post-OB leagues, currency values

I don't really see what the point of this thread is. Why is it a bad thing if alchs decrease in price?

In games with a gold economy, a decrease in the value of gold is definitely a bad thing. Since gold can't be used for anything useful, a decrease in gold value -> universal decrease in players' purchasing power -> less fun, more grind.

In PoE, a decrease in alch price simply means that there are enough alchs in the economy to satisfy the needs of end-game crafters, and the leftover alchs are made available for lower-level crafting. The way I see it, the fundamental economic decision players make is between "sell this orb to a higher-level crafter for gear" or "use this orb myself to craft gear." While the equilibrium between the two options changes over time based on the availability/price of the orb in question and the availability/price of upgrades in the market, either option leads to the same outcome: better gear, more fun, and less grind.

"

VoxelSquid wrote:

I don't really see what the point of this thread is. Why is it a bad thing if alchs decrease in price?

I think the main complaint of the thread is, paying for extra stash tabs to do name matching is too rewarding, and since many people will not do it because they don't pay for stash tabs or don't know about 3rd party programs, alch prices won't deflate enough to bring name matching into equilibrium with other wealth generation methods.

Oh, lord no, aimless, this is NOT a "stash tabs = P2W" rant.

It's about answering these two questions: What's the actual value of an alchemy orb? Why is an alchemy orb worth more than a fusing in trade, when the fusing takes over 10x as long to farm? These ratios are controlled by the players, and if traders just understood what things should be worth and refused unfair exchanges there would be NO imbalance.

Like really, I don't even know how to express how frustrated it makes me that this goes on the Pay2Win track. If GGG wants alch = alter, they'll get their way - that's how things are lined up right now! So then, since that's how things are arranged, why? Why can't I trade 1 fusing for 4 alchs?

In a few months that'll be a common trade. How can I say such a thing? Go back to the OP, and try to actually connect all those dots.

It's NOT a simple topic.

I'm actually pretty sick of this. You're not the first one to suggest it. I'll just let this thread go, I guess.

Ok, so I've read over this thread more carefully, and I think this is what people are arguing about:

One junk rare turns into 1/2 alch via stash farming, but only around 1/2 alt = 1/8 fuse via vendoring. Since current trading ratio is 1 alch = 1 fuse, you end up yielding 1/2 alch per rare via stash farming, and only 1/8 alch per rare via stash farming.

Point of view 1: Since it doesn't make any sense for 1 rare != 1 rare, the trading ratio of 1 alch = 1 fuse must be wrong, it should be 1 alch = 1/4 fuse = 1 alt.

Point of view 2: The trading ratio is correct, but the stash farming method is overpowered and needs to be nerfed.

---

I think POI 1 is a more accurate diagnosis of the problem. The alch recipe is fundamentally identical to the vendor outright offering 10 alch shards for a rare. This means that the exchange rate of 10 alt shards = 10 alch shards, or 1 alt = 1 alch is pretty much hard-coded into the game. While it is true that the alch recipe requires stash tabs, which not everyone is willing to pay real money for, the ability for people with stash tabs to essentially rent them out (the "goldfarming" method mentioned on pg6, which would actually work if the website-trading system is implemented) should still bring the price of alchs back into line with the hard-coded rate.

I think the problem in the current economy is that large-volume currency conversion is seldom done due to not having the website-integrated trading system. The current trading ratios we see are basically self-propagating myths rather than being based upon a large numbers of trades in the market.

"

Zakaluka wrote:

Oh, lord no, aimless, this is NOT a "stash tabs = P2W" rant.

He was looking for the 'problem', and that's the 'problem' insofar as there is one / could be one. But as Voxel breaks down above, it might not be a problem at all. You're right that the main point of the thread is just an examination of currency values.

"

I think the problem in the current economy is that large-volume currency conversion is seldom done due to not having the website-integrated trading system. The current trading ratios we see are basically self-propagating myths rather than being based upon a large numbers of trades in the market.

Self-propagating, and intentionally propagated, as evidenced by statements earlier in the thread (ex. intentionally not dumping regals). Given a larger population though, such artificial pricing will likely become impossible.

In the smaller population of the beta, amusingly I think discussion like in this thread also has a real impact on currency values. Maybe if everyone keeps talking about how alchs should be worth far less, we can get them to a reasonable price before OB hits and make sure all the newbs are given a more accurate price myth on arrival :p

Right now, as I've said, I believe the true ratio sits at around 8 per GCP while regals sit at 3. Even if I were to sell regals for 4 per., that still leaves me profit since it would take 16 rares worth of alchs vs. 12 rares for regals.

That's how I decide what to vendor. How many rares do I vendor to get a GCP

"

SL4Y3R wrote:

Right now, as I've said, I believe the true ratio sits at around 8 per GCP while regals sit at 3. Even if I were to sell regals for 4 per., that still leaves me profit since it would take 16 rares worth of alchs vs. 12 rares for regals.

That's how I decide what to vendor. How many rares do I vendor to get a GCP

I think the ratio of regal to alchs is ok, problem is that regal not in demand like alchs are agreed? (I saw you already posted this)


Let me break down the issue or topic of this thread from my point of view.

Is Alch meant to be valued at close to alt rate? If so, why only have it through the massive stash tab recipe?

Are alts under valued?

Are Regals being used?


Due to the recipes of Alch/Regal, there is breakdown in what the current market demand/ratio of orbs are for these 2 items vs fusings/alts.
Many believe and pay for alch = 1 fusing. However, using this current recipe of 2 rares = 1 alch. They should be closer to 3 alchs = 1 fusing.

Why is this a problem? Stash tabs. Only the people willing to put money into the game for massive amounts of tabs will be able to pay for the value of fusings at 3alchs to 1 fusing ratio.

So its a mix of all these problems.
I believe that GGG doesnt want alchs to be worth 1/3 fusing. I believe they sorta like it where its at. Now I've already said how to fix this. A few times but I will say it again.

Make it take 4 rares to make 1 alch using this recipe, lower the # of names in the matching list.

DDT you forget that there are alch shards for MF gear rolls. Why is that being totally ignored in favor of rare recipes? Make more types of rares give alch shards and be done with the recipe & buying stupid amounts of tabs. No?


Edit: Just spitballing here but maybe something like; any max roll stat on a rare gives 1/2 shards?

DDT

Under your idea, what would the regal trade in amount be?

"

lethal_papercut wrote:

DDT you forget that there are alch shards for MF gear rolls. Why is that being totally ignored in favor of rare recipes? Make more types of rares give alch shards and be done with the recipe & buying stupid amounts of tabs. No?


Edit: Just spitballing here but maybe something like; any max roll stat on a rare gives 1/2 shards?

I think you are missing the point. I'm happy with removing the recipe. I dont think its needed, but making it so that alchs are = to 2 rares is the problem. Its the ratio/balance.

If you sell a rare and they up the shards to 10 per rare, but only 8 alt shards per rare. There is an issue dont you think?

You looking to get rid of the recipe because you dont like recipes or something. My point of view is more of fixing the currency rates. If removing the recipe does that, then fine. If added alch shards for rares thats fine. But the ratio should be upheld, and it shouldnt be 2 rares = 1 alch.

"

DDT

Under your idea, what would the regal trade in amount be?

If we were to keep about the same ratio and rates using the fusing/alt as the base factor and not the alchs rate as the base factor. I would say about 7 rares = regal. Because I believe that 2 fusings = chaos = 8 rares, and 3Regels = 2Chaos.


So ease of use recipes, in my view.

1 rare = 8 Alt shards (quickly sold to vendors) zero time
2.5 rares = 1 Alt (quickly sold to vendors) zero time
8 Alts = 1 Fusing (quickly sold to vendors) zero time
4 rares same name = 1 Alch (matching) mod amount of time matching.
3 Alchs = 1 Regal (player value trade only)
7 rares same name = 1 Regal (matching) mod amount of time matching.
2 Regals = 3 Chaos (1:1.5 Regal:Chaos)
8 Rares = 1 Chaos (vendor matching) mod time, and special matching.



It seems like regal = chaos in this breakdown but there is a special thing with Chaos, is you need to understand is that Chaos takes 2 rings. Which isnt all that easy and causes issues unlike matching names, every 7 overtime will always = 1 regal. You cant say the same about Chaos.