Askip, you're a current NIB. :)

Chalion, there's always a potion. No need to wait for a merchant at all, and the silver cost can be passed on to the client. (But, yes, it would suck if it was the 6th-of-7. That's where decision-making comes in.) The fact is, there ARE possibilities and choices. Given that complete destruction is now removed, it's not that bad a cross to bear.

>Given that complete destruction is now removed, it's not that bad a cross to bear. - Krakii

And many of us disagree with you.


Having to completely start over, or track down a merchant is too punitive when compared to other abilities that add a permanent bonus, like ensorcelling.


I go back to my original question: What is the purpose of that particular failure?
- To add a time delay?
- To add frustration?
- To add hoops to jump through?

When DEV states why they added the locked project mechanics maybe we can then suggest an alternative that is less frustrating.
- I still feel like an alchemy potion is a suitable alternative. It would require additional time, frustration and hoops to jump through such as collecting the materials, making the potion, etc. (Not to mention Mastering alchemy)
- If silver cost is one of the reasons, the potion, or its components could be sold in the guild shop.

>too punitive when compared to other abilities that add a permanent bonus, like ensorcelling.

And... I am still stewing over sorcerers infusing scrolls and charge item getting nerfed. Where is the balance?

Seriously though, the new system is better, just not everything I want. :D

>How does "having to start over" (if you use the potion) with this degree of failure, differ at all from "having to start over" with any of the other degrees?

What are you talking about? If you use a sarmoc potion on a locked project, you have to start over.
The other failure types can be found here: https://gswiki.play.net/Enchant_Item_(925)


>"start over from -10 & cursed", depending on the failure itself. All of which are still there. - Krakii

No, this is not "still there" as you claim. It would be nice if you would educate yourself about the mechanics behind something before chiming in with your outdated information.

>My point was that you were getting up in arms about possibly having to start over (having used a sarmoc to unlock a failure), and I was inquiring how that differed from having to start over for any of the OTHER failures.
> As you said/agreed: it doesn't.
> To some extent, the locked project could be considered superior to the others because the option exists to NOT start over (assuming a merchant can be found in what any given Enchanter considers to be a reasonable amount of time).
> With the others, there is NO choice.

No, and as I've asked you before, don't speak for me. I did not say, or agree, that having to start over was no different than any of the other failures. You can read the gswiki and understand the differences in the failures. They are clearly different.

You make claims like, that's not so bad, that's a reasonable cross to bear, and you don't even know how the system works. I'd like to know if you even play a wizard character? If not, it would be nice if you would stick to your primary profession or take the time to educate yourself about how the wizard profession mechanics function.

When I request something that functions more reasonably and you chime in saying that it's fine as is, without actually knowing anything about how it works, it's very frustrating.

I've been trying to align my thinking with some of the feedback, and with the observations the red team has shared through the years. I think Veythorne has a point in that we'll not really progress significantly if we don't understand why TR (Century of the Fruitbat acronym for NIR - means Team Red) replaced destroy with lock.

Now, just to fend off any thoughts about 'tampering' - I purposefully used 'replaced' there.

Again, as a reminder, I'm not personally going to engage in comparison discussions between Enchant and Ensorcell. I'm not suggesting anyone else stop if that's a thing they wish to do - but I have a bad feeling about potential results. I think any proposal would be more likely acceptable if it stood alone, anyway.

What we have:

1) Sarmoc - disliked because it wastes pours (and time) on the project. For the experienced wizard, probably a last resort option for anything being worked as a major project. Increased frustration will likely result as the bridge between 'useful' methods and 'last resort' are too far apart based on some feedback here. For the experienced wizard who has been using infused enchanting potions, the gap is even wider and more impactful.
2) GALD / Unlock merchants - disliked because of the confluence of: Frequency; Planning (calendar entries and such); Cost (based on at least one point of feedback).

What we've said as alternatives:

1) Alchemical solution - create a potion in alchemy that allow wizards to use / buy / exchange these potions to unlock locked projects.
2) Premium Point relief - for those who opt to, find a way to 'ez-script' remove the lock via expending premium points.

There is a 'con' to each of these - alchemy experiences vary (see flaring potion discussions), and putting the necessary constraints on an alchemical potion may result in some substantive negative feedback. Premium point relief has its own 'upsell' perspective which is sometimes met with a rather derogatory view about hiding core features behind pay walls.

I'm going to follow up this post with another couple of points - but want to keep the summary of current status delineated from my newest hair-brained schemes.

Doug

I find it interesting that around the time of the updated enchanting spell, someone voiced their opinion about how the locked status of projects was a slap in the face and unnecessary or just down right overkill as a punishment for wizards, yet he was attacked on all sides (by GMs and players).

One or two different people complain about it months later and now some of these same players that were okay with the locked status are against it or are at least in agreement that other ways to unlock the projects are needed.....

>> To be fair, why should we be forced to deal with this on Simu's time instead of our own?

I suspect that somewhere between a few and ten years down the road from now some new GM is going to look at the merchant unlock for enchanting project feature and wonder "What were they thinking?" and then replace the merchant service option entirely with an NPC or a potion or some similar option.

https://postimg.org/image/38bm7kvsdn/

-- Robert

SomeWizard hurls a stream of fire at a water elemental!
A heavy barrier of stone momentarily forms around a water elemental and blocks the attack!

I just think it is a bad mechanic / weak merchant service. I agree it is another option for the wizard player and maybe someday I'll be in a position where I'll be like... Hey! I want to use that option for this project. Who knows?

-- Robert

SomeWizard hurls a stream of fire at a water elemental!
A heavy barrier of stone momentarily forms around a water elemental and blocks the attack!

>How does "having to start over" (if you use the potion) with this degree of failure, differ at all from "having to start over" with any of the other degrees?

The same way it's currently 2017 and not the mid 90s where people for whatever reason seemed to enjoy tedium. Ensorcell set the bar for how stuff like this should work.

>And... I am still stewing over sorcerers infusing scrolls and charge item getting nerfed. Where is the balance?

Yeah, this was one of the stupidest things ever. Not scroll infusion, but charge item remaining in its massively overnerfed state from the early 2000s, which even back then it was dumb to nerf it because the spell itself wasn't even the problem it was people exploiting Thailor's staff, 420 scrolls, and the jewelry box that turned MR gems into non-crumbly wearables. So clearly the solution was to nerf the wizard spell because a ranger was exploiting an ancient sorcerer's staff in order to imbed spirit spells into rechargeable gems that were made non-crumbly & wearable with a jewelry box that was owned by a warrior.

I hold current (and former post nerf) dev just as responsible for leaving the spell in its trashed state for all these years when there have been plenty of opportunities to fix it. We've been asking for a fix to this for years and years and it's gone ignored 100% of the time.

It's a pretty perfect example of wizards getting boned for literally no good reason at all, they tell us it was OP, then a few years later they give sorcerers scroll infusion which is better in every possible way than the charge item spell they nerfed and told us was OP.

Can we please get this spell updated to 2017 standards already? I have no problem at all with what sorcerers have, but it gets really old when you nerf wizards and then give sorcerers an equivalent spell that's way better. I'd even say Scroll Infusion is better than pre-nerf Charge Item. I'd love to hear the official justification for why Charge Item is still such a steaming pile of garbage when Scroll Infusion exists.

And unless GMs are gonna start logging in a merchant while at their day jobs to do unlocking services, stop making us have to unlock our projects on your (Simu) time.

I already made some suggestions but I'm going to suggest them again:

- Alchemy
- Wizard guild (same potion, more expensive than alchemy)
- Sarmoc potion + infuse mana = pick up where you left off instead of starting over
- NPC that does unlocking services just like merchants do now

If these are no good, please tell us why. And while we're on the subject of why, why does locking even exist?

~ Methais

Back then it wasn't an "enjoy tedium" issue, it was a "keep them online to continue having them billed." :)
You think they weren't loving "every player of the game in the room right now" for eight hours of an HSN Auction?

.

I cannot argue about Charge Item, but I think they've come a fair way back with the recent loosening of restrictions.

For me it is more of a puzzle. I can charge blue crystals by the sackful, but I have "greened" the last two pair of deathstone earrings I tried to charge.

---

Compare your 517 messaging moving forward, it should offer insight into why the results for two seemingly similar items have different results.

Viduus

>Compare your 517 messaging moving forward, it should offer insight into why the results for two seemingly similar items have different results.
>Viduus

Thanks, I will!

I will use up some charges (it currently has many which I think is near max) and try to add a couple.

I do not want to infer too much from your helpful tip, so far I have it narrowed down to either A) earrings are different but not more difficult. B) earrings are more difficult C) both different and more difficult.

:D

Askip

>a crystal holding...

Good idea, I did not know holders exist except for crystal amulets.

For now a get/rub/put macro works.

Thanks!

:D