Thinking Outside the Box: What if we had dust instead of orbs?

"

ephetat wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

What would be the point? Anyone crafting would break them down into component parts anyway. Just make it so you could have huge stacks of dust — like 100 to 800 per stack. (I figure 3 digits is about the most you could fit in a 1x1 inventory square without it becoming unreadable.)

My thought was to provide an implicit bonus for using orbs directly (the "favorable result" referred to in other suggestions relating to orb usage, though Veta321 is right in that "favorable" would need defining) rather than shards, something which would lead to less RNG for the player. But I concur that you can argue for their entire removal.

Edit: Gotta go now! Will check this thread later.

I don't think that a further complication in adding a bonus is really needed. Full Orbs could be reserved to higher-lvl crafting and therefore would maintain a high trading value. The trading value itself is a bonus one could consider, the decision of breaking down currency or using it for trade balanced right could be an interesting mechanic.

Brilliant idea. I would definitely like this system a whole lot more than the current orb system. Though, I don't believe GGG can change completely the currency system at this point when they've balanced it for a couple of years already.

"

Novalisk wrote:

If you want a top-tier bracket on a mid-level item, you only need to roll against about 3 other brackets.
If you want a top-tier bracket on a top-level item, you need to roll against 6 other brackets.

true. it's already more effective when it comes to rolling perfect stats according to your level but not according to the trading value of the currency. i wanted to lower the trading value, especially for exalted orbs.

"

Veta321 wrote:

The idea there being that currency has a better chance to roll desirable properties at lower ilvl. There's a couple problems with that. First you have to define desirable properties and then make them more likely.

not my intent, your concerns are valid.
the idea i had is that for example an exalted orb has a chance to add 2 properties to an item but also to remove one or gcp can add one percentage of quality but also remove one or a malus for chaos orbs having a chance to change an item from rare to magic and so on. you can combine that with a quality of an orb but not neccessarily.
but just as i think about it twice my idea got negated by the introduction of the eternal orb, having a specific property removed is often a desired effect and would lead to perfect items faster. please forget about my idea.

I think it wouldn't be too hard to implement since we already have shards of a few orbs already, So basically we'd end up getting "shards" for every orb type and then letting those "shards" be able to be dropped in random amounts.

Bump. This is essentially (that essential being Granularity of Crafting Actions, with secondary trading/currency benefits) a Good Idea, even though Scrotie and I may disagree on some specifics.

I strongly believe this idea should be reviewed by GGG, and, if found feasible, some implementation of it scheduled for the four-month leagues after Domination/Nemesis.

"

Veta321 wrote:

Curious. Would vendor recipes return less currency based on ilvl? They would have to I think.

This would be a significant but necessary change. Assuming we don't remove or completely change currency recipes. They need to account for varying ilvl. Recipe return could be proportional to the crafting costs. While it is a nerf to low lvl farming I think it would be offset by cheaper crafting. If a goal of Dust implementation is to improve crafting without altering anything else then we would need to be careful in balancing recipe returns. Too low and recipes will feel unrewarding. Too high and they become exploitable via reduced crafting costs.

I don't think it's a major problem however.

No thanks. Go play a modern blizzard game if you want this kind of watered crafting/economy.

I understand that some people aren't good at accruing currency though. But it's really not that hard.

"

Fluffhead wrote:

No thanks. Go play a modern blizzard game if you want this kind of watered down game play.

I understand that some people aren't good at accruing currency though. But it's really not that hard.

Oh dear. The OP really has nothing to do with accumulating currency. I can save you the time of reading but OP's explanation is more detailed.

POE has a great crafting system. But it doesn't make sense to use at low levels. That's too bad because it adds depth to itemization. OP wants low level crafting to be a player choice rather than a noob trap. OP's idea is simple. Reduce the cost of low level crafting such that it is more in line with its opportunity cost.

What is opportunity cost? Opportunity cost is what you lose when you do something. In this case the cost of crafting low level temporary items is crafting permanent end game items. Thus, crafting to save yourself time farming versus hoarding for end game trading/crafting must be a legitimate choice.

Again, OP isn't suggesting anything fancy. Say we're using Dollars instead of Orbs. Buying a car, any car, costs $1. OP suggests buying a shitty car should cost .10. But we can't have .1 Dollars so we convert to cents. Now buying a shitty car costs 10 cents and buying a nice car costs 100 cents. Dust is the same currency in a smaller denomination. I hope that helps.

Although there are some outstanding technical issues like the transitional process and vendor currency recipes, the issue I would like to focus on is the creative side.

As it stands today, an orb means something. It represents one action in the crafting/gambling system. Dust doesn't have any intrinsic meaning. POE is largely a game about the items, and orbs strengthen the player's connection with those items because they are more "things" that do quantifiable "stuff." But dust diminishes this connection by converting orbs from concrete objects into abstract numbers.

There are tons of things that benefit from abstraction, but items (and by extension, orbs) are the core of the game. Transforming orbs into something different removes some of the "permanence" of the game, not only because of the sweeping change of an existing system into something different, but because that something different is a more ethereal, abstract thing.

If you're going to propose a BIG change, it should have a BIG benefit. This suggestion is a BIG change with a small benefit. It only effects people who craft before end-game, and only has especially large benefits to extremely low level crafting. If all you're going to get is a small benefit, then a small change is best.

I'm all for BIG ideas and BIG changes, but not for applying them to small issues.

I agree Polaris. That is the main knock here. And it's why I'm skeptical it would be implemented. But this goes to show the value of forums and bouncing ideas off each other.

The real problem with this suggestion is that it was made in 2013.