The Schematic: A Fundamental Change to Crafting

I have been mulling over our current crafting system, mostly around the various rage threads on fusings, and to a lesser degree chromatics. Noting that some people don't like the purely random nature of crafting particularly a lot, I have dreamed up something that involves randomness a bit, but involves progression more.

This proposal could replace or (the probable community preference) supplement the current crafting system; whether or not it does or doesn't isn't part of this proposal, and is left to your imagination on that one.

The proposal is as follows:

1. A new item type is added to the game, called a "schematic." Examples of schematics would be: 1) a schematic with a specific set of fused and non fused links (e.g., 5 fused, 1 non-fused), 2) a schematic with a specific set of colored sockets, and 3) an item with a certain minimum combination of preferred attributes. There might be other types, but those are the ones that are obvious to me at the moment.

2. Schematics have a numeric attribute associated with them called "schmaticLevel." In some variation of this design, schematics might drop with some level > 0, in the same way that some items might drop with quality.

3. When the schematicLevel is "high enough level," which is defined as "a number sufficient to justify the difficulty of the crafting job represented by the schematic," the schematic is primed and ready to be applied to an item. EDIT FOR CLARITY: SCHEMATICS DO NOT WORK WITHOUT BEING PRIMED BY APPROPRIATE INVESTMENT IN CURRENCY.

4. Applying the (primed and ready) schematic to an item makes the item match the schematic. The schematic is then consumed. In some variation of the design, the schematic is not consumed, but its level is reset to zero.

5. In order to level a schematic, a user applies a bit of currency. Exactly which currencies are applied is again open, but for the sake of an example, for a fusing schematic it would be fusings, for a color schematic, chromatics, and for an item schematic, chaos.

5a. When applying one of these currencies to the schematic, the level of the schematic is modified between -n and +m, for values of n & m where n<m. As such, obviously a schematic could have backwards progress applied. That's the RNG. Generally, however, the more probable thing is forwards progress.

There's my idea in a nutshell.

This system would have numerous virtues. Amongst them, the crafter would not need to be concerned with ruining a valued presently used item. Instead, they would risk ruining, albeit temporarily, only the schematic. Secondly, it should alleviate some frustrations involved with crafting, giving the player clear feedback about how much progress they've made towards the crafting goal.

This idea incorporates the ideas and feedback of other people in these forums. I have long since forgotten who those folks were, but thank you for contributing previously.

--C

I see pros and cons in this suggestion:

Pros: removes some of the frustration from using endless amounts of fusings or chromatic orbs to get the desired colours or links

Cons: I dislike the impact on the economy, since rich people in the game will just be able to buy the desired schematics and the poor people will just become even more poor when they can't afford the highly priced schematics!

Also, the value of the other orbs will drop significantly!

I kinda like the system we have now, since the randomness and luck are just parts of this game.

Remember that items also drop in value since getting the needed links/colours will be a lot easier than before!

Let's keep the 5-linked and 6-linked items valuable and let's keep fusions and chromatics the same!

Well, you don't have to use this proposal as a substitute; it could supplement the current system. As for the schematics themselves, and their availability, I don't think they should be rare or hard to get. Consider a 6L schematic. The value in the schematic is the fusings applied against it, not the schematic itself. I might make it just rare enough to make it worth a ~1-2 GCP. The rest would be in the fusings applied to the schematic.

If you wanted to take a risk and just apply fusings to your item directly to get a 6L, while it's my opinion this is a quick route to bankruptcy, you could always take the gambler's risk and pray for an unlikely positive result.

Perhaps I should make my application case more clear. With the proposed system, when you get a 6L schematic, you would start applying fusings. It might require as many as 500 or so, that's up to the PoE devs to figure out. As a player, we start applying fusings, and can see our progress. After a long time playing, we reach our objective, and poof, have a 6L.

It might be no different statistically than the current system: same # of fusings applied on average. It would just be more predictable and.... "taste different"... so to speak.

One really important feature of my proposal is that you can apply fusings when you have them, as you find them, over extended period of play time, always step-by-little-step getting closer to your coveted objective.

Random fusings aren't like this at all. While the gambler's fallacy is that, with a run of bad luck behind you, therefore there must be a run of good luck ahead of you, that isn't true at all. There's a reason it's called a "fallacy." ;-P

The schematic makes that true, by definition.

--C

"

Courageous wrote:

Well, you don't have to use this proposal as a substitute; it could supplement the current system. As for the schematics themselves, and their availability, I don't think they should be rare or hard to get. Consider a 6L schematic. The value in the schematic is the fusings applied against it, not the schematic itself. I might make it just rare enough to make it worth a ~1-2 GCP. The rest would be in the fusings applied to the schematic.

If you wanted to take a risk and just apply fusings to your item directly to get a 6L, while it's my opinion this is a quick route to bankruptcy, you could always take the gambler's risk and pray for an unlikely positive result.

Anyway... am I making myself clear?

--C

6L schematic worth 1-2 gcp... your idea has merit, but that statement is insane and I expect the flame to come your way.

The only way your idea would make ANY sense (schematics) is if they follow the same rng rules that we have now (complete randomness).

This solves 1 problem: you won't mess up a piece of gear you currently have equipped etc (this is a good thing). And once you've spent your 6-2000 currencies on your schematic (to get it the way you want, THEN you can apply it to X piece of gear.

Making 5-6L easier to get, or the colours easier to get etc etc etc isn't going to help PoE or the economy... it's going to ruin it.

PPL (not bots) who played D2 for all those years, kept playing to get that zod rune (or another high one) in order to make a runeword +, played to get those +1 skill charms, or to get other very rare, high level gear. While playing (grinding) they also gained some exp.

If you make the ""best" gear easy to get (like a 6L schematic for 2 gcp), you basically ruin PoE and players will eventually stop playing because they've "accomplished" everything they need to: in a short amount of time.

TL:DR

imo (it's an OPINION, don't go crazy ppl) The idea as you've set it out is a bad idea. But could be a good one if you don't mess with the rng

edit: courageous' quote in my post is the original, before he edited it (just a note). He edited it while I was making this reply

edit #2: There is something to be said about making RNG less biased (concerning colours in sockets and the chances of rolling higher sockets/links) However, these formulae have not been released to us, so it's up to GGG to decide if they want to "loosen the strings" so to speak

"

6L schematic worth 1-2 gcp... your idea has merit, but that statement is insane and I expect the flame to come your way.

I think you are missing something. Re-read the OP carefully, bullet #3. The 6L schematic cannot be applied until an appropriate number of fusings have first been applied to the schematic. I did not specify the quantity. Presumably it's a lot; something roughly equivalent to the required number of fusings now... perhaps a little less to account for the rarity of the schematic itself.

To wit: no, I am not attempting to make it easier to get 5L/6L items at all. Just less frustrating/more predictable, and more like a progressive long-term investment than a lottery.

I don't like this idea. Here's why:

Well, ultimately, some people actually embrace the RNG. And some people don't. For the extremely hard to craft items, you have some people who hate the current system with a passion. My proposal addresses this.

My proposal is somewhat personal; for example, you'd never see me attempt to craft a 6L. I'd be much more likely to save the cash and just buy one. As you might have noticed, the game already has a means for a player to avoid the RNG in this particular way.

Putting in an alternative RNG-avoidance mechanism won't really change much, except that what it will do is--for the players who select and use this crafting method--take their fusings (etc) out of inventory immediately. I.e., my method encourages a certain class of player to use a currency sink right away.

--C

"

Courageous wrote:

Well, ultimately, some people actually embrace the RNG. And some people don't. For the extremely hard to craft items, you have some people who hate the current system with a passion. My proposal addresses this.

My proposal is somewhat personal; for example, you'd never see me attempt to craft a 6L. I'd be much more likely to save the cash and just buy one. As you might have noticed, the game already has a means for a player to avoid the RNG in this particular way.

There's your alternative right there.

For players who play solo self-found or something similar, I think a vendor formula would be a much more elegant solution than the whole "schematic" concept. Something like 6-socket item + 1200 Fusings -> same item but with all sockets linked.

Well the "schematic" isn't actually necessary for fusings at all, because you could just apply a fusingCount to an item directly. I thought of the schematic when I contemplated people complaining about chromatics. Your proposal removes all randomness. The schematic retains some (that's the -n:+m part). So the two proposals are different in that particular way.

Side note; for all we know, there IS a NNN fusing + item = 6L item vendor formula right now. How many people would have had the opportunity to try? :-P

--C

new and original

+1