Agreed with comments above: i just can't find any CON in adding another boon slot for those who have GH @20. We are not asking for a free boon, just slot, grind is still there.
New mastercraft recipes : my question is while most of the new recipres are unlocked with 30 one stage crafted items ie gold ore ,adamant bloom etc ,why does artifacing alone require 30 x 3 stage crafted items? Artifacing requires 30 x lacquered ebony ...which is made from 2 x dark laquer=240 resources from explorers maps compared to all the other proffesions that only require about 90 resources from explorers maps.OK so some of the other proffesion items are crafted using oil of vitriol but the base green vitriol doesnt come from explorers maps and is gained free via other proffesion tasks,others require shark oil but again that is purchased with guild marks and cheaper than explorers maps. Seems to me artifacing should in fact require 30 x dark lacquer to complete =120 resources (lacquer branch) from explorers maps,still more than all the other proffesions as dark lacquer requires 4 x lacquer branch compared to 3 resources required for gold nugget/adamant bloom etc.Changing artifacing to require 30 x dark lacquer instead of 30 lacquered ebony would bring it in line with the resource requirements for the other proffesions.
So now on preview stage 3 mastercrafting has changed to 20 of the second task of each mastercraft proffesion .This throws the require resources even further out of balance between each proffesion: Alchemy= alum x 40 =40 explorer resources Artifacing= lacquer branch x 160 =160 explorer resources Jewelcraft= gold ore x 120 + alum x 40 =160 explorer resources Leatherwork= alum x 60 + lacquer branch x 160 =220 explorer resources Mailsmith= molybdena x 160 + adamant sand x 80 =240 explorer resources Platesmith= adamant sand x 120 +lacquer branch x 80 =200 explorer resources Tailoring=cashmere wool x 120 =120 explorer resources Weaponsmith=adamant sand x 120 + lacquer branch x 80 =200 explorer resources
That volume of resources (1340 qty) is 223 maps=334,500 guild marks !!!!and we can only have 30,000 guild marks at a time!!! And whats worse is vouchers even epic ones only give about 200 ish guild marks each =1672 epic vouchers!!! So YES the new weapons and armour WILL cost 10 million AD or more on the auction house!!! simply becuase of the rediculious amount of resources required to complete the new mastercraft recipes,and it wasnt too bad before this change ...just artifacing need to change.now its 1000% worse.
I'm curious to see if the devs will do what they normally do in such cases - complete silence.
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
general question: for a guild with pretty much everything slightly interesting maxed out ( im talking about structure) what does the new temporary structures bring? (assuming no one can force a whole guild to farm for few elements involved in masterwork)
So now on preview stage 3 mastercrafting has changed to 20 of the second task of each mastercraft proffesion .This throws the require resources even further out of balance between each proffesion:\
So YES the new weapons and armour WILL cost 10 million AD or more on the auction house!!! simply becuase of the rediculious amount of resources required to complete the new mastercraft recipes,and it wasnt too bad before this change ...just artifacing need to change.now its 1000% worse.
Keep in mind everything on preview is subject to change, I indicated in an earlier post that the prices for those books were not final. You're making a lot of assumptions about the price on the finished product based on an incomplete analysis though. Keep in mind the requirements to obtain these books is still significantly lower than the requirements to get through the first two masterwork quests. On top of this, many more guilds are already at the require ranks, in addition you'll have the option of using temporary structures to guarantee success on the required materials.
Finally, the new recipes being introduced are more lenient on wasted resources in the case of a failure. Some recipes that normally return multiple of a processed material return a single processed material on a failure instead of returning some of the components. A number of adjustments were made to masterwork across the board that should see the prices on these items starting slightly lower than the first tier of masterwork, flattening out sooner and flattening out at a lower cost. However, these are still intended to be expensive, valuable items for players to create and trade.
0
Options
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
Anyone who was previously putting masterwork resources on the market based on a low-level Explorer boon will no longer be able to do so, and that's also going to have an impact.
Anyone who was previously putting masterwork resources on the market based on a low-level Explorer boon will no longer be able to do so, and that's also going to have an impact.
We are aware that this will have an impact, however, with the halving of chart costs and the introduction of temporary structures we believe the net change will be that these materials are more common. Naturally due to market demand, there will naturally be a spike in price initially, but they should not rise anywhere near their original launch price point.
One other change that may not have appeared in the preview patch notes (and as such may have gone unnoticed), but should appear in the final patch notes: the stronghold rank requirement for all original masterwork related charts and recipes has been reduced to 10, new ranks will be available at 14. This had been the plan from the beginning, but originally on preview all masterwork related items and quests were at the original rank 12.
0
Options
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
I am actually hoping the Mysterious Merchant wares (assuming I can access it) will provide me a guild mark sink I can feel good enough about that my chart backlog will stop growing, because I'm currently sitting on around 700 of the bloody things. I can only chew through so much food even when using the best available kinds all the time (ty to shopping with Alliance), don't need to vendor food for more gold, and critter-specific overloads don't appeal to me (maybe if I ever go back to SKT/SoMI).
I am also hoping that relying on structures for more resources will slow some of my guild mark income because I am constantly drowning in them. Constantly maxing out the guild marks on every single one of my alts... and I do have a lot of them. The more burden of resources is being put into a guild by a human individual, the more that human has to deal with the resulting guild marks. It's completely overwhelming. People in bigger guilds might not feel as much because they've not had to carry as much individually, but... it's hard. It's exhausting. I'd just sell the charts outright if I could, but I have no choice but using them myself.
Ok... I suppose that if charts cost half as much, using them outside of 2xProfession events is equal GM/resource return to current. It still feels bad to gain less stuff due to not waiting for the proper event though, even though the events are too infrequent to provide reasonable balance.
I'd like to petition again for the return of Double Profession Resources to the revolving daily event schedule so that players can go harvest charts in small manageable quantities as their time permits rather than feeling pressure to deal with them in bulk a couple of times a year. Nobody enjoys it, it's boring and stressful, but we've all felt compelled to do it, because wasting things feels bad.
The sanctity of Double Profession Resources and Experience is preserved as the Experience component is actually very useful, and the weekend event can still be used for mass farming, but wouldn't be as demanding.
Losing the half-hour of Double Professions from the daily event rotation was mostly unremarked at the time because we didn't really have any compelling reason to participate in it because we can get tons of everything that drops from regular skill nodes with far less effort anyway. But with Masterwork implemented, it would be a MASSIVE quality of life improvement to give that event back to us now.
lazaroth666Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,332Arc User
What if we could trade an explorer's case with a NPC (maybe with one of the incoming temporary structures) for at least one of each resource of their respective map? e.g exchange an Explorer's Case: Skyhold for 1x Adamant Sand, 1x Lacquer Branch and 1x Silex or perhaps 3-4 random. In this way, those who have tons of guild marks will have an additional way to spend them without the hassle of farming the materials. The players that spend their time farming the nodes in every map will still get much more benefit since they are getting at least 6 of them.
Also concerned about the halving of Explorer Charts. This pushes an already stressful grind into botting territory. More grind does not lead to players spending more time. They just stop or get "creative".
0
Options
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
edited April 2017
Yes, just being able to trade them in straight up would be fine by me.
I know other players have also expressed their distress and displeasure over the "quest" implementation of obtaining resources from masterwork nodes. A quest of running around in a zigzag pattern taking a few seconds to twiddle with the environment at intervals. Gripping and epic, to be sure.
Best case scenario, my current chart backlog would take me 24 hours to plough through at 2 min/chart. Of course, I'm human (evidence that I am a very clever chatbot to the contrary) and can't actually sustain anything close to that rate.
But, as @loboguild astutely points out, bots sure as eff can.
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
edited April 2017
Motivated donors do.
And whatever you mean by "endless cap" I don't know. All you have to do is slog back and forth between the mimic and the merchant. You can just let them overflow if you prefer to save yourself the effort, but donating from an ally stronghold works fine if you can't buy what you want at your own.
This is not an objection to the cost reduction in itself. It's a criticism of the chart farming mechanic. If you want to discourage automation, you don't put in activities that make humans want to die of boredom.
I am actually hoping the Mysterious Merchant wares (assuming I can access it) will provide me a guild mark sink I can feel good enough about that my chart backlog will stop growing, because I'm currently sitting on around 700 of the bloody things.
While it will do nothing to alleviate your existing backlog of charts, temporary structures will sell masterwork ingredients that can be purchased directly for guild marks. Those of you swimming in marks should be able to shunt them into these resources while whittling down your stack of charts.
We're aware that harvesting resources isn't necessarily the most lively activity, however, the idea that it takes time to execute the gathering is an important element in not flooding the market. If you can't justify spending the time to farm them due to the cost, we don't want the materials being contributed to the market regardless. We'll continue to keep an eye on the amount of sinks available though, some of the changes in this module were indeed aimed at alleviating the issue for the most active guild members.
0
Options
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
That sounds promising, but I do have further questions based on this bug thread:
How about the MW temporary buildings, will they be guild-only? Or, can all guilds in an alliance use them?
If an ally builds one of these vendors because they have Market (7+?), can I go shop there?
I can't see that to be correct. That would mean an anti small/medium size guild mod.
There are more than BIS players in this game RIP Real Tiamat, RIP Real Demogorgon RIP real Temple of the spider. Why remove non bis content to give to bis players ???? FORCING the majority of your player base to play 4 mod old dungeons and trial will have a bad result on player base Changes are getting so bad i would rather prefer no new changes (RIP ICE FISHING in winter fest)
0
Options
treesclimberMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,161Arc User
The costs of SHs were set in a different era when there were many more sources of AD, they need to be adjusted to the current era of low and slow AD gains.
While what you say about the history of AD gains has a lot of truth to it, a few modules back there was a very big lowering (around 50%, or even more for lower-level guilds) of AD Stronghold costs, plus lots of AD vouchers were added into the game economy. The end result is that our coffer data shows very few guilds have AD as the resource blocking their advancement. A lot of them are actually full on AD.
You can see this for yourself in-game by looking at what a 20,000 AD voucher goes for in the Auction House. I just now checked on US PC and found the price was under 2,000 AD. If people were hurting for Stronghold AD at all, that voucher should cost close to 20,000.
So I don't think AD is an important Stronghold advancement blocker any more, although I agree it definitely was at one time. Right now our data is showing Influence is by far the biggest blocker, with Conqueror's Shards, Gems, and Treasures of Tyranny some of the other harder-to-get resources (although nothing like Influence).
If the change is coming only 2 may you could push the double conqueror shards weekend 2 weeks forward, i think people would like that "big surprise" since most players don't come to the forums. Also regarding ToD treasures, there hasn't been a double campaign currency for a long time (since that one that had all campaigns at once i think) and gems.....they should give more gain/marks, if player x decides to carry Fey blessing enchantments the marks received from the hoarded enchantments will be much smaller than quartermaster's enchantment (the donatable bags), so i dont think anyone will very happily carry fey blessing enchantments with the intuit of donating the drops to the coffer as a quartermaster's one.
As seen on the picture I have finished the task for Barracks. But the map shows me all the other structures as a place to turn it in. You can see in the log that I haven't finished the Explorer's Guild one but it's still seen as a place to turn in my Barracks quests.
FEEDBACK:
Make those quests reset with the daily reset timer. Currently they are on a 20 hour cooldown from the moment they are turned in.
0
Options
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
How about the MW temporary buildings, will they be guild-only? Or, can all guilds in an alliance use them?
If an ally builds one of these vendors because they have Market (7+?), can I go shop there?
I can't see that to be correct. That would mean an anti small/medium size guild mod.
The questions specifically pertain to the special vendors. I can't imagine there are similar level restrictions on the temporary production structures. I'm not worried about that, only about having access to additional ways to spend guild marks.
How about the MW temporary buildings, will they be guild-only? Or, can all guilds in an alliance use them?
If an ally builds one of these vendors because they have Market (7+?), can I go shop there?
In regards to the thread you linked to, do you have any additional details about this issue? I have spoken with the designer working on the temporary structures and as far as we are aware: on the current preview build (and up until now) none of the temporary structures should require a specific rank of any structure in order to interact with, nor should any of the individual items require a specific rank. In the launch build, some of the masterwork materials will require either a rank 10 or rank 14 stronghold to purchase, but those will be clearly labeled individually in the store.
To clarify regarding the use of temporary structures in an alliance: they will work like normal stronghold stores, so you'll be able to use them on an allied guild's map. In addition, if there's a structure or stronghold rank requirement on an individual item, if the guild you are visiting meets that requirement, you'll be able to make the purchase. The only player-specific requirements come in the form of using masterwork facilities to craft masterwork materials such as an adamant bloom or lacquered ebony, the individual player must have the recipe book needed to make the item in order to utilize this feature.
1
Options
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
In regards to the thread you linked to, do you have any additional details about this issue? I have spoken with the designer working on the temporary structures and as far as we are aware: on the current preview build (and up until now) none of the temporary structures should require a specific rank of any structure in order to interact with, nor should any of the individual items require a specific rank. In the launch build, some of the masterwork materials will require either a rank 10 or rank 14 stronghold to purchase, but those will be clearly labeled individually in the store.
I don't have further information myself. But from your further information, I'm assuming a tooltip bug somewhere that should say Stronghold 14 indicates Marketplace 14 instead (which is not actually possible). You'd have to ask the OP there.
I'm curious to see if the devs will do what they normally do in such cases - complete silence.
What on earth are you talking about, complete silence? In this thread alone there have been over a dozen responses by the devs. Not to mention the several Feedback threads here on the preview forums. On the contrary, I think they are responding and discussing things even more than in the past.
Just because they aren't making the exact changes that you want, or don't respond to every single comment you make does not in anyway mean that they are not listening and responding.
My opinions are my own. I do not work for PWE or Cryptic. - Forum Rules - Protector's Enclave Discord - I play on Xbox Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official. Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
I'm curious to see if the devs will do what they normally do in such cases - complete silence.
What on earth are you talking about, complete silence? In this thread alone there have been over a dozen responses by the devs. Not to mention the several Feedback threads here on the preview forums. On the contrary, I think they are responding and discussing things even more than in the past.
Just because they aren't making the exact changes that you want, or don't respond to every single comment you make does not in anyway mean that they are not listening and responding.
I apologise for being rude. However there have been a number of official threads made by the game developers where they've announced things and made a comment or two but once feedback suggestions start coming in, no reply had been made after that.
The one that springs instantly to mind (though there are others) is one that I personally care about quite a bit; the Paladin changes. They were announced, players put forward some reasonable & well thought out suggestions & comments.
The devs had actually asked for feedback but even though 8 pages of comments were made, they made absolutely no reply after their initial posts, leaving the players feeling that we were being 'told' what was coming rather than feedback being taken seriously.
This has happened a few times. I will admit that they have been a lot better recently but it was the source of where my above comment came from.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
0
Options
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
The only player-specific requirements come in the form of using masterwork facilities to craft masterwork materials such as an adamant bloom or lacquered ebony, the individual player must have the recipe book needed to make the item in order to utilize this feature.
Eh, @asterdahl that's not how it is. Consider adamant bloom for example. You get the recipe book to make that once you complete Rank 1 Masterwork Weaponsmithing. However, in order to buy it from the store, you need Rank 2 - otherwise you just get a red error message.
What this means is that those items can only be purchased by people that already have Rank 2. Assuming they have a Mythic Forgehammer (a reasonable assumption for anyone engaging in Mastercrafting), they basically have a choice between a 75% success rate (making the item) and a 100% success rate with a Guild mark cost (buying). That's fair.
However - consider someone who has only Rank 1 and is working towards Rank 2. He has the recipe book - knows how to make Adamant bloom, but has only a 35% chance of doing so, as he does not have the Rank 2 special tool.
So, what will he do? He needs Adamant blooms to progress towards Rank 2, but cannot buy them, and the 35% success rate is painful. So, he will trade vouchers (to cover Guild mark costs) and materials to someone who already has Rank 2, have that person make the purchases and then trade the Adamant blooms back to him.
That's a lot of hassle.
It would be a lot easier if things simply worked like you said "...the individual player must have the recipe book needed to make the item", but as I said, that's not how things are.
So, can we either get things working so that people just need to have the recipe to be able to buy the item, or a statement that this is actually working as intended, and players are expected to use a roundabout way of trading materials and vouchers.
Ah, I understand the source of the confusion now, that's the artisan, he is not a temporary structure. The designer handling that store has been informed and the typo is being corrected. As you may have guessed, it's actually Guild Hall rank 14.
Eh, @asterdahl that's not how it is. Consider adamant bloom for example. You get the recipe book to make that once you complete Rank 1 Masterwork Weaponsmithing. However, in order to buy it from the store, you need Rank 2 - otherwise you just get a red error message.
This is a separate issue than what was indicated in the thread that was linked, so I apologize for any confusion. What you're describing—needing the 2nd recipe book to craft items from the 1st book—that was a mistake and the designer who implemented the store has made the correction, it should be updated in the most recent or next preview build.
Comments
So now on preview stage 3 mastercrafting has changed to 20 of the second task of each mastercraft proffesion .This throws the require resources even further out of balance between each proffesion:
Alchemy= alum x 40 =40 explorer resources
Artifacing= lacquer branch x 160 =160 explorer resources
Jewelcraft= gold ore x 120 + alum x 40 =160 explorer resources
Leatherwork= alum x 60 + lacquer branch x 160 =220 explorer resources
Mailsmith= molybdena x 160 + adamant sand x 80 =240 explorer resources
Platesmith= adamant sand x 120 +lacquer branch x 80 =200 explorer resources
Tailoring=cashmere wool x 120 =120 explorer resources
Weaponsmith=adamant sand x 120 + lacquer branch x 80 =200 explorer resources
That volume of resources (1340 qty) is 223 maps=334,500 guild marks !!!!and we can only have 30,000 guild marks at a time!!!
And whats worse is vouchers even epic ones only give about 200 ish guild marks each =1672 epic vouchers!!!
So YES the new weapons and armour WILL cost 10 million AD or more on the auction house!!!
simply becuase of the rediculious amount of resources required to complete the new mastercraft recipes,and it wasnt too bad before this change ...just artifacing need to change.now its 1000% worse.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
EDIT: The power is working fine.
for a guild with pretty much everything slightly interesting maxed out ( im talking about structure)
what does the new temporary structures bring? (assuming no one can force a whole guild to farm for few elements involved in masterwork)
Finally, the new recipes being introduced are more lenient on wasted resources in the case of a failure. Some recipes that normally return multiple of a processed material return a single processed material on a failure instead of returning some of the components. A number of adjustments were made to masterwork across the board that should see the prices on these items starting slightly lower than the first tier of masterwork, flattening out sooner and flattening out at a lower cost. However, these are still intended to be expensive, valuable items for players to create and trade.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
One other change that may not have appeared in the preview patch notes (and as such may have gone unnoticed), but should appear in the final patch notes: the stronghold rank requirement for all original masterwork related charts and recipes has been reduced to 10, new ranks will be available at 14. This had been the plan from the beginning, but originally on preview all masterwork related items and quests were at the original rank 12.
I am actually hoping the Mysterious Merchant wares (assuming I can access it) will provide me a guild mark sink I can feel good enough about that my chart backlog will stop growing, because I'm currently sitting on around 700 of the bloody things. I can only chew through so much food even when using the best available kinds all the time (ty to shopping with Alliance), don't need to vendor food for more gold, and critter-specific overloads don't appeal to me (maybe if I ever go back to SKT/SoMI).
I am also hoping that relying on structures for more resources will slow some of my guild mark income because I am constantly drowning in them. Constantly maxing out the guild marks on every single one of my alts... and I do have a lot of them. The more burden of resources is being put into a guild by a human individual, the more that human has to deal with the resulting guild marks. It's completely overwhelming. People in bigger guilds might not feel as much because they've not had to carry as much individually, but... it's hard. It's exhausting. I'd just sell the charts outright if I could, but I have no choice but using them myself.
Ok... I suppose that if charts cost half as much, using them outside of 2xProfession events is equal GM/resource return to current. It still feels bad to gain less stuff due to not waiting for the proper event though, even though the events are too infrequent to provide reasonable balance.
I'd like to petition again for the return of Double Profession Resources to the revolving daily event schedule so that players can go harvest charts in small manageable quantities as their time permits rather than feeling pressure to deal with them in bulk a couple of times a year. Nobody enjoys it, it's boring and stressful, but we've all felt compelled to do it, because wasting things feels bad.
The sanctity of Double Profession Resources and Experience is preserved as the Experience component is actually very useful, and the weekend event can still be used for mass farming, but wouldn't be as demanding.
Losing the half-hour of Double Professions from the daily event rotation was mostly unremarked at the time because we didn't really have any compelling reason to participate in it because we can get tons of everything that drops from regular skill nodes with far less effort anyway. But with Masterwork implemented, it would be a MASSIVE quality of life improvement to give that event back to us now.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
Also concerned about the halving of Explorer Charts. This pushes an already stressful grind into botting territory. More grind does not lead to players spending more time. They just stop or get "creative".
I know other players have also expressed their distress and displeasure over the "quest" implementation of obtaining resources from masterwork nodes. A quest of running around in a zigzag pattern taking a few seconds to twiddle with the environment at intervals. Gripping and epic, to be sure.
Best case scenario, my current chart backlog would take me 24 hours to plough through at 2 min/chart. Of course, I'm human (evidence that I am a very clever chatbot to the contrary) and can't actually sustain anything close to that rate.
But, as @loboguild astutely points out, bots sure as eff can.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
And whatever you mean by "endless cap" I don't know. All you have to do is slog back and forth between the mimic and the merchant. You can just let them overflow if you prefer to save yourself the effort, but donating from an ally stronghold works fine if you can't buy what you want at your own.
This is not an objection to the cost reduction in itself. It's a criticism of the chart farming mechanic. If you want to discourage automation, you don't put in activities that make humans want to die of boredom.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
We're aware that harvesting resources isn't necessarily the most lively activity, however, the idea that it takes time to execute the gathering is an important element in not flooding the market. If you can't justify spending the time to farm them due to the cost, we don't want the materials being contributed to the market regardless. We'll continue to keep an eye on the amount of sinks available though, some of the changes in this module were indeed aimed at alleviating the issue for the most active guild members.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1229991/temporary-sh-plot-vendors-requiring-marketplace-14
Temp vendors actually require Market 7?
And to reiterate Defiant's question: If an ally builds one of these vendors because they have Market (7+?), can I go shop there?
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
I can't see that to be correct. That would mean an anti small/medium size guild mod.
RIP Real Tiamat, RIP Real Demogorgon RIP real Temple of the spider. Why remove non bis content to give to bis players ????
FORCING the majority of your player base to play 4 mod old dungeons and trial will have a bad result on player base
Changes are getting so bad i would rather prefer no new changes (RIP ICE FISHING in winter fest)
As seen on the picture I have finished the task for Barracks. But the map shows me all the other structures as a place to turn it in. You can see in the log that I haven't finished the Explorer's Guild one but it's still seen as a place to turn in my Barracks quests.
FEEDBACK:
Make those quests reset with the daily reset timer. Currently they are on a 20 hour cooldown from the moment they are turned in.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
To clarify regarding the use of temporary structures in an alliance: they will work like normal stronghold stores, so you'll be able to use them on an allied guild's map. In addition, if there's a structure or stronghold rank requirement on an individual item, if the guild you are visiting meets that requirement, you'll be able to make the purchase. The only player-specific requirements come in the form of using masterwork facilities to craft masterwork materials such as an adamant bloom or lacquered ebony, the individual player must have the recipe book needed to make the item in order to utilize this feature.
Thanks for the rest of the post as well.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
Just because they aren't making the exact changes that you want, or don't respond to every single comment you make does not in anyway mean that they are not listening and responding.
Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official.
Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
http://prntscr.com/evf3nj
Not really an issue, just a typo.
The one that springs instantly to mind (though there are others) is one that I personally care about quite a bit; the Paladin changes. They were announced, players put forward some reasonable & well thought out suggestions & comments.
The devs had actually asked for feedback but even though 8 pages of comments were made, they made absolutely no reply after their initial posts, leaving the players feeling that we were being 'told' what was coming rather than feedback being taken seriously.
This has happened a few times. I will admit that they have been a lot better recently but it was the source of where my above comment came from.
https://arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1224618/official-feedback-thread-oathbound-paladin-changes-sea-of-moving-ice/p1
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
What this means is that those items can only be purchased by people that already have Rank 2. Assuming they have a Mythic Forgehammer (a reasonable assumption for anyone engaging in Mastercrafting), they basically have a choice between a 75% success rate (making the item) and a 100% success rate with a Guild mark cost (buying). That's fair.
However - consider someone who has only Rank 1 and is working towards Rank 2. He has the recipe book - knows how to make Adamant bloom, but has only a 35% chance of doing so, as he does not have the Rank 2 special tool.
So, what will he do? He needs Adamant blooms to progress towards Rank 2, but cannot buy them, and the 35% success rate is painful. So, he will trade vouchers (to cover Guild mark costs) and materials to someone who already has Rank 2, have that person make the purchases and then trade the Adamant blooms back to him.
That's a lot of hassle.
It would be a lot easier if things simply worked like you said "...the individual player must have the recipe book needed to make the item", but as I said, that's not how things are.
So, can we either get things working so that people just need to have the recipe to be able to buy the item, or a statement that this is actually working as intended, and players are expected to use a roundabout way of trading materials and vouchers.