I wish it made sense to craft before end game

"

Synner wrote:

Guild support and guild stash tabs may help some of this after launch. I know it will make a difference for me.

"

Subversus wrote:

I would disagree that the game too strongly promotes trading as it is.

That 120 page thread is filled with the same people making the same flawed arguments in a circle, and is hardly indicative of the greater playerbase's thoughts on the subject.

Most people are busy playing the game.

"

Veta1991 wrote:

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Or just, yknow, don't trade.

Sure, I'd like to play with other like minded players, perhaps exclusively. We wouldn't participate in the existing standard economy so maybe we should be separated from it. Maybe in an entirely separate league.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

Playing strictly HC, the idea of saving all my stuff for something that I might never get to really doesn't appeal to me. I use stuff when I feel like it. It's fun. A lot more fun than saving everything for that "eventual" that never seems to come.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Subversus wrote:

I would disagree that the game too strongly promotes trading as it is.

That 120 page thread is filled with the same people making the same flawed arguments in a circle, and is hardly indicative of the greater playerbase's thoughts on the subject.

Most people are busy playing the game.

My First Rule of Gaming Forums is: "Players have absolutely no fucking idea what they want; they only know what they hate." In other words, whenever you see a truly massive QQ movement, you can very easily discount almost every proposal made on how to change the game to its benefit, but the one thing you shouldn't do is just ignore them completely. There is a problem there, somewhere, which is causing mass outcry. The trick is filtering out all the propaganda and properly diagnosing the cause within the game itself which is inciting them.

"

Veta1991 wrote:

When open beta dropped I rolled a new character and tried to play with that in mind. I ended up using the equivalent of a couple exalt before reaching level 60. Sure it didn't make much economic sense and I knew it at the time, but boy did it make for a much better item progression and playing experience. Admittedly I was usually under leveled for content, but that added to the fun.

GGG made a fun crafting system but it almost never makes economic sense to use. At the moment it's another reason why I'd like a self found or bind-on-equip league.

"

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It's not crafting vs trading, people. It's crafting vs (gear) farming.

Good posts from you SMB. As I see it there are 3 routes to upgrading items.

1) Farming Gear - Investment of Time
2) Crafting - Investment of Currency
3) Trading - Investment of (Less) Time or Currency

Eliminating trade alone doesn't force players to choose 2 but it does make the choice more direct. Do I spend time farming or do I invest currency which itself takes time to find. The opportunity cost is time. So if all that matters is time, the question then becomes what is the most efficient use of my time. Ideally it would come down to RNG. It does not. Things are further complicated by the diminishing returns on farming currency at higher levels which contribute to the 'Mapping and End Game Crafting' opportunity cost of currency.

Gear=Time*RNG, does not diminish
Currency = Time*RNG, diminishes at higher levels
Opportunity Cost of Currency = Mapping and End Game Crafting

Because the time cost of currency decreases relative to the time cost of gear the opportunity cost of currency becomes greater at higher levels. I would make a few suggestions on top of a self found or bind-on-equip ruleset. More consistent currency/gear drop rates from level 1 to level 100, pending the level of content and the availability of IIQ/IIR. I mention IIQ/IIR because the facility to stack them at a higher level, especially in a group, could discourage rerolling a new character. Gear drop rates should also be tempered at higher levels as far as I know they are not, and that contributes to the increasing opportunity cost of currency. In this way we will have a consistent time opportunity cost for crafting versus finding gear, no matter how far you are into the game.

That's not the whole story though. Because currency directly affects the quantity and rarity of loot from maps it must be as valuable as the total improvement in loot. That is difficult to qualify but given that you can choose what you craft and you cannot choose what items drop that opportunity cost is more balance under a SF/BOE ruleset.

For example, if I am looking for a bow upgrade and I Chaos a map then any rare thicket bows or currency I otherwise would not have found are the opportunity cost of that Chaos orb versus using it to craft. Furthermore, if that map drops any maps that otherwise would not have dropped then any thicket bows that subsequent map drops are a function of the original Chaos. If I use an additional Chaos, perhaps to roll Maze, then its opportunity cost would be the additional bows, currency and maps that would not have been found after using just one Chaos. The second Chaos has significantly smaller economic benefit, but properties like Maze are highly desirable and make up for the increased opportunity cost. The probability costs could be calculated but the maths are complicated. I would suggest making Maze or other such highly desirable map properties implicit or rebalanced with currency opportunity cost in mind.

Under the current system a single currency is always better spent on maps versus crafts. Which means the time cost of spending currency on a lvl 38 Grove Bow is as long as it takes to find as many Thicket Bows, currency and maps you would have otherwise not found if that currency was spent on a map instead. Ergo the opportunity cost of crafting lvl 38 Grove Bow = Time Cost of Finding Late Game Gear without spending said currency on map.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if we had more currency than we needed to spend on maps. Rebalancing highly desirable map mods will abate the problem but it would be good if currency was common enough that the opportunity cost of getting desirable map mods diminished greatly with each marginal currency spent. In that way players would be encouraged to use a minimal amount of currency on maps and the rest on crafting (or trading).

I also recognize the solution I described hinges greatly on balanced drop rates. Finding the right drop rates would be a trial and error process best suited for small custom leagues.

Lastly the difference between Self-Found and Bind-on-Equip is that the latter allows for upgrades via method (3) but removes the value of obsolete or used gear, thus not being overwhelmingly the right choice against methods (1) or (2). However, under a BOE ruleset there's still no reason to Chaos an ilvl38 Grove Bow if somebody found a good ilvl38 Grove Bow and saved it to trade. BOE does however mean that very powerful used gear can no longer be arbitraged and would mean methods (1) and (2) are highly viable for end game itemization.


Summary:
### - Self Found or Bind-on-Equip ruleset
### - Consistent gear and currency drop rates regardless of game progress, but accounting for the relative level of content and availability of IIQ/IIR at that level.
### - Rebalance highly desirable map mods like 'Maze' with crafting currency opportunity cost in mind, this should lead to a diminished economic benefit for spending additional currency on maps to get their mods just right
### - Balance crafting currency drop rates such that we have more currency than maps on which to spend, assuming the benefit of spending additional marginal currency on a map is greatly diminished
### - Custom Leagues with control over drops rates would be ideal to find a happy drop rate balance.