GGG: Is the Orb of Alchemy vendor recipe working as intended?

And the funny thing about this is now I'm fully incentivized to get this chrome extension to detect recipes.

I'm not joking about that.

I'm sick of having my rares sell for shards of alteration or orbs of augmentation and not something of a higher value.
_____

But it's good to know that the lead developer has taken this issue into consideration. As long people believe there's a Pay2Win gimmick somewhere, it'll devalue GGG's mission to provide "ethical microtransactions".

"

Islidox wrote:

And the funny thing about this is now I'm fully incentivized to get this chrome extension to detect recipes.

I'm not joking about that.

I'm sick of having my rares sell for shards of alteration or orbs of augmentation and not something of a higher value.

Same happened with me. I gave it a go for a lark, found 4 GCPs and 8 alchemy orbs waiting to be made in my stash.

...Wow.

"

Charan wrote:

"

Islidox wrote:

And the funny thing about this is now I'm fully incentivized to get this chrome extension to detect recipes.

I'm not joking about that.

I'm sick of having my rares sell for shards of alteration or orbs of augmentation and not something of a higher value.

Same happened with me. I gave it a go for a lark, found 4 GCPs and 8 alchemy orbs waiting to be made in my stash.

...Wow.

Wait, how does it detect orb of alchemy recipes? I feel dumb.

It matches rare names...

I agree that it would be nice if rares could also be traded in separately and less efficiently for alch shards, but I don't think there's a problem with the current recipes.

Players are free to create as many mules as they want to hold all their rares. Extra stash tabs merely provide the added convenience of not having to log in and out of multiple accounts.

Convenience != pay 2 win.

Even if the existing alchemy/regal recipe is removed or replaced, having more stash tabs is always going to be more efficient in plenty of other ways, so you can and should expect other people to make more WAH WAH WAH PAY 2 WIN threads about those aspects.

"

Karcaroth wrote:

I agree that it would be nice if rares could also be traded in separately and less efficiently for alch shards, but I don't think there's a problem with the current recipes.

Players are free to create as many mules as they want to hold all their rares. Extra stash tabs merely provide the added convenience of not having to log in and out of multiple accounts.

Convenience != pay 2 win.

Even if the existing alchemy/regal recipe is removed or replaced, having more stash tabs is always going to be more efficient in plenty of other ways, so you can and should expect other people to make more WAH WAH WAH PAY 2 WIN threads about those aspects.

Locked and loaded. ^_~

Or maybe when it comes to such things, loaded and locked is more accurate...

"

Karcaroth wrote:

Convenience != pay 2 win.

You should read this thread before posting in it.
Also, if the alch/regal recipes are changed or removed, no one has a problem with extra stash tabs.

"

pneuma wrote:

Also, if the alch/regal recipes are changed or removed, no one has a problem with extra stash tabs

There was a thread a while back about how people using AFK mules to increase item drops was pay 2 win, so no, I don't think you get to make that statement for everybody.

"

Karcaroth wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

Also, if the alch/regal recipes are changed or removed, no one has a problem with extra stash tabs

There was a thread a while back about how people using AFK mules to increase item drops was pay 2 win, so no, I don't think you get to make that statement for everybody.

Ignoring the fact that this is digressed from the topic at hand, I don't follow the basic premise of that argument.

It's pay2win because without giving any money to GGG, a player is multiboxing for profit? Or do you mean something else?

I'll try not to reiterate many of the good points already covered in this thread. My view is that the alch/regal/chaos recipe (or any other that benefits from additional stash tabs) are integral to the financial success of the game.

Heck, I've got 43 tabs and it's only closed beta - apart from obviously painting me as a complete knobber, what does that say about this mechanic as a revenue source post release?

With unlimited accounts it's pay for convenience, not pay to win.

I think the purists on this topic, those who argue floodgates/thin end of the wedge etc, should be careful what they wish for. If PoE is not a financial success for the owners, then they'll have to consider selling it in order to provide for them and their family's future. Perhaps the buyer won't uphold Chris' principles with such stringency and PoE will go the way of real P2W.

Please let PoE be a financial success and don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Petrov.