Currency Orbs scale to ILVL?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I would prefer PolarisOrbit's suggestion, which is to make the effect of orbs scale inversely with itemlevel. However, although I think it's better than Saffel's suggestion, I am still unsure whether it is good enough to be made into a game change.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

Also what reason is it not good enough for the game?

"

Veta321 wrote:

The problem with Polaris' idea isn't RNG. It's opportunity cost. If using chaos at lvl38 saves you on average 10 minutes but it takes 30 minutes to find another chaos at lvl70+ then it's a bad investment. Improving the rolls of currency on lvl38 items will only save you as much time as it takes to outgrow lvl38 items. The faster you progress, the faster you outgrow your items.

"

Wooser69 wrote:

Well in a perfect world~

-Itemlevel brackets would disallow for a number of sockets and links below a threshold while the % chances of getting 6S/6L are scaled to stay the same as they are now.

-Using alchs on items below ilevel 60 would give you back a scaled number of alchemy shards, depending on itemlevel brackets. They'd just appear in your inventory like a vendor trade.

-Using chaos/regal/divines/exalts on items below ilevel 60 would give newly introduced shards of those orbs only available through these means, also scaled to ilevel brackets.

-Chromatics would consume quality to improve chances of off-colours.

-A new chromatic orb added that allows you to set the colours you need by temporarily turning all sockets white and making the item unuseable, then being able to lock the colours to the gems you then equip inside by using the orb on it again, also granting shards based on ilevel brackets and removing any magical/rare/unique qualities (or links, still fitting to minimums on ilevel brackets. can't decide on this one) of the item in the process.

-Prisms would scale to improve by an added 1% of quality per 5% of quality the gem does not have, also scaling this effect down by 1% of quality gained per every 5 levels the gem has.


ilevel brackets being 10, 20, etc up to 60, base number of shards granted from using an orb on a <30 ilevel item being 80% of its original worth, granting 20% less shards of orbs used per 10 ilevels above 20. ex: alch on ilevel 1-29 gives 8 shards back, ilevel 30 gives 6 shards, 40=4, 50=2, 60=0.

ilevel 20 items would no longer spawn/roll with less than 2 sockets, ilevel 30 with no less than 1 link, ilevel 40 3 sockets, ilevel 50 2 links, ilevel 60 no less than 4 sockets. Again, chances of spawning or rolling above 4 links or 4 sockets scaled to be the same as they are now. For reference on how maximums, but not minimums, are already ilevel based.

For reference, prism scaling:

Spoiler

level 1 gem, 0 quality, 5%, 1 prism
level 1 gem, 5% quality, 9%, 2 prisms
level 1 gem, 9% quality, 12%, 3 prisms
level 1 gem, 12% quality, 15%, 4 prisms
level 1 gem, 15% quality, 17%, 5 prisms
level 1 gem, 17% quality, 19%, 6 prisms
level 1 gem, 19% quality, 20%, 7 prisms for max quality
level 5 gem, 0% quality, 4%, 1 prism
level 5 gem, 4% quality, 7%, 2 prisms
level 5 gem, 7% quality, 9%, 3 prisms
level 5 gem, 11% quality, 12%, 4 prisms, 12 for max quality
level 10 gem, 0% quality, 3%, 1 prism
level 10 gem, 3% quality, 6%, 2 prisms
level 10 gem, 6% quality, 8%, 3 prisms
level 10 gem, 10% quality, 11%, 4 prisms, 13 for max quality
level 15 gem, 0% quality, 2%, 1 prism
level 15 gem, 2% quality, 4%, 2 prisms
level 15 gem, 4% quality, 6%, 3 prisms
level 15 gem, 6% quality, 7%, 4 prisms, 17 for max quality
level 20 gem, 0% quality, 1%, 20 prisms for max quality, vendor recipe eligible

...but the world isn't perfect, so whatever.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

My intent was to make self found smoother and closer to trade, not to make it better than trade. If orbs generate the same amount of value from use compared to trade, it would alter the economy significantly. I had no intention of achieving that goal, but it seems like everyone thought that I was. The current rift between use and trade is very large. I just wanted to shrink it, not remove it entirely.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Just having a cigarette and had a thought.

If I could go back in a time machine to two years ago, I'd suggest this:

Instead of having discrete currency (Orbs), we should have a more continuous currency — dust (and powders and balms and salves). The idea here is that, instead of requiring one Exalted Orb to use on an item, you'd use a fixed amount of dust based upon the itemlevel of the item you're modifying (perhaps 60 Exalted Dust for an itemlevel 60 item). This would, admittedly, feel quite a bit like gold, but it wouldn't be just one "gold," it would be several competing "golds;" eventually, the orb system would end up feeling like gold anyway, so no big loss there.

This would allow two benefits:
1. instead of making Exalted Orbs extraordinarily rare, you could have them show up more often but in small amounts — instead of getting 1 Exalted Orb every 10*X hours, you could find 5 or 6 Exalted Dust every X hours. Alternately, you could make it 25 to 30 Exalted Dust every 5*X hours. This allows more flexibility in terms of how consistent you want players to progress, contrasted with how excited they become when they manage to get very lucky.
2. Most importantly, crafting of low-level items is better incentivized, so players don't just hoard all of their crafting materials until they have access to the highest itemlevel bases.

... However, I'm pretty sure this is far too drastic of a change to the game to possibly be implemented now.

"

Veta321 wrote:

Another nice thing about smaller currency: opportunity costs can easily be adjusted.