Repair Kits

[Brightrim]

The idea:
Add craft-specific repair-kits to the game. Each craft(Except outliers like cooking and brewing) would have 11 versions (level 0, 10, 20… 80, 90, 100), able to repair items at or below the level of the kit that belong to the category of the craft, with corresponding material costs. These would only be craft-able by players and not purchasable from npcs, akin to how potions and glyphed jewelry can only be obtained from other players.

EG: A level 20 sword can be repaired by a level 20 or above blacksmithing repair kit(Though using a higher level kit would be wasteful as they would require more expensive material to make, meaning this could be a legitimate way for new characters to make coin as well!). A level 30 sword or a level 20 armour would require a level 30 blacksmithing kit or a level 20 armoursmithing kit.

Quality influence:
The kits could have a failure rate. Could result in quality loss that would require manual repair to fix. The higher the quality of the kit, the better the chance of success and lower the chance of quality loss. It could also impact how far the item is repaired, as they do not necessarily need to bring them back to brand new immediately like a crafter or npc repairman would.

Pros:
Consumable that each craftsman can sell their version of, providing more trade for crafters like the player-repair feature was originally intended for, partly solving the problem of people only seeking crafters for level 100 gear once and then never needing them again because they can simply repair things(In the way that now players would have another reason to more consistently seek out crafters for trade). Also works to, at least partially, solve the issue that players just go to the npc repairer, despite the risk of quality loss, either because of convenience or because no craftsmen are online to repair their items when they actually need it.

Cons:
1.Un-immersive(How does a character magically know how to repair an item just because they have a repair kit?)
2.Might make in-person repairs un-favourable
3.It might lead to people staying in the field longer fighting/gathering, instead of returning to town, decreasing the chance of RP encounters.

Potential solutions to cons:
1. Call them something suitable for their crafts. "Sharpening stone" for blacksmithed goods, for instance. Armour polishing cloth for armoursmiths.
2. Make the ingredients cost of the repair kit cost more than the repair would even if all repair ingredients are consumed(very unlucky), making repairing in person far more affordable. Additionally there is the case of when an item drops in quality and requires personal repair to regain said quality. It would also not really remove from the roleplay too much as it would still require characters to trade with each other to obtain them. These kits do not neccessarily have to be able to bring the equipment all the way back up to brand new, either.
3. Not sure this one has any solution. Might just be a question of whether the pros outweigh this con.

End note:
I only thought of this idea today, so I am sure there are things I did not take into consideration or points people might disagree with.
With the new suggestion bot on discord, however, I figured I might as well air it with you all.
What are everyone's thoughts? Any cons/pros I did not think of? Solutions to the cons already listed? Anything else? Why would or wouldn't you want this in the game?

[Katharina Brightrim]

I like the proposal, if we can find a way to make it immersive, something the solutions to the cons seem to already offer answers to.

I would also use this chance to advertise the idea of using these kits to replace repair NPCs. People could buy them on stack from their fellow crafters and thus decrease the dependence from NPCs when - for example - there's no carpenter around. Of course that could lead to people who didn't stock up on it ending up needing, but in the end, I think it further promotes player-player interactions.

[Estralis Seborian]

I am a repair kit fanboy since Vilarion proposed them for the first time!

I have some questions and some points might need some more details:

• What would happen to current repair NPCs? Any changes/complete removal?
• What would happen to current player repairing? Changes, removal?
• Should NPCs trade the kits (buy, sell, both, neither)?
• What materials exactly should the kits require? While on lower levels, generic materials from the craft might be the obvious approach, what about high levels where rare ingredients such as merinium or pure elements are needed for crafting?
• Should making the kits require the same skill as their level?
• Should making the kits take time and grant skill like crafting?
• Should making the kits require a static tool and a hand tool like crafting?
• Any influences of attributes and skills on making the kits?
• Should using the kits require the same skill as their level?
• Should using the kits take time and grant skill like crafting?
• Should using the kits require a static tool and a hand tool like crafting?
• Any influences of attributes and skills on using the kits?
• If an item has e.g. 98 durability, will the kit be consumed completely or partially? How to track the status of the kit in case of partial usage?
• Should the kits be stackable?
• Will we have one item graphics per kit type (e.g. a tailoring kit graphics, a carpentry kit graphics,...) or 11 each? Or just one graphics for all?

[Brightrim]

What would happen to current repair NPCs? Any changes/complete removal?

Personally I'd prefer Slightly's previously mentioned approach of removing the ones in the towns and keeping one at Hemptie with a higher rate of quality downgrade as a last resort when you have no repair kits and can not find a craftsman but _really_ need a repair.

What would happen to current player repairing? Changes, removal?

I'd keep the current player repair and make it preferable to kits to encourage player interaction. How to make it preferable might vary depending on how the kits are implemented, though suggestions were made in my original proposal on how to.

Should NPCs trade the kits (buy, sell, both, neither)?

Like I said in the original proposal, I think the NPCs should not trade them and they should instead be more like potions and artifacts that can only be purchased from players. Having NPCs purchase them wouldn't be an issue, though.

What materials exactly should the kits require? While on lower levels, generic materials from the craft might be the obvious approach, what about high levels where rare ingredients such as merinium or pure elements are needed for crafting?

I think generic materials equivalent to the most expensive item of the level in value for lower level ones. Then for later levels also the relevant rare material and elements. This would mean that repairing it by hand, where you have the chance of _not_ using up a material or even upgrading the quality of an item if possible, would still be preferable to kits that use the same amount of materials as creating a new item anyways. The trade off being that kits can be stocked up upon and are more convenient as they can be used in the field without going back to town. It also means you would never want to use a high level kit for a low level repair, meaning even new crafters can make money selling for instance level 20 kits to repair tools.

Should making the kits require the same skill as their level?

Yes. Repairing currently does, I think it should follow that same logic.

Should making the kits take time and grant skill like crafting?

Assuming they cost the same as the highest costing item of that level as suggested above, I think there is no reason not to. For material efficient skilling there would always be less costly items to make, in that scenario, so it would not become a balance problem. Even better if they get a higher player-trade value(unpredictable since it will by nature be determined by the player market as long as npcs do not sell them) making them worth it to skill with, so new crafters won't just have to vendor what they make for pocket change as is generally the trend currently.

Should making the kits require a static tool and a hand tool like crafting?

I think they should be part of each relevant craft's crafting menu, similar to how only a kit made by that craft can repair items made by that craft.

Any influences of attributes and skills on making the kits?

Determined by the regular crafting calculations for items.

Should using the kits require the same skill as their level?

No. I think the purpose of the kits should be to promote craftsmen repairing other peoples items, where the issue has been that craftsmen are not around when people actually need their items repaired. Requiring people to level the relevant skill up to the point where they can just repair the items themselves defeats the purpose and promotes a jack-of-all-trades single-player playstyle.

Should using the kits take time and grant skill like crafting?

Using the kits should take time and be interrupted if you are under attack, so that you can not instantly repair a broken blade in battle for instance but require someone to protect you as you step away to repair it or similar. They should also not grant skill for previously stated reasons.

Should using the kits require a static tool and a hand tool like crafting?

Only if a consensus is reached that we do not want it to be possible to use them in the field. I think that takes away from the advantage of convenience they would have, though.

Any influences of attributes and skills on using the kits?

I think an argument could be made that people with the relevant crafting skill should have an advantage, however I think that overcomplicates things and is not really necessary, so I'd say no.

If an item has e.g. 98 durability, will the kit be consumed completely or partially? How to track the status of the kit in case of partial usage?

I see two approaches here, which one to go to depending on the direction we go in the following question beneath this one.

1. Have the kit be used up no matter what durability the item you use it on is, as long as it is not at 99(full).
2. Have a datavalue that counts how much repair durability is left, reduced upon each use, along with matching descriptions for the wear and tear of the repair kit akin to how glyphs have descriptions about how many charges they have left.

Should the kits be stackable?

As stated above, I think there are two approaches we can take.
1. If we make the kit be used up no matter what, we can make them stackable. In this case, we can handle quality influence the same way we do with food rarity(in the upcoming update and not live yet, for those not in the know)
2. We make them not stackable and assign quality the usual way for item crafting

In both cases, the quality/rarity could simply be used to determine how much durability it is possible for the kit to repair. In the case of using rarities, we could perhaps also include a % chance of upgrading the quality of the item if it is not at the best quality. Though I am talking only a small chance there, or even only for the unique version seeing how hard that one is to get.

Will we have one item graphics per kit type (e.g. a tailoring kit graphics, a carpentry kit graphics,...) or 11 each? Or just one graphics for all?

I was thinking a recolor of existing items.
EG: We could make a spool of thread green and call it a "novice sewing kit" "grandmaster sewing kit" or the likes for the tailoring kits, the names using the same order of titles granted by the crafter associations for the various level milestones.
In order to make it easier to see which is which level and which craft, as well as being able to portray them each with different levels in the GUI(requiring one item for each level in the database), I'd say different item graphics for each craft and different item colours for each level. However given our current lack of graphical artists, I would have to play around a bit to see how achievable recolors of items are.

It would be 66 graphics in total, so I guess it all depends on how easy implementing recolours of existing items proves to be.