Skyrim talk:Smithing

Archives
Archive 1: Sep. 2011 - Jan. 2012
Archive 2: Feb. 2012 - Nov. 2012

Cleaning Up Formula

I can't believe that it's been more than 1 year since Skyrim was launched and the Smithing formula is still pending. Anyways, here's a much more elegant formula than the current one. I based my formula on the data given by Kai Heilos under Smithing Calculation section, Archive 1. I also believe this is what the Devs initially conceived.

INT( INT ( (Effective Skill - 65) / 103 * 3) * 3.6) + 10

Here, INT = Integer function which is essentially truncating all decimals of a number. E.g INT (5.467) = 5 DoomScythe (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2012 (GMT)

INT is ill defined, floor has a precise meaning. What is INT(-1.4)? Rounding that to -1 gives a wrong value for an effective skill of 15. So why not use floor with the precise definition of floor(-1.4) = -2? --Alfwyn (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2012 (GMT)

Noted. It should have been Rounddown / Floor. DoomScythe (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2012 (GMT)

The current version results in what gets displayed, but IIRC the display value is rounded and doesn't reflect the actual increase to the base rating. At least for weapons - I could've sworn I saw fractional damage when I did my own testing. I'll grant that using floor based on 65 as the start value explains the 2/6 for the increases before 65, and the 3/7 on the values between the 10/20/30 etc. Neither version accounts for actual cutoff for Fine being between 13 and 14, but since you can't get that without messing with the console, maybe it doesn't matter.

If fractional values do get applied but are rounded when displayed, we should consider dropping the outer floor function, unless it's preferable to match the displayed values.-Vardis (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2012 (GMT)

Well, I don't have the luxury of time to test out what you mentioned. You could very well be correct that fractional values does exist in the game. However, for a wiki, I think it's best to leave it as such to match the displayed value. Most people would care only for that.

As for the cutoff for fine between 13 and 14, what would it be should Smithing goes below 13? I have also not tested this. Again, I'm not too concerned with this, as it is a value that most, if not all, Skyrim gamers won't encounter unless they mess with the console. DoomScythe (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2012 (GMT)

I'm not sure if this was the question, but: at Smithing level 13 and below, you simply can't improve items.  They are greyed out as if already improved to their maximum level.  —Proton^[talk] 07:45, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

Not-nice numbers in effective skill formula

Can anyone explain why the effective skill formula uses a number so weird as 13.29? —Proton^[talk] 07:32, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

That's the number I got when testing. Details are at the end of the first archive and start of the second. -Vardis (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2012 (GMT)

which is the most efficient way to get experience at smithing?

the article is a bit schizophrenic... is crafting iron armor or iron daggers more xp/iron — Unsigned comment by 71.163.80.105 (talk) at 08:34 on 16 January 2013‎

In later versions of the game the XP gain is based on the gold value of the item so you need to go for the high-value stuff. Bows are one of if not the best choice as they have a very high value for the number of ingots required. I'd also suggest taking Dwarven smithing even if you're a light-armor specialist because looting dwarven ruins yields copious amounts of free metal. Iron is best transmuted into gold/silver for jewelry or used for smithing better quality gear.

75.73.107.140 03:41, 21 January 2013 (GMT)Bogus

We should edit this to say that tempering or grinding is more efficient for raising this skill at higher levels once alchemy and enchanting skills are at high levels. With fully enchanted smithing gear and a potion of smithing, a player can raise a full level for each ebony breastplate tempered. That's much faster than dagger production and spares you the hassle of searching for thousands of iron ingots.

Heavy armor skill makes better heavy armor vs. blacksmithing bonus on items?

Can anyone explain how this is even possible; My toon is wearing heavy armor with a heavy armor skill bonus. When the heavy armor bonus gloves are replaced with blacksmithing bonus gloves, the crafted armor has lesser armor points? I haven't got the perk for armor set bonus yet, so this is giving me a headache.. Steam ensures i've got the latest version of Skyrim, and the few mods i'm using don't influence blacksmithing whatsoever. — Unsigned comment by 95.96.10.232 (talk) at 14:50 on 6 February 2013

The displayed armor value includes any bonuses. Put the heavy armor bonus gloves back on after crafting... If you have further questions about the game (as opposed to the wiki page), you should ask that on forums, the wiki talk page really isn't for this sort of thing. -Vardis (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (GMT)

this section needs to be removed

After patch 1.5, an item's value is the deciding factor in the amount of experience gained, so it is important to look at the ratio of the number of ingots (since leather is a rather negligible expense) required to the value of item. For example, an iron dagger needs 1 iron ingot and is worth 10 gold, meaning its experience value ratio is 10, while iron armor requires 5 iron ingots, but is worth 125 gold, yielding a ratio of 25. Using the same amount of iron ingots to create 5 iron daggers only has a total value of 50 gold. On top of this, because items' value increases by a percentage when improved, you will get more experience for improving an iron armor than you will improving an iron dagger. Although the above is true (iron armor gives more xp than iron daggers) the xp to value ratio is not 1:1. Five iron daggers (requiring 5 iron ingots and five leather strips) will give significantly more xp than one iron armor (requiring 5 iron ingots and 3 leather strips).

This is conflicting information, it starts by saying smithing items with better ratios is better for exp, then it corrects itself by saying it's not. It can only be one or the other. They can't be both right. I tested this myself. 5 daggers does move much more exp than one iron armor 50.99.131.242 04:29, 21 February 2013 (GMT)

Its not saying that, it's saying the the items aren't worth as much money as the parts needed to make them, while also saying that in some cases cheaper items being mass produced will give you more experience. It needs serious rephrasing but is more or less correct. I'll place a cleanup flag but please do not remove it. Lord Eydvar ^{Talk|Contribs} 04:34, 21 February 2013 (GMT)

I don't think it can be cleaned up. we simply don't have the formula for xp gain for anything useful. 50.99.131.242 06:58, 21 February 2013 (GMT)

Actually we can get that formula pretty easy with the Creation Kit. It's not that complicated a formula most likely and in reality all we really need is a basic idea of whats the better option to make for each level of items. Lord Eydvar ^{Talk|Contribs} 07:04, 21 February 2013 (GMT)

I cleaned it up as much as I can. Please take a look at it and let me know what you think! This message was written by Rosalia ^{Tell her what you think...}_{...of her work here.} 07:05, 21 February 2013 (GMT)

I think this paragraph should not mention "ratio" in a too positive light, as it's misleading. How about something like this

"After 1.5 cheap crafted items like iron daggers give much less experience, but it's still better to smith multiple daggers vs one single iron armor, which uses same amount of material. A balance between material/value of item and amount of items smithed should be found."

Effective smithing skill

I've reverted the effective skill formula yet again back to 13.29 instead of 80/6. 13.29 was the value obtained through extensive testing. I obtained the actual cutoffs for each quality level (the listed numbers are the next integer needed), then determined down to .01 what the effect of something like doubling your skill (from the perk) does. The goal of that equation is to give you an actual value. I'd would have preferred a nicer value like 13 or 14, or even 13.3, but those don't give the correct results. This has already been discussed in detail in the archives. If additional testing shows that the equation is wrong, so be it. Absent that, please don't sacrifice the equation's accuracy to satisfy subjective aesthetics. Thanks -Vardis (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2013 (GMT)

Yeah I'd agree with you Vardis 13.29 is more accurate, as 80/6=13.3333(etc) and is not correct. Lord Eydvar ^{Talk|Contribs} 09:46, 22 February 2013 (GMT)

I don't understand.  Where did you "obtain" the "actual cutoffs"?  Is there some resource I'm missing?  I looked in the archives (or at least, did a search for "13.29") and didn't find anything that clued me into where you're getting all of these "exact" values.  —Proton^[talk] 04:31, 23 February 2013 (GMT)

The numbers were achieved from extensive testing. The details are at the end of the first archive and the beginning of the second. You can use the console to set your smithing skill to various values (it displays down to a hundredth of a point) and determine at what exact point the boundaries are for moving from one improvement level to the next. Using that, you can then determine the same thing with the perk in effect, and from that you can determine the exact value the perk works off of.

For example, you need a raw 30.46 skill value to get to superior. If the equation is correct, a smithing value of 21.88 with the perk should also result in superior quality (and 21.87 should not). Obviously you don't see the fractional values without using the console, but the game does track them. If you have 58 skill and 15% in bonuses, you get an effective value of 64.71 (rounded), which is just short of the 64.79 needed for exquisite. Note that I'm not testing these numbers as I write this, just going off the earlier work.

I don't know why the numbers are what they are. I didn't have enough interest to dig further, considering the possibility that there might not be a good reason for it. -Vardis (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2013 (GMT)

Ohhhhkay, I had thought that one's raw skill level was restricted to integers.  Well that is odd.  Thank you for going into further detail.  —Proton^[talk] 20:52, 23 February 2013 (GMT)

The raw (base) skill level is restricted to integers, but even if you don't get a percentage bonus from potions or enchants, the perk will result in you getting a fractional effective value since it doubles the skill you have above the 13.29 value. I wish I could get at the source code for this stuff and see what it's really doing. -Vardis (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (GMT)

My Gaining Skill contribution

To whomever reworded my mess, thanks much. But I didn't finish. The actual number of ingots that can be made and found it over 1800. But that includes joining various glurps. Thieves guild or whatever. The 1200 I mentioned is what can be obtained by just wandering or doing basic quests. No extraordinary effort required. Sniffles (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

WTF?

Character Creation The following races provide initial skill bonuses in Smithing: +90000000000000 bonus: Nord, Orc, Redguard

what is the deal with the #? — Unsigned comment by 66.223.225.46 (talk) at 05:59 on 12 April 2013

You're looking at an old version of the page; there was recently a vandal, and he's already been reverted. The correct value is a +5 bonus. I'm not a technical guy, but if you make an account, I think that should help make sure you're viewing the current version of the page. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:11, 12 April 2013 (GMT)