The ultimate sollution to RNG: progressive crafting!

"

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.

I don't think GGG is against crafting, otherwise they would never have invented the innovative currency system the way it is. And it still stays RNG. The chances augment slightly each time, but they remain chances.

"

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

The progressive crafting only applies to jewels and fuses, where the current problem is. I don't see any big problems with chaos/alchs/... so why change how they work?

"

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)

That's a bit far-fetched to be honest.
It's called progressive crafting because each time you attempt to craft, you make progression towards your final goal. As simple as that.

"

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 can agree with a chance reset on account change. Just to not complicate trading.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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

The game is already progressive in that it taxes richer characters more than poor characters. But, unlike the captive market of real life, it enables everyone get richer.

The RNG is a flat gambling tax that applies the same ridiculously high effective average tax rate to all players, regardless of level or wealth. The change that "Soepkieken" is proposing would benefit all players the same by reducing the effective average tax rate per item in proportion to the amount of tax already paid on it. It's neither progressive nor regressive in political terms.

"

TheNightFly wrote:

The change that "Soepkieken" is proposing would benefit all players the same

No it wouldn't. The core characteristic of such a system is that players do not get equal chances.

"

Soepkieken 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.

I don't think GGG is against crafting, otherwise they would never have invented the innovative currency system the way it is. And it still stays RNG. The chances augment slightly each time, but they remain chances.

Let's say each fusing adds a 0.5% chance to get a six-link and you have a base 0.5% chance to get a six-link. This means that you will always get a six-link with 200 fusings.

So you seriously think that this is still RNG? The only "RNG" is if you get it in 200 fusings, or less. No "real" RNG anywhere.

GGG isn't against crafting, they're against "normal crafting", where X + Y = Z. They instead use "RNG crafting", which has many more variables and acts as a permanent currency sink.

I agree that crafting should be actual crafting, with little to no RNG involved, but that won't happen until items have durability and/or decay times so that new items must always be crafted.

"

Natharias wrote:

"

Soepkieken 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.

I don't think GGG is against crafting, otherwise they would never have invented the innovative currency system the way it is. And it still stays RNG. The chances augment slightly each time, but they remain chances.

Let's say each fusing adds a 0.5% chance to get a six-link and you have a base 0.5% chance to get a six-link. This means that you will always get a six-link with 200 fusings.

So you seriously think that this is still RNG? The only "RNG" is if you get it in 200 fusings, or less. No "real" RNG anywhere.

GGG isn't against crafting, they're against "normal crafting", where X + Y = Z. They instead use "RNG crafting", which has many more variables and acts as a permanent currency sink.

I agree that crafting should be actual crafting, with little to no RNG involved, but that won't happen until items have durability and/or decay times so that new items must always be crafted.

I'm agreeing with you that there should never be 100% chance of a 6L but the crafting is currently broken. I mean throwing hundreds of orbs at an Item in the hope that the random number gods have pity with you, or don't crafting at all because you are afraid not having luck is a bit unfun (yes I know it's not a real word).
Maybe there should be additional ways to alter the odds in your favor.
That quality influences the rolls for sockets and links is a good beginning, but since nobody trades them in huge quantity's in the trade channel I would say that this is underused.
Maybe they could at a random pity mechanic. Like if you spend a random but high amount of orbs (anything from 200 to 2000) in an short amount of time without getting six sockets or linked sockets you automatically succeed. Due to the fact that the amount of unsuccessful uses, necessary to activate the pity roll, is randomly generated every few minutes would it technically just add another layer of RNG instead of an instant win.

Hi, OP here,

I don't know where the 0.5% increase comes from, in my original post I suggest a 0.01% increase, and for jewels, for fuses it should be much lower even.

Anyway, I don't want to lose myself in discussing numbers, because it's up to GGG to find the right ones with the desired result. The original idea of this post is to keep the same average number of currency needed for a certain result, but make it evoluate progressively while you're crafting. This implies a lower base chance for multi-links then those we have today naturally.

Look at it this way, the current system is analogue to this:

1000 people play a lottery. The chance to win is 10%.

Turn 1: 100 people win, 900 continue
Turn 2: 90 people win, 810 continue
Turn 3: 81 people win, 729 continue
Turn 4: 73 people win, 656 continue
Turn 5: 66 people win, 590 continue
Turn 6: 59 people win, 531 continue
Turn 7: 53 people win, 478 continue
Turn 8: 48 people win, 430 continue
Turn 9: 43 people win, 387 continue
Turn 10: 39 people win, 348 continue
Turn 11: 35 people win, 313 continue
Turn 12: 31 people win, 282 continue
Turn 13: 28 people win, 254 continue
Turn 14: 25 people win, 229 continue
Turn 15: 23 people win, 206 continue

There is no end to this line. Fewer and fewer people will win, but always some with extremely bad luck will have to buy a new lottery ticket.


What I suggest is the following:

Turn 1: 9.3% win chance => 93 people win, 907 continue
Turn 2: 9.4% win chance => 85 people win, 822 continue
Turn 3: 9.5% win chance => 78 people win, 744 continue
Turn 4: 9.6% win chance => 71 people win, 673 continue
Turn 5: 9.7% win chance => 65 people win, 608 continue
Turn 6: 9.8% win chance => 60 people win, 548 continue
Turn 7: 9.9% win chance => 54 people win, 494 continue
Turn 8: 10.0% win chance => 49 people win, 445 continue
Turn 9: 10.1% win chance => 45 people win, 400 continue
Turn 10: 10.2% win chance => 41 people win, 359 continue
Turn 11: 10.3% win chance => 37 people win, 322 continue
Turn 12: 10.4% win chance => 33 people win, 289 continue
Turn 13: 10.5% win chance => 30 people win, 259 continue
Turn 14: 10.6% win chance => 27 people win, 232 continue
Turn 15: 10.7% win chance => 25 people win, 207 continue

Conclusions:

1) System A and system B both have the same number of "losers" after 15 attempts.

2) System A has more "very lucky" winners who already succeed after 1 or 2 times.

3) System A has no end. Theoretically, there is a (minimal) possibility you still don't succeed after 100 times even with a high 10% win chance.

4) System B is finite: eventually everybody wins, some with much more patience and investment then others though.

5) When facing a lot of bad luck, in system A you're no step further after 15 attempts, or even after 50. In system B you have progressed at least towards your goal, as the chance to win is getting higher and higher.

6) Overall, system A and B will not cause much difference for most people (in both systems about 80% of the people have a win within 15 attempts). System A will have more extremely lucky winners and will continue to have extremely unlucky losers. System B flattens the extremes and give you a feeling of progression when facing a lot of bad luck.

=> For jeweling and fusing, things are much more complicated then this because of 6 possible results and different chances, but the idea is exacly the same: progressive crafting flattens the extremes and comforts you when throwing currency on an item with the thought that you're one step closer to your goal each time, whereas the current system just tells you: "you've just wasted 500 fusings for nothing, you're exacly where you were before wasting them."

Progressive crafting comforts for bad luck and encourages crafting, without changing RNG for the majority of players by a lot.

I just copypasted the above example of the lottery to the original post, as it clearly shows the consequences and advantages of progressive crafting with a very easy example and simplified numbers.

Feel free to give more feedback or simply +1. It would be nice if this thread gets noticed by GGG to see what they think about it!

Can we get some feedback from GGG on this idea?

"

Soepkieken wrote:

Can we get some feedback from GGG on this idea?

You are greatly overestimating yourself.

I support this, like i will support all crafting suggestions that give better chances to improve the odds.

Being sure you can upgrade your item, even if it will take a long time, is better, then just throwing hundreds of orbs just to end up worse then where you started is frustrating, its not fun, it gives nothing to look forward to and therefore diminishes any positive experience. Crafting should be a positive experience too, knowing that sooner or later you WILL get the desired result would give a huge incentive (and make jews and fusings more worthy)