Change Scouring function to partially replace Eternal function

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You know what really belittles Orbs of Alchemy? The map affix system.

And if we feel so strongly about the pseudo-Chaos combo we could add a vendor formula for Alch+Scour=Chaos.

Or just leave the system as it works fine.

I had hoped this topic would be about retaining the ability to store numbers of links and rare colour combos through some kind of account-bound orb. I fear that's likely to go unnoticed and un-discussed to the ditch along with the less-desirable aspects of eternals, purely because any discussion will get drowned by all the gnashing of teeth over the economy.

However, to respond more directly to your suggestion, why do we really need more RNG? Can't we now continue the movement towards a more deterministic system of actual 'crafting' (rather than gambling against ludicrous odds). I'm not suggesting it should take any less *time* to get good items, but there are the often-noted issues with really low chances of gambling something good; people can play years and not get anything even decent, let alone good. This would resolve the tension of the ideal set being obtained by the 6th time you hit lvl 100 (to quote Scrotie), yet players with 20 lvl 100s still have poor gear.

As a number of people have noted, while eternals certainly contributed, the underlying reason for orbs to continually pile up is because crafting is nothing of the sort. Let us spend our orbs as incremental improvements, and you'll have fixed:
- ruining awesome colour combos on chests you want to play
- wrecking 5-links because you want a 6-link
- the need to identify x million of your preferred item and throw orbs/scours at them in hope that something useful actually shows up

(as a side note, you'd also have to work on mods a bit to get rid of the ones no one will ever want)

Even with the orb you suggest, I would never bother using my orbs to try and get a good item.

Chromatic memory orb, something i wouldn't mind seeing.

"

davidnn5 wrote:

However, to respond more directly to your suggestion, why do we really need more RNG?

Yes, of course. But in effect, not in cost.

The thing is: do you really think Fusings are RNG? In terms of effect, there is zero RNG - you go from 5L to 6L eventually, nothing could be more certain. The only RNG is the price.

We need less pretender RNG and more of the real deal.

^

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

davidnn5 wrote:

However, to respond more directly to your suggestion, why do we really need more RNG?

Yes, of course. But in effect, not in cost.

The thing is: do you really think Fusings are RNG? In terms of effect, there is zero RNG - you go from 5L to 6L eventually, nothing could be more certain. The only RNG is the price.

We need less pretender RNG and more of the real deal.

That's a bit unclear to me. What could be more RNG (being a placeholder term for 'random') than rolling a dice and hoping for a 6-link knowing your chances are very low?

Would you disagree if I said it's theoretically possible to never 6-link an item? I don't see how you can get more RNG than that.

So I'm just unclear how rolling a dice for a 1 in x chance to remove a mod is functionally different than rolling a dice on a 1/900 chance.

This is an example of what randomness looks like.

Rolling a d100 until you get two 100s in a row, with absolutely nothing happening until then, is masturbation.

Admittedly, choosing one of six affixes to remove isn't very random. But Exalts are sufficiently random (or at least could be with improvements to affix system), and going from 6 affixes to 4 means rolling 2 more Exalts.

^

Bump