Debatable.

My original idea with fixed metals didn't have this limitation, and I still think it's better, but I'm trying to reach consensus with Isuka.

I don't know if my idea is a good one or not, but the thing is, if a really good idea gets nitpicked to death on some quibbly detail, this kills the idea, even if it's a great one. The admins are more likely to respond to a proposal that a) garners immediate and unconstrained consensus, and b) happens to be relatively reasonably easy to code. Even if Isuka's quibble is only on a detail of implementation, it makes it far less likely that admins skimming the forum will say "hey, good idea, let's talk about doing something like that". The problem is, if they do see the idea and like it, those quibbly details are all likely to be reinvented when they design their own implementation: it's the core idea that needs to be sold. But people do tend to obsess over the tiniest details of the examples anyway.

So I'd rather let Isuka win on one of these irrelevant details so the admins will look at the idea (and throw those details anyway however it goes) than get it bogged down in them. But I think that horse is long out of that barn by now, so I guess I might as well defend my three-fixed-metals approach. Maybe an envoy will seize upon the idea, or maybe an admin will still happen to notice this.

Actually, the only real reason I don't like the idea of using pre-defined metals for altering stats is that I don't want to see those metals either: shoot way up in price due to demand, or be impossible to find because they're always being bought out. My suggestion spreads this out over all metal comms, so I think this would be less of a problem.

Don't you remember the thread regarding Squads? We beat each other stupid over minor details on that thread and it still got implemented. I don't think they really care, because they're going to do what they're going to do anyways.

Your example kind of plays into his point actually, because Estarra decided on squads in a thread in General anyway, and only THEN did people started an ideas thread to add their thoughts to additions to it.

I have another theory that supports both mechanics and RP, about the tailoring thingy:

1: First off, mending often DOESN'T use patches and whatnot- tawdry clothing, for instance, and tattered, are the result of mending. We're not recreating a garment in it's glory, we're sewing the holes back together.

2: By making tailors mend with gold, it eliminates the need to figure out exactly what material would be used; for instance, greatrobes are made entirely out of cloth and entirely out of silk; it doesn't make sense to mend a silk robe with cloth, or a cloth robe with silk.
EDIT: It also eliminates the problem of taking commodities out of the market.

Now, to tie this all in to forging...

Oh.

Idea: what if the first (or an early) skill in forging was "mallet", which would let them create their own mallet out of 3 of a particular metal (I'll talk about this later), and have it and the forger eventually bond together (in much the same way as instruments). When a forger bonds with his/her mallet, the Mallet would lean towards a particular stat, based on what it was made of (I'll leave details to the coder, to give them something fun, and to prevent detail arguments). The bonus wouldn't have to be too big. I'd see ~15% more often the chosen stat as being acceptable.
EDIT: Also, mallets of forging would be able to be set to a stat.
EDIT: So, if you were aiming for 190/210 rapiers, you'd want a precision mallet, but for a x/280 rapier, you'd want a speed mallet.

Ideas on my idea?

That's.... actually really cool-sounding. Emphasizes forger specialization, will encourage cross-trading even within the skillset, and hopefully reduce the slog of forging.

I would approve heartily of this.

My question is, can you ditch your mallet to bond with another one?

I would assume you could find a way to. I was seeing these as three or four metal per, so it wouldn't be too bad if you had to put it in a nexus to get the next one. Thing is, bonding would take a while, probably longer than instrument bonds.

While I guess I can see the virtue of having to force forgers to specialize in weapons of particular characteristics (so if you want a fast weapon go to Tom but if you want a damaging weapon go to Chuck), this doesn't really eliminate the endless afk forging agony: it just reduces it, at the cost of dividing the potential business each forger can get by three. As long as the process of getting stats is still random, there will still be some possibly-imaginary "perfect weapon" that they'll have to forge-smelt-forge-smelt-forge-smelt for, because no one will settle for less. So all you're doing is reducing the agony at the cost of adding another agony. And nothing about it really creates a meaningful correlation between weapon quality and weapon cost.

Combine the best of both ideas.

We get the mallets and bonding. However, if you have the mallet, you can FORGE FOR . Forge until you get the desired number for that stat, then pass it to a forger which has the other mallet, and TEMPER FOR .

Would that work?

I've never been a forger, so I don't know if forgers will react with horror that they potentially divide their sales by three. But if they don't mind, then it sounds good. You'd still need there to be a cost to the refinement step so that quality and cost are linked, whether that's a comm or gold pieces or something else. So it's still basically my proposal but with the additional limitation that each forger can only do one of the three refinements.

Yep, which is why I said it is the combining of both ideas. I've never been a forger either, but from the amount of teeth-gnashing the time spent on forging has caused, I have a hunch that anything that lets you skip the randomness will be a godsend.

The problem is that there are not very many forgers anyways, so having to pass to another forger to complete a process could potentially result in even longer waits for your item to be completed.

Why not simplify it and say that you get a mallet, and you have to bond with it. By bonding with it you learn how to use that mallet to do what you want it to do, and therefor someone who is fully bonded with their mallet can easily FORGE FOR and have a pretty damned good chance of getting it? That way instead of comms determining stats, it would be skill (or frequency that a forger actually sits down to forge).

So you've eliminated the linking of cost to value, and restored the need for forgers to spend agonizingly long periods of time at the forge. Why even change it at all, then?

You obviously either don't understand the idea, or how forging works in general. Let me elaborate on what I believe this idea should mean:

1 ) You have a mallet that you forge yourself.
2 ) The more you use this mallet, the greater your affinity grows for said mallet.
3 ) The more bonded you are to said mallet, more points get allocated (randomly) per FORGE.
4 ) By specifying a direction that you would like the item to go in, you increase the chance that said points get allocated to that trait.

So: instead of spending insanely long times at the forge, you spend some time getting to know your mallet. The more in tune with it you are, the better quality of items that you can make. Also: you can use your experience to attempt to make a specific type of item (one for speed, or cutting protection, for example). Maybe this means you have to reforge an item a -couple- of times to get what you want... not 1000+ times.

I like this idea, because it reinforces that materials don't make a weapon good in Lusternia; a skilled forger makes the weapon good.

As a side note: artifact mallets of forging would be so supreme in and of themselves, that they instantly bond to a forger in an even greater capacity (resulting in higher chances for point allocation to go where you want, and more points per forge to be allocated).

Edit after I reread the tone of my message: as you can see by reading these forums in general, snappy and sarcastic comments only beget the same in return. Lets try to stay away from those in the future, eh?

I was going to suggest maybe allowing Forgers to pick Weaponsmithing or Armorsmithing as specializations, which gives them bonuses in crafting those.

Would that alter the trans skill? A weaponsmith shouldn't really be able to forge master armour, but the lack of master armour really nerfs the awesome benefit of transing forging.

What other trade skill is developed in to specializations, with the exception of enchanting which is due to guild skill rather than a specialization?

As for the forging mallet how would the mallet work for multi stat weapons such as precision hammers? Would you be able to allocate the points in to any stat you want?

The way I'm looking at it, it would work like this: every time you FORGE, you would put a certain number of points into a pool, based on how in tune you are with your hammer (and maybe your skill in forging?). If you use FORGE without a modifier, these points have equal chances of going into any of the three stats. If you specify a stat, the ratios of point distribution would change to increase chances in that stat, and decrease in a counter-stat.

So if you picked speed, you'd have a good chance of most of the points dropping into speed, a moderate chance of them going into precision, and a low chance of them going into damage. This still allows for some randomization, but can potentially DRASTICALLY reduce the number of forges required to get an item of your liking.

As for Weapon/Armour Smith... I don't mind the idea. You could essentially give weaponsmiths an awesome chance of getting great weapons and visa-versa, and remove from them the ability to forge the other item type completely (so weapon smiths -only- forge weapons). But, there are few enough forgers as it is, so I don't think it's a good idea to cut down what they can produce.