Talk:Item

If my English is adequate enough to comprehend it correctly, still I fail to see why coins fall in this definition while karma doesn't. Glastium | talk 16:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

cuz karma isnt an item....u cant trade karma like u can other items....--Icyyy Blue 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Or in short: you can't "hold" karma. - Infinite - talk 18:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

or even shorter: Karma no physical --The Holy Dragons 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, should Karma note that it can't be traded, or that Coin can (on the Currency page)? ~~ Kiomadoushi 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) - Infinite - talk 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless we find out that Karma can be traded in the form of gold pocket-watches, incense sticks, lucky rabbit feet, and horseshoes (etc)... Then you have your 1000, 100, 10, and 1. Looking for Anet to troll us and make it an "item"? xD ~~ Kiomadoushi 18:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be weird.... "Here you go, bro, I did sommit epic and I give my reputation and karma to you." -biggest villain in the world goes to spend hero's Karma- Hmmmmmm. I can actually see them introduce that.. - Infinite - talk 18:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why it would be them trolling us! A lvl 1 could have the reputation of a lvl 80, can say they just slayed the Shatterer with 0 xp, and go buy tons of karma-bought items... Though if a lot can be bought with coin too, I wonder what defines items that can only be bought with karma?... ~~ Kiomadoushi 18:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume the exploitable part of that idea makes non-tradeable Karma the only way to go. It's like... Free items if you have been playing enough, I guess. - Infinite - talk 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I guess that would keep things fair - items that are bought only with karma being deemed soulbound so that only players who accrue a large amount of karma have access to these karma-exclusive items. Otherwise, people could trade karma for coin, leading to imbalance. Level 1 with low amounts of karma pays 50 gold pieces (where they got them, i don't know) to a lvl 80 player to buy a very high-priced karma item, only to trade it over afterwards. If that was possible, what would be the purpose of karma-only-bought items? ~~ Kiomadoushi 13:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Transmutation Stones /flex --The Holy Dragons 13:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible new rarity

Could I have a spoiler mark for my message? Not sure how it works. It's a spoiler considering the Ghosts of Ascalon dungeon.

During a personal interview with Colin Johanson on Gamescom 2011. I asked him about the current rarity's in game. As Guild Wars 2 is having the same rarity's in game (besides the Purple rarity, which have not been seen so far). As I explained on the Rarity's page. He told me about Magdaer being obtainable in someway, and having a lore behind it as well. Not sure about the rarity suggestion I gave him (Artificial Rarity), they are putting it on the table together with other idea's. As a suggestion coming from a fan, he was considering it quite serious. If this of course will be implented in the game is something else. But I got to say the new information about Magdaer is something new, together with the rarity idea. Tomoko 18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Colors

I've been stalking demo videos for stats and stuff, but all the "Fine" items I have stumbled across have been blue, not green. Aqua (T|C) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in fact I don't know, I just supposed it. You can edit Template:Rarity if you have the right colors. --Till 18:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw green items at the european expo (the mark of shadows). Also, transmuting two white boots together created a purple pair of boots. Have pics if needed Nyb.thering 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Me, on the wrong account Thering 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(Meh... bit late), if you could post pics it would help greatly. Aqua (T|C) 18:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the colours, item rarity needs clarifying, at the moment there is no easy way to tell which are the more valuable more expensive items, currently Junk is at the bottom and normal at the top, with rare items in the middle. Can we alter this to show the order of items with order of quality? --Stu 11:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Below commun rarity?

How could we qualify items that are "grey" (below white rarity)? It isn't listed in this page. Lytalm

Also, what "type" should we consider items like : Broken lockpick to be? Lytalm 14:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be [[Generic]] item quality. They're untyped and are typically trash items that are sold. Needs its own page. --Vaught 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

im not gonna lie. i hate the "trash" items. i liked it better when everything had use.mainly just to salvage for mats but this trash drops is just a waste of space. unless there some trash i havent seen that has a value of more then just 5 copper. just my rant.take it as you like ----torqueblue 9//15/2015 00:11:09 (UTC)

PvP Items

Do we need a new category for PvP Items? Badge_of_Honor -- TigerWolf 04:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Transmuted?

Keep or drop transmuted from the list? At a glance, the quality transmuted did still exist in BWE2, but the color takes on the color of the atttribute-providing item.... Torrenal 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Items / Gameplay

Just looking for a quick answer because youtube videos dont provide much insight. Is GW2 going to be like GW1, a tactical strategy game for good players that isnt focused on god tier equipment? (By this I mean, has it turned into WoW/other MMO's, or has it stayed true to GW1)? If GW2 is still a fair playing field in terms of equipment and skill selection, theyve got my money.124.191.60.179 07:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It still centers around tactics and strategy, but is more action-oriented than the first one. Equipment plays no role in Structured PvP and only a minor one in WvW. In PvE, you won't need to farm like crazy. When reaching level 80, equipment is more about looking cool and having the stats you want, not about even higher stats like in WoW and other treadmills. Gnarf 08:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Played 4150 hours of GW1, sounds like ill be playing another few thousand for GW2. Thanks for reply. 124.191.60.179 08:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Legendary stats

So do Legendary weapons have higher stats than Exotic weapons (for example)? Can we quantify the amount (1% or 5% or something like that?) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.168.104.79 (talk).

Please sign your comments and start new sections.

The Bifrost does 985 - 1111 damage with +179 power, +128 toughness, +128 vitality according to the screenshot I'm looking at.

Looking at the trading post, level 80 exotics are identical. Manifold 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

they said that when ascended weapons were introduced, the stats of legendaries would become equivalent to those, but what if you would use a transmutation stone on say the bifrost, would it still upgrade those stats or would it no longer consider that transmuted staff as a legendary one? 157.193.112.46 10:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Level and Quality scaling - a bit of research

I've been trying to find a formula for weapon damage via levelrequirement and quality. We know that all items of same type, lvlreq and quality have the same values (damage/armor and the values of the attribute bonuses), so I've been looking at lots of greatswords and light armor coats in the trading company. These are my findings:

• Scaling between different qualitys at items with the same lvlreq is pretty consistent: 100% (basic), 125% (fine), 135% (masterwork), 145% (rare), 165% (exotic and legendary). This goes both for armor or damage and any attribute bonuses. My measured values are a bit off, I assume due to rounding errors, though I haven't quantified those.
• Level scaling is a lot weirder. Since there are level-0-items, it cannot be proportional. There are some items that are just off by a couple of damage points compared to their brethren. For example, the trading company lists three kinds of lvl 80 basic greatswords, and one of them has a different damage value. And a lvl 0 greatsword has better stats than a lvl 4 one. Though even when ignoring those outliers, it doesn't seem to be linear. I haven't found a formula, but it appears that the scaling formulas for damage/armor and attribute bonuses differ.

I'll add my findings so far to the article. Tub 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think 100% should be legendary/exotic, not normal ([I had before]). I've been doing some research into itemization too. Manifold 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, though you were researching a slightly different question.

My spreadsheet started out with 100% for legendary too, but I changed it for two reasons: a) there are no legendaries for comparison at anything below lvl 80, making it a poor baseline, b) the numbers are just that much nicer when basic = 100%. No weird 60.606% or anything. Tub 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So, I was just looking through the official strategy guide. It has a similar table, like so: Basic-85%, Fine-100%, Masterwork-105%, Rare-110%, Exotic-120%, Legendary-120%. Not that it makes much sense for the baseline to be fine to me, but it's apparently directly from the developer's mouths. Manifold 02:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. With Fine as a baseline, I get: ~80%, 100%, ~108%, ~117%, ~131%. That's way too far off to be rounding errors. Probably outdated information. Tub 07:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If we take exotic as 165%, and compare the "prefix" stats on ascended rings and back items (while ignoring the stats of the "inherent upgrade component"), it looks like ascended is around 175%, which seems plausible.

However, if we assume the other stats on ascended items are for an "ascended jewel", then it shows a much bigger improvement—around 4 times the proportional increase over exotic stats. And looking at the stats for other jewels, it looks like they probably don't fit the listed pattern for the other rarity levels, either. Has anyone looked for a pattern in the jewel stats? (Note: different wiki pages list conflicting stats for some jewels, you should probably confirm in-game.) --Felbryn 23:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to look at it as a whole (inherent upgrade+item), Comparing berserker backpiece and ring to ascended, the ascended ring is ~12% better in the then the exotic primary stat, ~8% better in the secondary, and 33% better in critical damage (might want to ignore this one though). The Ascended backpiece is ~19% better in primary stat, ~13% better in secondary stat and 25% better in critical damage. This is all relavitve to exotic's stats btw. So 100%= exotic stats. I'm just mentioning as a whole because atm you can't change that upgrade. Of course that could change with weapons/armor.98.237.74.88 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the Quality table, column relative strength mean?

So far, I was under the impression that Exotic gear has the max stats among quality levels, and the Armor article confirms this. So what does it mean if Exotic weapons and armor have a relative strength of 165%, and Ascended has 175%? Is a piece of Ascended gear better than its Exotic counterpart in anything? And what does it mean if the footnote 1 says that not all Ascended items follow that ratio; does it mean that some are higher, or lower, or what? Roland of Gilead talk 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The relative strength was researched in the thread right above yours. Ascended is a good overview of ascended items - which are indeed more powerful than exotics, but not (yet) available for all equipment slots. Tub 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality table?

Do we know what the drop ratios are for quality? If so, can we add it to the table? I would like to know how rare a rare/exotic drop really is. Daddicus 00:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It probably varies depending on what you're killing. There's some data here that might interest you, though. --Felbryn 00:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It definitely depends on the specific foe, the foe's rank, the location, your level, and your Magic Find attribute. You'd also have to account for the ratios of equipment versus ratios of materials or other item types (there are no exotic materials that drop, e.g.). Every foe or class of foe has a different set of drop tables, so I doubt you'd be able to come up with any sort of "universal" drop quality ratio. —Dr Ishmael 01:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Bummer, though. Daddicus 23:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

255% for Ascended

A quick equivalence calculation between the latest, highest bonus, ascended trinkets and the highest bonus exotic trinkets, shows that ascended ones have 1.5-1.6 times the amount of stat bonuses that exotic ones have. The table should therefore indicate 255% (1.55 x 1.65) rather than 175%. (If someone tries that calculation, they should not forget to convert the %Crit and %MagicFind into the equivalent quantity of attribute stats they replace.) --Alad (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You're basing that on the total bonuses from an ascended item, which is actually an infix upgrade (same as non-ascended items) plus a buff upgrade that represents an inherent upgrade component (example). 175% is based on the infix attributes only, which is the only logical comparison because upgrade components don't scale the same way. —Dr Ishmael 19:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you need to count the upgrade components with both items, then compare. :) --Alad (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That seemed a bit confusing to me, so just to restate in different words: most equipment has two sets of bonuses, an "inherent" set that's determined when the item is created, which can't be changed (which is usually reflected in the item's prefix, e.g. "Berserker's X"), and then another set determined by the upgrade component, which can be replaced later (which is usually reflected in the item's suffix, e.g. "X of the Berserker"). Ascended items have the upgrade component "built in".

The table showing the relative strength of different qualities looks only at the "prefix" part, because the "suffix" part works differently—but even if suffixes followed the same pattern, it wouldn't make sense to compare an ascended item with both parts to an exotic item with only the prefix part (both because it's misleading, and because the suffix is a much smaller percentage of the total stats on, say, amulets than on back items, which means the ratios would be different for each item type). --Felbryn (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The information should be moved to the equipment or upgrade component page where it's more relevant. Rarity means different things to different items.--Relyk ~ talk < 22:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That would simplify the footnotes for sure. —Dr Ishmael 22:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the ascended trinkets having highest stats, upgrades included, have total stats that are 1.5 to 1.6 times the total of exotic trinkets having the highest stats, upgrades included as well. Counting the upgrades is the only comparison that is meaningful, since nobody is going to use an end-game item leaving the upgrade slot empty. Of course it is nonsense to talk about "the exotic trinket having the highest stats", amulet for example, since all exotic amulets have the same total stat quantity. But this is not the case of ascended trinkets, since one of each trinket types is available already, that has a clearly superior stat total, and equally priced, to the ones initially released with lower stats. For example, The Eyes of Abaddon for amulets.

Even if I compare only the inherent stats, without upgrades, I get a factor of 1.46 times compared to exotic stats for amulet and accessory, and 1.45 times for ring. Which puts them at 240% (1.46 x 1.65). But that is an incomplete comparison; 255% is more on the mark. --Alad (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you missed Felbryn's point about how the upgrade stats are the same regardless of the item type. Take Royal Signet of Doric - the inherent infix bonus to Power is +71, and the "upgrade" bonus to Power is +32. Now, take the amulet equivalent Thackeray Family Crest - the inherent infix bonus to Power is +94, but the "upgrade" bonus to Power is still +32. Exotic rings have a major attribute bonus of +67, exotic amulets have a major attribute bonus of +90, and exotic upgrades have a major attribute bonus of +25. Same for accessories: Durmand's Pen has an infix bonus of +59, but the "upgrade" bonus is once again +32. It's much worse on back items: Koss on Koss has an infix of only +24, but yet again the upgrade bonus is +32. It's simply illogical. The infix bonuses, that are linked to the item type, should be compared on their own, and the upgrade bonuses, that are independent of item type, should be compared separately.

And I don't know where you're getting those 200+% numbers. 94/90 = 104%, and 94/54 = 174% (there are no basic amulets in the game, but amulets share their attribute scaling with one-handed weapons, and we know the attributes for those). —Dr Ishmael 04:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha! You're comparing a "celestial" (small bonus to everything) ascended trinket to a non-celestial exotic one. That's how you're getting such bizarre numbers. Several points:

1: You're wrong about there being no exotic items like that; see the Triforge Pendant (exotic version) and the Ancient Karka Shell. You might also want to look at Rune of Divinity.

2: That's not a fair comparison, because getting +X to your favorite stat is much better than getting +X/2 to each of your two worst stats. Spread out stats are less valuable, per point, than focused stats where you get to choose what to focus on. You're comparing apples and oranges. (Especially for magic find, which could be more valuable than anything else or nearly worthless depending on your concerns in a particular battle.)

3: In order to even pretend to compare apples and oranges, you have to be converting critical damage and magic find to the "standard" attribute scale. But there is no standard conversion. The amount of "regular" stat points you sacrifice to get critical damage or magic find varies significantly depending on the source; see Prefix#Comparison_of_numeric_vs._percentage_attributes. So even if we were going to compare celestial and non-celestial equipment, you're probably still doing it wrong. --Felbryn (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Duh, I should've looked at the item he linked. Comparing celestial items to non-celestial items will of course skew your results. —Dr Ishmael 04:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ishmael: Nobody is going to use an exotic or ascended item without an upgrade. It's like eyeglasses without lenses. Or shoes without shoelaces. :) The comparison you make is interesting, but is incomplete. One equips the whole package. Maybe if the table contained 3 columns. But if only 1 number is given, it seems only normal that it be valid for the whole package. Why ArenaNet made one upgrade to fit all 3 trinkets and backpack probably has a reason (same as for 1-hand/2-hand sigils and all the different pieces of armor which have different stat amounts but the same upgrade amounts), but that's what we have. You want to know how a fully-equipped item of one quality compares to the same item in another quality. Because of the differences you mention, it would obviously not make sense to compare an amulet to a ring. But I'm comparing like items.

@Felbryn: Those ratios in the table, they're ratios of total stats, no matter what the stats are. Why would I pick the lower stat trinkets to calculate it? When I have 30 laurels, I can buy either type of ascendant amulet: one with less stats, or one with more. They're the same cost. For rings and earrings too. Triforge pendant/Ancient karka shell costs are nowhere near the costs/grind/availability of a regular exotic amulet. One is extremely costly to make or buy, and the other was available only during one event. They're negligible in their attainability overall. The laurel ultra trinkets are abundant, attainable, have a fixed price, which is the same as the lesser but more profiled trickets. I'm comparing apples to apples. ArenaNet saw it fit to place them at the same price. Suppose they bring out armor and weapons having the same kind of higher stat totals and spread, for the same price as profiled but lower stat items. Would you still ignore them and compare ratios of profiled stat items only, just because there's nothing to compare them to in the exotic line? (And it's beside the point, but if I wanted to get more of stat X, I could do it by playing around with weapons and armor stats, and still get a bigger stat total from the "ultra" ascended trinkets. More stats to play with while optimizing is not a bad thing.)

Next, I'm not pretending to having invented a way to convert Crit% and MagicFind% to regular attribute stats. Arenanet has done this for us. It is the standard conversion which the developers use, and they have chosen to make it vary depending on what the item is. But then for each type and rarity of item, they're consistent. It is a standard. It's very easy to figure out. Here is an example for you:

What is the value of the inherent 5% CritDmg on an ascended amulet? It's 67 stat points. Why? because on ascended amulets where CritDmg doesn't exist (like Thackeray Family Crest, there's an inherent stat with +67, instead of the 5% CritDmg found on Collar of the First Commissar. The 5% inherent CritDmg is therefore worth (in ArenaNet's standard for ascended amulets), 67 stat points; for all ascended amulets, as you can see from Call of the Wild, Godrock Amulet, etc. Therefore:

Value of +5% inherent CritDmg on ascended Amulets: 67 stat points.

Value of +4% inherent CritDmg on ascended Rings: 50 stat points.

Value of +3% inherent CritDmg on ascended Accessories: 42 stat points.

Value of +5% inherent Magic Find on ascended Amulets: 94 stat points.

Value of +5% inherent Magic Find on ascended Rings: 71 stat points.

Value of +5% inherent Magic Find on ascended Accessories: 59 stat points.

Value of +4% CritDmg on the built-in ascended Jewels: 18 stat points.

Value of +2% CritDmg on the built-in ascended Jewels: 9 stat points (because 4% cost 18 stat points on ascended jewels).

Value of +5% Magic Find on the built in ascended Jewels: 32 stat points.

Value of +4% Magic Find on the built in ascended Jewels: 26 stat points (because 5% cost 32 stat points on ascended jewels).

The above is the standard which they use, consistently, on ascended trinkets. I can't argue about them doing it wrong or not as you imply, perhaps they are; I do it the same way they do it. What I can say is, they apparently don't want it to be simple. They want the "cost" of %CritDmg to be different, depending on where you get it from, to make arbitrage possible and even necessary. And they're hard-capping MagicFind to 5% from each mod, obviously. (Both of these types of conversions are also true with exotic items as you know.) But it is perfectly "fair" and normal to pick the "better" item as a representative of a class of items to make a comparison based on total stats, especially since it's the same price.

Once you have those equivalent stat costs, you can add up the total stat points for what 30 laurels will get you in terms of an ascended amulet of each of the 2 types. And you'll obviously choose the one with highest total stats, because it gets you stat points cheaper. (I'm neglecting the infusion in my calculation, and Agony resistance.) When you divide the obtained total by the total stats of an attainable exotic item of the same type, you get a factor of:

1.56 for ascended Amulet, 1.57 for ascended Ring, and 1.6 for ascended Accessory.

Taking an average of those, you get a factor of 1.58 times the stats of exotic trinkets.

I take the "1.65" factor for exotics in the table for granted (didn't check that). So now the ascended trinkets have 1.65 x 1.58 = 2.60, i.e. 260%. Ok, I underestimated it a bit in the title. :D

Lastly, you could argue that the stat equivalents for % CritDmg and MagicFind should be derived from the stats of those super trinkets. There is one major problem with that: We don't have an example of such a super trinket without % bonuses to be able to figure out how many stat points the percentages replace. It would be pure speculation, for example, to say that, since there are 6x42 stats in the amulet's inherent mod, therefore the 7th stat in that mod, which is +5% CritDmg, should be valued at 42. Even if you go ahead and calculate it this way, you'll find the resulting factor to be around 1.44, thus 238% (1.44 x 1.65). --Alad (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you simply cannot compare celestial items to non-celestial items because they are not like items. Celestial items by definition provide more total stat points than non-celestial items, but they do so at the cost of smaller individual bonuses. If anything, you could compare celestial to celestial, and then you get the exact same result as I showed for non-celestial: ascended celestial is +42, exotic celestial is +40, and 42/40 is 105% where I had shown 104% for non-celestial amulets. QED. —Dr Ishmael 13:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The current values in the table for other qualities don't, and can't, represent items with upgrades included—check them. Your arguments about the price of exotic items are irrelevant to a discussion about how quality changes stats. If you think everyone in the game is buying only the ascended trinkets that raise a bunch of different stats, or that there's no reason they shouldn't, then you haven't done your homework.

You seem to be missing the point that this table is designed to help people understand how the game works, not to give advice on what items they should buy. We have several examples in the game showing that items with spread-out bonuses give more total stat points than focused items of the same quality, and comparing a spread-out ascended to a spread-out exotic gives roughly the same stat ratio as comparing a focused ascended to a focused exotic; therefore, the increase due to quality is small, and most of the increase you're reporting is due to spreading out of bonuses and is independent of quality. Even if you think (probably wrongly) that most people use focused exotic items and spread-out ascended items, that is totally irrelevant. --Felbryn (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)