profit hand over fist selling raws I could profitably transmute. Transmuting is one of those things that varies depends on how you decide to engage it; there is nothing inherently expensive about it no matter what your measure if you don't engage it that way.

[Deson]

Back on topic as requested... <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=370653" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">I want to add this post into the discussion as well.</a> Currently transmuters are completely bound to the RNG and unable to willfully respond to market demands. The latter suggestion in the OP with proper balancing could be a great tool to allow transmuters to respond to their markets without just taking a mass of item and praying.

[Lasai]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>KerowynnKaotic wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>*SNIPPED* </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote></blockquote><p>How about we just say that Transmuting is a very expensive skill regardless of whether that cost comes from .. Time Invested,  The Purchase of Items or in the Lost of Potential Income and get back to the original intent of the thread ... </p><p><img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p></blockquote>What if I disagree with those perspectives as well? Calthine did it the same way I did essentially. If you are in a hurry then yes, it can be expensive in all those respects- just like everything else in game.  The way we did it though, the only opportunity cost that was lost was the first couple weeks when everything was at ridiculous prices- and most posters here missed out on that one. Calthine worded it carefully, and I actually disagree with that because it glosses over the truth here- it's only expensive if you do it that way . My total investment at best is 30pp(and that's a gross overestimation since I wasn't counting) because I was buying up t1 rares and crafts. However, I know for fact I broke t1 at almost 0 cost and only about 2 hours play and afterward I was raking in profit hand over fist selling raws I could profitably transmute. Transmuting is one of those things that varies depends on how you decide to engage it; there is nothing inherently expensive about it no matter what your measure if you don't engage it that way. </blockquote><p>Lets reflect on this statement.  I assume, with knowledge gleaned from test center, you did your buying up of T1 prior to the LU release to live.. a common practice, and correct me if I am wrong.  However, this does not apply for players now, or in the future.</p><p>Secondly, the process to level up on T1 only requires a dedicated, locked farming alt.  There is no way that method is going to work without that, as today T1 still sells at an average of 3g per item on my server.</p><p>Yes, it can be made to work cheaper with extraordinary methods.  Name another tradeskill that requires the creation of an exp locked alt char to allow you to level.  There is no way that you went back and collected chests on T1 mobs with your main.   Ok, say you went the manufacture route and made t1 Rares to break.. guess what, you still used another skillset, time and effort, waste of materials, all something no other craft is required to have done for them.</p><p>Rationalize it all you want, it is seriously broken.  It takes too many machinations, too many locked alts, too much mass farming, too many phony shortcuts to make work.  </p><p>Every other craft in this game can stand alone.  For ANYONE to say that transmuting works, as it is, put yourselves in the position of the Adventuror/Transmuter with no TS class, and then try to make it work without rolling an alt to feed it.  It won't work, and none of the methods people used can make it work.</p><p>If you take it as a stand alone tradeskill, without multiple chars or a tradeskiller to sell more profitable adorns, it IS inherently expensive, there is no way to gloss over that simple fact.</p><p>Im leveling Transmuting on my Warden as she levels.  You can say there is no opportunity costs.. well.  She sells no loots but non-transmutes.  She breaks all adepts and quest rewards.  What little gold she makes adventuring goes into more items to break, bought from other adventurers.  She gets no skill ups from any of this, from all of this loot that COULD have been sold she gets a small fraction of the mats needed to make a single skill point.  She does make a little coin from T4 adorns.. but NOT as a transmuter, as an Alchemist.. and every adorn built takes away mats that could have been used to level.   No other tradeskill consumes like Transmuting.</p><p>Imagine being a woodworker, but, nodes grey out and are unharvestable as you level.  Imagine these nodes single pull a "chunk of wood" similar to the loot table for wood chests.  Imagine this "chunk of wood" then has to be broken down into various parts needed for woodworking, requiring two different parts, and what part you get being totally random and subject to the RNG.  Then, tell me this version of Woodworker isn't "broken".</p>

[Deson]

I'm not going to quote you because your statements are false and presumptive, and I say that from my experience and the experiences of Calthine and others that posted on it. I was 70/70 on my main when EoF launched and almost all my skill-ups came from harvesting, crafting then transmuting- I bought nothing pre-launch and actually did tinkering before transmuting(also all harvesting myself in 2 weeks). Anyone can use the method I did at any point in the game and with the way t1 rares pop, it's not as intensive has people make it out to be. I do agree it's broken, I've said it since launch and have repeatedly posted for changes in it. That however does not mean I can't see how easy and cheap it actually can be. Calthine and my experiences(and the experience of those who actually paid attention and decided to do it) refute most of the complaints here. As I feel this to be a derail, I'm going  to go into the depth that was posted before but invite you to repost this in another thread so people can compare notes.

[Timaarit]

<cite>BigChiefJJ wrote:</cite><blockquote>Agree, but to a point - there are always opportunity costs of what you could do with it.  But the amount of money you can get for these items on the broker now are the direct result of transmuters needing them to work with.  How long ago was it that you could find Adept 1's at prices below vender buy back! <p>Does this get us to the chicken and egg arguement? </p></blockquote>Not really. Earlier people did vendor most of the lower level treasured items certainly. Transmuting created a market for that stuff and thus raised the prices. However that is not the issue. Issue is that if you decide to farm for your transmutables, within the current system you could have sold those materials. If there was no transmuting, you wouldn't be wasting your time farming t1. So no chicken and egg argument. For me transmuting to 350 took about 80p investment and around 50p worth or materials I farmed myself. 80p was easy to see because that is how much my cash reserves went down from buying stuff on broker, the 50p is a guestimate from the amount of stuff I farmed. Now referring to Calthine, I could have continued farming t1 and t2 for the items but I was really in a hurry. Now when I farm t1 and t2, I just transmute and sell any powders for very high profit. Which would not be possible if I was still trying to get skillups for transmuting and would thus be considered as opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is not a matter of belief, it really does exist. Even SOE believes in opportunity cost as they have priced the treasured stuff on vendors.

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00">I do plan to have my Jeweler main support my Transmuter when I get around to leveling the transmuter. I just wish there were more...interesting choices for some of the less powerful (<i>and affordable)</i> items.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">BTW I keep seeing RNG and I never seem to see what that refers to? Is ana artist not an anacronym-smith. </span><img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Deson]

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00cc00">I do plan to have my Jeweler main support my Transmuter when I get around to leveling the transmuter. I just wish there were more...interesting choices for some of the less powerful (<i>and affordable)</i> items.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">BTW I keep seeing RNG and I never seem to see what that refers to? Is ana artist not an anacronym-smith. </span><img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote>Random Number Generator. If you want advice how to level it cheaply and without much headache feel free to ask.

[Zabjade]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00cc00">I do plan to have my Jeweler main support my Transmuter when I get around to leveling the transmuter. I just wish there were more...interesting choices for some of the less powerful (<i>and affordable)</i> items.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">BTW I keep seeing RNG and I never seem to see what that refers to? Is ana artist not an anacronym-smith. </span><img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote>Random Number Generator. If you want advice how to level it cheaply and without much headache feel free to ask. </blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00">Thank you. </span>

[sliderhouserules]

A couple general points: <ul><li>I firmly believe all adornment recipes, and any crafting of any kind, should be removed from Transmuters. Firmly believe this. The sooner the better. Transmuting should be a resource-acquisition skill, ala harvesting. Nothing more. Concerns about people that have sunk money into it are put into perfect perspective, when you think how many people reach 100 skill level and then keep on trucking along with *no* skill ups not having the slightest clue what's going on, not to mention the fact that I doubt *anyone* leveled their transmuting skill to be able to make the transmuter adornments.</li><li>I think Tinkerers should only have those adornments that have a tinkering flavor to them. Some existing adorns should be moved to them, and some of their existing ones should probably be given to other classes. They should have adorns like reduced falling damage on cloaks, light source on the head and run speed enhancements (both suggested earlier), stuff like that. There are all kinds of cool adornments that could be made for tinkerers that have a distinct tinkerer flavor. (I want to adorn my carpet with fae fall!) </li><li>I think raw usage for adornment recipes is a bit out of hand. (I think raw usage for *all* crafted recipes is out of hand...) I think they use too many raws at the higher levels and the way raws are returned on pristine is a bad mechanic. </li><li>I completely agree that resist adornments are worthless in their current state. Since stat adornments are on par with the hex dolls of their tier, I think resist adornments should be on par with the resist jewelry of their tier. Resist jewelry typically buffs two stats. (You could make treasured adorns buff one stat, legendary adorns buff two, and fabled buff more.) But I think the resistance added should be closer to the numbers you see on resist jewelry.</li></ul>

[Devilsbane]

<cite>sliderhouserules wrote:</cite><blockquote>A couple general points: <ul><li>I firmly believe all adornment recipes, and any crafting of any kind, should be removed from Transmuters. Firmly believe this. The sooner the better. Transmuting should be a resource-acquisition skill, ala harvesting. Nothing more. Concerns about people that have sunk money into it are put into perfect perspective, when you think how many people reach 100 skill level and then keep on trucking along with *no* skill ups not having the slightest clue what's going on, <b>not to mention the fact that I doubt *anyone* leveled their transmuting skill to be able to make the transmuter adornments.</b></li></ul></blockquote>My Fury in fact leveled up in transmuting for this reason. My adornment of choice on a weapon phantom handle. Because power means she survives much longer in battle. Whether it be soloing, group, or raid Furies need power lots and lots of power. <img src="/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 

[sliderhouserules]

I listened to a great podcast yesterday about designing large-scale systems (specifically enterprise-class software, but I think it applies here). The main point was that for the architects (or designers) of a system the most important thing to accomplish is reduced complexity. His main proposed avenue for doing so is what he calls partitioning. I won't go into great detail, you can go to dotnetrocks.com and look up the show with Roger Sessions if you're interested, as it's well worth a listen. But I wanted to make a point about clear separation, which Deson has tried to stress many times, and the stuff said in that podcast really rang true with. The adornment system as a whole is very very messy, which really means it's complex. That complexity makes it hard to understand, which makes it hard to use (on the player side) as well as hard to maintain and upgrade (on the developer side). Reducing complexity and partitioning things logically is in everyone's best interest. I don't like the idea of separation according to slots, however. That is one thing to try to add to the mix, but it has clear drawbacks. One being it says nothing about the marketability of the adornments for any given slot, and another being it says nothing about the marketability of the adornments for any given crafting class. I think one of the main points of this thread is to try to see where there are holes in the adornment lineup and to really do that we first need to look at the adornment lineup as a whole, with no regard to slot and no regard to class allocation. Hence, I think adornments should be divided up into distinct categories, and those categories filled out with clear progression (<span style="color: #0066ff">Treasured</span>/<span style="color: #ff9900">Legendary</span>/<span style="color: #ff0066">Fabled</span>), and then slot/crafter assignment can be done. If you divvy out each adornment category to a single crafting class, and then work on balancing each category for desirability against the others, you'll have a clearly separated system that is easy to understand and easy to expand and gives every crafting class equal share. From there you have options: <ol><li>Provide a *bit* of overlap in the slot assignment per category/class to give players some options to more fully customize their character how they want</li><li>Clearly define slot separation, but share categories a bit between the crafters so you can worry about full balance between the categories a bit less</li><li>Eliminate slot restrictions altogether and put some limitation saying you can't have more than three of the same adornment (anything above three has no effect, for instance)</li></ol>I <b><u>really</u> </b>like option 3 above, btw. I had a hard time coming up with this list. (If we knew a bit more about how itemization rules work (hint, hint <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) then this might be easier.) But I thought I'd get this idea out there and if it sounds good then the list can be refined further. Here's a sample of the categories, 10 categories for 10 crafting classes (no Transmuters!): <b>Stats</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: base (INT, STR, etc.) <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: hp/pow <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: regen <b>Defensive</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: resists/mit <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: skills (defense, parry, etc.) <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: crits (block, dodge, etc.) <b>Beneficial</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: skills (ministration, etc.) <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: heals (+10 on heal spells) <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: crits <b>Attack skills</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: single skill (crushing, etc.) <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: multiple skill <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: crits <b>Spell skills</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: single skill (disruption, etc.) <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: multiple skill <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: crits <b>Attack damage</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: single type (+10 crushing dmg, etc.) <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: multiple type <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: all (+10 to all attacks) or chance to AoE, etc. <b>Spell damage</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: single type (+10 cold dmg, etc.) <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: multiple type (+10 arcane dmg, etc.) <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: all (+10 spell dmg) <b>Percent procs</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: damage <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: taps <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: skills (stuff you see on imbued rings, for instance) <b>Reactive procs</b> <span style="color: #0066ff">T</span>: skills (stuff you see on imbued rings) <span style="color: #ff9900">L</span>: damage (thorns, etc.) <span style="color: #ff0033">F</span>: heal <b>Fluff/Utility</b> (open territory here...) Fluff/Utility is clearly the Tinkerer realm. Percent procs fit well with what Weaponsmiths already do. Provisioners nourish, so either Stats or Beneficial should go to them. And on from there... Thoughts?

[sliderhouserules]

<cite>Devilsbane wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>sliderhouserules wrote:</cite><blockquote>A couple general points: <ul><li>I firmly believe all adornment recipes, and any crafting of any kind, should be removed from Transmuters. Firmly believe this. The sooner the better. Transmuting should be a resource-acquisition skill, ala harvesting. Nothing more. Concerns about people that have sunk money into it are put into perfect perspective, when you think how many people reach 100 skill level and then keep on trucking along with *no* skill ups not having the slightest clue what's going on, <b>not to mention the fact that I doubt *anyone* leveled their transmuting skill to be able to make the transmuter adornments.</b></li></ul></blockquote>My Fury in fact leveled up in transmuting for this reason. My adornment of choice on a weapon phantom handle. Because power means she survives much longer in battle. Whether it be soloing, group, or raid Furies need power lots and lots of power. <img src="/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  </blockquote>I find this very hard to believe. You got this as a corollary benefit, but it makes *no* sense to spend the hours and time to skill up in transmuting to make a single adornment for a single character.

[dartie]

<p>I think Domino should trust her instincts on the matter of *not* removing recipes from tinkers and transmuters.</p><p>I paid quite a tidy some for all those bow adornments that tinkers get.</p><p>I wouldn't whine if she took them away because I've made my money back several times over.  Since that investment has already paid for itself, I could say, "easy come, easy go."  And just how common a response would that be?  </p><p>Most of us presumably read the forums, so surely we all know that the only thing EQ2 players are more addicted to than playing EQ2 is whining.</p><p>It may be absolutely obvious to some people obvious that tinkers and muters should never have had those recipes to begin with, but it is VERY FAR from obvious to me.  </p><p>The bow adorns for tinkers are GEARS.  Have you been to Steamfont?  I really think there's a playful and appropriate logic there.</p><p>Trust your gut Domino.</p>

[Calthine]

<cite>dartie wrote:</cite><blockquote>It may be absolutely obvious to some people obvious that tinkers and muters should never have had those recipes to begin with, but it is VERY FAR from obvious to me.  </blockquote> QFT

[Deson]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>dartie wrote:</cite><blockquote>It may be absolutely obvious to some people obvious that tinkers and muters should never have had those recipes to begin with, but it is VERY FAR from obvious to me.  </blockquote> QFT</blockquote>In and of itself? Yes, I can agree.  Taken in the larger picture of the other errors in building the systems and, specific to adornments, the hairsplitting, redundancies, recipe stretching and sheer dominating quality of the alternate craft adorns vs the primaries, it's hard for me to not say something different should have been done.If you have trouble fleshing out 9 classes, why on earth would you commit yourself to supporting 11?

[Niende]

I dont want current adorn lines removed from anyone at this point. However if any new lines go to fill in some of the obvious gaps in various slots that would be a good way to balance out some tradeskill classes that are lacking in useful adorns atm such at weaponsmith.

[MrFurious99]

Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote><p> Woodworker: Fabled :Scintillating Clemency of the Pontiff - When target casts a healing spell, threat to encounter is reduced.  No Priest needs this adorn, its effectively useless.</p></blockquote> Just because you find an adornment worthless, does not make it so.  I'm a fury and I gain a fair amount of hate from healing and casting damage spells.  I use this adornment on my main weapon and I find <i>it's effectively use<b>ful</b></i>. Back on topic. <ul><li>There really needs to be more options for a number of slots with one adornment over shadowing all others.   The +6 to all stats on chest and +70 hp or power on rings are two such adornments.</li><li>The fabled ring adornment is so bad it deserves to be mentioned again.  +35/35 is terrible for a fabled adornment.  This really should be increased to (I'd say) +50/50</li><li>Earrings could use more options as could waist and (again, imo) neck slots.</li><li>I wouldn't mind seeing some other options for shields as well.</li><li>As it's been mentioned here, the resist adornments could use a boost.  +100 resist doesn't really do much at all.</li></ul> Thanks Domino!

[Meio]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>...If you have trouble fleshing out 9 classes, why on earth would you commit yourself to supporting 11? </blockquote>Agree 10000% !!! The most stupid idea ever to introduce new classes when the old ones has not been fixed. Especially on stuff where dev time is traditionally very low like tradeskilling.

[Besual]

When you look at the weapon adornments please reduce the number of them: Combine the 1-hand-piercing, 1-hand-slashing and 1-hand-crushing into just 1-hand adornments, same goes for the the 2-hand versions.

[Carvium]

<p>as requested domino posting it here.</p><p>Any how you asked for ideas about adornments so here's one how about making weapon adornments more realistic. </p><p>At the moment you can only have one adornment on a weapon regardless of where in the real world it would actually go.  Now some adornments if they existed in RL would stack..  </p><p>For instance pommels, Tempers and whetstone adornments should in theory stack as these are being placed on different parts of a weapon..  (When a sword, dagger etc is made it is tempered when it's made, then the pommel is added and then you would sharpen the blade with a whetstone) or on a staff grip of ouch don't hurt me and a headstock jewel on a staff/wand. The same type of thing would also be applicable for hammers, maces and bows (For the temper it would have to be classed as a enchantment on the blade i guess.).</p><p>The same could be said for some clothes too. adding a clasp adornment and applying a physical applique potion should stack as in rl it would be like sewing new buttons on and starching the collar.</p><p>Hope you understand what i'm trying to get at and that while it maybe a interesting idea,  i also understand this might not be possible with the current game mechanics.</p><p> PS If you use "The grip of ouch don't hurt me"  (grip that gives a little hate decrease) i'd like a mention <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Deson]

<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=374008�" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Further refinement</a> on an idea linked earlier- Recipes should be given to convert frags to higher quality items and all transmutes should give fragments in varying numbers corresponding to conversion rates (i.e. if 15 frags= 1 mana then fabled gives about 15 frags ).That would remove or adjust  a fair amount of the RNG's influence, ensure no waste,since frags will always have a market, and allow transmuters to adjust not only to their needs but also to the markets'. It also keeps them from consuming their own product to level, allowing more to flow to the market itself and actually be used. If you insist on leaving them with adornments, placing skill-ups on this process as well would keep them from broker dumping adorns and allow some actually profitable pricing.

[Kala Asuras]

There is a bit of a proc disparity when it comes to ranged combat.  Right now the +10dps adornment can be placed on the ranged slot (bow or satchel) and the melee classes can benifit from this adornment at the same time as their damage proc adornments on their weapons.  Rangers do not get any benifit from damage procs on melee weapons and of course have the bow adorn taken up by the +dps. If the +dps could be moved to a more neutral slot that would be wonderful.

[Geothe]

<p>Dont remove recipes from Transmuters, they need to keep what they have. But, having transmuting recipes for TINKERS makes no sense to me.  They already have a TON of things that they, and only they, can make and have no need for yet MORE combines.  Give the TINKER trasmuting recipes to the other tradeskill classes that are lacking on good transmuting combines (like weaponsmiths). As for current adornments. Like many have said. the resist adornments are utterly useless. 100 to a single resist just means nothing. instead, how about at tier 7 values, something like this: Treasured Adornments.  Buff 1 resist by 500. Legendary Adornments.  Buff 2 resist by 500.  (like Elemental/Noxious/Arcane combos). Fabled Adornment  Buff all magical resist by 500.</p><p>Also, being able to add more stats to more locations would be nice.  Not needing all stats at each location, but at least like a choice between 3.</p>

[Mighty Melvor]

<cite>sliderhouserules wrote:</cite><blockquote>A couple general points: <ul><li>I firmly believe all adornment recipes, and any crafting of any kind, should be removed from Transmuters. Firmly believe this. The sooner the better. Transmuting should be a resource-acquisition skill, ala harvesting. Nothing more. Concerns about people that have sunk money into it are put into perfect perspective, when you think how many people reach 100 skill level and then keep on trucking along with *no* skill ups not having the slightest clue what's going on, not to mention the fact that I doubt *anyone* leveled their transmuting skill to be able to make the transmuter adornments.</li><li>I think Tinkerers should only have those adornments that have a tinkering flavor to them. Some existing adorns should be moved to them, and some of their existing ones should probably be given to other classes. They should have adorns like reduced falling damage on cloaks, light source on the head and run speed enhancements (both suggested earlier), stuff like that. There are all kinds of cool adornments that could be made for tinkerers that have a distinct tinkerer flavor. (I want to adorn my carpet with fae fall!) </li><li>I think raw usage for adornment recipes is a bit out of hand. (I think raw usage for *all* crafted recipes is out of hand...) I think they use too many raws at the higher levels and the way raws are returned on pristine is a bad mechanic.</li></ul></blockquote><p>/agree /agree /agree </p>

[Domino]

Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now.

[Deson]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote>Thanks for the clarification.  About a year too late unfortunately and I'm still going to call it out as a really bad idea in it's execution at the very least. I asked before and I'll ask again- Domino, when you do beta, please tell people exactly what's intended so we can give you feedback based on that. Had we been given all the info on the "secondaries" that we have now, we could have called out most of the issues we are having back then.

[jjlo69]

<p>im not certain if this has been bough up but the ratio of how a trans mutter gets the supplies needed to make adronments is out of wack less then 10 percent chance est to get a powder off a treasured item and less the that top get a mana off a fabled item makes making any adronent out there. And as most stated here there are not enough +int for any peices and need more choices for helm/forarms and boots. and would like to see adronments for quivers/pouches sinceyou can adron secondary items and place them in ranged slot.</p><p>morzerk</p>

[sliderhouserules]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=374008�" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Further refinement</a> on an idea linked earlier- Recipes should be given to convert frags to higher quality items and all transmutes should give fragments in varying numbers corresponding to conversion rates (i.e. if 15 frags= 1 mana then fabled gives about 15 frags ).That would remove or adjust  a fair amount of the RNG's influence, ensure no waste,since frags will always have a market, and allow transmuters to adjust not only to their needs but also to the markets'. It also keeps them from consuming their own product to level, allowing more to flow to the market itself and actually be used. If you insist on leaving them with adornments, placing skill-ups on this process as well would keep them from broker dumping adorns and allow some actually profitable pricing. </blockquote>I like this idea a lot. The market is currently completely out of whack. Transmuting an actual item should return fragments. Those fragments should then be combined into the raws used to make adornments, like powders, etc.

[sliderhouserules]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote>How about we change that quote to read *was* intended, and it'll help give proper perspective to making appropriate design decisions based on the *current* state of the game. If there is enough reason to change it, original intentions should take a back seat to current needs and the future health of the game. (I'm sure everybody on the red-name side of the wall would agree with that.) There are several really good reasons to take adornments away from transmuters, and only a couple questionable ones for leaving them there. Not to mention the fact that Transmuting is the gathering skill for <u>all</u> adornment making. So adornment making cannot happen without the secondary intended purpose of this secondary skill? That really doesn't make any sense. And a very large point that needs repeating is that there is nothing that would let someone know that when they hit 100 they can no longer progress their skill in the way they have been. Switching mid-stream to a different skillup system makes it very clear that this wasn't very well thought out. That point, at least, should probably be addressed sooner than later. I talk to people in the channels all the time that are like, <i>hey I haven't had a skill up in like 100 transmutes... is this a bug or something?</i> What's your skill level? <i>100. </i>Ah... (Long conversation commences.) This seems like the perfect time to deal with the <u>whole</u> issue. You're looking to try to balance adornments. Part of that is filling out the categories, part of that is slot balance, part of that is class balance. Take even one of those variables out and you have a simpler system to try to balance, by orders of magnitude. That makes you be able to do more work in less time. Reducing complexity is key. This is reiterating what I said earlier in the thread, but I wanted to refine the third point a bit. - Categorize all adornments and worry about balancing the categories against each other. - Give a single category to a single crafting class. - Remove slot restrictions from adornments and limit it to 3 identical treasured, 2 identical legendary, and only one of each fabled. This eliminates the need to worry about class balance as well as slot balance. All you have to worry about is category balance (or you can call it class balance, since they'd be equivalent). Reducing the number of categories by taking adornments away from Transmuters just helps to simplify things. 10 classes/categories to balance, instead of 11. You improve the market, you give some love to weaponsmiths, the list goes on... and most has already been mentioned. So I'll leave it at that.

[Domino]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>DominoDev wrote: Thanks for the clarification.  About a year too late unfortunately and I'm still going to call it out as a really bad idea in it's execution at the very least. I asked before and I'll ask again- Domino, when you do beta, please tell people exactly what's intended so we can give you feedback based on that. Had we been given all the info on the "secondaries" that we have now, we could have called out most of the issues we are having back then. </blockquote>Sometimes it's hard to keep track of what I've told to whom, and sometimes there are some spoilers that I won't want to (or am not allowed to) reveal in advance.  But that said I most certainly will do my best to give everyone in beta all the information they will need.  Plus, Niami knows where to find me in person if I don't, and she has a rather large rolling pin.  So I think you can rest assured on that count.  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[KerowynnKaotic]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, <u>and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill</u>."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote><p> <i>I'm sitting here snickering.   I'm evil.  I know it.  </i></p><p>------</p><p>Well, truth be told, though NOTHING about these skills were clearly communicated.  You were a player when these came out .. did you totally understand them?  Obviously not since even as a Dev you had to appeal to a higher court .. </p><p>*IF* Adornments are supposed to be our skill up method there needs to be either #1 a slight increase in the skill gained ratio and/or #2 Our harvests need to be given a set amount of buy back and/or #3 Throw in a random event/chance to gain multiple Frags/powders/infusions/mana upon transmuting.  I am hoping for #1 & #3 myself .. </p><p>(multiples: 2 frags / 2 powders / 2 frags + 2 powders .. etc .. )</p><p>As a Transmuter I have yet to sell any of my "harvests".   I keep them for my use.  Either for skill up or personal use.   I'm sure I am not the only Transmuter that does this.  Due to this hording, though, I/we have helped to create a system that has artifically inflated prices for any/all adornments.   The average person has to pay nearly 1 plat for an Augment!  The original Armor piece might have not even cost that much!  (prices vary from server to server .. adorn to adorn .. etc .. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>If I was able to either get my skill slightly faster and/or occassionally got bonuses upon transmuting items .. I would gladly throw up a few of my Transmuted "stuff" on the broker .. but since some of the recipes call for 8 powders!  A stack of 50 doesn't go far when outfitting for a new tier at that rate.  And, requires a lot of time & engery to horde up that much in the first place!  </p><p><img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Deson]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>DominoDev wrote: Thanks for the clarification.  About a year too late unfortunately and I'm still going to call it out as a really bad idea in it's execution at the very least. I asked before and I'll ask again- Domino, when you do beta, please tell people exactly what's intended so we can give you feedback based on that. Had we been given all the info on the "secondaries" that we have now, we could have called out most of the issues we are having back then. </blockquote>Sometimes it's hard to keep track of what I've told to whom, and sometimes there are some spoilers that I won't want to (or am not allowed to) reveal in advance.  But that said I most certainly will do my best to give everyone in beta all the information they will need.  Plus, Niami knows where to find me in person if I don't, and she has a rather large rolling pin.  So I think you can rest assured on that count.  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote>I appreciate and thank you for it. Something I hope all devs realize and that your fellow devs have learned is that you simply can't get good feedback if people don't know what's going on or what's supposed to happen. With yet more information having trickled out about the "secondaries", that's really all I have left to say on the matter.

[Firecracker]

<p>Something that has bother me from day one of EoF with this transmuting stuff is.....</p><p>That it don't make sense to me is how many frags and powers it takes to make them skill adorns and then only find that it's worth only the fuel, when how many treasure items did you waste to get that?  depending on tiers it comes out that the system coming out way ahead when you sell back for the treasure items are way worth more then fuel cost alone so why isn't sell back reflecting all treasure items you just put into that item? If that was even more balance out that would make a big difference to me for then I can salvage some lost of coin. I know this won't help the transmuters maxed out so much but it will help even in RoK.</p><p>Another solution is make it where we can combine skill up adorns to make frags for there is so many lower tiers on the market and no where is there a way to recoop any money back on all them treasure items we wasted, perhap with a chance to get a bonus power sometimes. The way coding would work is it will automaticially check your inventory and sees if you have like for example lets say 5 adorns=1 frag? Just an idea</p><p>Another suggestion is make adrons more for classes instead of limiting us on certains one to adorn that doesn't benefit our class all that much and also up the resist adorns or double them up as well too, but not sure if that will help them adornments all that much....better yet add them to the adornments with single stats as is?</p>

[Deson]

<cite>Cinnimon wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Something that has bother me from day one of EoF with this transmuting stuff is.....</p><p>That it don't make sense to me is how many frags and powers it takes to make them skill adorns and then only find that it's worth only the fuel, when how many treasure items did you waste to get that?  depending on tiers it comes out that the system coming out way ahead when you sell back for the treasure items are way worth more then fuel cost alone so why isn't sell back reflecting all treasure items you just put into that item? If that was even more balance out that would make a big difference to me for then I can salvage some lost of coin. I know this won't help the transmuters maxed out so much but it will help even in RoK.</p><p>Another solution is make it where we can combine skill up adorns to make frags for there is so many lower tiers on the market and no where is there a way to recoop any money back on all them treasure items we wasted, perhap with a chance to get a bonus power sometimes. The way coding would work is it will automaticially check your inventory and sees if you have like for example lets say 5 adorns=1 frag? Just an idea</p><p>Another suggestion is make adrons more for classes instead of limiting us on certains one to adorn that doesn't benefit our class all that much and also up the resist adorns or double them up as well too, but not sure if that will help them adornments all that much....better yet add them to the adornments with single stats as is?</p></blockquote>The coin loss was intended as part of it's difficulty. It's why when you take it up you are clearly warned you are risking going broke to support it. I actually like that aspect of it since the monetary risk acts as a very good barrier to entry and tester of dedication. Both "secondaries" were intended to be more difficult and less accessible than the primary crafts so this fits well into that design.

[Rijacki]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote> If so, then they really should have had adornments in every slot (a least one in each) rather than all for 1 slot.  Heck, maybe the transmuters should have gotten all the resist adornments as their 'common'. Oh.. and I do think that was what they said or at least implied in beta as part of the reason they were changing the skill-ups on 'muting stuff to stop at 100 and be only crafting after. But, the concept of 'muted items being No Value does fit with the concept of them being a 'harvest'.  I just wish there was more reason, aside from skill cap, for a transmuter to 'harvest' components to make them available to others and not just use for themselves.  In the rest of the crafting world, there are harvests outside of what a crafter can use for himself that he has to reap (if he harvests solely for himself) that are intended, theoretically, to be shared around (or sold) to other crafters.  Not so for transmuters, everything they 'harvest' is used by themselves.  One way that could be 'addressed' is for the non-transmuter treasured adornment recipes to be opposite in component count as the transmuters to take up the slack of their over production on the components they don't use as much.

[Oakum]

<cite>sliderhouserules wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote>How about we change that quote to read *was* intended, and it'll help give proper perspective to making appropriate design decisions based on the *current* state of the game. If there is enough reason to change it, original intentions should take a back seat to current needs and the future health of the game. (I'm sure everybody on the red-name side of the wall would agree with that.) There are several really good reasons to take adornments away from transmuters, and only a couple questionable ones for leaving them there. Not to mention the fact that Transmuting is the gathering skill for <u>all</u> adornment making. So adornment making cannot happen without the secondary intended purpose of this secondary skill? That really doesn't make any sense. And a very large point that needs repeating is that there is nothing that would let someone know that when they hit 100 they can no longer progress their skill in the way they have been. Switching mid-stream to a different skillup system makes it very clear that this wasn't very well thought out. That point, at least, should probably be addressed sooner than later. I talk to people in the channels all the time that are like, <i>hey I haven't had a skill up in like 100 transmutes... is this a bug or something?</i> What's your skill level? <i>100. </i>Ah... (Long conversation commences.) This seems like the perfect time to deal with the <u>whole</u> issue. You're looking to try to balance adornments. Part of that is filling out the categories, part of that is slot balance, part of that is class balance. Take even one of those variables out and you have a simpler system to try to balance, by orders of magnitude. That makes you be able to do more work in less time. Reducing complexity is key. This is reiterating what I said earlier in the thread, but I wanted to refine the third point a bit. - Categorize all adornments and worry about balancing the categories against each other. - Give a single category to a single crafting class. - Remove slot restrictions from adornments and limit it to 3 identical treasured, 2 identical legendary, and only one of each fabled. This eliminates the need to worry about class balance as well as slot balance. All you have to worry about is category balance (or you can call it class balance, since they'd be equivalent). Reducing the number of categories by taking adornments away from Transmuters just helps to simplify things. 10 classes/categories to balance, instead of 11. You improve the market, you give some love to weaponsmiths, the list goes on... and most has already been mentioned. So I'll leave it at that. </blockquote><p>If it is changed to a harvesting skill, it also can be opened up for classes to do both tinkering and transmuting. Those like me who prefer to play one main character would be able to do tinkering also, therefore taking more money raws and, most importantly, the players time with another way to permanently improve our characters. </p><p>It would be something that would keep me and many other players busy while waiting for the next expansion. </p>

[Ennis]

Put in solvents so you can remove and reuse adornments! You can tag them as attuned so folks can not resell them if that is a worry. Personally I am rather hesitant to purchace a 5pp adornment just to know that next week I might get an item that I would replace the adorned one with.

[MirageE]

my comments: - resists +100 across the board at t7 are ridiculous - this should be 200 (if not 300+) even if they are just treasured adornments to make it worth anything.  i hoenstly dont think i ahve sold one +resist adornment - variety in some items like head, chest, legs needed - pretty much everyone uses the same ones (class dependant) such as most use +100 power for the head piece unless you are a healer in which sometimes they use the t6 fabled; legs everyone uses the +str or +sta, chests everyone goes after +6 to all stats.  Some more options would be very nice to add some real variety - ear - basically one piece available in +int - cloak basically one available in +mana regen

[Zannah]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"<u>Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters</u>, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote><p> This comment stuck out for me.  Adornments I make are for skill ups and maybe i'll use one on an alt here and there.  You can see by the market flooding that adornments made by Transmuters are little more than vendor trash.  Most of the sought after adornments are made by primary crafting skills - whose primary function is NOT making adornments.</p><p>IMHO<b> "Making raw materials out of rot loot for other crafters to create adornments"</b> is a bit more in line with reality I think.</p>

[Cuz]

After this long, I can still say that transmuting is the worst designed aspect of EQ2. And I'm including the crappy racial skills that don't scale.

[Rijacki]

In thinking about this a while... If transmuters really are supposed to have crafting of adornments as their main pursuit? how come they can only make adornments for one spot?  My idea would be for transmuters to, for their commons, make resist adornments for each armor slot and, for their rares, something in each slot as well.  It would give them the most adornment recipes, but that doesn't matter since they don't get recipe XP like the main crafts.  Yes, this does propose taking the resists adornments from the other classes, but they could be replaced by things that might actually matter and be desired.  Even though it still is a problem for weaponsmiths, the transmuters keeping the weapon adornments would probably be easiest.  The resists, though, could stay the amounts they are.

[Wrapye]

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>In thinking about this a while... If transmuters really are supposed to have crafting of adornments as their main pursuit? how come they can only make adornments for one spot?  My idea would be for transmuters to, for their commons, make resist adornments for each armor slot and, for their rares, something in each slot as well.  It would give them the most adornment recipes, but that doesn't matter since they don't get recipe XP like the main crafts.  Yes, this does propose taking the resists adornments from the other classes, but they could be replaced by things that might actually matter and be desired.  Even though it still is a problem for weaponsmiths, the transmuters keeping the weapon adornments would probably be easiest.  The resists, though, could stay the amounts they are. </blockquote> I like that idea, but +100 to resist at T7 really is not worthwhile for anyone.  Due to the nature of the diminishing returns curve, unless your resists are very low, +100 adds very little to your survivability - it is less than 1% of the max resist value.  Something between +300 and +400 would be better, or in general +40-60/tier. As a raiding mage, I don't think there is a big problem with the leg/foot adornments.  +14 Sta means more health, and having more health means it takes more damage to kill you.  Never a bad thing in my book. I could see a +movement speed fabled adornment for feet, as long as it either stacks with other +movement spells/abilities or isn't too high so as to get the druids and bards up in arms.

[Wyrmypops]

<p>I reckon the whole transmuting hooha is one of the worst things I've come across in the game. But saying that is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. </p><p>Specifically, for me, it's proved offensive in that my main is/was a weaponsmith. They'd been knocked down so much before (<i>weapons yoinked, all their consumables being stolen</i>), when the transmuting became an add it killed it for me. </p><p>All the classes purportedly making adornments, with transmuters making a bit of everything, sounded good. Except that weaponsmiths get a load of undesirable adornments to make, while the transmuters make all the best ones to apply to a weapon. It ain't as if everyone gets to make something, but the transmuters top anything other classes can make, they limit their "<i>nyah nyah</i>" to weaponsmiths. </p>

[Terron]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote> It was clearly communicated that transmuting was a secondary tradeskill, implying that a transmuters primary role would be their tradeskill class, so it is perfectly understandable that people do not view transmuters that way. It would make a lot of sense for transmuting to be a "gather skill" used only for "gathering" and with skill ups coming only from such "gathering" just like the other harvesting skills. Then the actual crafting of all adornments could be done with separate crafting skills - as many already are. The mixing of crafting and harvesting functions on one skill is a mess. I can see reasons why the current way might have been chosen, but it was a mistake. It would have made more sense to have the crafting of those adornments that all transmuters can make use one of the old secondary tradeskills like geomancy. It would have made even more sense to leave all the crafting to the crafting classes, but it would probably be too painful to move to that now.

[BigChiefJJ]

<p>Currently it is designed that a transmuters primary roll is to make adornments, we have to as its our only way of increasing our skill after we hit 100.  However after I hit my maximum and don't need to skill up anymore, my transmuter has really only been used for creating the raw materials so that my other tradeskillers can make the adornments that my guild mates want.  I actually get very few requests for adornments that my transmuter can actually make (usually it's the phantom or vampiric adornments for weapons).  </p><p>Suggestions were made to give transmuters more recipes, I don't think this is the whole answer, actually I think it's quite the opposite.  Transmuter have lots of recipes now, they are kinda like Sages - lots of recipes (App IV's) that are really only useful for getting skill ups. Since you get no ‘pristine' bonus for doing the recipe first time, why have so many?  Couldn't we reduce the weapon restrictions for the current transmuter made adornments and have one of each proc type that could be put on any weapon type?  If more adornments are going to be given to transmuters, they have to be recipes that the player base deems useful.</p><p>We have adornments that give +slashing, +piercing and +crushing, yet we have none that give +ranged (show the rangers some love).  I would also like to see the +dps adornment for ranged weapons reevaluated (possibly moved to a quiver or pouch and off of the ranged weapon).  Melee classes can put a +10 dps adornment on their throwing weapons (or bows) and neck and still take advantage of the procs that get put on their primary weapons (melee).  Rangers are limited to not getting the benefit of the procs on their melee weapons and have to choose from either a damage proc on the bow or a +dps adorn.  I believe the bow ones are fabled dps adornments where the ones that go on other ranged weapons are legendary - the two need to be the same. </p><p>I'd like to see some proc based adornments (similar to what the transmuters are making for weapons) for jewelry (rings, earrings, wrists) that would have the ability to proc on any type of attack (ranged, melee CA, spell).  </p><p>I'd like to see some adornments that have an effect on hate (maybe head or waist or cloak or all three) - treasured item that has a chance to proc a deagro or an increase in agro, legendary that has either a better proc rate or higher result from the treasured one, and a Fabled one with a chance to increase or decrease your hate position by 1 if it procs.  There would be one set for agro and one for deagro.  </p><p>But the underlying problem you are going to have is that any items that transmuters have to produce in bulk to gain skills will flood the market and prices will be extremely low.  This is evident as people are taking raw materials that can sell for 20+gp, creating an adornment and selling the adornment for 5 sp.   </p>

[Mighty Melvor]

<cite>Zannah wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role: <b>"<u>Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters</u>, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b> I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now. </blockquote><p> This comment stuck out for me.  Adornments I make are for skill ups and maybe i'll use one on an alt here and there.  You can see by the market flooding that adornments made by Transmuters are little more than vendor trash.  Most of the sought after adornments are made by primary crafting skills - whose primary function is NOT making adornments.</p><p>IMHO<b> "Making raw materials out of rot loot for other crafters to create adornments"</b> is a bit more in line with reality I think.</p></blockquote><p>/agree 100%</p><p>To me: 'Gathering' is obtaining the raw materials (i.e. treasured + items) 'Primary Function of Transmuting' is breaking down the materials into transmuted raw materials 'Output' is the raw material sold or traded to tradeskillers to make adornments</p><p>Transmuting materials is NOT a gathering skill.  The dev that created this in the past was dead wrong!  Transmuting is just what it was advertised to be: A SECONDARY tradeskill</p><p>Please migrate all the transmuter recipes to weaponsmiths (where they belong) and base transmuting skill-ups on performance of their primary function: breaking down raw materials. </p>

[Maroger]

How about an adornment than can be applied to the 40% Horse Whistle to upgrade it to 45% so people that don't want to ride dogs can have a 45% horse.

[Ranja]

+ Ranged Adornments for the love of God! Add + ranged to the adornments that give + crush,+slash + pierce. Seriously, do the devs even realize there is a ranged class in this game. I dont think so with the amouint of + melee crit items only floating around and the amount of items that have all + to offensive except ranged. Or the spells that buff everything but ranged. Come on<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[mellowknees72]

<p>Please forgive me if this has already been suggested/mentioned, but I'd LOVE to see a way to remove adornments from an item so they can be re-used in another item.</p><p>Highly desirable adornments for the higher levels (50-60) are really expensive - and with good reason since they're not cheap for the crafter who made them.  But for the average non-raiding player who has to really work to get the plat to buy them...it's heartbreaking when you put an adornment on your best item that you think you won't find a replacement for any time soon...and then you get an upgrade to that item.  This forces you to choose - use the upgrade and lose the adornment you just spent 10 plat on, or keep using the inferior item so you feel like you get your money's worth.</p><p>The mechanic to remove the adornment could even be crafted...crafters who already have recipes for adornments for certain slots could have recipes to make a solvent that would remove those same adornments.  For example, provisioners can make adornments for cloaks; therefore, provisioners could also make a solvent to remove an adornment for a cloak.  The solvent could still use rare or semi-rare ingredients so it could still sell for a high price (though probably not as high as the adornment itself) so that it would be worthwhile for crafters to make them.</p><p>This way:</p><p>1) The crafter still gets a consumable item to make and sell; and,</p><p>2) Adventurers won't feel "stuck" because they put an expensive adornment into a piece of armor/equipment.</p>

[Noaani]

<p>I havn't read the whole thread, but i'll through my thoughts in anyway, which are primarily from a mage PoV.</p><p>Every class should have a useful and desirable adornment for each slot. As it is now, mages do not have anything useful for feet, legs, forearms or shoulders (+sta, str and wis are the most useful here, not worth it for the most part). Adding in +power, int, +crit, +spell damage or a proc for these slots would give mages a reason to put an adornment in here (note that most classes have slots with no owrthwhile adornment, I am a caster, so I posted what I think casters need).</p><p>Resist adornments are totally useless as they stand now (see the dev comments from Fan Faire about resists if you do not believe me). They either need to be increased to around 800ish, changed to a small regenerating ward of the damage type (similar to potions), or replaced with something else all together.</p><p>Ring adornments need better balancing between the treasured and fabled adornments avalible, 'nuf said. <i>Edit; the idea of making legandary adornments to buff multiple resists is a good one (disease/poison, heat/cold, arcane/divine/mental). A legandary adornment that buffs these resists by ~800 'may' actually be of some use.</i></p><p>The chest slot needs better adornments than +6 to each stat. There should be a range of fabled adornments that give spell procs, melee procs or heal procs (or even better, spell haste, +haste and +DPS, and 'something' for tanks).</p><p>Consider making "adornment sets". This may be hard to implement, but would most certianly be popular.</p>

[Noaani]

<cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Phoxtrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a transmuter and a tinkerer, the transmuter has to spend loads and loads of gold to level (like 25-30g for each point) for very little profit. </blockquote> I'm going to disagree here.  First, it doesn't take hardly any money to level transmuting if you don't want to spend cash.  Second, I recouped all of my expenses and 50% more within a month of maxing Transmuting and focusing on production instead of skillups. </blockquote>Again I have to disagree with you Calthine. You must mean it takes hardly any capita. You see all the items you spend on transmuting will reduce your available cash. If you didn't transmute them, you could sell them on broker. I remember that you dont count raws as an expense either since you harvest them your self. They still are. For transmuting you need to get the transmutable items your self, the money loss comes from the fact that if you didn't transmute them, you could sell them. If you use materials that you could have sold on broker for 30g to make an item you can sell for 1g, that means you just lost 29g even if you collected the materials off from mobs or nodes yourself and didn't actually pay anything. It is still loss. This really isn't debatable issue, it doesn't matter where the materials come from, they will still have a value on the market and using the materials to make a worthless product will mean an equal loss. In transmuting, tinkering and crafting in general. </blockquote><p>I leveled up my transmuting by what is possably the hardest means. I made an alt and leveled him up while farming for treasured items as he progressed. I estimated the total value of the items I transmuted to get to 350 transmuting, had I sold them on the broker at the time, to be in the range of 220p. </p><p>Yesterday I sold 24p of transmuted goods.</p><p>I made my money back from transmuting in less than a month. While the argument that it does cost you to level up transmuting via the market price of the trash you transmute is true (though you are arguing over semantics here), the argument that you can not make that money back is false.</p>

[TaleraRis]

I would have to say that I'm in the camp that doesn't feel transmuting should involve crafting adornments. The current setup puts them too much at odds with weaponsmiths. However, in the process of taking away, there must out of necessity be something added. So a few suggestions in list format. - Remove all adornments from transmuters - Take the sum total of all adornments lacking the "tinkering feel" (I like that term) and distribute among the 9 primary tradeskill classes. I can't speak much on tinkered adornments, but I would have to say examples that involve utility seem much more like that should be the forte of things related to tinkering - Allow transmuters to skill up on breaking down items past 100, but as someone suggested, at a diminishing amount as they reach higher levels. The reason for this is is threefold.... - Give transmuters the ability to transmute items of lower than Treasured quality for powders - Allow transmuters to combine lesser components to make higher components. - Allow transmuters to use their transmuted materials along with small amounts of normal harvested materials (to even them out with tinkerers a bit) to make adornment solvents that can safely remove adornments for reuse These three things would allow the transmuter to still have a viable product to provide to the market, and it also gives them something unique for what is being taken away that will be of high value to many players, the concept of solvents. Giving them the ability to combine materials into higher levels of material, which would also be a good way to provide a chance of skilling up, means that the availability of the materials they provide will increase and adornment prices will not have to be so out of whack with other products that the other tradeskill classes can provide. Transmuters may have been meant to make adornments, but an idea like that would really only be viable if they were the *only* ones who could make adornments and that isn't the case. It's far better to redefine the intention into a supply class that has its own uniqueness and is bringing something completely new and valuable to the table.

[Tokam]

<p>1) Fix forearm adornments for mages so that we can actually put something usefull there.</p><p>2) I dont know what you people were smoking when you decided on the distribution of items between crafting classes but it is pretty obviously terrible. You seem to have picked the TS classes with the most problems (woodworkers / provisioners) to also have the most useless adornments. </p>

[hun_gover]

I tell you the way to solve adornment problem, stop asking crafters about them!! You want to know what really are useful adornments, but go ask the players who really understand the game, go ask the raiders why they do and do not choose adornments for certain slots, ask them why they will not ever go near near 80% of adornments.  I have seen posts on t his forum that certain adornments have a place, but i know that in truth no one who can afford the plat to pay for a lot of the fabled adorns would ever  go near them.  I know that a lot of fabled adorns are pointless, worthless and crazy as their is an obvious Treaseured/Legendary adorn much much better than anyone who understands the game mechanics would use.  I have seen people on crafting forums argue that people would take a 2% legendary haste neck item  over a 10% DPS neck item.  Adornments affect adventurers, ask adventurers what useful adornments actually would be not crafters, then split the adorns up between the crafters fairly. I am a raider, and  a crafter, and i can tell you easily what adorns are suitable for which class and this renders a large percentage of adornments useless.  These adorns are not useful for any class but they are put in game even though no one would ever use them.  Some serious eliminating of adorns needs to happen, why give classes fabled adorns that no one would buy. Get rid of the useless adorns and then add in ones which people can actually use.  Make viable alternatives for slots.  Make sure the Fabled adorns are the best for each class and the ones that would be used over treasured and legendary, which currently in game are the best for many slots for every class.

[Deson]

Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote>I tell you the way to solve adornment problem, stop asking crafters about them!! You want to know what really are useful adornments, but go ask the players who really understand the game, go ask the raiders why they do and do not choose adornments for certain slots, ask them why they will not ever go near near 80% of adornments.  I have seen posts on t his forum that certain adornments have a place, but i know that in truth no one who can afford the plat to pay for a lot of the fabled adorns would ever  go near them.  I know that a lot of fabled adorns are pointless, worthless and crazy as their is an obvious Treaseured/Legendary adorn much much better than anyone who understands the game mechanics would use.  I have seen people on crafting forums argue that people would take a 2% legendary haste neck item  over a 10% DPS neck item.  Adornments affect adventurers, ask adventurers what useful adornments actually would be not crafters, then split the adorns up between the crafters fairly. <b> I am a raider, and  a crafter, and i can tell you easily what adorns are suitable for which class and this renders a large percentage of adornments useless.  These adorns are not useful for any class but they are put in game even though no one would ever use them.  Some serious eliminating of adorns needs to happen, why give classes fabled adorns that no one would buy. </b> Get rid of the useless adorns and then add in ones which people can actually use.  Make viable alternatives for slots.  Make sure the Fabled adorns are the best for each class and the ones that would be used over treasured and legendary, which currently in game are the best for many slots for every class. </blockquote> According to Domino, this thread is for listing specifics. Compile and share your lists?

[Meirril]

<p>I just read 8 pages worth of posts. I'll ask forgiveness now because this is probably going to ramble a bit.</p><p>I think a general "fix" for both transmuter and weapon smith adornments would be quite simple. Move all of the current transmuter adornments to weapon smiths. Prune as deemed necessary to give a reasonable number of desirable adornments.</p><p>Give transmuters some relatively weak adornments that can be used in any slot. Say at tier 7 a +7 to any one stat adornment (treasured) that can go in any slot. Or perhaps +50 hp or power instead of a single stat. I wouldn't see these being universally popular but every class would use a few to shore up a few holes here and there. Same could be done for weapon skills, defense bonuses, even haste/spell haste/healing and damage bonuses. Just give an appropriate tier. </p><p>Also give transmuters recipes to break down existing adornments into components to help with skilling up. With the current trade skill system that would be the primary component plus one shard for every quality level upto 3 with pristine. Or with your new system return the adornment on a failure and 3 shards and a primary on a success. This would not only recoup some of the extreme resource consumption from making adornments, it would effectively offer another painless chance at getting a skill up. Also the broker would benifit greatly by not being flooded with undervalued adornments created just to skill up. </p><p>Just to point out to the many critics of how transmuting has effected the economy (and the costs with skilling up): I believe it was a huge success from the producer's stand point. Its a tremendous coin sink. Before transmuting came along, adept 1s were hardly worth anything. They just piled up on the broker. The same is true for treasured items. They just piled up as people overlooked them for the master crafted items. Now, for every peice of transmuted dross you find on the broker there are 5+ treasured items removed from the game. This also removes any coin that would of been generated from selling these items to vendors. In fact, since you use fuel to make the combines, your removing coin to remove potential sources of coin. Its win win win as far as the people who worry about in game economies are concerned. </p><p>Not a win win win for the individual players mind you. Its a painless loss of coin though. I never realy notice when I transmute every tresaured item I found at the end of a long day of adventuring that I just turned 7-10g worth of vendor loot into a no-value item. You just get use to doing it, and never question why your doing it. You either hord the end result or sell an adornment and the pain goes away.</p><p>As far as the adornments themselves. Yes, they need to be looked at and reballanced for usefulness. The current resistance adornments are not even worth considering. Currently every crafting class has a wrist adornment that gives +14 to a stat. I'd suggest widning the number of slots that can be done and make each class responsable for a single stat bonus OR give each class certain slots and the ability to make a variety of stat bonuses for that slot. Not the cookie cutter system currently in place. I believe I favor the second choice as it would give every trade skill class a requested treasured adornment. Other non-stat based adornments should follow the tendencies of each trade skill class. I would like to see more slots available towards damage bonuses, healing bonuses, the creation of agression bonus adornments, some agression mittigation adornments, more flowing thought, possibly some truely aggressive regeneration adornments (say at least x5 what is currently seen), some minor duration extention, some minor range extention, some minor double attack/crit increases, DPS augmentation, bonuses to all indivudual combat skills, and movement speed. Killing with kindness would allow people to individualize their choices instead of having a default best. Best examples of this are chest adornments (only 1 good choice with many bad) versus weapon adornments (many, many choices in which none can be called best in all situations). </p><p>Also I'd love to see the effect from Gnomish Spring Boots made into an adorment. There are probably several other tinkering effects (and totem effects) that could be made into adornments without ruining the game. Like a (treasured) water breathing adornment, an (legendary) out of combat regen adornment or (fabled) invisability adornment. Have the effect break if the item is removed.</p><p>One last request: adornments that create permanent pet buffs/group buffs. Neither of these are high on my own personal list of desired adorments but they would generate alot of excitement. A see invis group adornment would be very popular. A 3 point group regen is less of a joke than an individual 3 point regen. Maybe limit group buff adornments to the cloak slot? Perhaps toss them over to the 1 or 2 leist loved adornment classes. Something to think about.</p>

[Devilsbane]

This suggestion would effect adornments. Let us transmute common and handcrafted items. They should be 100% transmuted into fragments. This would help in the high stages when lots of fragments are needed.

[Terron]

Ignoring the problems with the general system for the moment, here are some specific ideas. <ul> <li>A cloak adornment that gives a damage bonus to attacks made when stealthed.</li> <li>Wand/staff adornments that add damage/debuff/dot to spells doing a certain type of damage and/or to the activated attack of the wand.</li> <li>A (fabled?) shield adornment that has a (small) chance to prevent all damage from a physical attack.</li> <li>A helm adornment that has a chance to prevent all damage from a mental attack, or a chance to block a charm or mez.</li> <li>Neck adornments that boost taunts and/or detaunts</li> <li>Glove adornments that boost a particular tradeskill <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </li> </ul>

[Youngone31]

<p>I am in favor of being able to combine or breakdown fragments, powders, infusions, and manas. In the higher tiers, it is very hard to make adornments because of all the materials that are needed. The other day I was trying to make a legendary t4 adornment which takes 10 items. I needed 1 infusion, 5 powders, and 4 fragments. I tranmuted 15 items. after breaking down five adept 1s, 9 adept 3s, and 1 master and I received 3 fragments, 1 mana, and 11 powders!!! After breaking down 15 items I could not make one adornment treasured or otherwise. That is ridiculous!!! If 300+ tranmuters had a quest similar to alchies, that would help a lot. It would also help to bring down the prices of adornments on the broker because they would not be such a pain to make.</p><p>Also the Fabled adornments that have regen that activates 20% of the time and have only 3 triggers are a waste of time. 3 Triggers is a joke. Lower the activate % and have unlimited triggers like imbues then they may be worth while.</p>

[Hukklebuk]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><ul><li>Remove the adorns from both transmuters and tinkers</li></ul> Or, and this is not an option I favor but is equally practical <ul><li>Remove the adorns from all but transmuters and tinkers and divide them up defensively/offensively between them or something of that nature. </li></ul> </blockquote> 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.  <span style="color: #ff3300">Please for the love of God, take away skill-ups on crafting from Transmuters.  Actually stacking three tradeskills (imo) on my tailor / transmuter as tailoring/transmuting/adornment crafting.   Yes hundreds of Plat were spent, won't break my heart a bit if you take it away, because I won't have to spend hundreds more moving along in the game.  <span style="font-size: small">Let the Primary tradeskill folks make the adornments, please I beseech you.</span> </span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">* either this or days and weeks of boring farming, which isn't much better</span> </blockquote>and frankly, it's not really 'that late a stage',  considering tradeskills have been completely overhauled a few times.  Doing this is minor, particularly if you are looking at redistributing who makes what ones.  You can have adornments back from my Transmuter and my Tinkerer and I won't say anything but thank you.

[Terron]

Transmuting and creating adornments are very different activities which ought to use separate skills. If transmuters are to continue to be able to make adronments even when they are not crafters, then perhaps this system would work: <ul> <li>The Transmuting skill is used only for breaking down items, and skill ups are gained by doing that without the current limit.</li> <li>A separate skill - Geomancy - is used for all adornment recipes, both crafter and transmuter. Skill ups are gained similar to the way transmuting currently gets them from crafting an adornment (with the chance of a skill up increased when below 100). </li> <li>All adornment recipes have a chance to increase the skill and also give crafting xp (if not grey for your crafter level).</li> <li>Transmuting recipe books used geomancy to determine the skill level </li> <li>When the change is made Geomancy is set to max(5xcrafter level, transmuting skill).</li> </ul> These seem to be the advantages of this scheme: <ul> <li>Leveling up is consistant for each scheme.</li> <li>People who just want to be able to break down their excess items to give to crafters to make adornments will be able to level up their skill at doing that faster.</li> <li>A wider range of recipes would be available for grinding up geomancy, making it less boring and making a wider range of low level adornment available for adventurers.</li> </ul> I know geomancy is used for a couple of HQs, and this would make it harder in future for people to gain the level of skill needed. The level could be reduced or the skill change to a more relevant one, now that the commision system has removed the need for everyone doing the quest to have the skill. It would make sense if making the wyrmslayer needed a weaponsmith.

[Terron]

<cite>Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>I tell you the way to solve adornment problem, stop asking crafters about them!! </blockquote>Do you really believe the current adornment system is based on what crafters asked for? It isn't.

[Deson]

Terron, so I'm sure I'm reading it right, you're saying strip adornments from everyone and put them under geomancy?

[Terron]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Terron, so I'm sure I'm reading it right, you're saying strip adornments from everyone and put them under geomancy?</blockquote>No, leave the adornment recipes belonging to the same classes, just change the skill the recipes use, so that all adornments are made using the same skill. Then any adornment you happen to have the recipe for you could make when trying to raise that skill. Actaully moving some recipes might be a good idea, but that is separate from what I was proposing.

[Deson]

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote>Terron, so I'm sure I'm reading it right, you're saying strip adornments from everyone and put them under geomancy?</blockquote>No, leave the adornment recipes belonging to the same classes, just change the skill the recipes use, so that all adornments are made using the same skill. Then any adornment you happen to have the recipe for you could make when trying to raise that skill. Actaully moving some recipes might be a good idea, but that is separate from what I was proposing.</blockquote>Thanks for clarifying. I things I don't like about it then are xp and the skill up for adornment making.The xp factor I don't like because if non-primary trades are keeping adorns then it again serves as backdoor xp like when they first opened things up. The geomancy skill-up I don't like because unless it's so easy it's trivial to level, you end up with the same grind fodder problem transmuters currently have.Amending my placement statements from the first page: As others in thread have suggested, it'd be nice to have some tinkering items actually made into adorns like the spring boots. Non-charm slot equipped items actually put you at an adventuring risk to use them. Switching those items to adornments is well in keeping with the tinkering theme and opens up more marketing options for the skill.

[Terron]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Thanks for clarifying. I things I don't like about it then are xp and the skill up for adornment making.The xp factor I don't like because if non-primary trades are keeping adorns then it again serves as backdoor xp like when they first opened things up. The geomancy skill-up I don't like because unless it's so easy it's trivial to level, you end up with the same grind fodder problem transmuters currently have.</blockquote>Backdoor xp? I don't see it like that. Crafting an item giving crafting xp seems reasonable. Currently some adornment recipes give crafting xp, some do not. I think it would be better if they were consistant. It would push up the crafting levels of transmuters who were primarily adventurers, and might tempt them into doing a bit more crafting, but I don't see that as bad. Regarding the grind fodder problem of transmuters, it would improve the situation in several ways. Since they would very rapidly reach level 5 artisan if they are not one already they would have access to all the T1 adornment recipes to grind on, giving them a greater variety of things to make, makign a wider variety of cheap, but fairly weak adornments available. Secondly, I suspect many people want to get their transmuting skill up primarily to be able to break stuff down, perhaps for no-trade drops. They will be able to do that more easily, without creating grind fodder. Only the people who want to actually create adornments will need to grind up. In future that will include crafters as well as transmuters, though current crafters will start with the skill high so they can still craft the adornments they currently make. My feeling is that in the long run the number of people who will want to be able make high level adornments will be less than the number who will want to be able to break stuff down, so that they will be fewer people creating grind fodder, and more people selling components from stuff they broke down. It would not eliminate the problem, but I think it would alleviate it.

[Deson]

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Thanks for clarifying. I things I don't like about it then are xp and the skill up for adornment making.The xp factor I don't like because if non-primary trades are keeping adorns then it again serves as backdoor xp like when they first opened things up. The geomancy skill-up I don't like because unless it's so easy it's trivial to level, you end up with the same grind fodder problem transmuters currently have.</blockquote>Backdoor xp? I don't see it like that. Crafting an item giving crafting xp seems reasonable. Currently some adornment recipes give crafting xp, some do not. I think it would be better if they were consistant. It would push up the crafting levels of transmuters who were primarily adventurers, and might tempt them into doing a bit more crafting, but I don't see that as bad. Regarding the grind fodder problem of transmuters, it would improve the situation in several ways. Since they would very rapidly reach level 5 artisan if they are not one already they would have access to all the T1 adornment recipes to grind on, giving them a greater variety of things to make, makign a wider variety of cheap, but fairly weak adornments available. Secondly, I suspect many people want to get their transmuting skill up primarily to be able to break stuff down, perhaps for no-trade drops. They will be able to do that more easily, without creating grind fodder. Only the people who want to actually create adornments will need to grind up. In future that will include crafters as well as transmuters, though current crafters will start with the skill high so they can still craft the adornments they currently make. My feeling is that in the long run the number of people who will want to be able make high level adornments will be less than the number who will want to be able to break stuff down, so that they will be fewer people creating grind fodder, and more people selling components from stuff they broke down. It would not eliminate the problem, but I think it would alleviate it. </blockquote>Tinkering and Transmuting used to give TS xp. It was grossly unfair for those who had otherwise rejected primary crafting to get xp for not doing it so, it was removed and I for one don't want the situation to come back. They are consistent now, doing work in your primary trades,which includes primary trade adornments, gives you xp, not working in it, doesn't but you get related skill-ups.Those who want to level the actual adornment making-especially if even the primary trades have to grind the skill up- will still provide more product than the market will bear.Either you make it so the skill ups are trivial and thus, have no point in really existing since it can be tied to the related skill as things currently work, or, you make it so hard we stay where we are. You can't escape the result of such a mechanic.If anything, the suggestion makes the current matter worse since right now it's only transmuters in that trap.

[Terron]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>If anything, the suggestion makes the current matter worse since right now it's only transmuters in that trap.</blockquote>Whether it is worse or not would depend on what proportion of transmuters an only doing it to be able to break down the stuff they have and aren't really interesting in creating adornments. I suspect that is a high proportion.

[Meirril]

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>If anything, the suggestion makes the current matter worse since right now it's only transmuters in that trap.</blockquote>Whether it is worse or not would depend on what proportion of transmuters an only doing it to be able to break down the stuff they have and aren't really interesting in creating adornments. I suspect that is a high proportion.</blockquote><p>It seems like your ignoring the main thrust of Deson's comment. Instead of having 1 trade skill subclass that eats all of the transmuting raws for skill ups (aka transmuters themselves), your proposing that ALL trade skill require making adornments to skill up geomancy. While geomancy does rise faster (much much faster) than transmuting does now, your still talking about EVERY trade skiller who is interested in doing transmuting make about 1 or 2 adornments just to level geomancy per level. </p><p>And how exactly does having a larger variety of recipes benifit anyone here anyways? Skill ups only seem to care that you are using the most current version of the counters and the more time you use the counters during item creation. They don't seem to care about the level of the recipe or if you haven't made them before. Transmuters and tinkerers don't currently use experience. </p><p>All I can see using this system for is making a huge headache for any new crafters that come after the current generation, and making advancement into any further tiers a pain for anyone that isn't a transmuter. </p><p>Oh, and the casual transmuter get a free ride. Transmuting was never intended to be easy or cheap. I don't see why it should become so now. I personally don't mind paying through the nose to be a transmuter, I do mind that it makes very, very little sense to use adornments. </p>

[hun_gover]

Head Slot.is a plus mental, plus power, and a plus 14 Wis here at T7.  T6 is a plus 1% Heal crit.Healers will take T6 Crit, everyone else + Power.A few more options here would be a start.CloakPlus falling is fluff and of no real value,The +3 health and power regen are so insignificant that the only real reason for equipping them is that there is nothing else.Move the plus Slash/Crush/Pierce and make a + Ranged here.  Make them either legendary or up them from +5 to remain fabled.  But they aren't worth using as Fable +5 on weapons.  May as well use one of the proc items.Also can add in something along the lines of some plus Focus etc skills for casters/healers.How about making Fable decrease threat procs on the cloak slot.  Its something different and will be used by some classes.  Just dont make them AoE again<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />ChestEveryone uses +6 to all stats here, and thats only because nothing more useful is present.  The resist adorns are again not useful.  Any idea from any thread thats a useful adorn can go here to give more options.NeckNot a bad set actually, variety for all classes, the one to take for most people is obvious.  Just improve the +2% haste to 10% to match the plus 10DPS slot.  No one would take the 2% over the 10% imo.EarYou can have either 100 to a resist or + Int.  The resist adorns are rubbish.  100 makes such a little difference.  Pick any new idea from any other post and add it too ears.  Look at the neck slot for ideas on items for every class.RingResists or health, power or both.  Resists agin are not worth it.  The bonuses to the power and or Health adorns are pretty tiny.

[Terron]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>It seems like your ignoring the main thrust of Deson's comment. Instead of having 1 trade skill subclass that eats all of the transmuting raws for skill ups (aka transmuters themselves), your proposing that ALL trade skill require making adornments to skill up geomancy. While geomancy does rise faster (much much faster) than transmuting does now, your still talking about EVERY trade skiller who is interested in doing transmuting make about 1 or 2 adornments just to level geomancy per level.</p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Every tradeskiller who is interested in making adornments, but not every tradeskiller who wants to break stuff down. As I wrote it would depend on those two types balance out.</span><p>And how exactly does having a larger variety of recipes benifit anyone here anyways? Skill ups only seem to care that you are using the most current version of the counters and the more time you use the counters during item creation. They don't seem to care about the level of the recipe or if you haven't made them before. Transmuters and tinkerers don't currently use experience.</p><span style="color: #ff9900;">It means that they would have a wider range to grind up on so the amount of stuff being dump would be spread out more, meaning less of a glut of any particular one, so it might be that there are at times ones that will sell at a decent markup.</span><p>All I can see using this system for is making a huge headache for any new crafters that come after the current generation, and making advancement into any further tiers a pain for anyone that isn't a transmuter.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Since there would likely be more transmuters breaking stuff down than making adornments it would be quite likelhy a lot cheaper to by the materials for making adornments. Yes it would be a pain to learn out to make adornments in the future, but no more of a pain that it is now, and propably less.</span></p><p>Oh, and the casual transmuter get a free ride. Transmuting was never intended to be easy or cheap. I don't see why it should become so now. I personally don't mind paying through the nose to be a transmuter, I do mind that it makes very, very little sense to use adornments.</p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Transmuting would still be expensive. It would still be that every time you broke something down you destroyed its vendor value. Therer would be no free ride.It you have the best equipment available and you would to get a little extra edge and have lots of cash than using adornments makes sense. Or if they are extremely cheap and somewhat useful.</span></blockquote>

[Deson]

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>It seems like your ignoring the main thrust of Deson's comment. Instead of having 1 trade skill subclass that eats all of the transmuting raws for skill ups (aka transmuters themselves), your proposing that ALL trade skill require making adornments to skill up geomancy. While geomancy does rise faster (much much faster) than transmuting does now, your still talking about EVERY trade skiller who is interested in doing transmuting make about 1 or 2 adornments just to level geomancy per level.</p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Every tradeskiller who is interested in making adornments, but not every tradeskiller who wants to break stuff down. As I wrote it would depend on those two types balance out.</span><p>And how exactly does having a larger variety of recipes benifit anyone here anyways? Skill ups only seem to care that you are using the most current version of the counters and the more time you use the counters during item creation. They don't seem to care about the level of the recipe or if you haven't made them before. Transmuters and tinkerers don't currently use experience.</p><span style="color: #ff9900;">It means that they would have a wider range to grind up on so the amount of stuff being dump would be spread out more, meaning less of a glut of any particular one, so it might be that there are at times ones that will sell at a decent markup.</span><p>All I can see using this system for is making a huge headache for any new crafters that come after the current generation, and making advancement into any further tiers a pain for anyone that isn't a transmuter.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Since there would likely be more transmuters breaking stuff down than making adornments it would be quite likelhy a lot cheaper to by the materials for making adornments. Yes it would be a pain to learn out to make adornments in the future, but no more of a pain that it is now, and propably less.</span></p><p>Oh, and the casual transmuter get a free ride. Transmuting was never intended to be easy or cheap. I don't see why it should become so now. I personally don't mind paying through the nose to be a transmuter, I do mind that it makes very, very little sense to use adornments.</p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Transmuting would still be expensive. It would still be that every time you broke something down you destroyed its vendor value. Therer would be no free ride.It you have the best equipment available and you would to get a little extra edge and have lots of cash than using adornments makes sense. Or if they are extremely cheap and somewhat useful.</span></blockquote></blockquote>So, your proposal is a gamble with a fairly low margin of error. Absolute number speaking, the number of crafters per class per server would still have to be pretty low to prevent a glut- unless everyone is doing t1 which would be at best 0 change and very likely reduce the number of people willing to take transmuting because of the low profit margin(current transmuters biggest customers coming up are other transmuters). The glut if they don't do all t1 would be on the very few items that sell. What tailor wouldn't want to grind the +hp? How many adornments are practically grindable for any class that's looking for a return on the investment? Short of stripping everyone of adornments and putting them all into the geomancy pool, nothing effectively changes for the better and competition just got a lot fiercer.As for people coming up after the change, they are likely to become pretty much just as transmuters are now because they would practically need to break down their own materials for raws to grind on.

[Terron]

<cite></cite>It doesn't get rid of the grind for levelling up the skillneeded to craft adornments, but it allows those who don't want to craftthem, but do want to be able to break down stuff they can't trade toavoid it.  For example a non crafting adventurer who wants tobreak down no-trade fabled items that no one could use to get thematerials to get a crafter to make an adornment for them.Anyone who would have levelled transmuting anyway would come out noworse, and the real effort will be required to level the crafting(geomancy) part, and the transmuting part will go up near automaticallyas part of that.Those who wouldn't have wanted to learn transmuting, but do want tomake adornments will find that the skill to do so no longer comes freewith their crafting level (though current crafters should get it sothey don't loose abilities they currently have), and will need to grindit up, so they would lose out.I believe the first group is likely to larger than the third, as Ithink most crafter really interested in making adornments would learntransmuting anyway and be part of the second group.Getting rid of the need to craft adornments if all you are interested in is breaking stuff down is likely to reduce competition.Having people around who can break stuff down, but don't need to usethe stuff produced is likely to reduce the cost of transmutingmaterials, making them more affordable to those who do want to makeadornments. People are likely to concentrate on what seems the best adornments, butthat might well lead to shortages of other adornments which some peoplemight want to try. Of coure it would work better with a better range ofadornments.A wider range of cheaper lower tier adornments would be likely to encourage people to try them.

[Master71]

Who has decided that I must, as à transmutter, have to craft adornement to gain skill? It's like asking a tailor to create colors to gain skill and XP, and gain nothing by crafting clothes... Totaly disturbing, unatural, and flawed beyond limit... as i can't sell my transmutted material, as I need them to gain skill... Actually, my low level avatars don't have any adornement, except for weaopn ones made by transmuters... And my T7 avatars have yet to decide which adornement to choose, as they're not enough usefull for the plat and time required. Give me recipe to transmute, like making things from one tier to another, like alchemist do with dusts... Give me recipe to transmute a rare into an other of the same level, consumming a semi-rare as cost... If you want to give me adornement, give me some that have relation with transmuting... Like converting 50% of dammage done from a type to another, by example, a piercing weapon with a crush adornement will do 50% pierce dammage and 50% of crush dammage... Or a ring with a flame to ice adornement will turn 50% of flame spell dammage turn to cold one.

[Meirril]

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>It seems like your ignoring the main thrust of Deson's comment. Instead of having 1 trade skill subclass that eats all of the transmuting raws for skill ups (aka transmuters themselves), your proposing that ALL trade skill require making adornments to skill up geomancy. While geomancy does rise faster (much much faster) than transmuting does now, your still talking about EVERY trade skiller who is interested in doing transmuting make about 1 or 2 adornments just to level geomancy per level.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Every tradeskiller who is interested in making adornments, but not every tradeskiller who wants to break stuff down. As I wrote it would depend on those two types balance out.</span></p><p><span style="color: #006600;">exactly how many crafters do you know who arn't interested in being able to craft every recipe they have access to? People pay rediculous amounts for the recipes from EH even though they don't go on EH raids and have never been asked to craft anything from EH raids. </span></p><p>And how exactly does having a larger variety of recipes benifit anyone here anyways? Skill ups only seem to care that you are using the most current version of the counters and the more time you use the counters during item creation. They don't seem to care about the level of the recipe or if you haven't made them before. Transmuters and tinkerers don't currently use experience.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">It means that they would have a wider range to grind up on so the amount of stuff being dump would be spread out more, meaning less of a glut of any particular one, so it might be that there are at times ones that will sell at a decent markup.</span></p><p><span style="color: #006600;">I disagree. People arn't going to grind up levels on stuff they can't sell (like all of those resist adornments). The only adornments that will be produced are the very few sellable ones. Even then there won't be many produced as the cost of adornments is phenominal. I don't know anyone who would pay over 35g plus fuel just to get a skill up (which is about the cost of a t7 treasured adornment) on something they suspect they won't be able to sell. Your going to see people grind up on cheaper recipes, both in crafting and in transmuting. </span></p><p>All I can see using this system for is making a huge headache for any new crafters that come after the current generation, and making advancement into any further tiers a pain for anyone that isn't a transmuter.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Since there would likely be more transmuters breaking stuff down than making adornments it would be quite likelhy a lot cheaper to by the materials for making adornments. Yes it would be a pain to learn out to make adornments in the future, but no more of a pain that it is now, and propably less.</span></p><p><span style="color: #006600;">Right now all the pain is born by the transmuters. More or less all the proffit is reaped by them as well. The mark up for materials in tier 7 really isn't that much considering how difficult and expensive it is to become a transmuter. This can only indicate to me that there is alot of competition in producing raw materials. Well, at least on Antonia Bayle. I can't speak for other servers. Right now you can buy fragments for 8g, powder for 40g, infusions for 35g, and mana for 5p on AB. Cost on most transmutable t7 treasured is slightly less than 7g. That's a really low proffit margin, especially on infusions. I can't see the top tier materials getting any cheaper.</span></p><p>Oh, and the casual transmuter get a free ride. Transmuting was never intended to be easy or cheap. I don't see why it should become so now. I personally don't mind paying through the nose to be a transmuter, I do mind that it makes very, very little sense to use adornments.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Transmuting would still be expensive. It would still be that every time you broke something down you destroyed its vendor value. Therer would be no free ride.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><span style="color: #006600;">What I mean by a free ride, is instead of breaking down a bare minimum of 5 items per combine, your system would reduce that to one item. And they can sell that one item for greater than its component market value to any of the crafters who want to make an adorment. What exactly is the cost to the transmuter again? It seems like a pure proffit formula to me. </span>It you have the best equipment available and you would to get a little extra edge and have lots of cash than using adornments makes sense. Or if they are extremely cheap and somewhat useful.</span></p><span style="color: #006600;">It seems to me that your proposal would take away the only cheap adornments (transmuter), not make them more widely available. If you really wanted to make adornments cheaper, you need to remove the huge number of items that need to be destroyed to create them. As it is, its generally much more expensive to produce them than to purchase equivellent tiered items. The only people that can afford to use adornments are those that have aquired their end game items or truely have plat to throw away. </span></blockquote></blockquote>

[zaneluke]

I dont know if it has been posted. But,So once you hit 100 as a transmuter you have to craft to gain skill to 350 right?To craft from 100-350 you have to use your transmuedt itmes, thus eating up all your items to make more items.Kind of like transmuting an item in a sub combine and making the item is actually the skill.Once your skill is maxed you can transmute things of all levels and sell the fragments and dust to other crfters that can make neat items to use and to sell to other playes.Am I on track?  okPerhaps a solution would be the ability to get to 350 by transmuting alone. No crafting at all. BUT the exp gained from transmuting would be trottled down heavy to equal out the amount of time and effort to "even" it out. It can be done. But transmuting your way to 350 should take a TON of resources. It is in my opinion a very powerfull skill.

[hun_gover]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote> 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. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" /></blockquote>I still think Dom, that the crafters want to make adornments people want to buy.  And at the moment too many adornments are not worth buying.  As many options as there is.  95% of adornments are bought because they add something to the primary role of that class.  When looking in full at the list of adornmeant although there seems lots of different ideas, the vast majority are not used, because there is something more useful for that slot.While people always will argue that there could be someone could use the adornment is certain circumstances, the cold fact for crafters is that virtually every player picks the same adorns for a slot, and that none of us really want to make adorns that will be used by one player a server, if that.To really solve this you need to find out the adorns that each class/archtype would want, and tailor the adorn list to them, fitting in to the classes that need boosting the adorns that are missing.  Case in point, look at weapon adorns, see what people use, then work out what on earth the point is with the rest of the  recipes.Adorns need to be decided in conjunction with current game mechanics, and until they are you will either have Crafters not making a certain percentage of adorns, or even worse spending numerous plat to make an adorn, that no one will buy.Players choose the improve their toons in the most effective way they can, they dont pick crap adorns over good adorns for the sake of being different.  I know what my Ranger wants for each slot adornment wise.  You can be sure that this is the same for vast majority of players in every class.  The adorns not on these wanted lists serve no purpose in game, cause I doubt very much anyone wants to level on  T7 fabled no one will use.

[Cerios]

I would have to agree that adornments in general should be taken away from transmuters. Regardless of original intent, it was a horrific decision.There are many things that could be done to add value to the notion of the transmuter;<ul><li>Specific transmuting recipes which could then be used by other crafters. This could add depth and style to crafting as a whole. For example, perhaps a recipe that calls for the combining of a legendary level transmutation result with a shadow vortex or some other form of already in game item that could be used by weapon smiths to create a series of bane adornments(perhaps even a poison like consumable bane potion created by alchemists). There are literally hundreds of potential recipes using this path alone.</li><li>As has been mentioned before, recipes which combine lesser transmutations into greater ones...</li><li>Adornment effects which operate from the coming visual only slots which effect non-combat game play (virtual faction etc...)</li><li>Perhaps the addition of some kind of slot which could be geared towards transmuter products, such as magic tattoos or aura modifications (imagine MOA type effects)</li></ul>There really is a huge variety of potential ways to make transmuters more active (if that is simply the desire). But as of right now it seems that the system in place is designed as pure money sink. Which is always without exception bad game design. It doesn't really matter how much it costs to do transmuting as long as their is a natural and logical flow to the process, becoming a better transmuter should be accomplished by actually performing the task of transmuting. As for the current reality, well thats fairly easily fixed, if you need to reward the players who leveled transmuters the hard way because your making it easier then simply do so. figure the average cost of becoming a transmuter to 70 this way, and the new way and return to those players the difference(modified for the actual time difference) in coin, or some other form of compensation. Its not that difficult really.

[Paddyo]

<p>Overall, I'm pretty happy with adornments and distribution.  It makes sense to me, for the most part, why things are the way they are.  You shouldnt be able to add plus 14 of every stat to every piece of armor, but there do need to be legitimate choices in more areas than there are now.  Chest, rings are good examples, most everyone run with plus 6 to all stats in T7, and plus 70 health or power on rings.  </p><p>Changes to make resistance adornments more viable would fix this.  A prismatic +100 all resists for the chest, and ring polishes, ear backings that have beefier resistance types maybe, like a +200 heat and cold for rings (elemental) or 200 poison and disease (noxious) would allow resistance polishes (or backings) to be viable options to the same old same old.  They would also become better "sellers" because of people who would buy them just for resist jewelry they use.</p><p>I'd love to see 2% adornments in T8 as logical upgrades to all the 1% from lower tiers. </p><p>Fabled ring polishes need to be beefed up.  35/35 doesn't warrant the resources and cost needed to make a fabled adornment.  Maybe make the 200 noxious type I described above legendary polishes that get better each tier, and the health/power fabled adorn should be, in my opinion, no less than 60/60 in T6.  </p><p>Cloaks are a minor item slot, with small stats as was intended when they were introduced.  Sure, some of the god cloaks and fabled ones are very nice, but they still arent make or break.  I think the adornments for cloaks have to keep that thought in mind. </p>

[mellowknees72]

<p>I disagree with an earlier post that +Falling for cloaks is "fluff and not useful".  It's actually very useful for those of us who get a +falling mod from an ability and want to expand on it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  I also disagree that +power regen and +health regen is "useless".  It all stacks...I know it's only +3 at the highest level, but every little bit helps.  And as a Provisioner, I really don't want to see those adornments go away.  It's one of the reasons I decided that my Provisioner should also transmute.</p><p>I still would love to see some way to be able to remove an adornment from an item so it can be used in another.</p>

[Meirril]

<p>Alot of people have been asking for a way to remove an adornment. </p><p>Thinking about this, the main reason for objecting to this is the same reason that all equipment is now attunable. If you could pass them on to other players, there would eventually be no market for new adornments. </p><p>However, as it is adornments arn't worth placing in anything other than end game items (unless you are a transmuter). Having a way to transfer an adornment from one peice of your gear to another peice of your gear would make them much more desirable. Your not just wasting 10p on a stupid legendary item by placing a fabled adornment if you can move it to your next upgrade.</p><p>My proposal is to have alchemists given a recipe for a solvent that would be used similar to how adornments are used now. You use the solvent, which can be used on any adorned item in your inventory. Then you have to choose another item in your inventory or an equipped item. You then receive a confirmation window that asks if you really want to destroy <the first item> to place <name of adornment> on <the second item>. </p><p>I don't see any need to have more than one solvent in the game. Nor do I see any need for it to be made from rare components. I would actually propose that it be a level 9 recipe so that any crafter can make it. </p>

[Meirril]

<p>I would like to see adornments for tinkerers revamped a bit.</p><p>I would like to see adornments for the effects of all of the non-charged items that can be used by non-tinkerers.</p><p>Mostly I wanted the spring-boots effect on something I wouldn't forget to switch out of for a battle. However, other people have mentioned that being able to see invis/stealth would be in high demand on PvP servers. Also considering that every player has access to unlimited charges 12 hours of water breathing, beign able to place a rebreather adornment on a helmet or necklas doesn't strike me as unreasonable. </p><p>Also an adornment that could be placed on any slot that acts as a greater light source would be greately appreciated. If it had to be slotted, I would push for the first charm slot adornment. Barring that, a cloak adornment.</p>

[Psychotic One]

<p>The one thing I'm going to mention is the apparent disparity between crushing 2hand adornments vs others.  </p><p> Unless I'm missing something somewhere Pierce and slash get adornments like double atk and multi target strikes while crushing gets +10 def, +5 crushing, and power drain.  It seems unfair to hammer and staff people that there isn't an adornment that gives us a definitive dps bonus like the 2 other types get in comparrison.  Even if it was to make power drain and vamp available for all dmg types rather than a singular for the 2 hand spec.  Just something thats been bugging me since getting my claw club and going through my recipie books looking for a good dps adornment.  And if giving crushing double atk or multi target hits is not viable I could suggest one that on successful attack next melee hit deals critical damage or a debuff to crushing mitigation or defense.</p>

[Deson]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Alot of people have been asking for a way to remove an adornment. </p><p>Thinking about this, the main reason for objecting to this is the same reason that all equipment is now attunable. If you could pass them on to other players, there would eventually be no market for new adornments. </p><p>However, as it is adornments arn't worth placing in anything other than end game items (unless you are a transmuter). Having a way to transfer an adornment from one peice of your gear to another peice of your gear would make them much more desirable. Your not just wasting 10p on a stupid legendary item by placing a fabled adornment if you can move it to your next upgrade.</p><p>My proposal is to have alchemists given a recipe for a solvent that would be used similar to how adornments are used now. You use the solvent, which can be used on any adorned item in your inventory. Then you have to choose another item in your inventory or an equipped item. You then receive a confirmation window that asks if you really want to destroy <the first item> to place <name of adornment> on <the second item>. </p><p>I don't see any need to have more than one solvent in the game. Nor do I see any need for it to be made from rare components. I would actually propose that it be a level 9 recipe so that any crafter can make it. </p></blockquote>Have it just strip the adornment and leave the item intact.Just because a player wants to move adornments doesn't mean they are looking to lose the item.I'd also give the recipe to mid level (post 100) transmuters. Should they be stripped of their adornments or have them radically altered in such a way as to not infringe on other classes, it would be a nice addition. Even if they are not, the addition still fits nicely with the being "masters" of adornments.

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I don't see any need to have more than one solvent in the game. Nor do I see any need for it to be made from rare components. I would actually propose that it be a level 9 recipe so that any crafter can make it. </p></blockquote>It would provide transmuters who didn't have the option of adornments a consumable to give them marketability among other tradeskills. I personally would make different levels and component requirements, much like the different tiers of solvents available in EQ Live. It would maintain the value of fabled adornments if you needed components of a similar quality to make the solvent to remove the adornment safely. But the flip side is that if you happened to get a very nice upgrade the day after you put an adornment into something you thought you'd have a while in that slot, you aren't stuck.

[Calthine]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>It would provide transmuters who didn't have the option of adornments a consumable to give them marketability among other tradeskills.  </blockquote>I don't understand this - all transmuters can make adornments.

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>It would provide transmuters who didn't have the option of adornments a consumable to give them marketability among other tradeskills.  </blockquote>I don't understand this - all transmuters can make adornments.</blockquote>This is assuming they remove adornments from transmuters or just give them fluff adornments to skill up on, to remove the competition that transmuters are directly in with weaponsmiths in regards to adornments.

[greenmantle]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite> <blockquote><p>However, <b>as it is adornments arn't worth placing in anything other than end game items (unless you are a transmuter)</b>. Having a way to transfer an adornment from one peice of your gear to another peice of your gear would make them much more desirable. Your not just wasting 10p on a stupid legendary item by placing a fabled adornment if you can move it to your next upgrade.</p></blockquote><p>That seems the bigest problem i havent bothered with transmuting because of the percived cost. </p><p>A skill that "you have to by plat to get anywhere" doesnt sound like a good idea for the poor. The crazy thing is either because of the cost of the craft or the limited market you never seen an adorment under a plat. A skill up path that didnt require transmuters buying up adept 3's masters and holding book burnings might help them level  bring the cost of adornments down and remove the dumbest part of the system that they destroy things people can use for a skill.</p>

[Meirril]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I don't see any need to have more than one solvent in the game. Nor do I see any need for it to be made from rare components. I would actually propose that it be a level 9 recipe so that any crafter can make it. </p></blockquote>It would provide transmuters who didn't have the option of adornments a consumable to give them marketability among other tradeskills. I personally would make different levels and component requirements, much like the different tiers of solvents available in EQ Live. It would maintain the value of fabled adornments if you needed components of a similar quality to make the solvent to remove the adornment safely. But the flip side is that if you happened to get a very nice upgrade the day after you put an adornment into something you thought you'd have a while in that slot, you aren't stuck. </blockquote><p>I'm against this for 2 reasons. First, if transmuters were making it this would become another skill up recipe for transmuting. No matter how you implimented it it would radically change how transmuters skill up and I don't want the solvent to become a contested issue in transmuting. For all I care, have it sold by transmuting vendors and elimintate the crafter from the equasion. I was suggesting level 9 alchemy so that we'd all have access to the recipe. </p><p>Second objection: using similar components would make the solvent nearly as expensive as the adornment itself! We're trying to give reasons to buy adornments for earlier gear. Having the solvent be complicated, expensive, several varieties per tier and quality level: these are all reasons NOT to use the solvent and to indeed ignore their existance. Please, keep it simple!</p><p>As for having the origional item not be destroyed in the process: I can see a few issues with this. Now the combine would have to return an item. Combines that currently use items return non-attuned items. I suppose its possible to have a combine like this return an attumed item, but maybe it can't. Either way, the status of the adornemd item (attuend or non-attuned) would suddenly become a concern which seems like more headaches for the developers that could be easily avoided by just destroying the origional item in the process.</p><p>Second, I suggested a single low cost item to be the solvent. A ballancing factor for being able to remove a tier 6 adornment from a tier 6 item and place it on a tier 7 item is that the "cost" of doing this is loosing any vendor value or sacrifice value the item would of had. The same ballancing factor is already in use for adornments. You can place a new adornment on an already adorned item, but you loose the current adornment. I think its a fair compramise. The real cost of using the solvent I proposed isn't the solvent, its the item your loosing while moving the adornment.</p>

[Caethre]

<cite>DominoDev wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since there is a lot of disagreement about what a transmuter's primary role is intended to be, I checked with Lyndro and Gallenite about the intentions for the class.  Here is their confirmation of a transmuters' role:<b>"Making adornments is intended to be the primary function of transmuters, and transmuting is their equivalent of a gather skill."</b>I realise that this was not clearly communicated at the time transmuting was introduced, and is perhaps not the way transmuters are currently viewed by everyone, but there you have it now.</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">OOC.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">When I started transmuting, this was how I envisioned it, and I still do. The only thing I didn't really understand was why Transmuters didn't get a rather higher proportion of the adornment recipes than they do, because afterall, they ARE the adornment-makers (and the above definition seems to back this up, that Transmuters are viewed by SOE as have the primary function of making adornments, something that most certainly is not the primary function of primary tradeskill classes).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><u>I am strongly OPPOSED to the idea of removing transmuting recipes from transmuters.</u>  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">The very idea of it flies in the face of logic to me.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In fact, if we were going to have a large sweeping change (not something that is generally a good idea), I would be moving some of the adornment recipes currently with primary tradeskill classes to transmuters. Afterall, Woodworkers make woodworking items, Provisioners making cooked items, etc (Primary trades), so Transmuters should be making the adornments.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I do realize why the primary classes were given some adornment recipes tho - the simple fact that had all those recipes gone to Transmuters, transmutation as a secondary tradeskill class would have been relatively way overpowered. But a higher proportion of adornment manufacture recipes I would suggest should go to Transmuters than do now, and less to the "primary" classes.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">That said, I do not suggest sweeping changes at all - changes for changes sake do tend just to </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">cause disruption and solve nothing, as in the end you still have lots of competing opinions heh.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Now, one thing I think *should* be done is a more equitable sharing of the recipes that the primary classes do have, between the nine classes. It struck me as unbalanced at the start, that Sages (and a couple of other primary classes) get so many fewer recipes than some others, and my view on this hasn't changed.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In Tier 7, Sages get precisely TWO recipes. That's it. Some other classes get ten times that many. Whilst the numbers will never be equal obviously, I would suggest they be much closer than they are now.</span></p>

[Calthine]

<cite>greenmantle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite> <blockquote><p>However, <b>as it is adornments arn't worth placing in anything other than end game items (unless you are a transmuter)</b>. Having a way to transfer an adornment from one peice of your gear to another peice of your gear would make them much more desirable. Your not just wasting 10p on a stupid legendary item by placing a fabled adornment if you can move it to your next upgrade.</p></blockquote><p>That seems the bigest problem i havent bothered with transmuting because of the percived cost. </p><p>A skill that "you have to by plat to get anywhere" doesnt sound like a good idea for the poor. The crazy thing is either because of the cost of the craft or the limited market you never seen an adorment under a plat. A skill up path that didnt require transmuters buying up adept 3's masters and holding book burnings might help them level  bring the cost of adornments down and remove the dumbest part of the system that they destroy things people can use for a skill.</p></blockquote>You don't have to spend a dime on transmuting, except fuel and books, just like any other class.  You can level it entirely on Tier 1 treasured drops and Mastercrafted gear and Ad3's.

[mellowknees72]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I don't see any need to have more than one solvent in the game. Nor do I see any need for it to be made from rare components. I would actually propose that it be a level 9 recipe so that any crafter can make it. </p></blockquote>It would provide transmuters who didn't have the option of adornments a consumable to give them marketability among other tradeskills. I personally would make different levels and component requirements, much like the different tiers of solvents available in EQ Live. It would maintain the value of fabled adornments if you needed components of a similar quality to make the solvent to remove the adornment safely. <b><span style="font-size: small;">But the flip side is that if you happened to get a very nice upgrade the day after you put an adornment into something you thought you'd have a while in that slot, you aren't stuck. </span></b></blockquote><p>Precisely!</p><p>I don't care if solvents would be player-made items or vendor-purchased items...nor do I care whether or not there were different teirs of solvents (as long as it's VERY, VERY CLEAR which adornments each type will remove - as in it says on the item description "This solvent can remove adornments for level 40 and under" or something similar)...I just want the darned solvent! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  </p><p>I'm a casual player; I don't raid; I work my little pixelated Halfling butt to the bone to get the little plat that I have...and I worry about spending 10p on an adornment that I really want, permanently affixing it to whatever piece of equipment I think I won't replace for another 10 levels, and then getting some other piece of equipment that I want to put it into.</p>

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>I'm against this for 2 reasons. First, if transmuters were making it this would become another skill up recipe for transmuting. </p><p>Second objection: using similar components would make the solvent nearly as expensive as the adornment itself! </p></blockquote>I support solvents if a variety of things happened first, which I outlined in an earlier post.  Namely, that adornments were removed from transmuters, that they were given the ability to transmute handcrafted, that they had the possibility of skilling up on breaking down and that they could combine lower materials to make higher materials. Solvents go along with this idea in that if transmuters had all this happen, they would need a return of some sort of marketability, which solvents would provide. The ability to transmute handcrafted and to combine lesser materials would make transmuter materials more widely available and the chance to skill up higher then 100 on breaking down would mean that less of those materials would need to be hoarded just to skill up, also leading to an increased availability which would translate to a drop in price. It's a few pages back, but I wrote a much longer, more detailed post that gives a lot more explanation than this nutshell version.

[mellowknees72]

I honestly don't understand the idea of removing adornments from transmuters...HUH? First off, transmutation is a secondary skill - so you have to have some other type of crafting skill to be able to do it...and all crafters have adornment recipes... And secondly, what would the benefit be of removing those recipes from transmuters? Everyone gets their own special kinds of adornments that they can make...is that a problem? I'm not trying to be antagonistic - I'm seriously curious why folks are suggesting this... Well, and I'm interested, too, because my main crafter is a transmuter (though not very skilled in it as of yet), and I'm wondering what the reasoning is behind the suggestion.

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ff6600;"><u>I am strongly OPPOSED to the idea of removing transmuting recipes from transmuters.</u>  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">The very idea of it flies in the face of logic to me.</span><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In fact, if we were going to have a large sweeping change (not something that is generally a good idea), I would be moving some of the adornment recipes currently with primary tradeskill classes to transmuters. Afterall, Woodworkers make woodworking items, Provisioners making cooked items, etc (Primary trades), so Transmuters should be making the adornments</span></p></blockquote>Would you also move the ability to acquire the materials for adornments to someone besides transmuters? The problem with giving transmuters even more adornments and making them *the* adornment class is that they also are the only ones with the ability to provide the materials needed for adornments. This in my eyes would make them extremely overpowered in relation to other tradeskill classes who must share resources and all have an equal opportunity to get said resources.

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Pipes@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote> And secondly, what would the benefit be of removing those recipes from transmuters? Everyone gets their own special kinds of adornments that they can make...is that a problem?</blockquote>One problem is that transmuter adornments are in direct competition with weaponsmith-provided adornments. Weaponsmiths already have the shaft in a lot of ways and that just exacerbates the problem with their marketability.

[Hechicera]

<cite>I'm glad I read the whole thread, since there was already a post saying 95% of what I would say.   Quoted.My added 5%:- I recently returned to EQ2, when I left I had 2 low/mid level weaponsmiths.  I deleted one immediately.  I deleted the second after imbued mat. harvests were tweaked to be more rare.  To level with any sanity you have to make the weapon and its imbue even for non-rares.  These things just don't sell at all T3 & 4 at least.  Leveling my weaponsmiths was by far more expensive than leveling my transmuter, and much less fun as sales were few past T2 (and my tailor can make those).   Weaponsmiths need love.  Please give them the bulk of the transmuter's weapon adornment recipes.  Where other crafter's need  love, give them added recipes as well - either regular or adornments.   If that means tinker adornments go to WW, fine.  If tinkers need more to level - give them more to tinker (I'd hope expansions and content adds would expand their recipes anyway).- Try whenever possible to match the adornment to items crafted by the class.  As a player who wants to buy stuff, its a pain to track down crafters of all four types just to get 2 items and 2 adornments for them.  Instead of more sales, I'm just chosing to skip adornments, esp. with the prices.- Allowing transmuters to level up by repetitively grinding T1 adornments is breaking the cash drain intent on all but T1 & T2.  T1 & T2 attunable/lore's, rare harvests and  Adepts sell like hotcakes.  Granted, keeping an alt to farm newbie island is great for fast cash.  And my last transmuter very much enjoyed this loophole.   But, sales of T3 & T4 items are still basement.  Transmuters don't want them, and for good reason.  IMHO its broken.  So transmuting is *not* draining cash from anyone really once they get a clue, and its not draining anything from the economy as designed except maybe T1 masters.  Transmuters must be forced to move up tiers like all other crafters and harvesters if they want to skill-up, if you want the system to work as intended.  So, I'd modify the suggestion below - transmuters can combine lesser transmutes to get better ones **only within the same tier**.  And, combines within your current tier should yield your best chance of a skill-up.- I find both transmuting and tinkering's 4-skill craft action process to be a huge step backwards from the other crafts skill-countering in general fun.  I prefer to avoid making all transmute adornments except what I must to skill-up as the actual making of them is not enjoyable.  Perhaps when you do the overall craft-counter redo, these two can get help as well.TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would have to say that I'm in the camp that doesn't feel transmuting should involve crafting adornments. The current setup puts them too much at odds with weaponsmiths. However, in the process of taking away, there must out of necessity be something added. So a few suggestions in list format. - Remove all adornments from transmuters - Take the sum total of all adornments lacking the "tinkering feel" (I like that term) and distribute among the 9 primary tradeskill classes. I can't speak much on tinkered adornments, but I would have to say examples that involve utility seem much more like that should be the forte of things related to tinkering - Allow transmuters to skill up on breaking down items past 100, but as someone suggested, at a diminishing amount as they reach higher levels. The reason for this is is threefold.... - Give transmuters the ability to transmute items of lower than Treasured quality for powders - Allow transmuters to combine lesser components to make higher components. - Allow transmuters to use their transmuted materials along with small amounts of normal harvested materials (to even them out with tinkerers a bit) to make adornment solvents that can safely remove adornments for reuse These three things would allow the transmuter to still have a viable product to provide to the market, and it also gives them something unique for what is being taken away that will be of high value to many players, the concept of solvents. Giving them the ability to combine materials into higher levels of material, which would also be a good way to provide a chance of skilling up, means that the availability of the materials they provide will increase and adornment prices will not have to be so out of whack with other products that the other tradeskill classes can provide. Transmuters may have been meant to make adornments, but an idea like that would really only be viable if they were the *only* ones who could make adornments and that isn't the case. It's far better to redefine the intention into a supply class that has its own uniqueness and is bringing something completely new and valuable to the table. </blockquote>

[Caethre]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ff6600;"><u>I am strongly OPPOSED to the idea of removing transmuting recipes from transmuters.</u>  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">The very idea of it flies in the face of logic to me.</span> <p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In fact, if we were going to have a large sweeping change (not something that is generally a good idea), I would be moving some of the adornment recipes currently with primary tradeskill classes to transmuters. Afterall, Woodworkers make woodworking items, Provisioners making cooked items, etc (Primary trades), so Transmuters should be making the adornments</span></p></blockquote>Would you also move the ability to acquire the materials for adornments to someone besides transmuters? The problem with giving transmuters even more adornments and making them *the* adornment class is that they also are the only ones with the ability to provide the materials needed for adornments. This in my eyes would make them extremely overpowered in relation to other tradeskill classes who must share resources and all have an equal opportunity to get said resources. </blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">OOC.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">No I wouldn't. They properly belong to transmuters, as the quote that Domino made from the SOE lead designers was intended to communicate. The production of materials for adornments is the transmuters "harvesting" task, and the manufacture of those adornments is their trade.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There is no "overpowered" here, at least, not with respect to the primary tradeskill classes. We no more have to balance "Transmuter" against "Weaponsmith" than we have to balance "Ranger" or "Templar" against "Weaponsmith" - the concepts are totally orthogonal. You can be both a transmuter and a weaponsmith and a templar, for example.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">The only place where "balance" has to be considered for transmuting is against the other secondary tradeskill, in this case, Tinkering. Which is why I would not be in favour of any huge sweeping changes at all (that just upset people). Leave things as they are by and large, and in the future, put more transmuting recipes (ie adornments) on Transmuters, and balance out the number of adornment recipes that have been given to the nine tradeskill classes, between those nine classes more equitably, and then leave it be.</span></p><p><cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><cite>Pipes@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote>And secondly, what would the benefit be of removing those recipes from transmuters? Everyone gets their own special kinds of adornments that they can make...is that a problem?</blockquote>One problem is that transmuter adornments are in direct competition with weaponsmith-provided adornments. Weaponsmiths already have the shaft in a lot of ways and that just exacerbates the problem with their marketability. </blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I suspect this is the actual focus of what you are saying. As a weaponsmith, making adornments, there is market competition with transmuters and some weaponsmiths don't like it. I am almost at the "deal with it" response to that one, I am sorry.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I would suggest - do nothing. Leave the competition in place. If we *must* do something, remove some or all of those weaponsmith adornments. Adornments belong primarily to the Transmuter secondary tradeskill realm.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Now, don't get me wrong, I do think weaponsmith as a primary tradeskill class , are lacking somewhat, and might require a little more room to move, and a few more things to make. But this should be addressed in the primary tradeskill itself, balancing against the other eight primary tradeskills, and not with regards to adornments, which are the job of transmuters and not the focus of any primary tradeskill class.</span></p><p>Edit: Some typos corrected.</p>

[Cerios]

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ff6600;"><u>I am strongly OPPOSED to the idea of removing transmuting recipes from transmuters.</u>  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">The very idea of it flies in the face of logic to me.</span> <p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In fact, if we were going to have a large sweeping change (not something that is generally a good idea), I would be moving some of the adornment recipes currently with primary tradeskill classes to transmuters. Afterall, Woodworkers make woodworking items, Provisioners making cooked items, etc (Primary trades), so Transmuters should be making the adornments</span></p></blockquote>Would you also move the ability to acquire the materials for adornments to someone besides transmuters? The problem with giving transmuters even more adornments and making them *the* adornment class is that they also are the only ones with the ability to provide the materials needed for adornments. This in my eyes would make them extremely overpowered in relation to other tradeskill classes who must share resources and all have an equal opportunity to get said resources. </blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">OOC.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">No I wouldn't. They properly belong to transmuters, as the quote that Domino made from the SOE lead designers was intended to communicate. The production of materials for adornments is the transmuters "harvesting" task, and the manufacture of those adornments is their trade.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There is no "overpowered" here, at least, not with respect to the primary tradeskill classes. We no more have to balance "Transmuter" against "Weaponsmith" than we have to balance "Ranger" or "Templar" against "Weaponsmith" - the concepts are totally orthogonal. You can be both a transmuter and a weaponsmith and a templar, for example.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">The only place where "balance" has to be considered for transmuting is against the other secondary tradeskill, in this case, Tinkering. Which is why I would not be in favour of any huge sweeping changes at all (that just upset people). Leave things as they are by and large, and in the future, put more transmuting recipes (ie adornments) on Transmuters, and balance out the number of adornment recipes that have been given to the nine tradeskill classes, between those nine classes more equitably, and then leave it be.</span></p><p><cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><cite>Pipes@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote>And secondly, what would the benefit be of removing those recipes from transmuters? Everyone gets their own special kinds of adornments that they can make...is that a problem?</blockquote>One problem is that transmuter adornments are in direct competition with weaponsmith-provided adornments. Weaponsmiths already have the shaft in a lot of ways and that just exacerbates the problem with their marketability. </blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I suspect this is the actual focus of what you are saying. As a weaponsmith, making adornments, there is market competition with transmuters and some weaponsmiths don't like it. I am almost at the "deal with it" response to that one, I am sorry.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I would suggest - do nothing. Leave the competition in place. If we *must* do something, remove some or all of those weaponsmith adornments. Adornments belong primarily to the Transmuter secondary tradeskill realm.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Now, don't get me wrong, I do think weaponsmith as a primary tradeskill class , are lacking somewhat, and might require a little more room to move, and a few more things to make. But this should be addressed in the primary tradeskill itself, balancing against the other eight primary tradeskills, and not with regards to adornments, which are the job of transmuters and not the focus of any primary tradeskill class.</span></p><p>Edit: Some typos corrected.</p></blockquote>This is kind of irrational, which is it, is transmuting a harvest skill or a crafting skill. Its not reasonable that the same skills apply to both practices. This seems to be to be a case of being different from wow for the sake of being different.

[Sunlei]

I'd like to see adornments that proc damage for all armor slots. Baring adding more damage adornments, I'd love to see every stat as a choice for all slots. Doubt both those things will fly as we are restricted to how much stats of each kind we can amass and the good damage procs are on the raid-no trade armors <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[miliskel]

for mages i think get rid of int addinbg peices and instead give them a proc as in T7 most people are hitting diminishing returns rather easily. also perhaps the damage proc on shoulders could perhaps have a little more damage maybe?

[Meirril]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>I'm against this for 2 reasons. First, if transmuters were making it this would become another skill up recipe for transmuting. </p><p>Second objection: using similar components would make the solvent nearly as expensive as the adornment itself! </p></blockquote>I support solvents if a variety of things happened first, which I outlined in an earlier post.  Namely, that adornments were removed from transmuters, that they were given the ability to transmute handcrafted, that they had the possibility of skilling up on breaking down and that they could combine lower materials to make higher materials. Solvents go along with this idea in that if transmuters had all this happen, they would need a return of some sort of marketability, which solvents would provide. The ability to transmute handcrafted and to combine lesser materials would make transmuter materials more widely available and the chance to skill up higher then 100 on breaking down would mean that less of those materials would need to be hoarded just to skill up, also leading to an increased availability which would translate to a drop in price. It's a few pages back, but I wrote a much longer, more detailed post that gives a lot more explanation than this nutshell version. </blockquote><p>Ok make one basic assumption Taleraris, that <b><i>as intended </i></b>transmuters continue to create adornments. Also that they will not be given the majority of things you have suggested. In, and of itself as a stand-alone change how would you propose that solvents be added to the game?</p><p>I say transmuters create adornments as intended, as Domino said this on page one in the topic starting post. Trying to completely remove adornments from transmuters seems about as bad as trying to change harvesting to non-crafters only. </p><p>Also as a side note: if you want a way to think of transmuting to create raws its more of a throwback to the old crafting system. Adventurers go out and kill things to get the real raw materials (non-transmuted treasured or better items). These items are removed from the economy by transmuters to create interm products. The interm products are used by a variety of crafting classes to create adornments. As with alchemists back when everybody needed tempers crafters perceive that the transmuters are getting rich. The fact of the matter is transmuted components do not sell for a huge proffit compaired to the finished products. In fact, compaired to the raw components (treasured items being sold to a vendor) the proffitability of the class in components is questionable. The proffit is certainly less than what people that go out to harvest raws from nodes make. It is only in ease of access to the components that transmuters make their proffit. And it is not by creating transmuter adornments either. There is a flood of under-priced weapon adornments because transmuters can only create weapon adornments. If they made armor or jewelery adornments they would be able to spread out to several more slots. As I have argued previously, if they were able to create sub-optimal non-slotted adornments there would be a greater demand for their products. Reducing the components needed for these sub-optimal adornments would also ease the drain on the adept 1 spells caused by transmuters skilling up.</p>

[DizzyGee]

It seems that properly "fixing" the problem would most likely open a can of worms:<b> <span style="color: #ff3300;">The vision WAS that transmuters craft adornments.</span></b> To do so they need components, which they "harvest" by breaking down transmutables. Similar to the primary harvestables, these can be collected (by killing the mobs) or purchased on the broker.That WAS also how I thought it would be when it was first announced (<span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>I think the vision was imparted clearly enough</b></span>). I WAS excited at the prospect of having not one, but two secondary tradeskills to choose from, because I had already hit 70 with my sage and - with no consumables - was getting a bit bored.I thought the idea WAS great: <span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>Tinkerers were supposed to make cool gadgets and transmuters were supposed to make cool adornments.</b></span> I decided I wanted to be a transmuter and make cool adornments; I didn't mind that it was to be a long and arduous task.I was disappointed however when I realized that it was to be implemented in a way contrary to - or at least not conform with - the original vision. <span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>What happened?</b></span>All of the sudden the adornments were not to be made by the transmuters, but by ALL the tradeskill classes and the tinkerers (!) too. And therein lies the problem: <span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>Instead of giving </b><b>new recipes to </b></span><b><span style="color: #ff3300;">the other tradeskill classes, like they desired and deserved, they were given the adornments that the transmuters were intended to make</span> </b>(see vision above).I (think I) understand the reasoning, but I do not think it was the optimal solution. If this was to counter fears that the transmuter class would be "overpowered" in relation to the tinkerers, it seems to me that the optimal solution would have been either to improve the situation for tinkerers in relation to the transmuters (perhaps by making their gadgets available to non-tinkerers) or tone down the abilities of the transmuters - but <span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>giving away what is the primary function of transmuters, namely making adornments, is what "broke" transmuting.</b></span>I agree with some of the posters above that the adornments themselves need a looking at (I especially like the idea of having the items standardized according to tiers, i.e., treasured, legendary, and fabled). But I do not agree with those who suggest that all adornments be taken away from the transmuters: <b><span style="color: #ff3300;">Taking the remaining adornments from the transmuters would, in effect, turn what was supposed to be a secondary tradeskill class into a mere harvesting slave for the primary tradeskill classes</span> </b>- completely contradicting the original vision. As it stands my transmuter gets five bags worth of transmutables to break down so the components can be given to some other primary tradeskiller, who then makes cool adornments (and charges for making them too).<span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>My suggestion is to give ALL adornments back to the transmuters as originally intended.</b></span>Will the outcry be large? Probably. <span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>But the outcry would be lessened if the tradeskill classes that lose adornments are compensated with other, new items to make.</b></span> (This might be the perfect opportunity to fix the weaponsmiths, as they seem to be suffering.) I know my sage won't miss the zero (yes, 0!) recipes in his first two Enigma recipes books. It really isn't about the adornments - all the primary tradeskillers really want is more things to make and sell.Would that make transmuters "overpowered" in relation to tinkerers? Perhaps. But if that is the problem, then my suggestion would be to <span style="color: #ff3300;"><b>fix the tinkerers so that they are on an even playing field with the transmuters</b></span> - but in any case take the adornments away from the tinkerers (I don't recall being able to use, let alone craft tinkered items as a transmuter).I applaud that this is even being looked at and appreciate all that is being done in the tradeskilling area! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />

[Meirril]

<p>Taking adornments away from all the non-transmuters isn't the worst suggestion in this thread. It is harsh however. It isn't like the primarly crafting classes benifit greatly from the inclusion of adornment recipes considering how rare it is for the majority of them to use these recipes. Taking them away wouldn't "break" any of the primary crafting classes. </p><p>If this was done, it would be possible to eliminate a great deal of the recipes. I would suggest eliminating all of the resistance and stat bonus adornments and replacing them with a single stat and resist adornment. This adornment should be available to any slot and you should be able to choose which resist/stat to apply it towards when placing the adornment. Then eliminate half of the remaining adornments so you don't flood the transmuters with recipes and your perty much done. </p><p>The other possibility is to allow all crafters to keep their transmuting recipes but to require transmuting skill to be used in crafting them. This would be the most unpopular decision possible. Unless you can actually find a provisioner/transmuter you wouldn't be able to get any of the provisioner adornments made under this system. I am against this idea, but brought it up to compete the thought process and to point out that this is ultimately a bad idea.</p>

[Meirril]

<p>Adornment Theory:</p><p>This isn't a suggestion to any single adornment, but rather voicing some theory on how adornments are treated overall. First I'll briefly talk about how I see adorments currently and what I'd like to see after changes are made. </p><p>Currently adornments are a bonus added to each peice of equipment that make each class in the game more powerful. There generally is an agreed best bonus for each slot. There are a few slots for some classes in which it is questionable wether there is a "best" adornment (weapon slots come to mind as there are a huge number of viable adornment choices), but the majority of slots have a single most desirable adornment (+6 stats for chest, +3 ft for cloak, +100 power for helm, +70 hp or power for rings, ect). Each class currently strives to place the best adornment in each slot (if they bother with adornments at all due to cost). This is how I see adornments currently.</p><p>What I would like to see is a more broadly flexable system. Offer all stats available in more slots. Offer some all resistance adornments available in multiple slots. Offer small amounts of flowing thought in all slots. Offer +damage in small amounts for all slots. Offer +healing in small amounts in all slots. Offer +mittigation in all slots. Offer +defense/deflection in all slots. Offer real choices in all slots. Allow individual players to personalize themselves and customize their choices to their situation. Kill the min/max players with choices.</p><p>Lower the cost of treasured adorments to create. Make fabled adornments feel fabled. Right now they just arn't that much better than legendary. Legendary adornments feel about right, they feel like a significant improvement over treasured. </p><p>If these general philosophies are followed, many more people will use treasured adornments. You won't have a cookie cutter appearance amongest the top tiered players where they all have the same adornments in the same slots. Variety and a real choice would make the adorment system come alive. </p>

[The_Goose]

I havn't read through all of the posts since it's 11 pages, but this is an issue with adornments for brawlers :<a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=379200" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=379200</a> (we can't add +crushing skill to a lot of weapons, since the adornments seems to check the damage type of the weapon, not the skill for using it).The solution is simple, make ONE adornment that check the skill used for any weapon, and add + to that skill, not the damage type, thanks!

[Cadori Seraphim]

Sorry if this has been posted before, 11 pages is quite alot to read..I would like to see each armor slot separated by a crafter. Meaning for each slot, only one type of crafter can make those adornments. I think for the most part thats sorta how it is already with a few exceptions.I would also like to see each of these slots having more then just 4 or 5 options to choose from. Quite frankly I went to find adornments for my armor and I didn't even want a few pieces adorned as they had nothing that I would have wanted (as I am a priest class).For some of my pieces the only desirable adornment was +sta.. which is fine.. but I would have rather had +mana or even +wis.It would be nice to have more options for EACH piece to be adorned. So my little list is:1. More adornment options for all pieces of wearable gear, so that all classes have something desirable to choose from. (i.e. +mana for all slots, or +agi for all slots, or +str for all slots - you see where I am going here <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" /> )2. Each wearable piece be separated by crafter type. (i.e. ALL Chest piece adorns be Alchy only, ALL Cloak piece adorns be Tailor only etc.) 3. And as with #2 I would like each tradeskill class to have a balanced set of adornments to make, so if some have a ton more currently (which I think they do) then that needs to be balanced out.I have to add that transmuting is not broken.. They dont need all of the adornment recipes to make profit or to be profitable. Transmuting items and selling these powders and infusions will make the transmuter money as the other tradeskill classes have NO possible way to get these items in order to make their adornments. PLUS they have their list of adornments they can make, adding to their profitability. And this is what makes them more valuable then people realize.

[einar4]

<p> Have not read through the long list, but it occurs to me that temporary adornments may be a nice way for all the TS classes to make cheap adornments that provide temporary buffs, say 10-15 minutes to weapons and armor pieces.   </p><p> Consumables seem to be a pretty good thing for the tradeskill economy as they can be made and sold cheaply and yet can provide a fairly steady rate of return to the tradespersons. </p>

[VengeanceX]

<p>I typed up a message on this board about my wish list for transmuting.  It was suggested to me that I post a link to that thread here in the official thread.</p><p>So here I am, and here is the link:</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=395145" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=395145</a></p><p><img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Wyndorf]

Both Felishanna and DizzyGee are spot on in this thread.  I sincerely hope the dev team has the guts to seriously consider this.Adornments belong to transmuters exclusively, primary tradeskills should have no business with them.But guess what, if you're miffed about losing a few adornment recipes, lookie here, you can be a transmuter too!  Check out BBM docks!You can't be a tinkerer at the same time though.  Deal with it.  It's the way the secondary tradeskills were set up.Imho, primary tradeskills moaning for adornment recipes are just trying to screw over transmuters so they can benefit from both tinkering and adornments (transmuting).  You should have never had the adornment recipes you've gotten in the first place.

[Radigazt]

<cite>Snowdonia@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>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 <b><i>by slot per crafter</i></b>. 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 <i>know</i> what any of my other crafters make.</blockquote><p>Excellent post, I agree with most of what you said with some minor differences, I'll repost the list with my changes in bold.</p><p>All Ring and Wrist slot adornments are allocated to the Jeweler.All Neck and Ear slot adornments are allocated to the <b>Sage</b>.All Chest and Leg slot adornments are allocated to the Armorer.All <b>Hand</b> and Cloak slot adornments are allocated to the Tailor.(Better) Melee weapon and <b>Throwing Weapon</b> 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 <b>Alchemist</b>.All Symbol and Shoulder slot adornments are allocated to the Carpenter.</p><p>I'm not saying this is perfect, but I agree with Snowdonia that it sort of makes no sense at present, and it would be nice if we could re-organize these to make a little more sense.  As a T8 Jeweler, I find it wierd I can't even adorn rings, that should be my bread and butter.  <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Similarly, why shouldn't a Weaponsmith--in dire need of recipes--be able to adorn any and all metal weapons?  Shield and Bows for a Woodworker seems proper.  Sure, some tradeskillers like Provisioners and Alchemists might be hard to figure out, but we can definitely do better than the current adornments.  I'm not suggesting letting Jewelers make all jewelry adornments, or Armorers make all armor adornments, but surely we can give the Armorer the chest and leg slots ... and the Jeweler the ring slots.  </p>

[inshiningarmor]

Why not have tinkered items to all the main tradeskills as well?

[ShallaBal]

<p>Weaponsmiths did get weapon adornments, just not the "best" ones. The only really good adornment we have is the occult clasp, which apparently is not for a weapon.</p><p>I fail to see the logic why a weaponsmith would not get fabled weapon adornment recipes and others would. I seriously doubt anyone can give a reasonable explanation to that.</p><p>I'd rather have the transmuter get all recipes than the current distribution.</p><p>Sha</p>

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Wyndorf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Adornments belong to transmuters exclusively, primary tradeskills should have no business with them.</blockquote>Then transmuters will have to lose the ability to break down items for supplies and go to competing for supplies like everyone else. You cannot give transmuters all the adornments *and* make their ability the only way to get the supplies to make said adornments. That overpowers them far too much. Either way you slice it, either transmuters losing adornments and gaining something else like solvents, or gaining all adornments and losing the right to be the only way to supply the components, they're going to lose something.

[Gneaux]

Since this thread is getting quite lengthy I'm just going to post a couple suggestions I'd like to see here for adornments.I think it would be nice to see crafters able to make adornmets that are able to be added to any "slot" that add attributes like "+25 to spell damage", "+ 10 to power regeneration" "+6 to heal crit"There are PLENTY of quested and treasured items in the new zones dropping with these attributes on them already, and personally I think that crafted items should be MUCH better then the items that are quested for or looted.

[Wyndorf]

<cite>Gwyneth@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wyndorf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Adornments belong to transmuters exclusively, primary tradeskills should have no business with them.</blockquote>Then transmuters will have to lose the ability to break down items for supplies and go to competing for supplies like everyone else. You cannot give transmuters all the adornments *and* make their ability the only way to get the supplies to make said adornments. That overpowers them far too much. Either way you slice it, either transmuters losing adornments and gaining something else like solvents, or gaining all adornments and losing the right to be the only way to supply the components, they're going to lose something. </blockquote>You're completely missing the fact that transmuters need not be balanced against any primary tradeskill.  They need to be balanced against their counterpart in secondary tradeskills : the tinkerer.As a primary tradeskiller, if you're afraid transmuters would dominate component supplies, well hey, you can just tack the secondary tradeskill transmuting on your toon, and you never have that problem.  Paranoid much?Your whole logic leans on the misconception that primary tradeskillers would lose out.  They wouldn't, because every single one of them can be a transmuter TOO if they choose to.  The only trade off is you cannot be a tinkerer at the same time.Transmuting is seriously underpowered versus tinkering.  The primary cause of this is spreading adornment recipes to non secondary tradeskillers.  This should never have been done, period.

[Valdaglerion]

<ol><li>Reallocate all adornment recipes to transmuters. Its the secondary class and thats where the recipes should be period. Anyone can be a transmuter, anyone can be a tinkerer. Having to figure out what trade class makes what adornment is counter productive. Need an adornment, find a transmuter to make it for you.</li><li>Firstly, we need a way to remove and reapply adornments. The things are expensive and offer small benefits in many cases. They would be more widely used if gear could be customized by removing and reapplying the necessary adornments for the encounters in many instances.</li></ol>Those would be my major fixes at the moment. Without #2 in particular all the resist stuff might as well be scrapped as it is fairly worthless.

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Wyndorf wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gwyneth@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wyndorf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Adornments belong to transmuters exclusively, primary tradeskills should have no business with them.</blockquote>Then transmuters will have to lose the ability to break down items for supplies and go to competing for supplies like everyone else. You cannot give transmuters all the adornments *and* make their ability the only way to get the supplies to make said adornments. That overpowers them far too much. Either way you slice it, either transmuters losing adornments and gaining something else like solvents, or gaining all adornments and losing the right to be the only way to supply the components, they're going to lose something. </blockquote>You're completely missing the fact that transmuters need not be balanced against any primary tradeskill.  They need to be balanced against their counterpart in secondary tradeskills : the tinkerer.As a primary tradeskiller, if you're afraid transmuters would dominate component supplies, well hey, you can just tack the secondary tradeskill transmuting on your toon, and you never have that problem.  Paranoid much?Your whole logic leans on the misconception that primary tradeskillers would lose out.  They wouldn't, because every single one of them can be a transmuter TOO if they choose to.  The only trade off is you cannot be a tinkerer at the same time.Transmuting is seriously underpowered versus tinkering.  The primary cause of this is spreading adornment recipes to non secondary tradeskillers.  This should never have been done, period.</blockquote>They have to be balanced in terms of the game. Giving transmuters all adornments *and* having them the only way that the components to craft said adornments can be obtained puts all the cards in their hand. They would dominate the market. This sort of thing is why harvesting isn't limited to just tradeskillers. Because adventurers would be at our mercy for any rare item. And if transmuters had all adornments and were the only way to obtain components, adventurers would be at their mercy, too. Adventurers already pay out the nose for even the simplest adornments now, especially at the higher tiers. A change like this would just increase the problem tenfold.

[Meirril]

<cite>Gwyneth@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wyndorf wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gwyneth@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wyndorf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Adornments belong to transmuters exclusively, primary tradeskills should have no business with them.</blockquote>Then transmuters will have to lose the ability to break down items for supplies and go to competing for supplies like everyone else. You cannot give transmuters all the adornments *and* make their ability the only way to get the supplies to make said adornments. That overpowers them far too much. Either way you slice it, either transmuters losing adornments and gaining something else like solvents, or gaining all adornments and losing the right to be the only way to supply the components, they're going to lose something. </blockquote>You're completely missing the fact that transmuters need not be balanced against any primary tradeskill.  They need to be balanced against their counterpart in secondary tradeskills : the tinkerer.As a primary tradeskiller, if you're afraid transmuters would dominate component supplies, well hey, you can just tack the secondary tradeskill transmuting on your toon, and you never have that problem.  Paranoid much?Your whole logic leans on the misconception that primary tradeskillers would lose out.  They wouldn't, because every single one of them can be a transmuter TOO if they choose to.  The only trade off is you cannot be a tinkerer at the same time.Transmuting is seriously underpowered versus tinkering.  The primary cause of this is spreading adornment recipes to non secondary tradeskillers.  This should never have been done, period.</blockquote>They have to be balanced in terms of the game. Giving transmuters all adornments *and* having them the only way that the components to craft said adornments can be obtained puts all the cards in their hand. They would dominate the market. This sort of thing is why harvesting isn't limited to just tradeskillers. Because adventurers would be at our mercy for any rare item. And if transmuters had all adornments and were the only way to obtain components, adventurers would be at their mercy, too. Adventurers already pay out the nose for even the simplest adornments now, especially at the higher tiers. A change like this would just increase the problem tenfold. </blockquote><p>Ok, lets follow the logic train here. If transmuters were the only ones that could make adornments, then who exactly is being deprived of components if they are the only ones that can supply the raw ingredients? For that matter, wouldn't there be nearly zero market for transmuter raws if only transmuters could use them?</p><p>And as for the source of raw components...we're talking about treasured and better gear being destroyed to create raw ingredients. All other crafting classes have raw ingredients with no inherant value to them. Vendors will not buy their ingredients. With transmuters, ALL of our components have a vendor value. We loose potential cash every time we use our transmuting skill. Nobody sells our ingredients at 1c each just to clear out their inventory. Nobody says "hey! I've got a backpack full of transmutables I gathered while I was out adventuring. Would you like them?" Why do the prices of adornments skyrocket as you go up in tier? Easy, because the raw cost of making them goes up as well. Generally t8 is overpriced because the raw ingredients we use are overpriced. Actually, due to all the no-trade quest loot the t8 market is currently undervalued. Once we run out of transmuters doing quests in t8 and we start depending on drops alone I think you'll see the price of low end adorments go up.</p><p>Now if adornments are not removed from all other crafting classes, and the current situation continues your argument is valid. Why? BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS DEPENDENT ON TRANSMUTERS FOR RAW INGREDIENTS NOW. The very opposite of your argument is true. However, I can't see any legitimate reason for non-transmuters to gain the ability to create subcomponents. If you want to make them, become a transmuter instead of a tinkerer. Go sweat some, cry a little, and pay a lot of blood like the rest of us that are already transmuters did. Forgo the nice adventuring abilities that come with being a tinkerer to be a better crafter. Its not like any of the primary crafting skills cut you off from transmuting yourself.</p><p>p.s. FYI crafters have for over 50 levels been completely dependent on adventurers for advanced crafting books. More or less that has worked out. Sure, every time we get a new tier the prices of new advanced crafting books is outrageous, but then again so is the price of finished rare goods and the raw supplies to make them. There are more than enough people doing things and undercutting each other to make things work out. </p>

[Liyle]

My vote goes for Transmuters to do the transmuting and make nothing as a part of that subclass. Since it's a secondary, they would be able to make appropriate items as part of their primary.I would like to see Adornments assigned to the appropriate class for each, and the Adornments make sense in that light. Alchemists, Provs and Sages should have those recipes that make sense to their abilities: chemistry and spell-based. Others should have more "worldly" types of adornments.It also seems to me this would be a good place to pop in some sub-combines and interdependency. Perhaps Sage-made scrolls could be used to apply arcane enhancements to bindings and clasps, or Alchemist poisons to apply disease and poison procs to tempers, Provs providing Power and Health based enhancements. I'd like to see the return of the crafter-to-crafter market. If you want consumables, here's a good place to start!

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Now if adornments are not removed from all other crafting classes, and the current situation continues your argument is valid. Why? BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS DEPENDENT ON TRANSMUTERS FOR RAW INGREDIENTS NOW. The very opposite of your argument is true. However, I can't see any legitimate reason for non-transmuters to gain the ability to create subcomponents. If you want to make them, become a transmuter instead of a tinkerer. Go sweat some, cry a little, and pay a lot of blood like the rest of us that are already transmuters did. Forgo the nice adventuring abilities that come with being a tinkerer to be a better crafter. Its not like any of the primary crafting skills cut you off from transmuting yourself.</p></blockquote>Your first sentence is exactly what I'm trying to say. The first thing I quoted and have been arguing against is the idea that transmuters should have all adornments free and clear. That's just not possible with the current setup. They would be both the providers of components and producers of the products and would have a monopoly on the entire thing. So in terms of balance, if it were to come about that transmuters *were* given all adornments, then another way to obtain the components would by necessity have to be made available. For the record, I'm not a tinkerer. I'm a transmuter.

[Timaarit]

<cite>ShallaBal wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Weaponsmiths did get weapon adornments, just not the "best" ones. The only really good adornment we have is the occult clasp, which apparently is not for a weapon.</p></blockquote>Even the clasp is now very poor. I mean +30 to spell damage with fabled transmutables. The +25 at t7 was ok when compared to the effects on the raid drops. But +30 is about 1/3 of what is needed at t8. The effects on t8 in fabled gear are 2 to 3 times higher than they were in t7. I used to sell lots of the t7 clasps but while I was playing, I didn't sell any t8 ones. The effect on the t8 clasp needs to be around +60 to +80.

[Vulkan_NTooki]

<cite>Liyle wrote:</cite><blockquote>My vote goes for Transmuters to do the transmuting and make nothing as a part of that subclass. Since it's a secondary, they would be able to make appropriate items as part of their primary.I would like to see Adornments assigned to the appropriate class for each, and the Adornments make sense in that light. Alchemists, Provs and Sages should have those recipes that make sense to their abilities: chemistry and spell-based. Others should have more "worldly" types of adornments.It also seems to me this would be a good place to pop in some sub-combines and interdependency. Perhaps Sage-made scrolls could be used to apply arcane enhancements to bindings and clasps, or Alchemist poisons to apply disease and poison procs to tempers, Provs providing Power and Health based enhancements. I'd like to see the return of the crafter-to-crafter market. If you want consumables, here's a good place to start!</blockquote><p>So what your saying here is.. make Transmuters a harvester.. </p><p>Neat.. could get 1 more secondary class with that thought.. A harvester.. Or even 5, A Fisherman, a Miner, a Farmer (roots), a Lumberjack, and a Bushman(shrubs, not president).. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Make it so all harvested items sell for 1-10g(to npc) dependant on tier, and make it so only every 10 node yields 1 common or rare harvestable. Finally remove harvesting from all adventurers/crafters unless they have the secondary harvesting tradeskill..</p><p>Im sorry.. but the only good a transmuter do today, is being able to clear out some room in his inventory without going to town. Thats what I spent 250p getting.. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I've actually started to sell the treasured stuff instead now, cause I get more from shopkeeper(double usually) pr item.</p><p>I have to agree with those saying put all adornments on transmuters. Adventurers control the raws market with what they put on broker. And they can allways have a transmuter transmute stuff for them.. Most does it for free. Afterall.. they will need those items making adornments for you eventually.. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Another option would be, let all classes keep their limited number of adornments, and let transmuters get all. That way if transmuters are too expensive, u can allways try to figure out what tradeskill class makes that particular adornement and have them do it. Giving all to transmuter would also make it alot easier to get your adornment without searching a website for info on who makes.</p>

[Meirril]

<cite>Gwyneth@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Now if adornments are not removed from all other crafting classes, and the current situation continues your argument is valid. Why? BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS DEPENDENT ON TRANSMUTERS FOR RAW INGREDIENTS NOW. The very opposite of your argument is true. However, I can't see any legitimate reason for non-transmuters to gain the ability to create subcomponents. If you want to make them, become a transmuter instead of a tinkerer. Go sweat some, cry a little, and pay a lot of blood like the rest of us that are already transmuters did. Forgo the nice adventuring abilities that come with being a tinkerer to be a better crafter. Its not like any of the primary crafting skills cut you off from transmuting yourself.</p></blockquote>Your first sentence is exactly what I'm trying to say. The first thing I quoted and have been arguing against is the idea that transmuters should have all adornments free and clear. That's just not possible with the current setup. They would be both the providers of components and producers of the products and would have a monopoly on the entire thing. So in terms of balance, if it were to come about that transmuters *were* given all adornments, then another way to obtain the components would by necessity have to be made available. For the record, I'm not a tinkerer. I'm a transmuter.</blockquote><p>How about, oh I don't know...how about if mobs dropped the componnts? But not too frequently so as not to flood the market. Maybe they could come in chest drops? And what if the vendor would buy the item too so as not to make it too cheap? This way adventurers would control the supply instead of just anybody being able to gather them from a bush or something silly like that. What if you had to destroy really expensive items to make the best adornments? </p><p>Oh wait, that is how you get adornment components now. Now what if you couldn't sell those same components to anyone else? Now you actually have to make adornments that sell or you loose coin. No more being a high level adventurer transmuting "junk" no-drop legendary and fabled to sell off the transmuted product. </p><p>I'm not in favor of trasnmuters having all recipes, but I can at least see the logic behind that. I can't see the logic behind making trasnmuters have to scramble more than they do already to make their products. Its not like tinkerers have to do anything other than bang rocks and wood for their materials.</p>

[Gargamel]

<p> Not noticing this thread I had made comments in here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=75&topic_id=395653" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=395653</a></p><p>But since there is a big thread here I'm going to past them again in this one...</p><p>My main issue is I find it very insulting that transmuters are forced to skill-up after 100 by creating adornments.  And not any adornments, but the measly little 8 common weapon adornments in the transmuter books.  This leads to hundreds per tier being created just for the purpose of levling, which completely devalues the worth of them.  Even in Tier1, if you break down the cheapest adepts, it can cost 5-6g for a single chance at a skill up, which on grey cons is about a 20% chance to get the skill.  You need 5 per level, and thus 50 per tier... that ends up being up to 250 adornments which never sell for anything near the cost of materials, and end up getting vendored for a few silver.Transmuters should AT LEAST get all common adornments, and be able to skill up off of the whole lot.  It'd lead to more value on the existing ones, and more variety for consumers.</p><p>I could live with others keeping the legnedary and fabled, and even if they ALSO had the common, but right now, for most purposes, transmuting's only value IS breaking stuff down, loosing coin in the process... for the benefit of the rare chance to profit off a legendary/fabled breakdown.  Transmuters inherit ALL THE RISK in the process, with virtually no gain (to say nothing of being deprived of the many benefits of tinkering... FD alone is a HUGE beifit to healers for example.</p><p>#1 To the guy that says leveling transmuting is easier than anything else... what are you smoking, and can I get some?  I've had several (3+) lvl 70 crafters, and a 350 tinerkering LONG before I was able to get a high lvl transmuter.  Have you done tradeskilling lately, with the writs and all?  Hell with vitality, you can get 2lvls in an hour even at lvl 75.  Sure you buy plat or have 100+ plat to blow you can do transmuting quicker, but even then slower and WAAAAY more expensively.</p><p>#2 To the guy that said it only takes 100 adornments to gain 10 lvls (one tier) -- 100 is still to much, and even then I'd venture to guess that MOST transmuters do indeed level off grey recipies, considering T6/7/8 ad1 (the cheapest treasured usually) go for 6,7,8,10g EACH and EACH chance to skill up takes a dozen of those.  Sure... 80g for a shot a skill up... or buy 6 lvl 12's ad1s for 1g or less each... hmmmmm... thats tough when the final product is USELESS anyway.  Generally you will get 50% chance skill up for white con, bit higher for yellow.  But at grey you have 20-25% on avg... so thats where I got my 150 number and I still believe thats more the rule than the exception.</p><p>#3 Don't hand me this 'harvest you own treasured' bull crap... the skill-ups simply are not there, and certainly not consistantly there.  This is the same lame agrument that I should have to level lock a lvl 6 char on the isle of refuge to harvest T1 rares for months and months, just so I can craft and breakdown.  <b>A more lame tradeskill setup I cannot imagine</b>.</p><p>#4 Don't blow smoke and try to tell me that "it cost nothing" to kill mobs for treasured loot to break down.  First of all that same loot can be sold directly to an NPC (usually for more than the broken down component will get, ALWAYS for more than the common adornment will get).  Second of all that same time could be spend harvesting common roots, or running an instance, or crafting some items to sell.  As in the real world, time is money, and why spend my time on an activity where the time is valued at ZERO, when I can spend my time valued greater elsewhere?</p><p>Again, I'm not looking for a free ride, I'm just trying to ask some questions about how we can improve the transmuting process, which up until this point seems to be an afterthought, without much followup IMO.</p>

[Vulkan_NTooki]

<cite>Gwyneth@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Now if adornments are not removed from all other crafting classes, and the current situation continues your argument is valid. Why? BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS DEPENDENT ON TRANSMUTERS FOR RAW INGREDIENTS NOW. The very opposite of your argument is true. However, I can't see any legitimate reason for non-transmuters to gain the ability to create subcomponents. If you want to make them, become a transmuter instead of a tinkerer. Go sweat some, cry a little, and pay a lot of blood like the rest of us that are already transmuters did. Forgo the nice adventuring abilities that come with being a tinkerer to be a better crafter. Its not like any of the primary crafting skills cut you off from transmuting yourself.</p></blockquote>Your first sentence is exactly what I'm trying to say. The first thing I quoted and have been arguing against is the idea that transmuters should have all adornments free and clear. That's just not possible with the current setup. They would be both the providers of components and producers of the products and would have a monopoly on the entire thing. So in terms of balance, if it were to come about that transmuters *were* given all adornments, then another way to obtain the components would by necessity have to be made available. For the record, I'm not a tinkerer. I'm a transmuter.</blockquote><p>Your not getting it.. Transmuters control the raws allready. If they were to enforce that they would push prices on adornments way up. But its not possible to do that since this is an MMOG with no RL economic effect on players, so the free market works. Transmuters could have monopoly, but would still have to rely on adventurers to sell the raws to transmute at a reasonable price. And buyers allway control the market. </p><p>Giving all recipes to transmuters, while keeping the ones they have on each artisan you'd please both camps though.. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> no monopoly, and a useful secondary tradeskill.. prices would compete with other tradeskills on finished products, and it wouldnt be overpowering.</p>

[LivelyHound]

<p>Long thread (yup I read it all) and here are some of my thoughts on transmuting currently and soe of the proposed changes. I havn't thought much about additions, such as new types of adorns. </p><p>A quick question to those saying to remove adorment creation (tradeskilling) from transmuters</p><p>My question: what will transmuting be left with?</p><p>You remove item creation and transmuting becomes...</p><p>Step 1: Find an item (kill or broker)Step 2: Transmute item (press button 8 on my hotbar)Step 3: Recieve item</p><p>Finished... so your secondary tradeskill becomes:</p><p>Step 1: Go adventuring or go to a vendor... neither of these seems to have anything to do with actually tradeskilling itself.Step 2: Press 1 button.... the act of actual tradeskillingStep 3: Woohoo I created something.</p><p>I.e. You reduce the 2ndry tradeskill to the act of pushing 1 button... 100000 times to lvl up. If you had a big enough inventory that could hold enough items you could go to the broker and be a t8 400/400 tranmuter in an hour of two pushing 1 button. Lots of skill involved there.  You want transmuters to be harvesters providing raw materials for others well then make transmuting a harvesting skill that every adventurer and tradeskiller has just like fishing, you lvl it up or not upto you and then let every current transmuter be the equivalent skill in tinkering please. The other option is to make the act of transmuting the item more difficult. If that is the case then envisage something like the following... when transmuting an item (Adept 1) for example you get the current 4 bar tradeskilling window. You then begin the tradeskill event... if you finish the event in the first progress bar (the old crude product) then you get a fragment, 2nd bar gives powder, 3rd bar gives infusion, 4th bar (pristine product) gives mana. You then change the current position of those bar breaks (for example tailoring the bars are about 40% 20% 20% 20% of total) to 1: 65% 2: 20% 3: 10% 4: 5%. This would then give the transmuter a way to tailor the products they recieve and can therefore supply market demands. And yes I would make pristine very hard to achieve. I.e. it fails once on that last tradeskilling tick, bummer but bad luck you get non pristine infusion. However you need powders sweet, just hit stop when you reach it. And yes the dividing lines would need to be carefully balanced.</p><p>The other point I would raise is what makes most people tradeskill... the act of creating interesting stuff that they can sell. Well if transmuters are turned into tradeskillers who cannot create adornments they can create precisely 32 items , well 4 with no variation between the tiers. So when you start you know exaclty what the best thing you can ever produce will be, no excitment as a carpenter finding a new house item... or a sage finding you can make consumables on that last tier and so on. It would take tradeskilling and remove all the excitement from it.</p><p>So personally I think removing item creation from transmuting is a very bad thing. Also, when introduced it was introduced as a 2ndry tradeskill not a 2ndry harvesting skill. Tradeskill implies item creation not harvesting so, please leave it as a tradeskill else I would have made a tinker.</p>

[LivelyHound]

<p>On a second note and totally differnt note (hence the new post)</p><p>What is with the imbalance between transmuting and tinkering?</p><p>1.   Tinkerers have TINKER ONLY products, transmuters have FEW TRANSMUTER ONLY products.2.   Tinkerers are the ONLY tradeskillers making tinkered products, transmuters SHARE adornments with all tradeskills.3.   Tinkerers rely on nothing but HARVEST NODES, transmuters rely on ADVENTURERS and/or RARE HARVESTS.3a. Tinkerers rely on nothing but HARVEST NODES for their best items, transmuters rely on ADVENTURERS for their best items.4.   Tinkerers have TRANSMUTERS recipes, transmuters have NO TINKER RECIPES.</p><p>At this point I dont know enough about tinkering to make any more comparisons.</p><p>Point 1, is obvious, nuff said.Point 2, how come adornments got shared out and tinker products did not?Point 3, you have interdependancy with adventures as a transmuter (and most people agree interdependancy in tradeskilling is a bad idea) or you have to harvest and harvest and harvest and harvest to get enough rares to make whatever you primary tradeskill will allow. This means most can make powders or fragments from rare harvests. The scholars being luckier can make infusion from adept III's. This allows most to make treasured adornments.Point 3a, an extension of 3 you cannot make fabled adornments without mana, only attainable from adventuring. Loot M1 or fabled items. So as a transmuter you cannot make the best transmuted items without a high lvl adventurer and being a sage you can make 2 t8 items one wrist and one weapon for example. All that work and other people get all the benefit.Point 4, the most irritating inbalance. As a tinker you can be a tailor. This means you can make tailor adorns of which there are a lot and some are the most useful adornments imho. This means as a tinker I can be a tailor and make the best transmuted items in the game. As a transmuter I can be a tailor and make NO tinkered items at all. Balance? I think not.**Edited Point 1** There are a few transmuter only products... a few weapon adorns and the frags/powders/infusions/mana's.</p>

[LivelyHound]

<p>One last point...</p><p>I am curious as to how many transmuters put their high lvl products on the broker?</p><p>I know I keep all of mine bar t1/t2/t3 for my own tradeskill alts or those tradeskillers in my guild. I rarely put anything else on broker or if I do its just to test the water for prices. The reason I ask is because people are saying transmuters can't be the only people making adornments and making the harvestables for these because its too unbalanced. Well currently I supply noone with materials as a transmuter bar those in my guild. So I would end up chnging nothing if you remove adorns from transmuters. My products would go exactly where they go now and I am in a small guild.</p><p>Furthermore I would end up just getting **insert tradeskiller** here to make my adorns for me. For example if a tailor made adornment X (which transmuters used to make) and I as a transmuter/sage wanted to make that adornment. I would approach said tailor get them to make the adornment X and pay them for their trouble say Y gold. I would then market the adornment on the broker at my original price + Y gold. So all I see removing the abiltiy to make adorns as not a sound plan, all it would do is raise prices if transmuters really want to sell those items. If you remove the ability to make the harvestables (frags etc..) then you have to give all adorns back to the transmuters. Fine by me, except where do the materials come from? You make transmuting a harvest skill like trapping. Fine. The only people gonna be leveling that are transmuters as it is a lot of effort (as every transmuter knows) and most adventurers other tradeskillers are really just gonna broker/vendor their treasured/legendary items etc... So removing transmuting break down from transmuters seems a little counterprductive, especially as if anyone is bothered by transmuters being the only ones able to make their components... well I suggest they become a transmuter too... because if you arnt a tinkerer then you too can be a transmuter.</p>

[Xanzibar]

<cite>LivelyHound wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>You remove item creation and transmuting becomes...</p><p>Step 1: Find an item (kill or broker)Step 2: Transmute item (press button 8 on my hotbar)Step 3: Recieve item</p></blockquote>So, what if they changed it so that instead of "1-button transmuting", it was more like "reverse-crafting" the item?  You go through the normal crafting process (complete with the 6 progress/durability skills), but instead of crafting an item, you're deconstructing... well, whatever it is you're transmuting.I agree that Transmuters should focus on just that... transmuting!  Adornments should almost certainly be limited to the nine primary crafting classes.  Even if you left Adornments available to Transmuters, if Transmuters leveled based on deconstructing items, the Adornments would just be a small bonus to the class, instead of a necessary mechanism for leveling up.

[Meirril]

<cite>Xanzibar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LivelyHound wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>You remove item creation and transmuting becomes...</p><p>Step 1: Find an item (kill or broker)Step 2: Transmute item (press button 8 on my hotbar)Step 3: Recieve item</p></blockquote>So, what if they changed it so that instead of "1-button transmuting", it was more like "reverse-crafting" the item?  You go through the normal crafting process (complete with the 6 progress/durability skills), but instead of crafting an item, you're deconstructing... well, whatever it is you're transmuting.I agree that Transmuters should focus on just that... transmuting!  Adornments should almost certainly be limited to the nine primary crafting classes.  Even if you left Adornments available to Transmuters, if Transmuters leveled based on deconstructing items, the Adornments would just be a small bonus to the class, instead of a necessary mechanism for leveling up.</blockquote><p>Try reading the post your replying to again Xanzibar. LivelyHound is making a comment critical of this point of view. He(she?) is against having adornment recipes removed from transmuters. </p><p>I also see it as a very sound argment against having adornment recipes removed from transmuters. Transmuters are crafters, so we need to craft things to advance our skills! The one thing I see as a real shame is that we arn't offered any tangible bonus for crafting different items (no pristine bonus) or to pristine in any item. I would like to see a second skill up chance given for each new recipe that you try. If that was limited to the first pristine for each item, that would be about perfect. </p><p>Anyways, great arguments LivelyHound. While I don't agree with being critical of sharing adornment recipes with non-transmuters vs tinkeres it is a valid point to bring up. I am less opposed to removing adornment recipes from non-transmuters than I was before reading your argument. I actually see the sharing of recipes being a good thing for crafting in general. This way people arn't forced into transmuting to enjoy the benifits of what is currently the single most unique crafted item in the game (adornments). Tinkering is all about making things for yourself to use, adornments are really intended to make end game gear better.</p>

[Meirril]

<p>I posted this idea to another thread, but I felt it was good enough of an idea to bear repeating.</p><p>How about a second set of adornment recipes that would allow a crafter to use mastercrafted gear as the primary component of an adornment? Also reduce the rest of the components needed to reduce the overall cost of the adornment. This recipe would return the primary component with the desired adornment on it. The primary component used would have to be something the adornment desired could normally be added to.</p><p>The primary reasoning behind this is that adornments are generally added to legendary and fabled gear. On anything else it is a waste of valueable components. Nobody in their right mind would place a fabled adornment on a mastercrafted item. However, if you could get the benifits of a fabled adornment on a MC armor peice at the cost of a legendary item...that might make the MC armor much more desirable. I could definately see weaponsmiths getting an added bonus from cheeply adorned MC imbued weapons. This would raise the price dramatically for most of the produced items, but there would be a limited market for them.</p>

[Calthine]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p> Nobody in their right mind would place a fabled adornment on a mastercrafted item. </p></blockquote>Um.  You're mistaken.  People who don't raid do so.

[Meirril]

<p>Silly request: I'd like a method of breaking powder and infusions down into "lesser" components.</p><p>With higher and higher tier components requiring so many shards, I'm starting to find that I have extra powder lying around without enough shards to craft what I want. I also find myself with a few extra infusions and not nearly enough powder and fragments to use them all. If we were able to break them down as a combine where it would return 1-4 of the lower level ingredients that would help considerably.</p>

[Meirril]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p> Nobody in their right mind would place a fabled adornment on a mastercrafted item. </p></blockquote>Um.  You're mistaken.  People who don't raid do so.</blockquote><p>I don't raid, I do however do instances. I have placed fabled adornments on legendary items. Strangely enough, the adornment probably cost about 2-3 times what it would of been for me to buy a similar legendary item. I certainly had to break down 12 treasured items, 5 legendary, and probably 2 fabled items to get the components to make the adornment. I certainly wanted to make sure that before I used the adornment I had something that I couldn't reasonably upgrade without raiding. Its not every day I feel like flushing that much coin down the drain.</p><p>Now I can see people being much more free with treasured adornments, but even they are generally worth more than t8 mastercrafted items.</p>

[Deson]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p> Nobody in their right mind would place a fabled adornment on a mastercrafted item. </p></blockquote>Um.  You're mistaken.  People who don't raid do so.</blockquote>Uhh, I tend to agree with Meirril. <i>Maybe</i>  excluding some of the t8 jewelery, if you are willing to spend the time/money to get a decent adornment on an item you should  also be able to easily acquire loot far more worthy of a currently irremovable adornment.There are always exceptions and special circumstances of course. Level lockers may find it worthwhile at lower tiers to do so as well as PvP players but in general, even hardcore solo players properly appraising the value of the adornment should be putting it on far more worthwhile gear. <cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Silly request: I'd like a method of breaking powder and infusions down into "lesser" components.</p><p>With higher and higher tier components requiring so many shards, I'm starting to find that I have extra powder lying around without enough shards to craft what I want. I also find myself with a few extra infusions and not nearly enough powder and fragments to use them all. If we were able to break them down as a combine where it would return 1-4 of the lower level ingredients that would help considerably.</p></blockquote>What about the earlier suggestion of just having everything be fragments and crafting up from there?

[Calthine]

Well, I guess me and my friends aren't in our right minds.  One should be careful to avoid overgeneralizing statements <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Sealo]

I would vote to give transmuters ALL the recipes.  There should be no reason someone has to hunt down multiple tradesmiths to make what they need.  To prevent breaking more things, leave all the current recipes alone.  The other tradesmiths can make their respective adornment, so for the ones worried about transmuters holding the monopoly, that will not be the case.  More effort to find the matching tradesmith to make the adornment they want but you'll save the 'monopoly prices'.  Just like how some people are willing to run that extra little bit to someone's house to avoid broker fees, you will or you will not, there's no complaints about it if you choose not to.As for the argument that transmuters are the sole suppliers.  Yes, so what?  I think it's argueablely fair.  They took the time to skillup their 'harvesting' skill so they can supply the items.  In EQ1, enchanters were the major supplier for some kind of mana vials (sorry, it has been a very long time since I played).  That was a pain.  You were almost forced to be an enchanter if you were a jeweler.  They had a monopoly.Do you want to flood the market more with materials more?  How about an NPC that will transmute non-attuned items for you?  The system already in place to prevent placing attuned items in slots like the broker, shared bank and mail.  Make it less efficient then a transmuter if you must.  A KNOWN rate of being LESS then a transmuter can get.  Transmuters have a 25% chance at powder for treasured items.  Make it 1/2 that if using the NPC.  If you don't want to go that route, make it so you have to pay to use the NPC.  Cost depends on level or tier.  That will remove plat from the economy as a bonus.  I wouldn't allow non-transmuting players to be able to NPC transmute NO-Drop or Attuned gear tho.  That would defeat the purpose of removing those items from the economy.  That would give it an even larger incentive to actually take up transmuting. Perhaps both, make it a disadvantageous to transmute that way but if one of the other tradesmiths wants to make something for themselves without dependences, they have the option for at a cost.

[Karlen]

<cite>Oakbark@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><p> Woodworker: Fabled :Scintillating Clemency of the Pontiff - When target casts a healing spell, threat to encounter is reduced.  No Priest needs this adorn, its effectively useless.</p><span style="color: #33ff33;">Why exactly would a priest not want this?  This looks like an attractive one for my mystic and I was planning on making one eventually for when he is grouping.  </span><p>Transmuters: there are a couple of +10 Defense Fabled Adorns for 2-H weapons.  Why would anyone using a Two-Hander want +defense?  Again an adorn no one will use. </p><p><span style="color: #33ff66;">Both my Paladin and Mystic use 2H weapons and would like +defense since when using a 2H weapon you can't use a shield.   My Paladin has started using a shield to solo in RoK because she was getting ripped up by the mobs -- +defense might let me get my 2H sword back out.</span></p></blockquote>

[Meirril]

<cite>Calthine wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, I guess me and my friends aren't in our right minds.  One should be careful to avoid overgeneralizing statements <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote><p>Well, lets ask a hypothetical question and see what the answer is. Your a t8 adventurer/crafter. Lets just say that you arn't sure if there is a better pair of gloves your character could be wearing than the master crafted gloves you recently obtained. You spend 8p on a insainly cheap master I spell and luckly get a mana. You already possess the shards, powders, and were lucky enough to obtain 2 infusions from transmuting the legendary armor rewards from several quests you've done that unfortunately didn't have an option for your class. You make a fabled adornment for your gloves and are happy with the result. </p><p>Now less than a week later you get invited to charsis by a friend of yours. One grueling hour later a legendary pair of gloves that are intended for your class drop. In general, they are superior in every way to your master crafted gloves except for the adornment. Do you pass on the gloves, transmute them, or wear them? If you wear them do you immediately start shelling out for another adornment? </p><p>I wouldn't think that most t8 characters couldn't afford to pay for another adornment, especially if they are transmuters. It is however going to be expensive by most people's standards. I certainly would be hesitant to buy a new fabled adornment not knowing if the next instance I hit will have an even better pair of gloves. Even after I learn that outside of raiding there is only one pair of better gloves I'd hesistate. I'd want to get the best I can expect before committing to using the materials for a fabled adornment. Even legendary adornments are a considerable investment. Heck, treasured adornments are worth at least 2p to me. While I can certainly afford to throw away 2p on a whim I still pay attention to what I'm spending it on.</p><p>On the other hand, if your one of the top crafters on your server that people go to based on reputation who basically sets the rates on your server you could probably afford to pay for a set of fabled gear from the broker (or raiders willing to sell raid gear via invite to a raid and giving loot permission) and have it adorned in all fabled. I've never herd of anyone doing this, but I can imagine it happening. If that is your position, well, lets just say it wouldn't be a standard that the more typical crafter would start from. I think even hard core raiders (who have access to no-trade fabled items that people will eventually not bid on) would balk at placing fabled adornments on items they hope to replace.</p>

[Calthine]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>I wouldn't think that most t8 characters couldn't afford to pay for another adornment, especially if they are transmuters. It is however going to be expensive by most people's standards. </blockquote>If you want something badly enough you find a way.  When you don't raid and don't leve fast, why wait "just in case"?

[Afterdark]

<p>This may seem a bit off base but as a 80 transmuter / 80 weaponsmith, 80 Carpenter, 80 Jeweler, 80 Alchemist and 80 Tailor I have fully embraced the adornment market in both Tier 7 and Tier 8 and have what may seem like much different ideas. To start it seems to me muters make subs, crafters make the adornments. Taking muter weapon adornments from muters and giving them to weaponsmiths is a wash for me, my weaponsmith is my muter. With over 20,000 plat sold since LU 24 on my main selling toon ( I have a few shops set up) and most of that being adornments ( I sell all my crafters adornments on one toon ) here are some things I would like to see.</p><p>I would like to see much faster more efficient muting like maybe a special container where we can put a ton of stuff in and mute it all at once. At a min I would like to see single mutes twice as fast.</p><p>I would like to see a more efficient way to share my muter subs with all my other crafters instead of having to use the shared bank. I know its crazy but maybe a big old fat muter subs bag that all my toons can access instead of the old dump it all in the bank, log to different toon, goto bank, pick up subs, go make adornments, back to bank, put stuff in bank, log to another toon rinse repeat several times. Way to much zoning involved. By the time I get back to my main toon with all the new made adornments he has sold a ton more.</p><p>The Pros, I like the adornment business, it has kept us crafters busy, the only real complant has been the same for regular rare crafted items and adornments, I can not stress this one enough, the things that sell - sell well while most of the rest just sits on the broker and the price is driven way down below the cost to make due to lack of interest. To help fix this I would like to see no experience given for making rare items, this way the only reason to make a rare item is to use or sell for a profit. To many crafters buy thru rares for exp then just dump the item on the market at the best price to get there "experience" money back with no interest in profit. I know people like to say well buy the low cost ones and re-sell them at a profit but there are in most cases just to many of a given item listed below cost for this to work.</p><p>Overall I have been happy with the adornment system, I like that each crafter class makes the own set of adornments. Sure some classes have a much better asortment of adornments then others. Jeweler does well. She scores a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10, my weaponsmith/muter does well. He scores a 9 as well, Tailor does well. She scores about an 8, Carpenter not so good. He scores maybe a 4 and the alchemist? Well I don't use him much save for the chest pristmatic appliques. He scores a 1. So yes carpenters and alchys need better adornments.</p><p>Last but not least I would like to see a COD mail system, this way I can mail any item with a set price and they are not allowed to receive the item untill they send payment. Cha Ching! lol. </p><p>Thats my 2 cents err 2 coppers worth, lol. There really is just to much time involved im buying and muting stuff, the broker can not spit out stuff fast enough and it takes to long to mute after that.</p>

[Gargamel]

<p>The solution is simple --<b> Give transmuters all adornment recipies, allow them to skill up off any recicpe, leave "primary" tradeskillers to keep their subsection of adornments.</b></p><p>End. Of. Story.</p>

[rwiz]

Hello. Ithink Transmuting is  very dificult.I Hope simple one.For example.1.Transmuter makes materials that have an special power.2.Artisan can make Adornments by using that material.3.Artisan - Adornment - For Use<ul><li>Weaponsmiths- DMG,Other Procs / For Melee weapons </li><li>Woodworkers- DMG,Other Procs HP/Pow regene / For Range weapon, Shield,Charm </li><li>Sage- Spell DMG+,Spell Procs / For weapons,Charm </li><li>Alchemists- Other combat effect(Haste,DPS+ DMGShield..etc) / For Accessory</li><li>Jewelers- Resist(SV),Resist ↑↓Procs / For Accessory</li><li>Armorers- Melee Skill UP,Mit UP / For Armors (Plate,Chain),Shield</li><li>Tailor- Caster Skill UP / For Armors (Close,leather)</li><li>Provisioner- +HP +Pow +STATS(Str.ext..) / For Armors,Cloaks </li><li>Carpenter- Other noncombat effect (Slowfall,walkspeed+,see invisible,water breath etc..)/any equips</li></ul>4.For example, Armorer's Adornments-<ul><li>(Balance sample)</li><li>Head - Mit+</li><li>Chest - Mit+</li><li>Shoulder - Defence+</li><li>Forearm - Parry+</li><li>Arm - Melee skill+</li><li>Legs - Defence+</li><li>Foot - Melee skill+</li></ul><ul><li>(I need Mit sample)</li><li>Head - Mit+</li><li>Chest - Mit+</li><li>Shoulder - Mit+</li><li>Forearm - Mit+</li><li>Arm - Mit+</li><li>Legs - Mit+</li><li>Foot - Mit+</li></ul>

[DasUberFuzzy]

<cite>rwiz wrote:</cite><blockquote>1.Transmuter makes materials that have an special power.2.Artisan can make Adornments by using that material.3.Artisan - Adornment - For Use<ul><li>Weaponsmiths- DMG,Other Procs / For Melee weapons </li><li>Woodworkers- DMG,Other Procs HP/Pow regene / For Range weapon, Shield,Charm </li><li>Sage- Spell DMG+,Spell Procs / For weapons,Charm </li><li>Alchemists- Other combat effect(Haste,DPS+ DMGShield..etc) / For Accessory</li><li>Jewelers- Resist(SV),Resist ↑↓Procs / For Accessory</li><li>Armorers- Melee Skill UP,Mit UP / For Armors (Plate,Chain),Shield</li><li>Tailor- Caster Skill UP / For Armors (Close,leather)</li><li>Provisioner- +HP +Pow +STATS(Str.ext..) / For Armors,Cloaks </li><li>Carpenter- Other noncombat effect (Slowfall,walkspeed+,see invisible,water breath etc..)/any equips</li></ul></blockquote>best idea of moving the adornments around i've ever seen

[Paddyo]

<p>I have spent a ton of plat to level up transmuting when it went live.  I don't regret a single coin.  I had 3 tradeskillers (woodworker, who was the transmuter...tailor and alchemist) ready to make adornments as I skilled up.  It cost me somewhere in the vicinity of 130 plat spent to do the skill ups, but I started out with 30 plat in my hands, so I cannot really complain now, can I?  I have done something like 5k plat in sales since I started transmuting and that was before my sales started getting split up between the 4 max level characters I have now selling their own wares.  I don't regret it for a second.  Did I make much money off transmuting itself?  No...not at all.</p><p>In this other MMORPG, enchanters ( who are kinda sorta like transmuters) break stuff down and then enchant items (rather than adorn them)  and so they get all the benefits from the enchantments themselves.  I like the system we have allowing all tradeskillers to be able to create things to adorn different slots; BUT...in terms of making transmuting itself a viable/profitable skill, maybe some "fluff" type enchantments that need to be done on consignment might be a good way to spice up the skilling up process?  LON has proven that fluff items are highly sought after and obviously easy to implement....so why not let transmuters be able to take say someone's gloves in the consignment window, use some transmuted components and add a red glow to their hands that has a small fire damage proc?  Or a silver glow that procs lightning....or a smoky wisp on a breastplate that adds a small amount of cold damage absorbtion?  Of course, high end players will still be seeking out the actual stat and effect adornments for their armor, but toons leveling up may very well love the new fluff effects with minor usefulness instead, and of course the fluff effects could adorn appearance slot items and give the visible effect without the added benefits.  Yeah, I rpobably am starting to sound like a coding nightmare.  But if you let a tranmuter /ooc or /shout in a zone they are doing fire procs or lightning procs for free with your supplied materials....or even for free, just to skill up, the process might become a little less painful.</p>

[Cyber_Cowb]

Why not make an option to Harvest fuels o purchase them? the wood fuels would come from wood, coal would come from mining, fibers from provisioner bushes, wax (candles) from fish or dens.  (think thats it but can't get in game atm to check)This would give everyone a reason to harvest nodes other than their "main sets" My main goal for this though is to make some of the lesser nodes more desirable.  right now on blackburrow you can purchase common loam, stones, wood and pelts for about 2-10 cp, bush, and fish raws though are about 20-10 sp, still not a major price hit until you figure that it's 100 times more expensive.  The main reason for this is that only one class uses these nodes so people usually don't harvest them.  (Note this may have been mentioned but I'm watching a 2 year old child and he isn't gonna let me read 14 pages atm)

[AinaFV]

<cite>Mighty Melvor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ZUES wrote:</cite><p>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.</p></blockquote>Pssst, you can get to 400 transmute skill making T1 transmute combines.  Cost on my server is roughly 6-8 gold per combine for ulteran powders, silvers for the fragments.  Get a skillup about every four or five combines doing this.

[Besual]

<cite>rwiz wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hello. Ithink Transmuting is  very dificult.I Hope simple one.For example.1.Transmuter makes materials that have an special power.2.Artisan can make Adornments by using that material.3.Artisan - Adornment - For Use<ul><li>Weaponsmiths- DMG,Other Procs / For Melee weapons </li><li>Woodworkers- DMG,Other Procs HP/Pow regen / For Range weapon, Shield,Charm </li><li>Sage- Spell DMG+,Spell Procs / For weapons,Charm </li><li>Alchemists- Other combat effect(Haste,DPS+ DMGShield..etc) / For Accessory</li><li>Jewelers- Resist(SV),Resist ↑↓Procs / For Accessory</li><li>Armorers- Melee Skill UP,Mit UP / For Armors (Plate,Chain),Shield</li><li>Tailor- Caster Skill UP / For Armors (Close,leather)</li><li>Provisioner- +HP +Pow +STATS(Str.ext..) / For Armors,Cloaks </li><li>Carpenter- Other noncombat effect (Slowfall,walkspeed+,see invisible,water breath etc..)/any equips</li></ul></blockquote>There is ALOT of missing stuff.What about +heal / +heal critt / heal procs?What about brawlers (leather armor and tanking)?What about caster skills on chain / plate amor (shaman / cleric / knights / bards)?What about +/- hate, +aggression skill?What about +CA damage?Why are you so restrictive to the what can be placed in what slot? Why no HP / Power on other slots the armor cloak? Why HP / power regen /procs only on ranged weapons / shields / charm?

[Vulkan_NTooki]

Some posts in this thread shows why some ppl are afraid Transmuters get all recipes.. hehe.. The true "monopoly" allready lies at the current artisans.. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[rwiz]

<cite>Besual wrote:</cite><cite></cite><blockquote>There is ALOT of missing stuff.What about +heal / +heal critt / heal procs?What about brawlers (leather armor and tanking)?What about caster skills on chain / plate amor (shaman / cleric / knights / bards)?What about +/- hate, +aggression skill?What about +CA damage?Why are you so restrictive to the what can be placed in what slot? Why no HP / Power on other slots the armor cloak? Why HP / power regen /procs only on ranged weapons / shields / charm?</blockquote>Yes,I think so. Fixed versions here. But I'm not staff of SOE and native English. So there are many missing stuffs <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><span class="postbody"><ul><li>Weaponsmiths- DMG Procs,+CA DMG,Melee skill UP(Slash,Pierce,Crush,),</li><li>Woodworkers- <span class="postbody">Pow/</span>HP regene,arrow/ammo's effect+(DMG/range/hit chance up),totem effect+(time extension/or power up/or recharge)..etc </li><li>Sage- Spell DMG+,Spell Procs,<span class="postbody">Heal+,Heal Procs</span></li><li>Alchemists- Haste,DPS+ DMGShield,Hate control,Potion effect+(time extension/reuse timer reduction..)..etc</li><li><span class="postbody">Jewelers- Resist(SV),Resist up/down Procs</span></li><li><span class="postbody">Armorers- Defence Skill UP(Defence,Parry,deflection,aggression),Mit UP</span></li><li><span class="postbody">Tailor- Caster Skill UP(disruption,ministration,</span>Subjugation,Focus,Ordination)</li><li><span class="postbody">Provisioner- +HP +Pow +States(STR.AGI,INT,STA,WIS)</span></li><li><span class="postbody"><span class="postbody">Carpenter- Durability down reduction(When you die,usually -10%,but 8%,7%..etc ),weight reduction(for bags),rentstats reduction(for furniture) ,States point gain up..etc</span></span></li></ul></span><span class="postbody">There are may be applied all slots.but, should have Adornment's States Caps.For example,If you equip STA+7 appllied shield and STA +8 weapon,If states cap(changed by Lv) is +10STA,you gain +10 STA. (not +15 STA)And,If you Applly many same proc(DMG,Heal..)Proc trigger chance should be reduced.(usually 1.8trigger but 0.9triger.0.6trigger...etc)And.Transmuter make materials.Materials have a rank:common/uncommon/rare.(That have tier 1～8..)Transmuter can transmute all Lv items.but,Probability is effected by transmute skill and transmuted material's rarity.(If your skill is 10,you can transmute Tier8 items.but no chance of rare materials and get common tier8 materials,If your skill is 400,and use fabled item,you get rare material 100%)If you make +HP tier8 adornment ,common gives +100HP,uncommon  gives  +150HP.rare gives +200HP..etc</span>

[lilmohi]

I haven't read through the last 14 pages so this has already been mentioned i'm sure. However i think the bigest problem with transmuting is that the stuff that you want to sell (end prododuct) is the same stuff you need to level up with (a problem nobody else has). So what i would like to see is handcrafted items be made transumutable but the raw it creates is a new item that is only used in some "skill up" recipes. These can be new recipes that are only vendor bait or they can be the same recipes that transmuters currently have at the treasured level. Just to be able to have a cheaply attainable component that can be used for skilling up would be a huge boon for the subclass.

[BigChiefJJ]

<p>I'm not sure if I've found all the new T8 adornments, but things that I would like to see added/changed.   Useful ear adornments, I think the only thing I've ever seen on earrings is +int, it would be nice to also be able to have +STR or +WIS or +STA as a stat option for treasured adornments, and possibly a +ranged option or chance to proc deagro or proc damage on ranged attack for legendary and a plus or minus 3% hate or +Ranged / Melee Double attack for a fabled option.  I would be extremely happy with some of those same options for my head slot as this is also one with limited options as are rings - the only adornment I've seen on rings is +100 power.</p><p>Adding a few adornments for quivers / pouches / charm slot items would be nice as well.  Any of the nifty effects that the new RoK gear has on it would be a nice addition for a fabled adornment for any slot i.e. oveloaded heal, Assassins thirst, reduction in cast times - these would make great additions for cloaks as there is not much great for them out there yet. </p>

[Meirril]

<p>I know I've said this before, but I've been thinking about it more in relation to what people have been saying recently. </p><p>I think it would be very helpful to have some weakened adornments that can be placed in any slot.</p><p>Taking t8 for example, you could have a variety of +8 to one stat adornments and say a +20hp, and +20 power adornments that could be applied to any slot. If they were treasured you would see at least a limited amount of demand for these to fill slots that don't have good choices for certain classes. (for instance, ears for non-mages or boots for non-tanks). Some proc abilities for generic slots could be done as fabled adornments. Something along the lines of "mana conservation: your gain power equal to your last used CA or spell, procs 1.6 times per minute." sounds about right. Something that anyone could use but shouldn't be overpowered if you had a full set of them.</p><p>While my ideal is to give all of these non-slot adornments to transmuters there really is no reason that they couldn't be split between different professions. If there were treasured versions in the transmuter's box of tools they would be a very welcome way to skill up with adornments that people of all levels would use (since they would all be cheap due to overproduction).</p>

[Feneant]

I did a /feedback at some point shortly after RoK was released when I realized that most adornments were now fairly useless.My example was a tier 8 fabled adornment that weaponsmiths create to give +30 spell damage to a neck piece.My problem was that a level 68-70 person can easily get multiple +30 to +70 to spell damage items just from solo questing.  However, for a weaponsmith to make one , he would have so spend something like 30 platinum (on our server at least) and no offense but no one in their right mind will pay 1 platinum for a 1 damage spell increase ratio.I just find that from tier 7 to tier 8 , the effects on equipment shot up tenfolds.  Where it use to take everything to get a 1% to crit item, people can now get 10-15% from solo/groups without raiding while raiders might see numbers as high as 20-25%.So basically, effects were added to nearly every fabled and legendary items and even to multiple treasured items which kind of trivialized the whole adornments concept.  Some still sell fairly well (the +16 to armor for instance),  but it is exceedingly difficult to find buyers for what were the prized adornments in tiers 1-7 because most won't pay the price to get an item which has the same (or worst) effect than most of their other items.I think a major review is needed so that adornments can match up to the items that player have once again. 

[Wyndorf]

<cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Some posts in this thread shows why some ppl are afraid Transmuters get all recipes.. hehe.. The true "monopoly" allready lies at the current artisans.. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" /></blockquote>At least someone gets it.Tinkering is vastly overpowered compared to Transmuting ever since the beginning.You cannot even talk about transmuters VERSUS adventurers or crafters, since any adventurer/crafter can become a transmuter should they wish to have access to the components.  Monopoly my rear iris.  Divert attention from the real issue* all you want, until transmuters get access to all the adornment recipes (be it exclusively or not, I guess that could be discussed), they won't be balanced versus tinkerers (who DO have the monopoly over a bunch of really good stuff).Right now, apart from a couple of ok adornments, being a transmuter comes down to being able to break *crap* down into *stuff* that can be passed on to others.  What are we?  A pseudo-dignified waste treatment unit?  And we had to pay MIT tuition fees to be able to do it!* I can totally see how a high level crafter/tinkerer wants to have his cake and keep eating it though, preferrably with whipped cream and hot chocolate on top.  You can't have everything, seriously, just stop already, especially with your suggested 'compensations' for the imaginary monopoly of transmuters.  To those who accuse transmuters of having a monopoly : /boggle.  If that is the case, then it is only because you went to the left side of BB docks and picked tinkering o.O  How about we give some of each crafter class's good recipes to transmuters?  Just because, you know, otherwise you'd have a 'monopoly'!  If you feel that would be inappropriate, then please realize that that is exactly the situation transmuters ARE in.

[Bakual]

<cite>Wyndorf wrote:</cite><blockquote>You cannot even talk about transmuters VERSUS adventurers or crafters, since any adventurer/crafter can become a transmuter should they wish to have access to the components.  Monopoly my rear iris.  Divert attention from the real issue* all you want, until transmuters get access to all the adornment recipes (be it exclusively or not, I guess that could be discussed), they won't be balanced versus tinkerers (who DO have the monopoly over a bunch of really good stuff).</blockquote><p>There is no need to balance Transmuter vs Tinkerer, they're completly different with completely different targets. Everyone can choose whatever he likes, and he also is free to change afterwards as much as he wanted (alltough loosing money invested and skills). Why should it be balanced in the first place? If you think tinkering is better, then do it. If you like transmuting better, do that. It's a secondary skill, not a primary one.</p>

[Caethre]

<cite>Bakual wrote:</cite> <blockquote><p>There is no need to balance Transmuter vs Tinkerer, they're completly different with completely different targets.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">OOC.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Sorry Bakual, but this statement is <u>fundamentally</u> wrong. There is EVERY need to have Transmuter and Tinkerer more-or-less balanced with eachother, because every character can only be one <u>or</u> the other.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">This is for the same reason that, for example, Paladins have to be more-or-less-balanced with Beserkers (in the adventuring sphere), or Alchemists have to be more-or-less-balanced with Jewelers (in the primary tradeskill area). Simply put, it would be unfair if any of these become grossly unbalanced, not to mention, it would  be ridiculous if as a result of any major imbalance, 90%+ of players started to choose just one option over the other. In short, SOE attempting to make them balanced is just common sense. Just because one can respec ones primary or secondary tradeskill, is not a reason why one should be far more powerful than the other, indeed, it does not even begin to justify such an argument.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I put it to you, if YOU were designing a game system (any game system), you would not define a system with multiple classes where some classes were clearly just weaker than others, as any development effort put into those weaker classes would just be a waste (as almost noone is going to choose a significantly weaker option!). At least, no-one with any sense would <i>deliberately</i> design such an imbalanced system.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">That said, I believe SOE do a good job (in general) in attempting to keep things balanced (within reason - there will never be "perfect" balance, and there will always be some people who see things as not balanced even if objectively-speaking they are!).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Putting all adornment recipes on to Transmuter still remains something that would make sense in many ways. The existing recipes on primary classes could remain where they are as well. Such a step would only increase the popularity of transmuting, that is true, but since there are some very significant benefits to being a tinkerer, with items that are only available to tinkerer characters, it might help offset some of those.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If such a thing were done, the Tinkerer player would still be able to purchase any* adornment, but would now have more potential suppliers. The Transmuter player would still be stuck with regarding to access to certain Tinkerer-made items that cannot be purchased, however. One might suggest, even this proposed change would still leave the balance of power with the Tinkerer.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">That said, I don't think this is *vital*, far from it.</span></p>

[Frijoles]

<p align="justify">Here's an idea I have regarding adornments: (I'm thinking tinkered rather than transmuted because I think tinkers currently have fewer types of adornments than transmuters do, overall - but it can be for any crafting class, really.)</p><p align="justify">As far as I know, tinkers make adornments only for bows (I may be mistaken about this, but my tinker is up to 200 skill [or level 40] and all his adornment recipes so far are for bow adornments), and this idea involves adornments for a slot that currently has (as far as I know) no adornment recipes.</p><p align="justify">We have lots (and lots) of charm slot items in the game (many of which are actually charm slot 'optional'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> but I think that what my characters use more than any other charm slot item are the various types of player crafted hex dolls available (and these must be equipped - no benefit may be derived from simply carrying a hex doll around, or by right-clicking on one while it is unequipped).</p><p align="justify">I'd like to suggest a charm slot adornment (perhaps for hex dolls only, since they're the only crafted charm slot item I know of that all classes can use throughout all the tiers) that offers the wearer a little bit of light to see by. While there are various types of torches out there, they occupy a charm slot, must be equipped, and offer no benefit other than the light they emit while they're equipped. (And while swapping these items out is fine when running around town [most notably Neriak] or hunting for harvesting nodes in the dark - being outdoors in the rain at night is the pits - doing so when adventuring can be dangerous.)  </p><p align="justify">Building on this idea, perhaps there could also be charm slot adornments for a slight (very slight) reduction in the user's food/drink appetite, or for an (again, very slight) increase in health and/or power regen rates - perhaps while out of combat only. </p><p align="justify">There might be other effects that charm slot adornments could offer, but I can't think of any atm. Primarily though, I think the one for ambient lighting (similar to torches, perhaps not quite as bright) would be great - and well recieved - particularly by those who play character races without ultra, infra, or sonic vision.</p><p align="justify">Alternatively (if charm slot adornments aren't feasable, or if the charm slot idea is deemed unworthy), perhaps a light-emitting jewelry adornment can be implemented. My characters love the Greater Lightstone for the light it gives off (although my vote would actually be for a finger/ring slot adornment), but once they outgrow it they're in the dark again.</p>

[LarryTalbot]

Three suggestions<div></div><div>1) Make skill ups only dependent on transmuting raws, not on making adornments.</div><div>2) Remove all current adornments from transmuters and give them to the appropriate TS. </div><div></div><div>Right now there are tinkered items that only a tinkerer can use. This means that as a secondary TS tinkering gives adventuring advantages that transmuting doesn't give, which seems unfair since you can only be one or the other. So final suggestion.</div><div></div><div>3) The ONLY adornments makeable by transmuters should be "transmuter only" adornments that give real adventuring benefits, such as a significant boost to a stat/resist or a desirable effect like FD, haste or stoneskin. These adorns should have limited charges, stack with other permanent adorns and be relatively cheap to make (x gp not x pp.) </div>

[Qandor]

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bakual wrote:</cite> <blockquote><p>There is no need to balance Transmuter vs Tinkerer, they're completly different with completely different targets.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">OOC.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Sorry Bakual, but this statement is <u>fundamentally</u> wrong. There is EVERY need to have Transmuter and Tinkerer more-or-less balanced with eachother, because every character can only be one <u>or</u> the other.</span></p></blockquote><p>It really depends on what you mean in the way of balance. Certainly cost wise and time wise they are far from balanced at the moment. I would rather max 8 tinkerers than do one transmuter again. Yes, I do have a 400 skill tinkerer, which was trivial to do. Personally, after finally reaching 385 in transmuting, I regret ever having done it. </p><p>I would have rather seen transmuting skillups come from transmuting. Why they make adornments is a bit of a mystery and why they switch the methodology of skilling up at 100 skill is truly a mystery. Giving transmuters weapon adornments was also the final kick in the teeth to weaponsmiths, who have been all but useless for ages now. </p>

[Marduk]

<p>I originally posted this in tradeskill discussions before I found this thread.  My apologies for the duplicate, this seemed the proper forum.  I also did not read through the over 15 pages of posts, so if this is not an original idea, again my apologies...</p><p>As it is now, items may only be adorned using the same tier or lower adornment.  Meaning a level 69 (tier 7) item which drops in a tier 8 zone, may NOT be enhanced with a tier 8 adornment, even though this item may be useful for many levels to come throughout tier 8.  It may only be enhanced by a tier 7 or lower adornment.</p><p>Idea:  Make it so higher level adornments can be used on lower level items.  To prevent "twinking", match the usable level of the adorned item to that of the higher of of the two items, (original item and adornment).</p><p>Example 1: A level 70 character would like to use a level 70 (tier 8 adornment to enhance a level 65 weapon, (still very valuable and useful to him/her).  After doing so, the weapon becomes usable at level 70, (the higher of the two items).  This charcter can still use the item as they are of the appropriate level.</p><p>Example 2: A level 77 character would like to enhance a brand new drop.  Unfortunately it is a level 79 item.  Using a level 70 (tier 8 adornment will not change the usable level, (79 > 70) and the item will retain the higher level use requirements.  Thus, this person will still have to wait two levels to equip it.</p><p>Example 3: The anti "twink" scenario - A level 35 character tries to adorn a level 34 item with a level 70 (tier 8 adornment.  Doing so, made this person's item usable at level 70, (70 > 34).  In order to be able to use the item, the character must adorn it with a level 30 (tier 4) adornment to make it once again usableby them.  It returns to its original usable level of 34, (34 the original level of the item > 30 the level of the last adornment placed on the item).  After five more levels, this same character has not yet found an upgrade to the item and wishes to enhance it further.  Because they are now level 40, they can place a level 40 (tier 5) adornment on it which would make the item usable at level 40, (40 > 34).</p><p>Hopefully this will get favorable responses from both the community and developers.</p>

[Boethius_Permafrost]

Six comments:Weaponsmithing adornments add a set amount, which becomes negligible, as it never scales up.  I'm not a big parser, but could someone look into whether they can be improved?  That's probably more of a combat engine issue than tradeskills, but it greatly affects tradeskills.  Also, make our temporary adornments last much longer.  In fact, make them hotkeyable so they automatically go on my one and only primary slot, which is the only place they could go anyway.  Why do I have to go click on my weapon to use them? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Transmuting can't do its intended purpose of providing adornment supplies to the artisan market because they have to use them all to gain skill, and they ruin the market for lower level characters in doing so, instead of providing for that market.  Let them gain skill by transmuting, or even better, by making solvents to remove adornments from items, using common harvests.  I would also reduce the huge powder cost of higher quality items, possibly eliminate fragments entirely, and allow promoting or demoting powders similar to the way alchemists can now manipulate dust. As people have said, it would be nice if adornments were more systematic and predictable.  This, combined with allowing transmuters to skill up while providing components to the artisans, would make it possible for there to be a lower level market for people to learn adornments gradually and have a good feel for what to get from whom.  Thus, you could have a much wider variety of adornments without making it even more confusing to everyone.  And a wider variety is needed.Some adornments go from treasured to legendary to fabled without a fair cost/benefit for the minor changes which are of little or no benefit.  For example, T7 weaponsmith +12 slashing at treasured, +12 divine at legendary is a huge cost differential.  Alchemists ring adornments are a much better example of poor upgrading, as you get no upgrade for higher cost adornments.  Reducing the cost gap of legendary and fabled is a good alternative, but currently there is a huge cost gap without corresponding balance of power.  There are a few exceptions with fabled gear that is essential and uses effects which will eventually force a revamp of the combat system, as the level cap rises.  Dropped gear uses the same effects, so this is not a tradeskill problem.  There are also many fabled adornments which are completely useless. Resist adornments are vastly underpowered, and should be expanded to cover one of the three general categories of resists (elemental, noxious, arcane) with higher numbers.  That way they match the resist gear crafted by jewelers, and they provide a benefit which is competitive with the alternative: not bothering to adorn your resist gear.  Legendary and Fabled upgrades for all magical resists would be good additions for full-time gear. Tinkering has become insanely powerful and useful, while transmuting remains unreasonably difficult.  I would suggest giving transmuters some self or transmuter-only adornments, possibly aimed at improving their tradeskill abilities and success chances.  If you give transmuters their own niche, maybe weaponsmiths can have their weapon adornments, please.  Woodworkers should get tinkers' bow adornments, now, and tinkers would still be ludicrously overpowered.

[Zmobie]

Personally, here is what I think should be done with adornments:Remove adornment recipes from all TS classes except Transmuters. Make all adornment recipes use Trasmuting as the skill.It's kind of ridiculous that in order to break gear, as a transmuter, you have to grind out thousands of useless weapon adorns, and only weapon adorns. The truly useful adornments are ALL made by other tradeskills. These tradeskills then reap whatever profit/advantage comes from adornments, leaving Transmuters... well... with nothing to show for it except the ability to break down items.*If* the ability to break down items is the only benefiet from being a transmuter, then they should get skill ups from breaking down gear only, not from grinding out all those mostly-worthless weapon adorns.From a purely objective designer view, I have to say I am impressed with the implementation of Transmuting. It surely is the most effective money-sink I've ever seen in a game. By the time I was able to break T5 gear, I just wished there was a right-click menu option on my money that just said "Throw away" or "Burn". And now that I'm maxxed out, the only realy benefiet I get is being able to break no-trade stuff that I get from quests and FFAs from dungeons. That seems like a bit of a small reward for the time, effort, and coin that went into leveling up as a Transmuter.--Tusk

[Zmobie]

<cite>Enrico@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Six comments: and allow promoting or demoting powders similar to the way alchemists can now manipulate dust. </blockquote>I must have missed something... in what way can alchemists "manipulate dust"?--Tusk, curious

[Rashaak]

<cite>Blacktusk@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Enrico@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Six comments:and allow promoting or demoting powders similar to the way alchemists can now manipulate dust. </blockquote>I must have missed something... in what way can alchemists "manipulate dust"?--Tusk, curious</blockquote>Try <a href="http://www.eq2.eqtraders.com/articles/article_page.php?article=q17&menustr=060000000000" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a bit of Fire, or a bit Ice</a> and you'll see! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Bozidar]

<p>this thread is way too long to read the whole thing, i wish i'd caught it when it was fresh and read-able <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  just dont have the time, but..</p><p>1) Resist adorns stink, we all know that.  Making ones that give significant amounts more to the resist would help a lot, or make them give a boost to 3 resists or more.  maybe a legendary adorn that gives an amount to all resists?</p><p>2) charm slot adorns, anyone? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>3) How about a movement speed adornment for feet?  How about an adorn that gives a bonus to in-stealth movement?  out-of combat only.. dont need to give kiters any more skills than they have, and unbalance things.</p><p>4) MORE subjugation/disruption adorns, and I haven't seen any, but how about +piercing/slashing/crushing adorns for something other than weapons (which i usually put a GOOD adorn on).</p><p>5) Is there a tradeskill class more hosed by their adornment recipies than weaponsmith?  Oh, wait, Sage... </p><p>6) VISUAL EFFECTS - can adorns have some kind of visual effect, please?  maybe a soft glow of some kind, maybe a glowing rune on the item adorned?  Ask the art geeks to look at this, they might like it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>that's all i got for now, well is dry.  if i'm repeating the ideas of others, i claim them as my own anyway because i didnt' read your stuff <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[BigChiefJJ]

<p>Melee classes can use adornments on the item that they carry in their ranged slot to improve their melee attacks (the +dps adornments), why not have some adornments that would could be placed on melee weapons that could benefit ranged combat?</p><p>Things that I would love to see would be a +ranged item (similar to the +s/p/c ones) a +ranged crit one (we already have some that increase spell/heal crit chance for weapons).</p><p>I know the thread is for adornments but I though I'd add in a nice tinkered recipe as well - something along the lines of a ‘quick reloading quiver' - reduces delay of bow attacks by 1.0 second, it would have half capacity of the standard mastercrafted quivers but add the</p>

[wajamacallit]

<p>Trasmutter writs.   The reward should be fuel + small chance of a skill increase.   This will provide an incentive enough hopefully to remove most of the weapon adorns from the broker.</p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>wajamacallit wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Trasmutter writs.   The reward should be fuel + small chance of a skill increase.   This will provide an incentive enough hopefully to remove most of the weapon adorns from the broker.</p></blockquote>not a bad idea

[Whilhelmina]

<cite>wajamacallit wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Trasmutter writs.   The reward should be fuel + small chance of a skill increase.   This will provide an incentive enough hopefully to remove most of the weapon adorns from the broker.</p></blockquote><p>THAT's one of the best ideas I saw on this huge topic. Quite nice indeed ! </p><p>The main problem (as I see it and not considering the balance between adornments) is the rate of skill up and, strange thing, nobody asked for an increase rate in all those 15 pages (just read them all.... I knew I should have read this topic from the start !). I never reached T4 on any of my transmuters because I didn't have the patience to wait for those [censored] skills up. Doing writs that give back some fuel would :- decrease the number of worthless adorns from the broker- give some raws back and so reduce a bit the cost/time for obtaining the treasured gear to break down- give additionnal skills up chances</p><p>Other option would be to add a small chance at skill up when breaking down the items. Not 100% of course, but a 10-20% chance when breaking down an item and a 50% chance when crafting an adorn would make this secondary tradeskill a bit more interesting and less time consuming. </p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Whilhelmina wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>THAT's one of the best ideas I saw on this huge topic. Quite nice indeed ! </p><p>The main problem (as I see it and not considering the balance between adornments) is the rate of skill up and, strange thing, nobody asked for an increase rate in all those 15 pages (just read them all.... I knew I should have read this topic from the start !). I never reached T4 on any of my transmuters because I didn't have the patience to wait for those [censored] skills up. Doing writs that give back some fuel would :- decrease the number of worthless adorns from the broker- give some raws back and so reduce a bit the cost/time for obtaining the treasured gear to break down- give additionnal skills up chances</p><p>Other option would be to add a small chance at skill up when breaking down the items. Not 100% of course, but a 10-20% chance when breaking down an item and a 50% chance when crafting an adorn would make this secondary tradeskill a bit more interesting and less time consuming. </p></blockquote><p>I've leveled a transmuter to 80.. it's painful.  But there is a fine line between making it less painful, and trivializing it.</p><p>Can we put a change is so that if i look at an adornment i get a skill up?  How far do you go?</p><p>I think the writ idea alone, without any skill up enhancement, is awesome.  Gives us something to do to earn faction/status, and reduces clutter on the broker.</p><p>Even if you give an equal chance to get a transmuting skill up when you turn the writ in, as when you craft an item, you're giving a nice boost and incentive to do it without making the class 10 times easier as the poster i'm quoting would have us do.</p>

[Whilhelmina]

Oh, I didn't want something too simple, just a bit more simple, but I think I didn't express my exact point that well. My apologies, english is not my mother language. The idea was to have something like a writ to help, but I did not thought very long about how the writ should work exactly as I'm not good, as you pointed out, at visualizing balance issues.

[TheSpin]

<p>My comment isn't related specifically to adornments, but rather to leveling up the skill.  It's just about pointless to bother with adornments before end game because they are a valuable tool to level up transmuting and transmuters spend all of their components trying to level up.  I know there are exceptions, but adornments aren't widely available on the market because there is only one way to level.</p><p>Basically I'm suggesting a new way to level secondary tradeskills:</p><p>1.  Transmuters extract the rare component of rare harvests and isolate the property that makes them 'rare'.  This process could offer a chance to skill up transmuting.  (1 Fir would become 1 Sparkling Essence for example)</p><p>2.  Tinkerers combine large quantities of common harvests into a single piece of high quality material ready to accept the rare essence.  This would allow a chance for a tinkering skill up.  (200 carbonite clusters become 1 mundane steel for example)</p><p>3.  Someone (transmuter, tinkerer, or both) can combine multiple extractions from transmuters with the high quality material from tinkerers, and create a new rare harvest.  (2 sparkling essences from the fir combine with the mundane steel to make 1 steel cluster)</p><p> *Unlike current transmuting/tinkering I think skill ups should only be possible using this method when dealing with the highest tier materials availalbe, otherwise this would potentially ruin the market on low tier harvests*</p><p>I'm sure there are many ideas out there to address certain issues with both harvesting and secondary tradeskills (and everything else), but I think this is a really viable way to address many issues with both harvesting and add variety to secondary tradeskills.  Obviously it would have an impact on the price of both rare harvests and common harvests across all tiers, but in the long term that impact would be a positive one because it would maintain some balance within a tier.</p>

[Graywindnz]

Since it seems we can not have an appearance slot for weapons and shields. How about something that will change the look of a weapon , like what they have done in EQ Lon cards. I really don’t like the look of the mystic epic weapon and would like it to look more spare ish

[Bozidar]

<p>how about giving transmuters some better recipies? maybe just one from each slot?</p><p>sta earing?</p><p>wis neck adorn?</p><p>int head adorn?</p><p>They dont need to be sexy, but come on.. we're TRASNMUTERS.  these are the materials we work with and spend so much time/money leveling up to use.  Can't we get some adorns that people actually WANT besides those weapon adorns?</p>

[SilkenKidden]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>how about giving transmuters some better recipies? maybe just one from each slot?</p><p>sta earing?</p><p>wis neck adorn?</p><p>int head adorn?</p><p>They dont need to be sexy, but come on.. we're TRASNMUTERS.  these are the materials we work with and spend so much time/money leveling up to use.  Can't we get some adorns that people actually WANT besides those weapon adorns?</p></blockquote>Amen.

[Meirril]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>how about giving transmuters some better recipies? maybe just one from each slot?</p><p>sta earing?</p><p>wis neck adorn?</p><p>int head adorn?</p><p>They dont need to be sexy, but come on.. we're TRASNMUTERS.  these are the materials we work with and spend so much time/money leveling up to use.  Can't we get some adorns that people actually WANT besides those weapon adorns?</p></blockquote>Actually this thead covers all of adornments, not just transmuters. Are you asking for recipes to be moved to transmuters, or for more recipes to be added and given to transmuters. Your request is a bit unclear.

[Bozidar]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>how about giving transmuters some better recipies? maybe just one from each slot?</p><p>sta earing?</p><p>wis neck adorn?</p><p>int head adorn?</p><p>They dont need to be sexy, but come on.. we're TRASNMUTERS.  these are the materials we work with and spend so much time/money leveling up to use.  Can't we get some adorns that people actually WANT besides those weapon adorns?</p></blockquote>Actually this thead covers all of adornments, not just transmuters. Are you asking for recipes to be moved to transmuters, or for more recipes to be added and given to transmuters. Your request is a bit unclear.</blockquote>i thought that "how about giving transmuters some better recipies?" was pretty clear.  I listed several recipies that didn't exist in game right now, so maybe i wasn't clear that i meant new recipies that others dont have right now -- thus adding value to the transmuting class other than someone to send stuff to in the mail to get broken down.

[Noaani]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>how about giving transmuters some better recipies? maybe just one from each slot?</p><p>sta earing?</p><p>wis neck adorn?</p><p>int head adorn?</p><p>They dont need to be sexy, but come on.. we're TRASNMUTERS.  these are the materials we work with and spend so much time/money leveling up to use.  Can't we get some adorns that people actually WANT besides those weapon adorns?</p></blockquote><p>Personally, I think transmuters are more about raw materials than crafted anything (adornments included).</p><p>Both from what I read about transmuting pre EoF, and how I see it in game now, transmuting is another form of gathering. We transmute to gain raws for making adornments, nothing more, nothing less.</p><p>Rather than giving transmuters adornments as a product, I would rather they made the transmute process itself a viable service to be offered to others.</p><p>Allowing us to transmute common harvested raws in to any other raw of that teir would be a good service we could offer, and maybe even transmuting a rare into another rare of that teir (though with a limitation on how often you can do this).</p><p>To me, this is more in line with both what I think transmuters were supposed to be, and also what they actually are on live.</p><p>On top of that, I would like to see the weapon adornments we have taken from us and given to weaponsmiths, and give us a range of adornments for the charm slot. That way, no one is competing with weaponsmiths for weapon adornments (for melee classes at least), and transmuters have a full range of adornments for a slot that no one else makes adornments for at all.</p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Personally, I think transmuters are more about raw materials than crafted anything (adornments included).</p></blockquote><p>It's nice to have opinions, but how do you <i>think </i>transmuters level after skill lvl 100?  We make things -- adornments.  That's not something they're going to change.</p><p>We are the <i>only</i> class that levels exclusively on making adornments, and we have a disproprotionate amount of useless adorns that we make vs primary crafting classes (with the exception of Sage, who really get the shaft in the adornment department)</p>

[Bozidar]

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=416790#4651434" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...=416790#4651434</a></p><p>After posting that I had an idea.</p><p>Why don't we have adornments that help crafters?  Why not a lvl 40 +5 metalworking adorn?</p><p>Maybe i'm the only one, but i like to keep my power as low as possible when i'm crafting, so my warden has a whole set of different crafting gear (with a bunch of +STR gear so i can carry around all the stuff i have when my STR gear is actually equipped).  It'd be nice to have even just one adorn for + Chemistry, or +Success chance.</p><p>Just throwing it out there <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></p><p>edit: add, how about a + durability, or +durability % adorn?  progress?</p>

[Lord Hackenslash]

There needs to be a Judicious (+dps) adornment available for symbols. many symbols are designed for crusaders and some for bards. with the current game mechanics forcing them to focus on melee damage, they all use bows for the judicious adornment allocation. adding this adornment to symbols would allow a broader use of itemization for players.thank you

[Grimlux]

<p><b><span style="color: #ff9933;">Things that drive me insane about Adornments...</span></b></p><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>There is Legendary and Fabled - Is it possible to make a "Lesser" version and a "Greater" version of the same Adornment. A good example would be the wrist slot intelligence. Legendary being 16int and Fabled being... Nothing Int at all.. Basically if you create a Legendary Adornment of whatever stat it would be nice to see the Fabled of the same stat but greater. (ex. Fabled Wrist adornment 20 int)</b></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>It drives me insane that I have to look up spreadsheets from non SOE sources to find out which Adornment I actually need. Logically I would think that Adornments would be made only by Transmuters but I doubt they are likely to change. Please take this analogy lightly but it's as if someone ate the spreadsheet on adornment allocation and then barfed on someone. Wherever the bits and pieces of the adornment spreadsheet were that's where they allocated. Again... Logically, Tailors, Armorers "Should" be making adornments for slots they can actually craft. Jewelers adorn jewelry, woodworkers adorn bows and shields, etc... Im not quite sure exactly where Carpenters and Provisioners would fall but Im sure someone as genius as domino could figure something out... LOGIC PEOPLE! </b></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>Ring's need a Power option. Currently you can only put resists and health. </b></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>Please allow Crystallized Mana to proc rarely off of 70+ legendary.. Theyre going for rediculous prices 40p+ on my server... is this intentional?</b></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>Please add a "Int" option on the helmets.. Currently there is only Wisdom and Heal crit.</b></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>All the slot's that add only 1 or 2 stats should have All the stat's added. (Im not quite sure if you guys are intentionally leaving these out?) </b></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>Please make cool adornments that drop out of dungeons, or that can be bought from faction merchants. </b></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>Would be fun to see adornments that are class related. Ex. "Mood Adornment" Depending on what class you are, has a "Fun" or helpful effect.  ALSO, </b></span><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>Group effecting adornments - Powerful adornments that give a slight boost to group attack/cast speed, Disruption/Subj/etc, or really whatever..</b></span></li></ul><p><b><span style="color: #ff9933;">Domino we all know you can fix Adornments... <3 <3 <3</span></b></p>

[Bozidar]

<p>^^^</p><p>1 or 2 good ideas there, mixed between a bevy of misunderstandings and outright wrongness.</p>

[Grimlux]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>^^^</p><p>1 or 2 good ideas there, mixed between a bevy of misunderstandings and outright wrongness.</p></blockquote>Care to point out which parts are wrong sir?

[Bozidar]

<cite>Praetorate@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>^^^</p><p>1 or 2 good ideas there, mixed between a bevy of misunderstandings and outright wrongness.</p></blockquote>Care to point out which parts are wrong sir?</blockquote><p>1) Wrist slot int are treasured, not legendary.  Would be interesting to get a legendary/fabled upgrade with even more stats.. </p><p>2) Tailors, armorers, woodworkers, jewelers.. these guys make adorns for what they craft.  But how does that translate to Alchemists? They dont make any equipable items, so they shouldn't get adornment recipies?  They sliced the pie up rather nicely, in this players opinion.  Most of it makes a good deal of sense to me and to most players/crafters.</p><p>3) Rings have power adornments.. </p><p>4) Why would mana come from a legendary? it's never come off of legendary in any other tier of the game.  Infusions and Powders come off of legendary.  Manas are expensive because they ONLY come off of fabled and then only <i>sometimes.</i>  That's why the adornments you make from them are Fabled.</p>

[Nebbie]

<cite>Praetorate@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><b><span style="color: #ff9933;">Things that drive me insane about Adornments...</span></b></p><ul><li><span style="color: #ff9933;"><b>Please allow Crystallized Mana to proc rarely off of 70+ legendary.. Theyre going for rediculous prices 40p+ on my server... is this intentional?</b></span></li></ul></blockquote><p>I disagree that Crystallized Mana should proc off of legendary items, however I also disagree that Infusions should drop off of fabled items.  Transmuting Treasured items = treasured components (fragments and powders)... Transmuting Legendary items should = legendary component (infusions) and Fabled items should = fabled component (mana).  </p><p>Some might argue that this would make it too easy for non-raiders to get fabled adornments, but unless SoE increased the frequency of fabled item drops, the non-raider would still only have the same chance of getting fabled adornments as they do of getting fabled gear.  This would increase the ability or ease for the raiders to get all the top adornments to go with their fabled gear, which is fine with me... I've been on enough raids to know that good gear/adornments are essential for a successful raid.</p><p>I like to weigh my decision of having something transmuted... On the rare occassion that I get a fabled item, I would like to know what I am getting in return for it so I can decide whether or not It is more beneficial for me to have the fabled item or the fabled adornment.  If I knew I was going to get something of lesser value (a legendary component/adornment) from a fabled item, I would not have transmuted it. (I am not saying I didn't know there was a chance here, just trying to say what choice I would have made).  As it stands right now, It's a gamble... I'll give you 2p and you might give me 2p in return, but most of the time you'll give me 1p. </p>

[SilkenKidden]

<p>I read elsewhere that transmuters are split about whether we want a commission system for transmuting no-trade items.Yes, yes, yes. I want it. </p><p>Now that I've tipped the scales in favor, can we have it right away? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Silken@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I read elsewhere that transmuters are split about whether we want a commission system for transmuting no-trade items.Yes, yes, yes. I want it. </p><p>Now that I've tipped the scales in favor, can we have it right away? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>why would we be split on this?

[Grimlux]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>1) Wrist slot int are treasured, not legendary.  Would be interesting to get a legendary/fabled upgrade with even more stats.. </p><p>2) Tailors, armorers, woodworkers, jewelers.. these guys make adorns for what they craft.  But how does that translate to Alchemists? They dont make any equipable items, so they shouldn't get adornment recipies?  They sliced the pie up rather nicely, in this players opinion.  Most of it makes a good deal of sense to me and to most players/crafters.</p><p>3) Rings have power adornments.. </p><p>4) Why would mana come from a legendary? it's never come off of legendary in any other tier of the game.  Infusions and Powders come off of legendary.  Manas are expensive because they ONLY come off of fabled and then only <i>sometimes.</i>  That's why the adornments you make from them are Fabled.</p></blockquote><p>Sorry, I am not a expert entirely on Adornments but know from everything I have read and made myself. Treasured/Fabled/Legendary it doesn't matter. It is inconsistent with stats for most adornment slots. As for as Transmuting It would be nice to be see Transmuting become commisionable. The Transmuter's who do not want to see this are the one's who make their fortune's by buying up masters or farming SoF and reselling their Crystallized Mana in stupid amounts. YES I think that Legendary items should have a rare chance to proc' a Crystal mana. It takes MINIMUM 300 platinum to fully adorn yourself NOT to mention if you were to ever get an upgrade inbetween. Im sorry I believe spending more then 300+ platinum on adornments is a tad overboard. </p>

[Meirril]

<cite>Praetorate@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>1) Wrist slot int are treasured, not legendary.  Would be interesting to get a legendary/fabled upgrade with even more stats.. </p><p>2) Tailors, armorers, woodworkers, jewelers.. these guys make adorns for what they craft.  But how does that translate to Alchemists? They dont make any equipable items, so they shouldn't get adornment recipies?  They sliced the pie up rather nicely, in this players opinion.  Most of it makes a good deal of sense to me and to most players/crafters.</p><p>3) Rings have power adornments.. </p><p>4) Why would mana come from a legendary? it's never come off of legendary in any other tier of the game.  Infusions and Powders come off of legendary.  Manas are expensive because they ONLY come off of fabled and then only <i>sometimes.</i>  That's why the adornments you make from them are Fabled.</p></blockquote><p>Sorry, I am not a expert entirely on Adornments but know from everything I have read and made myself. Treasured/Fabled/Legendary it doesn't matter. It is inconsistent with stats for most adornment slots. As for as Transmuting It would be nice to be see Transmuting become commisionable. The Transmuter's who do not want to see this are the one's who make their fortune's by buying up masters or farming SoF and reselling their Crystallized Mana in stupid amounts. YES I think that Legendary items should have a rare chance to proc' a Crystal mana. It takes MINIMUM 300 platinum to fully adorn yourself NOT to mention if you were to ever get an upgrade inbetween. Im sorry I believe spending more then 300+ platinum on adornments is a tad overboard. </p></blockquote><p>Lets see. I've made 2 crystalized mana since RoK came out. One about 3 months ago from a really cheap 70 master I found on broker. One from a KoS raid I went on about a week ago. Out of 2 level 70 fabled items that dropped and nobody wanted, 1 was mana. Too bad I didn't win the roll. I'm certain I've transmuted less than 10 fabled items since RoK has come out.</p><p>That being said, I say no to commissioning transmuting or making crystalized mana come from legendary drops! Read all the earlier posts on commissioned transmuting. I don't need to go over that tired old subject again. As for legendary to rarely create mana...the final product is fabled. Fabled is probably the only tier left in the game that isn't expected to be found on every toon. I expect anybody that takes this game seriously to have a full set of legendary equipment. I don't expect anybody to have a full set of fabled. Cheapening fabled, even adornments, lessens the game. It isn't an achievment anymore. </p><p>I'm looking at aquiring 3 crystalized mana right now to outfit my paladin with 3 +ripose adornments. I haven't done this yet because I'm looking between running instances until I get the masters I'd need to do it or buying them. It is a tough decision. Either way will be a very expensive decision. But I haven't gone into this blindly. People that want this stuff just handed to them...</p><p>...its not like you can't buy this stuff. It isn't like it isn't easy to make plat in RoK. Do some work, and just gut it up and buy it.</p>

[SilkenKidden]

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>That being said, I say no to commissioning transmuting or making crystalized mana come from legendary drops! Read all the earlier posts on commissioned transmuting. <b>I don't need to go over that tired old subject again</b>. As for legendary to rarely create mana...the final product is fabled. Fabled is probably the only tier left in the game that isn't expected to be found on every toon. I expect anybody that takes this game seriously to have a full set of legendary equipment. I don't expect anybody to have a full set of fabled. Cheapening fabled, even adornments, lessens the game. It isn't an achievment anymore. </p></blockquote><p>I wish you would.  I didn't know there were transmuters against the idea. I'd like to hear the arguments against it but there are 17 pages in this topic and not all refer to commissioning.  Maybe you could just give links to some of your earlier notes on the subject.</p><p>BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I'm one of those adamantly in favor of letting transmutters transmute on commission.</p><p>Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head trying to figure how letting adventurers have their unneeded fabled items transmuted into mana and then have other fabled items they do need made from it results in fabled being cheapened.  You are not adding anything fabled to the game, just transforming it. It just gives more work to the crafter who makes the adornment for the adventurer and work to the transmuter too.  </p>

[Noaani]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Personally, I think transmuters are more about raw materials than crafted anything (adornments included).</p></blockquote><p>It's nice to have opinions, but how do you <i>think </i>transmuters level after skill lvl 100?  We make things -- adornments.  That's not something they're going to change.</p><p>We are the <i>only</i> class that levels exclusively on making adornments, and we have a disproprotionate amount of useless adorns that we make vs primary crafting classes (with the exception of Sage, who really get the shaft in the adornment department)</p></blockquote><p>Other than using crafting combines as the means of leveling up, transmuting has nothing at all in common with tradeskilling of any sort. While this is itself enough for people to simply call it a tradeskill, I tend to disagree.</p><p>As a transmuter, I have had more sales from my raws than I have from adornments that I am able to make as a transmuter. So, at least to me, the ability to transmute is the prime function of being a transmuter.</p><p>Since the ability 'transmute' itself sits right next to your harvesting abilities in your knowledge book, and is cast similar to a spell or harvest action, I consider it to be on par with harvesting. The fact that no other tradeskill has anything similar to this is another reason for me to equate it with harvesting rather than tradeskilling.</p><p>Once a transmuter hits the cap, they have no reason to make any more adornments, as the ones we get hardly sell, and those few that DO sell are sold cheap by transmuters leveling up.</p><p>On top of that, while we may need to do combines to level up as a transmuter, even while doing those combines, most transmuters spend more time transmuting gear than crafting adornments to level up.</p><p>in fact, the only thing it does have in common with any tradeskill class is the fact that tradeskill combines are used as a means for leveling up. Remove that (by way of making it so you can level transmuting all the way to the cap in the same manner as you can to 100) and transmuting has nothing in common with any tradeskill class, and would be a full raw resource gathering skill.</p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Other than using crafting combines as the means of leveling up, transmuting has nothing at all in common with tradeskilling of any sort. While this is itself enough for people to simply call it a tradeskill, I tend to disagree.</p><p>As a transmuter, I have had more sales from my raws than I have from adornments that I am able to make as a transmuter. So, at least to me, the ability to transmute is the prime function of being a transmuter.</p><p>Since the ability 'transmute' itself sits right next to your harvesting abilities in your knowledge book, and is cast similar to a spell or harvest action, I consider it to be on par with harvesting. The fact that no other tradeskill has anything similar to this is another reason for me to equate it with harvesting rather than tradeskilling.</p><p>Once a transmuter hits the cap, they have no reason to make any more adornments, as the ones we get hardly sell, and those few that DO sell are sold cheap by transmuters leveling up.</p><p>On top of that, while we may need to do combines to level up as a transmuter, even while doing those combines, most transmuters spend more time transmuting gear than crafting adornments to level up.</p><p>in fact, the only thing it does have in common with any tradeskill class is the fact that tradeskill combines are used as a means for leveling up. Remove that (by way of making it so you can level transmuting all the way to the cap in the same manner as you can to 100) and transmuting has nothing in common with any tradeskill class, and would be a full raw resource gathering skill.</p></blockquote><p>thanks, i dont think i could have made my points better myself.</p><p>1) Make more money from raws than crafting items -- so improve our crafted items!</p><p>2) Once we hit cap, no more reason to make adornments -- give us one! We're a real sub-class, treat us like one.</p><p>3) you can't get above 100 by transmuting because we're supposed to be a tradeskill class.  breaking items down IS supposed to be our harvesting time, the way that tinkerers have to spend mad amounts of time doing actual harvesting.</p><p>a transmuter should have the best adornments, imo.. and right now we've got nearly the worst (least in demand)</p>

[Noaani]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite> <blockquote>thanks, i dont think i could have made my points better myself. <p>1) Make more money from raws than crafting items -- so improve our crafted items!</p><p>2) Once we hit cap, no more reason to make adornments -- give us one! We're a real sub-class, treat us like one.</p><p>3) you can't get above 100 by transmuting because we're supposed to be a tradeskill class.  breaking items down IS supposed to be our harvesting time, the way that tinkerers have to spend mad amounts of time doing actual harvesting.</p><p>a transmuter should have the best adornments, imo.. and right now we've got nearly the worst (least in demand)</p></blockquote><p>While I am more than aware that everyone has their own opinions about everything, I have to say that those three suggestions do not work well together.</p><p>The first two turn transmuting in to an actual tradeskill, which if that is the way they want to do it, fine.</p><p>The third suggestion is what is needed to take it from a tradeskill and turn it in to a simple means of gathering, which is what I think it is currently one simple step away from (in fact, that is the exact step it needs).</p><p>The word "transmute" means to change from one nature, substance, form, or condition into another, such as what we do to items and spells.</p><p>We should not be making the best adornments in the game, that should either go to a new and specific secondary tradeskill class (lets call them "adornment makers" to be origional), or be spread out between the real tradeskill classes, as they are now.</p><p>What we do is, well, transmute. We take adepts and gear and stuff and change them in to something that serves another purpose. We transmute. To me, this is what transmuters should be built on. Leave the adornemts to either "adornment makers" or primary tradeskill classes, as making them has nothing at all to do with "transmuting" past the fact that they use transmuted items in their production.</p><p>Again, I know everyones opinion is different, but to me, saying transmuters should make the best adornments is akin to saying miners should make the best armour.</p>