Thoughts on some changes for sages

[Alakash]

Well I have recently been working on tradeskills with my alts and have come to the conclusion that I have been severely spoiled on my main as a sage. Looking over the number of recipes that I get to craft per level as a sage compared to my Armourer or Carpenter it is severely imbalanced. Whilst I understand that a sages job is simply to create spells which is all well and good however the scope of spell using classes Mage and Priest archetypes gives too wide of a range. Mages Conjurer Necromancer Wizard Warlock Illusionist Coercer Priests Templar Inquisitor Warden Fury Mystic Defiler Thats a total of 12 classes that sages service, working on an average of 1 spell per level (sometimes more) that gives a minimum of 12 common recipes and 12 rare recipes per level, given that each class at differing levels can get 2 spells this adds up to a fair amount of recipes. In the interest of balancing out the tradeskill classes there is a relatively easy way of doing this (in my opinion) in that there are two archetypes that sages mainly service being priests and mages so it would be fairly easy to create two separate sage classes. Divine Sage (Makes spells for the priest classes) Arcane Sage (Makes spells for the mage classes) This would give each of the sub branches 6 classes in which they make the spells for which would decrease the amount of recipes for each class down to 6-12 recipes for each level bringing it more in line with the other tradeskill classes Anyway this is just my thinking, was wondering what everyone else thinks of the idea? -- Arrhem

[AbsentmindedMage]

<cite>Alakash wrote:</cite><blockquote>Anyway this is just my thinking, was wondering what everyone else thinks of the idea? -- Arrhem </blockquote>I do not like it.  First, is it correct to assume that the experience a sage gets on a pristine spell is the same as another class on a pristine combination?  I am not sure if that is true as I have both a 70 sage and a few other tradeskill classes(tailor and alchemist) ongoing.   My tailor does seem to get more experience out of creating a new item than my sage did. Also, Sages have no real profit items like other tradeskill classes.  Alchemist have potions and poisons which are consumed in addition to their spell making ability for fighters.   Jewelers have jewelry in addition to their spell making ability for scouts.   And all the other tradeskills have items that are profitable or consumable(so a steady source of coin)   For this reason, I do not see any reason to break sage up into two categories that is unless you take some of the items that other tradeskillers make and give it to sages.

[Jrral]

<cite>Alakash wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well I have recently been working on tradeskills with my alts and have come to the conclusion that I have been severely spoiled on my main as a sage. Looking over the number of recipes that I get to craft per level as a sage compared to my Armourer or Carpenter it is severely imbalanced.</blockquote>That's why writs were changed. With the bonus XP for writs, classes with fewer recipes can go to writs to offset the relative paucity of first-time bonuses and reduce the grinding needed to level. From what I've seen, it pretty much addresses the imbalance. Sages also don't get any consumables (like alchemists) or non-spell items (jewelers), so I'd say it's pretty much evened out between the scholar classes.

[Liral]

Sages don't have consumables and often times can't sell their wares for the App IV stuff....

[Lithran]

Do folks actualy BUY App4 items? I have never ever been able to sell any. Most folks will just buy the adept 1 or get the rare and ask me to make them the adept III. The app 4 stuff I usualy end up selling to the vendor.

[Caethre]

<p><span style="color: #ff6600">OOC.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">As a Sage since launch, and with multiple other lower level crafters, I'd have to say this was the single worst idea I have ever seen for my tradeskill class.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">Sages are the most one-dimensional tradeskill class there is. Yes, we have a *few* (and I mean only a few) more recipes than say Alchemists or Jewelers, but we have almost no transmuting recipes, and we have only ONE type of recipe (spells).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">If I had to suggest something, it would be to make the class be more than a one-trick pony, and have some other recipe types to make. The solution to some other classes not having enough recipes is - give them more!!!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">But no, this poster has to suggest "fixing" the lack of recipes for a few classes by nerfing the hell out of my class. Thanks. But no thanks. Totally rejected.</span></p>

[Rayche]

/Agree 100% with Felishana (Btw, thanks for keeping a large stock of Adept 3's... my Sage is only 43, so getting my 60+ Adept 3's from your house has been awesome, you often are the only one carrying them... P.S. Few more Conjuror 60+ spells pls.) Sages should be able to make 5 charge spell scrolls with abilities similar to Totems that Woodworkers make. (Not the same abilities, leave the Totem abilities to the Woodworkers.) But give us 5 charge clickies like: - AE Nuke scroll (Similar timer to Brock's Thermal Shocker) - Evac (Like the roots you can get from the house plant.) - Heals (Like the alchemy potions) - Defense/DPS buffs (Like the clickies from the Tenebrous quests) - HP/Power regen buffs (Similar to the totems, but perhaps stacking with them) - Debuffs (Like the hex dolls) and more...

[Maroger]

<cite>Alakash wrote:</cite><blockquote>Anyway this is just my thinking, was wondering what everyone else thinks of the idea? -- Arrhem </blockquote><p>This is absolutely the worst idea I have even seen posted. <img src="/smilies/e78feac27fa924c4d0ad6cf5819f3554.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> So drop the subject. Sages are find the way they are.</p><p>Don't forget we don't make any saleable objects - no one buys APP IV and making an Adept III for sale is just a gamble hoping it will sell.</p>

[CrypticFirefly]

Bonefoot@Nektulos wrote: <blockquote>Do folks actualy BUY App4 items? I have never ever been able to sell any. </blockquote> I do, frequently, depending on the comparative cost of Adept 1's and how important the spell is for my character. 

[Noaani]

<p>The coming spell consolidation for all adventure classes has a build in nerf for all scholars.</p>

[Raveller]

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote: <blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600">OOC.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">As a Sage since launch, and with multiple other lower level crafters, I'd have to say this was the single worst idea I have ever seen for my tradeskill class.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">Sages are the most one-dimensional tradeskill class there is. Yes, we have a *few* (and I mean only a few) more recipes than say Alchemists or Jewelers, but we have almost no transmuting recipes, and we have only ONE type of recipe (spells).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">If I had to suggest something, it would be to make the class be more than a one-trick pony, and have some other recipe types to make. The solution to some other classes not having enough recipes is - give them more!!!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600">But no, this poster has to suggest "fixing" the lack of recipes for a few classes by nerfing the hell out of my class. Thanks. But no thanks. Totally rejected.</span></p></blockquote>The OP's idea, while not original since it has been suggested many times already, is not the single worst idea ever for 'your' tradeskill class. The single worst idea for 'your' tradeskill class was to include 'your' tradeskill class in the game in the first place. This game does not need any Sages at all. For 99% of the players Adept 1s are just fine and the other 1% use Masters. Any tradeskill class that can't compete with the flood of looted items should either be overhauled or removed from the game. It's not like leveling up a sage takes any time. A few minutes a week, since you don't ever need to craft the same recipe twice and never need to do writs, and you'll be a level 70 in short order. This idea is 100% endorsed by all players with an IQ over 35!

[Calthine]

<cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote> This idea is 100% endorsed by all players with an IQ over 35! </blockquote> Kindly do not try and speak for everyone.

[Alakash]

<b><span style="color: #3366ff">Raveller, Never a good idea to claim to speak for everyone, and in order to play the game it would require an IQ considerably higher than 35 as it does require motor functions at least if not higher thought. There are considerable things that can be done with sages if a little inventive. In regards to </span></b><b><span style="color: #3333ff">Rayche's suggestion which I think is a good one that could be further developed on with the idea of divine/arcane sages. Simply class the consumable scroll (reminds me of D&D here) into the divine/arcane catagory and give to the appropriate class to make, perhaps a common one would be a single charge of the spell and an uncommon one could be the 5 charges *shrugs* I am not suggesting to screw over the class at all as it really isnt in my best interest but there are ways of balancing it out (granted yes the writs do add a whole lot more balance for those less fortunate crafting classes, I have been away abit) and adding some consumables/variety to the sages line up. For example there are plenty of dropped tomes that can be used in secondary/ranged that drop, while I know that jewellers/woodworkers make many items for this slot I am talking solely a book like item for the slot, I mean sages do work with tomes after all. In regards to Caethre's comment on adornments and being a one trick pony class this is also true, but in nerfing they could also open the door to more improvements for the two branches of sagedom, as its hard to give sages more things when they have more than most already, would lead to an outcry from other classes.  People are easily p*ssed off for some reason. Also another thought with adornments, maybe make some that are involved in the crafting process (similar to how imbuing is) that sages could also make.  Bindings that are used in the thread of the armour when being made focusing more on arcane or divine bonuses given that these are the two things that sages mainly cater for. -- Arrhem </span></b>

[Talz]

Uh oh... are Raveller brand facts making a comeback?

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote> This game does not need any Sages at all. For 99% of the players Adept 1s are just fine and the other 1% use Masters. </blockquote>This is the key problem with sages but it doesn't, as you claim, mean they need to be removed. Instead, the entire system of spell entry into the world needs to be overhauled. Sages have little product that has value due to the excessive drop rate of Adept I upgrades and the unreliability of the value of Adept III upgrades. The way the devs can fix this is to give Sages, and actually all scholar classes, their value back, make them capable of making all levels of spell upgrades, with Master quality requiring multiple rares. This way they don't have to adjust drop rates that are established currently, but they allow all scholar classes to have a marketable product in what they already produce and they ease spell acquisition while not tying adventurers only to the scholars for their CAs. And let's not make generalizations about what everyone thinks, shall we?

[Deson]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raveller wrote:</cite><blockquote> This game does not need any Sages at all. For 99% of the players Adept 1s are just fine and the other 1% use Masters. </blockquote>This is the key problem with sages but it doesn't, as you claim, mean they need to be removed. Instead, the entire system of spell entry into the world needs to be overhauled. Sages have little product that has value due to the excessive drop rate of Adept I upgrades and the unreliability of the value of Adept III upgrades. The way the devs can fix this is to give Sages, and actually all scholar classes, their value back, make them capable of making all levels of spell upgrades, with Master quality requiring multiple rares. <b>This way they don't have to adjust drop rates that are established currently, but they allow all scholar classes to have a marketable product in what they already produce and they ease spell acquisition while not tying adventurers only to the scholars for their CAs. </b> And let's not make generalizations about what everyone thinks, shall we? </blockquote>If Masters are made craftable( something I don't mind) they should require both a drop and a rare. Just using multiple rares would make them even more plentiful to the world than they already are and further forcing down the value on everything else.  Remember when rares were rare and masters didn't drop as much as they currently do? You couldn't push adept 3's fast enough. Now, master's are common enough to compete with adept 3's in price. Jewelers and alchemists have value in the world beyond adept 3's. The problem with sages has always been their extraordinarily limited product diversity and their vulnerability in that area to a single drop rate.For the devs to actually fix them requires diversity in their product and to ignore arbitrary numbers balance- hopefully made easier by the new writ xp. The bolded confuses me. If scholars can make masters in the way you describe, wouldn't adventurers actually be in a worse situation of dependence than they currently are?

[Terron]

There are some spells for which there are no masters, the best you can get are adept IIIs (or app IV for one but that is made by alchemists). They are the Bloodlines spells. One set of such spells per tier would do a great deal for the profitability of scholars. There has been talk of an upgrade to the Bloodlines spells coming in RoK. If therea are also no masters for those it would be great.

[nia]

       My sage is probably my worst seller of all my tradeskillers....The APp4 stuff sells very slowly and if you make adept 3 you have to price it perfectly or it doesnt sell......One of the problems with sage is that there are several options when its time to buy spells.....It isnt like EQ1 where you made a spell and the players would need that one spell.... Someone mentioned earlier also that if players dont like the price on the broker they either hire someone to make it and pay a pittance or con a guildie into making it and get by that way.....

[Eueadan]

<p>If it ain't broke, leave it alone.</p><p>I hate the idea of changing anything "just because."  I think this change would be one of those types of changes.</p>

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote> The bolded confuses me. If scholars can make masters in the way you describe, wouldn't adventurers actually be in a worse situation of dependence than they currently are? </blockquote> Not necessarily. The current way and rate that spells are entering the game would remain. It would just be supplemented by the scholar classes. And I dislike tying tradeskill benefits to adventuring, so perhaps a compromise. Masters would require multiple rares *and* work in questing/faction so that a tradeskiller would have to be quite dedicated to earn the knowledge of crafting them.

[Deson]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote> The bolded confuses me. If scholars can make masters in the way you describe, wouldn't adventurers actually be in a worse situation of dependence than they currently are? </blockquote> Not necessarily. The current way and rate that spells are entering the game would remain. It would just be supplemented by the scholar classes. And I dislike tying tradeskill benefits to adventuring, so perhaps a compromise. Masters would require multiple rares *and* work in questing/faction so that a tradeskiller would have to be quite dedicated to earn the knowledge of crafting them. </blockquote>So, things wouldn't really be all that different as far as scholars are concerned. As far as masters go, as long as they remain the pinnacle of spell growth or, at least as potent as they are relative to the game, you simply can't cut the adventurer out of it. If you could make them without adventuring effort we are right back to DoF as far as crafting "cheating" adventuring upgrades. Without a drop requirement, there is no effective gate to the volume that would hit the market and there is a significant removal of adventuring reward for adventuring. To make the best there can't be any escape from adventurers. Both should have to contribute for the item to come into the world. I definitely support factions/involved quests to get such recipes but at the least a component should have to come from actually adventuring.

[Sandain666]

<cite>Alakash wrote:</cite><blockquote> Anyway this is just my thinking, was wondering what everyone else thinks of the idea? -- Arrhem </blockquote>This is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen posted on these boards. I would much rather the developers spend their limited time fixing real problems or making the game more fun

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote> The bolded confuses me. If scholars can make masters in the way you describe, wouldn't adventurers actually be in a worse situation of dependence than they currently are? </blockquote> Not necessarily. The current way and rate that spells are entering the game would remain. It would just be supplemented by the scholar classes. And I dislike tying tradeskill benefits to adventuring, so perhaps a compromise. Masters would require multiple rares *and* work in questing/faction so that a tradeskiller would have to be quite dedicated to earn the knowledge of crafting them. </blockquote>So, things wouldn't really be all that different as far as scholars are concerned. As far as masters go, as long as they remain the pinnacle of spell growth or, at least as potent as they are relative to the game, you simply can't cut the adventurer out of it. If you could make them without adventuring effort we are right back to DoF as far as crafting "cheating" adventuring upgrades. Without a drop requirement, there is no effective gate to the volume that would hit the market and there is a significant removal of adventuring reward for adventuring. To make the best there can't be any escape from adventurers. Both should have to contribute for the item to come into the world. I definitely support factions/involved quests to get such recipes but at the least a component should have to come from actually adventuring. </blockquote>And I respectfully disagree, as currently there is no requirement for an adventurer to obtain the best that has any link to tradeskilling at all. Marketability is all about value to the adventurer, and tagging tradeskills on to adventuring to be marketable just makes them a secondary vocation for the adventurer as they became in EQ1, instead of a profession that can stand on its own. I'm also not saying to cut the adventurer out of it entirely. I'm saying that there should be a way both the adventurer and a crafter can have marketability in the same area. Will Master prices go down? Yes, I imagine they will. And to be quite frank, the cost of some of the harder to get Master spells is insane on my server, with Master sometimes being the only option and not even an Adept I available especially after transmuting was introduced. There needs to be another alternative to gaining spell upgrades. There's no point in having crafting classes that are meant to produce spell upgrades if they have no market in it.

[Talz]

<cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TaleraRis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Deson wrote:</cite><blockquote> The bolded confuses me. If scholars can make masters in the way you describe, wouldn't adventurers actually be in a worse situation of dependence than they currently are? </blockquote> Not necessarily. The current way and rate that spells are entering the game would remain. It would just be supplemented by the scholar classes. And I dislike tying tradeskill benefits to adventuring, so perhaps a compromise. Masters would require multiple rares *and* work in questing/faction so that a tradeskiller would have to be quite dedicated to earn the knowledge of crafting them. </blockquote>So, things wouldn't really be all that different as far as scholars are concerned. As far as masters go, as long as they remain the pinnacle of spell growth or, at least as potent as they are relative to the game, you simply can't cut the adventurer out of it. If you could make them without adventuring effort we are right back to DoF as far as crafting "cheating" adventuring upgrades. Without a drop requirement, there is no effective gate to the volume that would hit the market and there is a significant removal of adventuring reward for adventuring. To make the best there can't be any escape from adventurers. Both should have to contribute for the item to come into the world. I definitely support factions/involved quests to get such recipes but at the least a component should have to come from actually adventuring. </blockquote>And I respectfully disagree, as currently there is no requirement for an adventurer to obtain the best that has any link to tradeskilling at all. Marketability is all about value to the adventurer, and tagging tradeskills on to adventuring to be marketable just makes them a secondary vocation for the adventurer as they became in EQ1, instead of a profession that can stand on its own. I'm also not saying to cut the adventurer out of it entirely. I'm saying that there should be a way both the adventurer and a crafter can have marketability in the same area. Will Master prices go down? Yes, I imagine they will. And to be quite frank, the cost of some of the harder to get Master spells is insane on my server, with Master sometimes being the only option and not even an Adept I available especially after transmuting was introduced. There needs to be another alternative to gaining spell upgrades. There's no point in having crafting classes that are meant to produce spell upgrades if they have no market in it. </blockquote>You completely contradict yourself.  You give an example of masters with "insane" prices and not even an adept1 one of it is available.  I doubt how often that honestly happens but you conveniently ignored adept3 which changes your poor market analysis into niche market with huge profitability potential.You just described the example that I sometimes give when people seem truly clueless as to how to make profit with trade skills.  Look at what's needed and not being made.  Fill in that gap.  You just mentioned a gap that I have filled and made a fortune doing so.  Make a sage and try it before you give examples like that.  The class isn't perfect and needs something to make up for apprentice level spells being worthless.  There is a decent Ad3 market though and honestly, it's like a free level seventy class using the ten below system.I know you're enormously biased towards things that can't be done solo but you're kind of your own worst enemy with these things.  I would like to see a system for crafting masters but you will never get something where four moonstone equates to justifiable effort.  You have a developer here that actually responds to people.  You need to bring a better game or at least an objective one.

[Tokam]

<p>From level 50 onwards the new writs are balanced so that if you stop to get item discovery from each recipe in your recipe book you will level more slowly than you would if you were doing writs. The only problem for any tradeskill class is now the grind 30 - 50, which is easily mitigated (for the low recipe volume crafters) through the use of either vitality, potions, or a desire to hit 30k status before lvl 70.</p><p>If you think sages have any significant leveling advantage past lvl 50 then you need to re evaluate how you craft.</p>

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Talzar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>You just described the example that I sometimes give when people seem truly clueless as to how to make profit with trade skills.  Look at what's needed and not being made.  Fill in that gap.  You just mentioned a gap that I have filled and made a fortune doing so.  <b>Make a sage and try it before you give examples like that</b>.  The class isn't perfect and needs something to make up for apprentice level spells being worthless.  There is a decent Ad3 market though and honestly, it's like a free level seventy class using the ten below system.I know you're enormously biased towards things that can't be done solo but you're kind of your own worst enemy with these things.  I would like to see a system for crafting masters but you will never get something where four moonstone equates to justifiable effort.  You have a developer here that actually responds to people.  You need to bring a better game or at least an objective one.</blockquote>60 sage, 60 alchemist, 60 jeweler, 60 tailor, 56 weaponsmith, 55 carpenter, 54 woodworker, 54 provisioner     I can't keep the tailor in items or the jeweler in runes. The alchemist does fine with poisons as well. Only the sage tends to lack in desirability of her product in regards to my server. Please don't assume because I don't mention it in my sig, I don't have the class or have experienced it. And I'm not biased toward things that can be done solo. In regards to adventuring, I'm biased toward giving *all* playstyles an "end game" version of things, providing content and gear/spell upgrades appropriate for that playstyle. In regards to crafting, I'm biased toward the crafter being able to produce their product by doing what they're made to do: craft. I also never gave any numbers. I put a suggestion out to begin negotiations with. Four moonstones doesn't make sense, but then if the idea is to give crafters a way to craft, then requiring a drop doesn't make sense either. You say I should bring an objective game, but you're clearly biased toward the adventuring side of things. The ideal situation, if it did involve multiple rares, would possibly involve multiple items crafted from a number of different rares first, giving opportunity for failure. Although ideally it would also include faction/questing/etc of some nature that meant the crafter had to put in more effort than just gathering a few different types of rare items, not to mention faction/questing/etc just to gain the recipes to make those selected items. The bottom line would be giving crafters a chance to gain good marketable items through putting in good effort in the way they choose to play the game. Not artificially tying them to adventurers, which would do very little to improve their marketability anyway, since the requirement to adventure would not be alleviated.