Criticism and 5 Suggestions on the Economy/Vendor system post 0.9.5 playtesting

"

unsane wrote:

"

Rippster wrote:

This entire vendor issue could be solved by giving us the reward based on a SINGLE item, not recipe sets. If a three-part set gives an Alchemy orb reward, give 1/3 shard per item

That's not the same value. Consider if 12 players got 1/3 of the recipe.

1- If it requires all 3, there are now 0 alchemy orbs added to the economy.

2- If it gives you 1/3, there are now 4 alchemy orbs added to the economy.

It's sets for a reason: to make it significantly more difficult.

Your idea could work just fine, but it would have to give significantly lower rewards.

Perhaps I worded that poorly or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying (or vice versa). It would be the same value as it is now, although there needs to be some tweaking to the system in regards to rewards. If 3 items is required for X orb, instead of having to give them all at once you would get a 1/3 shard, once you get 3 of those you get the orb or whatever. Same payoff just none of the hoarding frustration. Quick and fast, drop off X item and get X shard, back to killing and fun we go...

"

unsane wrote:

While i disagree with his paranoia that the intent of the sell vendors is to generate stash space sales, you are incorrect, in that Chris has several times stated increased stash space as a microtransaction target.

Eh, I read it as just 'inventory space'. I consider that to be the character inventory, whereas stash space is different. I missed the 'stash' part in that comment.

"

Rippster wrote:

"

unsane wrote:

"

Rippster wrote:

This entire vendor issue could be solved by giving us the reward based on a SINGLE item, not recipe sets. If a three-part set gives an Alchemy orb reward, give 1/3 shard per item

That's not the same value. Consider if 12 players got 1/3 of the recipe.

1- If it requires all 3, there are now 0 alchemy orbs added to the economy.

2- If it gives you 1/3, there are now 4 alchemy orbs added to the economy.

It's sets for a reason: to make it significantly more difficult.

Your idea could work just fine, but it would have to give significantly lower rewards.

Perhaps I worded that poorly or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying (or vice versa). It would be the same value as it is now, although there needs to be some tweaking to the system in regards to rewards. If 3 items is required for X orb, instead of having to give them all at once you would get a 1/3 shard, once you get 3 of those you get the orb or whatever. Same payoff just none of the hoarding frustration. Quick and fast, drop off X item and get X shard, back to killing and fun we go...

Let me try to explain another way, why it doesn't work the way you think. For it to work your way, there would have to be an item shard type for every *name* of a rare in the game. Say you find a rare with name Swift Span. In the current system, you stash it until you find 2 more Swift Span. Turn in all 3, get a Regal Orb.

With your system, you turn in 1 Swift Span, and would have to get a 1/3 Swift Span shard. Otherwise, if you got a 1/3 Regal Orb shard, you could turn in any random name of rare, and after 3 random names, you have a Regal Orb. Rather than 3 of the same name.

With my current stash of 150 rares, i got 1 single Regal Orb. With your system, which you contend is the same, i would receive 50 Regal Orbs!

Perhaps you're not talking about the 2-3 of the same name recipes? I likely agree with you if so.

"

unsane wrote:

Let me try to explain another way, why it doesn't work the way you think. For it to work your way, there would have to be an item shard type for every *name* of a rare in the game. Say you find a rare with name Swift Span. In the current system, you stash it until you find 2 more Swift Span. Turn in all 3, get a Regal Orb.

With your system, you turn in 1 Swift Span, and would have to get a 1/3 Swift Span shard. Otherwise, if you got a 1/3 Regal Orb shard, you could turn in any random name of rare, and after 3 random names, you have a Regal Orb. Rather than 3 of the same name.

With my current stash of 150 rares, i got 1 single Regal Orb. With your system, which you contend is the same, i would receive 50 Regal Orbs!

Perhaps you're not talking about the 2-3 of the same name recipes? I likely agree with you if so.

There wouldn't have to be a shard for every name, just one shard per recipe. So, instead of having to hoard items, you'd just hoard the stackable shards. Not only that but you could get three of ANY types in that recipe for it to work. Now, they could adjust the required amount to fit their model but this would go a VERY long way in creating a vendor system that was fast and manageable.

Does that make sense? Basically you could turn in ANY of the required parts to a recipe set and get ONE universal shard for that orb or whatever. When I say 1/3, that means you could turn in ANY of the required recipe items and get the same shard. Collect 3 or however many required to get the item.

This would be quick and easy. No hoarding large items or inventory issues, just get in and get out, back to the action. Not only could you plan your recipes out if you wanted to but it would also reward those who don't want to be bogged down by the system. It's a win-win.

"

Rippster wrote:

There wouldn't have to be a shard for every name, just one shard per recipe. So, instead of having to hoard items, you'd just hoard the stackable shards. Not only that but you could get three of ANY types in that recipe for it to work. Now, they could adjust the required amount to fit their model but this would go a VERY long way in creating a vendor system that was fast and manageable.

Does that make sense? Basically you could turn in ANY of the required parts to a recipe set and get ONE universal shard for that orb or whatever. When I say 1/3, that means you could turn in ANY of the required recipe items and get the same shard. Collect 3 or however many required to get the item.

This removes every bit of challenge involved in those recipes. It also sets values based simply on rarity.

2 same-name rares = 1 Alchemy Orb:
Every single rare in the game would be worth 1/2 an Alchemy Orb.

3 same-name rares = 1 Regal Orb:
Every singe rare in the game would be worth 1/3 a Regal Orb (also dictating that 1 Regal Orb is worth 1.5 Alchemy Orbs).

1 item of each rarity of the same base type = 1 Orb of Augmentation:
Each normal, magic, and rare (i.e. every piece of non-unique gear) is worth 1/3 an Orb of Augmentation. 3 whites for an Orb of Augmentation?

This shows why unsane said there would have to shards for every name. If there weren't, you would no longer be matching names to complete a recipe. You would just be trading in the rares to get shards of universal value. The recipe would become 2 rares = 1 Alchemy Orb because there would no longer be a name-matching requirement.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

Rippster wrote:

There wouldn't have to be a shard for every name, just one shard per recipe. So, instead of having to hoard items, you'd just hoard the stackable shards. Not only that but you could get three of ANY types in that recipe for it to work. Now, they could adjust the required amount to fit their model but this would go a VERY long way in creating a vendor system that was fast and manageable.

Does that make sense? Basically you could turn in ANY of the required parts to a recipe set and get ONE universal shard for that orb or whatever. When I say 1/3, that means you could turn in ANY of the required recipe items and get the same shard. Collect 3 or however many required to get the item.

This removes every bit of challenge involved in those recipes. It also sets values based simply on rarity.

2 same-name rares = 1 Alchemy Orb:
Every single rare in the game would be worth 1/2 an Alchemy Orb.

3 same-name rares = 1 Regal Orb:
Every singe rare in the game would be worth 1/3 a Regal Orb (also dictating that 1 Regal Orb is worth 1.5 Alchemy Orbs).

1 item of each rarity of the same base type = 1 Orb of Augmentation:
Each normal, magic, and rare (i.e. every piece of non-unique gear) is worth 1/3 an Orb of Augmentation. 3 whites for an Orb of Augmentation?

You just proposed in another thread that we shouldn't hoard items as they were hard to get. So with your theory, nobody would even use the current system for what it was designed for. I'd rather everyone get to utilize the vendor system to its fullest than a select few.

The current system is cumbersome and frustrating, implementing the system I proposed above would change that.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

Rippster wrote:

There wouldn't have to be a shard for every name, just one shard per recipe. So, instead of having to hoard items, you'd just hoard the stackable shards. Not only that but you could get three of ANY types in that recipe for it to work. Now, they could adjust the required amount to fit their model but this would go a VERY long way in creating a vendor system that was fast and manageable.

Does that make sense? Basically you could turn in ANY of the required parts to a recipe set and get ONE universal shard for that orb or whatever. When I say 1/3, that means you could turn in ANY of the required recipe items and get the same shard. Collect 3 or however many required to get the item.

This shows why unsane said there would have to shards for every name. If there weren't, you would no longer be matching names to complete a recipe. You would just be trading in the rares to get shards of universal value. The recipe would become 2 rares = 1 Alchemy Orb because there would no longer be a name-matching requirement.

That's not true. The rares required for recipes already have a value, all you have to change is the output value as an individual turn-in for a shard for that recipe.

Please Note:
By "universal" I don't mean for EVERY orb! Universal as in for THAT recipe.

"

Rippster wrote:

You just proposed in another thread that we shouldn't hoard items as they were hard to get. So with your theory, nobody would even use the current system for what it was designed for. I'd rather everyone get to utilize the vendor system to its fullest than a select few.

My proposal to not hoard has nothing to do with the fact that the system has high requirements to get high rewards. It has everything to do with people misunderstanding the intent of the system and how to maximize their returns from it.

"

Rippster wrote:

The current system is cumbersome and frustrating, implementing the system I proposed above would change that.

Yes, it surely would change it. Your proposal would reduce the system to handing in a single item for a part of an orb, taking away all of the recipes. It would become the same type of vending system seen in every other game of this type. It would remove the fun in vending by reducing it even further to a chore instead of a challenging and rewarding metagame (as it's intended to be).

"

rippster wrote:

By "universal" I don't mean for EVERY orb! Universal as in for THAT recipe.

We understand that you don't mean a Shard can upgrade to any orb. What you're not seeing is that an Alchemy Shard is still an Alchemy Shard regardless of the source, and your system makes them insanely easy to get. Take the last recipe I listed (1 item of each rarity of the same base type = 1 Orb of Augmentation). It has a rather difficult requirement, having 3 different rarities involved of a specific base item. Your system would make this simply turn in 3 whites to get 3 Augmentation Shards. Unless there was a differentiation between Normal Augmentation Shards, Magic Augmentation Shards, and Rare Augmentation Shards, as well as different Shards for each base item type, the recipe has no use.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

Rippster wrote:

You just proposed in another thread that we shouldn't hoard items as they were hard to get. So with your theory, nobody would even use the current system for what it was designed for. I'd rather everyone get to utilize the vendor system to its fullest than a select few.

My proposal to not hoard has nothing to do with the fact that the system has high requirements to get high rewards. It has everything to do with people misunderstanding the intent of the system and how to maximize their returns from it.

"

Rippster wrote:

The current system is cumbersome and frustrating, implementing the system I proposed above would change that.

Yes, it surely would change it. Your proposal would reduce the system to handing in a single item for a part of an orb, taking away all of the recipes. It would become the same type of vending system seen in every other game of this type. It would remove the fun in vending by reducing it even further to a chore instead of a challenging and rewarding metagame (as it's intended to be).

No, please read what I edited in above.

Recipes would STILL EXIST! The only changes would be as follows:

1) You would be able to turn in an INDIVIDUAL part of that recipe and recieve ONE shard out of the required shard amount.

2) You could turn in ANY REQUIRED item for the recipe and recieve the SAME shard for THAT recipe.

Universal as in for THAT recipe, not for ALL orbs. This is important!

"

Rippster wrote:

No, please read what I edited in above.

Recipes would STILL EXIST! The only changes would be as follows:

1) You would be able to turn in an INDIVIDUAL part of that recipe and recieve ONE shard out of the required shard amount.

2) You could turn in ANY REQUIRED item for the recipe and recieve the SAME shard for THAT recipe.

Universal as in for THAT recipe, not for ALL orbs. This is important!

Check my edit above, as well. Your system removes recipes entirely.