2.10 profession preview - Page 12

Nakilos · 04/10/07, 12:42 PM

There is about 5 more question marks than necessary I think.

Fizwidget · 04/10/07, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Altima

The counterargument being guaranteed 2x Primal Mights and chances for additional and the potentially absolutely ridiculous amount of Super Mana Potions and Ironshield Potions produced.

Having a Potion Master alchemy alt, the guaranteed double production would appeal to my raiding side but at the same time scream "loss of profit" to my AH jockey side.

But...

Primal prices are falling slowly. I will assume that this is because as people craft their epic craftables... you stop needing primals, but whether this is the reason or not, Primal prices (including Might) are falling while flask (and to a lesser extent elixer) prices rise every time another raiding guild gets to a not-yet-nerfed boss.

I would also note that super mana pot and ironshield pot availability is *not* artificially limited by old-world hour-cooldown Black Lotus or overfarmed TBC Mana Thistle spawns. While netherbloom is a pain in the ass, on my server there aren't griffons/manticores camping over each and every individual netherbloom spawn in Primetime.

hubar · 04/10/07, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Nausicca

The Alchemy changes are really bad, really.

By limiting the amount of consumables you can use at once people are forced to go for the best elixir that they can get in the defensive and offensive slots, this narrows down the choices of elixirs people have.
As a result of this, the prices for terrocone (agi elixirs/mastery) and Nightmare Vine (fel strength) are going to skyrocket, forcing raiders to pay out even more gold to prepare for raids even though they are using less elixirs.

How is this reasonable? How is this sane?

It kinda makes terocone the new dreamfoil.

Remember the flask of relentless assault needs 20 terocone.

Altima · 04/10/07, 12:49 PM

I think the implementation of something like Alchemist's Stone is a step in the right direction for Alchemy. While leveling up, Alchemy mainly offered personal benefits, i.e. potion on a bad mob pull, elixirs to make the "kill 60 Quillboar" quest faster, etc. But, at the endgame level, when everyone is using consumables, the personal, functional benefit of Alchemy has diminished (functional as in actually used in encounters, I would not dream of denying the personal, economic benefits of Alchemy). I think a BoP item or a passive buff that increases the potency of elixirs would be a neat idea.

Mearis · 04/10/07, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Coriolis

Ok. Here is when math is your friend. You get 4 prospects per stack. Your chance on a blue gem is 15% per prospect. Hence a stack= 60% chance of blue gem (SOME blue gem, not neccesarily a good one). Living rubies/star of elune are the two most expensive gem types most likely so let's say on average the gem you get costs 45g (this is about right on my server where talasite/dawnstone are like 30g, star of elune/ruby like 50-60g). So per stack you get a 60% chance to earn 45g, which is 27g on average per stack. The other random gems + dust you get sell for maybe 5-8g (and that's rather optimistic). So you've made about 32-35g per stack and it costs about 25-30g according to you. This is all assuming you actually manage to sell these gems for these prices which tends to be harder then selling ore in my experience. This profit margin at least on my server is pretty similiar to making tailoring stuff and DEing it... not the greatest money maker known to man exactly.

HAHAHAA, the irony, it is DELICIOUS.

15% chance of getting one gem per prospect. 4 prospects per stack.

85% chance of NOT getting one gem per prospect. Chance of not getting any gems at all is .85^4 or .522. Chance of getting AT LEAST one gem is 48% roughly.

I just found it funny that you bungled the math horribly after saying that math is your friend.

Altima · 04/10/07, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Fizwidget

But...

Primal prices are falling slowly. I will assume that this is because as people craft their epic craftables... you stop needing primals, but whether this is the reason or not, Primal prices (including Might) are falling while flask (and to a lesser extent elixer) prices rise every time another raiding guild gets to a not-yet-nerfed boss.

I would also note that super mana pot and ironshield pot availability is *not* artificially limited by old-world hour-cooldown Black Lotus or overfarmed TBC Mana Thistle spawns. While netherbloom is a pain in the ass, on my server there aren't griffons/manticores camping over each and every individual netherbloom spawn in Primetime.

Duly noted. I too am surprised Netherbloom/Terocone is not as heavily camped as Dreamfoil/Gromsblood in the old world. To make a risky analogy, Netherstorm feels more like Winterspring than, say, Azshara or Felwood.

As for Primal Mights, the price might be dropping, yes, but there will be a relatively constant demand for them because they cater to casuals, at least more so than Flasks. With a little work, the easier heroic instances put Primal Nethers within the average joe's reach (which, when combined with Primal Mights, make some gear that can keep a casual player quite happy), whereas the raiding population is still small by comparison, let alone the "hardcore" raiding population who are popping flasks to progress.

songster · 04/10/07, 1:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mearis

HAHAHAA, the irony, it is DELICIOUS.

15% chance of getting one gem per prospect. 4 prospects per stack.

85% chance of NOT getting one gem per prospect. Chance of not getting any gems at all is .85^4 or .522. Chance of getting AT LEAST one gem is 48% roughly.

I just found it funny that you bungled the math horribly after saying that math is your friend.

He didn't bungle it. He wants to know the expected number of blue gems per stack, which is 0.6

You, by contrast, are lumping the 1-gem, 2-gem, 3-gem and 4-gem outcomes under one heading of "at least one gem", which is a figure that's sod all use to anyone. Accurate, sure, but sod all use.

Mearis · 04/10/07, 1:07 PM

Originally Posted by songster

He didn't bungle it. He wants to know the expected number of blue gems per stack, which is 0.6

You, by contrast, are lumping the 1-gem, 2-gem, 3-gem and 4-gem outcomes under one heading of "at least one gem", which is a figure that's sod all use to anyone. Accurate, sure, but sod all use.

No, you are reading too much into what he is saying. He said:

Ok. Here is when math is your friend. You get 4 prospects per stack. Your chance on a blue gem is 15% per prospect. Hence a stack= 60% chance of blue gem (SOME blue gem, not neccesarily a good one)

that there is a 60% chance of a blue gem, not that the expected number of blue gems is .6. If you were to follow his math further then you have a 150% chance of a blue gem with 10 prospects which is obviously wrong, but you can expect 1.5 gems which is right.

Coriolis · 04/10/07, 1:18 PM

You have a 15% chance to get a blue gem per prospect. So on average, .15 gems per prospect. Hence .6 gems per 4 prospects and 1.5 gems per 10 prospects. Incidentally a 150% chance to get a gem means exactly that you'll get 1.5 gems on average.

You calculated the chance to not get a single gem.. ok sure interesting but who gives a damn it has nothing to do with figuring out your average profit.

Really I have enough of trying to teach people to do math at this university. Next time know what you are talking about or at least be polite if you don't.

mek · 04/10/07, 1:29 PM

Originally Posted by hubar

And up the cost of elixirs to make them not so easy obtainable???

I am sorry, but I have to say this with no ill intent whatsoever:

Do you seriously think about what you typed????

God forbid they keep elixirs easily obtainable when raiders are currently bringing >30 of them PER NIGHT. If elixirs lasted through death you'd still drink two per hour, so 10 in a 5 hour raid... 250 elixirs per night per endgame raid, this is still plenty of demand. Still costs each raider about 50g, so, a second repair bill. That might bring them in line with potions (for non-healers)! Sounds reasonable to me.

Right now I've come to terms with the fact that the best we'll get is a flask eating up both elixir slots, so a flask per night, which is infinitely better than flask + 3 elixirs per attempt, admittedly. Flask when you're learning encounters and elixir when you're farming them, it's better than no change at all, to be sure.

Quigon · 04/10/07, 2:13 PM

I just don't see why you wouldn't remove flasks from the game. It solves most of these issues.

Then do something about chain chugging potions. Both of these issues imo must be addressed, or we're basically at a non starter, these changes mean nothing.

• Snowy · 04/10/07, 2:22 PM

We dont even know the full extent of the changes, so it's a bit early to be jumping off a cliff. That's one of the big problem with Blizzard just giving a teaser into some changes, and explains why they're usually silent. Quite a few of the upcoming changes probably haven't been finalized.

thebuddha · 04/10/07, 2:24 PM

Originally Posted by Quigon

I just don't see why you wouldn't remove flasks from the game. It solves most of these issues.

Then do something about chain chugging potions. Both of these issues imo must be addressed, or we're basically at a non starter, these changes mean nothing.

I would love to see that change as much as the next raider, but do you honestly think it will ever happen? I think the best we'll see is flasks not stacking with elixirs but even that is a long shot. At first I thought Blizzard understood and was slow, but now I'm starting to think they don't even realize what the obvious problems are.

Altima · 04/10/07, 2:33 PM

Here's to wishful thinking:

Make Flasks work like Everlasting Underspore Frond. On use, give the 2 hour buff that persists through death. 12 hour shared cooldown on all Flask items.

The name "Flask" has always suggested "container" to me, and to me it always seemed more fitting that a Flask is something you keep in your inventory instead of something you consume.

Of course, the cost of these reuseable flasks would have to increase accordingly.

Quigon · 04/10/07, 2:38 PM

Originally Posted by thebuddha

I would love to see that change as much as the next raider, but do you honestly think it will ever happen? I think the best we'll see is flasks not stacking with elixirs but even that is a long shot. At first I thought Blizzard understood and was slow, but now I'm starting to think they don't even realize what the obvious problems are.

Yes, of course it is realistic.
The simplest solution is often the best one, and easiest to code too incidently.

Take all the flasks, put them in a tiny lockbox, and nuke those fuckers from orbit, its the only way to be sure.