Talk:Enchant (925)/Enchant Item (925) (old version)

A Work in Progress

Yes, this page is receving a major overhaul. No, your precious facts and previous contributions are not lost. I am simply in the middle of giving this page a serious makeover, and if you please bear with me I guarantee you will approve of the final result (or at very least agree its an improvement). I'm fully aware I removed certain text which I fully agree is necessary, and I assure you it will be replaced. This interim version is merely sparse for my own sanity's sake. Any text which is missing is both saved in the history of this page, as well as on my own hard disk. I thank you all for your patience and tolerance. If you note anything missing not on my list, please feel free to add it or edit the article yourself! _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 07:00, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

Good job bossman. I changed a few things:

• More than 25 mana does not help with your enchant
• Took out the ranting about the rarity of DB items, I saw a DB cloak go out in plat a couple weeks ago
• Moved the success-table because its placement bugged me
• Changed the phrasing a bit because you can't wear tempered armor.

I really think you undersell the whole NEEDing a workshop and familiar. I mean, you don't NEED them, but if you enchant without them, you are an idiot. Nice though, good work, keep it up. justin ^talk 10:38, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

• Perhaps because they are not "required", just "heavily advised". I enchant regularly on a regular earthnode that is vacant (the house locker annex in Ta'Illistim for my house) and have not yet had any failures. Sometimes without my familiar present too (though in those cases because I didn't cast one, not with it elsewhere). And my wizard is not ideally trained for enchanting. (He only has 20 ranks each in MIU and ArcSymb, and is 61st level. His pour modifiers are only 152.) User:GREYCROISSANT ^talk 20:47, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
• Potions have now been modified so that armor and shields no longer require two doses. I deleted the appropriate line of text after GM Naos confirmed on the boards that this is intended and permanent. User:GREYCROISSANT ^talk 14:47, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
• I went through and reworked the potions chart, as I felt (based on Krakii's recent addition of post-chart notes to that effect) that its layout was confusing. Specifically, I felt that referring to the item by its starting stats, rather than destinantion stats (as many wizards speak of them), was leading to confusion. The new version of the chart uses both sets of stats. I also added a bit in a few other places, especially in the "workshop" paragraph under "necessary components" (as I mentioned before, it is NOT absolutely necessary, and a regular earthnode works fairly well when you're not pushing your limits). I myself have only used a workshop for the final casts on 5x and 6x projects. User:GREYCROISSANT ^talk 23:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Unfinished Business

• The "special cases" section
• Some log clips (left blanks in)
• The 405 info needs to get moved to its own page
• I could reference it up a bit - maybe
• Info on casting failures
• A blurb or two in the "Necessary Components" section are missing
• Interlinking - text in paragraphs to headers in other parts of the article. This is what made 725 so wonderful
• Of course, quashing all the redlinks

Various

This whole negative enchant foolishness is really confusing and making the page EVEN more confusing. I'm gonna look into cleaning it up justin ^talk 14:19, 19 July 2006 (EDT)

A couple sample messages incase anyone (maybe me) ever gets around to making this page.

pour failure

You pour your potion on the katar. 1d100: 8 + Modifiers: 137 == 145

The liquid is quickly absorbed into your imflass katar and it looks good, but nothing else happens.

pour success

You pour your potion on the katar. 1d100: 84 + Modifiers: 214 == 298

The liquid oozes over the surface of your imflass katar, creating a faint aura of steam. With a soft cloth, you work the liquid in well until you hear a faint crackling noise coming from it, and it appears faded. The tempering seems to have been successful. Your imflass katar should be ready to enchant in 2 to 3 days. ALKALOIDS 16:43, 11 April 2006 (PDT)

405 codes no = 0-7; weak = 8-17; mediocre = 18-27; mildly strong = 28 - 37; strong = 38 to 47; incredible = 47+ALKALOIDS 18:48, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

Future of Enchanting

http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Wizards/Wizard%20Spells/view/3163 For safe keeping VANKRASN39 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2016 (CDT)

Formula

I feel like having the formula on the main page makes it too long and complicated and takes away from teaching the basic process. It is also not GM confirmed/official, which is what I have been trying to keep to for the main articles. VANKRASN39 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2018 (CST)

I disagree. To me there is nothing more important than having both the pour and enchant formulas included in the main article. Pour potion on item, wait for temper followed by CHANNEL Enchant Item at item is the entire procedure. Everthing else is ancillary. The descriptive success and roll result messaging are superfluous once you know the formula. I'll grant that the messaging is still useful since most surcharge penalties for special/enhanced items are still to be determined, but for basic enchanting the messaging is not needed and is considerably less accurate than the formula.

Of all the factors in the pour formula (MIU, LOG, INT, AUR, WIS, potion bonus, encumbrance and armor penalties) not one has ever been officially announced as a contributing factor to a successful pour. Below is an example of the only information that the players have been given when pouring a potion, and despite this limited information we, the player base, have reconstructed an accurate formula.

1d100: 79 + Modifiers: 96 == 175

The amount of experience gained from enchanting is player derived and unofficial. The pre-temper ayveneh and eoveneh potion penalties are based on player research. As a matter of fact all of the potion pour bonuses are player derived and unofficial. I know this because I derived them. Should this information also be removed from the article because it's not official? Where would it be placed if not in the enchant article? The opposite situation exists with enchanting. We have been give both the positive and negative enchant factors but the success resolution formula is hidden. It's trivial to prove the accuracy of the formula I posted. Plug the relevant numbers of any wizard into the formula, then have the wizard CAST 925 at the item and verify that the endroll predicted by the formula corresponds to the success% messaging. Then reconfirm the results by performing hundreds of tests using different items and formula values. I've done the testing but If you have any empirical data that contradicts either the pour potion or enchant formulas please post it. Mark (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (CST)

Yes, everything from before 2015 was grandfathered to remain where they were, and I went and had a lot of issues verified one by one. The entire concept of the research pages was vetted by both senior staff and fellow moderators and I'm sorry you were not here for it, but it is in the Style Guide. I realize you are still operating as you were in 2014/early 2015, but the fact is that we do not have any official documentation in an fully official fashion, and it is really helpful to indicate which parts are not GM confirmed. I'll also admit that it is beneficial to put things on pages in order to get more revealed from the development side, so hopefully we can just get this verified. It sucks that Simu/GMs won't write their own comprehensive documentation and that we have to do it, and that we end up in situations like this. VANKRASN39 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2018 (CST)

I'm not sure why you're undoing all of those pages, all I said is it is helpful to indicate on an ongoing basis what is GM confirmed and what is not, and let's see if we can get this all verified. It seemed like over the years while you were away I had your support in what I did here, but I guess not. It makes me very sad to see. VANKRASN39 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (CST)