The ultimate sollution to RNG: progressive crafting!

"

Alea wrote:

hi, i buy it but there is a technical problem:
the craft data would be stored somewhere, in item maybe, well it's good idea but adding such feature is a deep coding into the game core - maybe - i means it may cost soo much ressources to ggg to do it... On the other hand it would be awesome, RNG; but not that much RNG ;)

Simply put: No, that is not a problem.

Overall, most people seem to like this idea.
You can simply support this thread by bumping with a +1.

Not a bad idea.

Supporting this idea.

Implement this feature and that those items can no longer be traded.
Or that the chance resets as soon as you dont own it anymore.

I AGREE WITH ALL IS SAID IN THIS POST ...


BUT...

1)...add the feature for the item to lose all the "charges" upon trading ...
For example : I put in 200 fuses , I , Myself , increased the chance to get a 6 link by lets say for example from "0.031" to 0.037 "with MY fuses , but when the item changes owner , it will return to the default "0.31" ( My numbers are TOTALLY random and are not accurate at all , but for god sake MAKE THIS THING HAPPEN AND I`ll RETURN TO POE FOR EVER) - Currently waiting for a miracle !

2)Make this only for jewellrs and fusinngs !

I support this idea too, its very progressive and no one that farmed or traded for a week only to get a disappointing result anymore.


Though Chris said, there will be an improvement to link an items for 6 linked result.
Not sure if it has anything to do with this progressive improvement.

+1

"

Soepkieken wrote:

What is so frustrating about RNG?

That you never know what result to expect?
That it brings too much (bad)luck to the game?
That you spend an awfull lot of time throwing 1000 fuses on an item?

No. I believe those are the minor drawbacks, what is really irritating about RNG, is that you can indeed throw 1000 fuses on an item and in the end you're no step further from the beginning. Some people wasted 2000 fuses without result. That's over 40 exalts!!

You didn't think this all of the way through.

There's a reason you picked Fusings as your problem orb and not Chaos or Exalts. For example, you might Exalt an item hoping for +(101 to 120)% to all defenses, and end up getting +45 Mana instead. This isn't the desired result, and if you're a perfectionist it means you still have work to do... but at least you have the consolation prize of additional mana in the meantime. Your item is better, it's just not better in the most ideal way.

Fusings (and Jeweler's) utterly lack this dynamic. That is what makes them frustrating. Your assessment is not technically wrong, but it is incomplete.

"

Soepkieken wrote:

This huge problem of meaningless waste can very simply be overcome. Hereunder are the figures for jewelling an item that can have up to 6 sockets:

1 socket: 32.68%
2 sockets: 29.41%
3 sockets: 26.14%
4 sockets: 9.80%
5 sockets: 1.63%
6 sockets: 0.33%

Now, GGG should simply implement a new property in crafting, that is called progressive crafting. It means every time you throw a jewellers orb on this item, the socket chances slightly augment for the next time another jeweller orb is thrown on it.

E.g.: each use of a jeweller orb augments all multiple socket chances with 0.01%.

=> If you have thrown 100 jewellers on this item, the chances for the next jeweller orb will be:

1 socket: 27.68%
2 sockets: 30.41%
3 sockets: 27.14%
4 sockets: 10.80%
5 sockets: 2.63%
6 sockets: 1.33%

I find it extremely ironic that you call this "progressive" crafting. In politics, the term usually refers to egalitarian systems which provide an advantage to the poor; for example, "a progressive tax is a tax where the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases." (Wikipedia)

However, what you are describing is essentially a system where the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount decreases. In other words, the more orbs you have stockpiled, the greater the chance per orb that you achieve the desired result. It's literally a rich get richer proposition.

By the way, under the math you're proposing, the average number of Jeweler's required to 6-socket an item would drop from ~306 to 22.3. (The median would go from 212 to 90.) There is no way they would ever implement any type of "progressive" system which advanced as fast as you are proposing, and such a system would always mean reducing the base rate of success — perhaps to 1 in 500. It's the only way to make create such a system without a complete flood of success. However, this also penalizes the poor for being poor.

I am vehemently against all suggestions of this nature, because as unlikely as their success is, I don't want to make success any more unlikely for those of limited means. I want the guy with only 3 Jeweler's to his name to have the best chance of getting a 6L. As such, I'm always going to be a staunch advocate of every orb having an equal chance.

-1

This is a step away from RNG and a step towards actual crafting.

This won't happen. GGG wants currency to be totally random and unpredictable, and this changes that.

"

Natharias wrote:

This is a step away from RNG and a step towards actual crafting.

This won't happen. GGG wants currency to be totally random and unpredictable, and this changes that.

this guy is right again