May 182011

The result of several hours and much of my precious stock of essences: nothing.

That is oversimplifying. I did make some useless trash. And I did pick up a fair-sized ball of frustration. So that’s something, two things really, even if not anything good.

The dilemma: I can’t make anything good enough to be worth carrying on any of my high-level characters. But I can’t seem to successfully make an item that is properly pegged at the correct level for my lower-level characters.

Things that just didn’t work out:

  • A Vertigo maul for Chelena (made by Coin only to realize weapons are BTC)
  • Another Vertigo maul for Chelena (turned out to be ML11 even tho its only Vertigo +6)
  • Spell Pen shortswords for Coin (turned out be uselessly low-level)

Crafting my ass off
Burning through my essences
End result: nada

  4 Responses to “Crafting and I are not on speaking terms at the moment”

Comments (4)
  1. On the bright side, you are occupying an important role as guinea pig so that future generations of crafters do not have to suffer as you did!

  2. did you read that you can brake the shards down directly now so you don’t need to thrown them out. and you can make potency shards that increase how much you can slap on an item. So just store up those Essences and keep making shards so that when the Level 100 shards come out you can make the gear you want on your high levels. I still want to be able to modify existing items. And if that is reward for level 100 it would be worth the effort. but you know you love crafting, and you really don’t want to stop seeing crafting.

  3. What gets me is, everything I’ve looked at making is +1 ML to a similar, randomly-generated item. (Granted, that was pre-9.1, so that might’ve changed with the update…)

  4. @finch – you are not cheering me up! LOL ok maybe you are a little bit. @Oskar – yes, constructing, deconstructing, reconstructing, etc. Been there. Doing that. By the way it turns out you cannot deconstruct the potential-enhancing shards. @lrd yes they are exactly the same as the random equivalent. Without the random part 🙂

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: