"
MrDDT wrote:
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.
I do think the recipe should be scrapped as there are pretty strong arguments that the current system is some form of P2W. If GGG really are about ethical trades then scrapping the alch recipe would show people that they stand behind that 100%. If however it is a business decision by GGG to have the recipe to encourage the purchase of many tabs then I fear this game could get labelled P2W by the general gaming community and suffer more as a result. Once branded it can be very hard for a game to shake such a reputation.
Back to alch generation, even if 2shards were given per max roll then there wouldn't be too many people vendoring 5perfect roll stat rares just for 10shards. It would bite into the alt generation a bit but how many items really drop with max roll stats. The generation of alchs would then not need tons of tabs, the use of Helper & would level the playing field for everyone.
Last edited by lethal_papercut#5270 on Nov 18, 2012, 2:48:49 PM
|
|
"
MrDDT wrote:
...
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.
I can't speculate on what GGG's intentions are regarding stash tabs. However, the fact that it is in the game, and doesn't seem to be going away, means that the true value of alchs is actually around = 2 rares = 1 alt.
Right now, part of the reason why alchs are valued so highly is because of people not having access to stash tabs. However, once we get the website integrated trading system, there will be people using the "goldfarming" method, which can be thought of as "renting-out" stash space to those without access to them. What this does is divert the flow of rares from the vendors to stash-farms, with the rate of diversion (profitability of "goldfarming") being determined by the degree of discrepancy between market alch:fuse ratio and the hard-coded ratio. With enough stash tab "goldfarmers" operating and a large volume of currency trades between alchs and fuses on the market, the price should stabilize at a rate that makes stash farming only slightly more profitable than vendoring. (The slight profitability accounts for the "rent" paid by the players without stash tabs to the stash-tab providers aka "goldfarmers") (The equalization will be most efficient if all players know of and can take advantage of the services provided by stash-tab providers whenever prices start to fluctuate away from equilibrium)
TL;DR there are market mechanisms to more or less equalize the profitability of vendoring vs stash farming.
Alteration Orb Union Local #7
"Holding the line, on sixteen to one!" Last edited by VoxelSquid#1095 on Nov 18, 2012, 3:02:27 PM
|
Posted byVoxelSquid#1095on Nov 18, 2012, 2:53:40 PM
|
"
VoxelSquid wrote:
"
MrDDT wrote:
...
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.
I can't speculate on what GGG's intentions are regarding stash tabs. However, the fact that it is in the game, and doesn't seem to be going away, means that the true value of alchs is actually around = 2 rares = 1 alt.
Right now, part of the reason why alchs are valued so highly is because of people not having access to stash tabs. However, once we get the website integrated trading system, there will be people using the "goldfarming" method, which can be thought of as "renting-out" stash space to those without access to them. What this does is divert the flow of rares from the vendors to stash-farms, with the rate of diversion (profitability of "goldfarming") being determined by the degree of discrepancy between market alch:fuse ratio and the hard-coded ratio. With enough stash tab "goldfarmers" operating and a large volume of currency trades between alchs and fuses on the market, the price should stabilize at a rate that makes stash farming only slightly more profitable than vendoring. (The slight profitability accounts for the "rent" paid by the players without stash tabs to the stash-tab providers aka "goldfarmers") (The equalization will be most efficient if all players know of and can take advantage of the services provided by stash-tab providers whenever prices start to fluctuate away from equilibrium)
TL;DR there are market mechanisms to more or less equalize the profitability of vendoring vs stash farming.
This is assuming, you believe GGG wants alchs to = 1 alts.
My thought is that, GGG doesn't want this yet because of the ratio of the recipe it will be as you described.
Again, to fix that make it take more rares to match.
|
Posted byMrDDT#4590on Nov 18, 2012, 3:19:34 PM
|
|
It would be nice to get a dev to come on here and give GGG's thoughts on what the alch/rare ratio should be.
Alteration Orb Union Local #7
"Holding the line, on sixteen to one!"
|
Posted byVoxelSquid#1095on Nov 18, 2012, 3:31:17 PM
|
"
VoxelSquid wrote:
It would be nice to get a dev to come on here and give GGG's thoughts on what the alch/rare ratio should be.
Pretty sure we dont need this as we know what they should be.
Look at the drop ratio.
|
Posted byMrDDT#4590on Nov 18, 2012, 4:08:24 PM
|
|
The problem is not the trade value of the different orbs. Who cares what an alch is worth compared to a fusing, if you think the ratio is wrong trade for one over the other, that is supply and demand at work.
The problem is that if you want to be rich in game, probably the best way is to buy a lot of stash tabs and trade for rares, you do not need to play the game. Wealth is not coupled to the amount of play time (as it should be), but to how many stash tabs you have and how active you are in trading. That sounds a lot like pay2win and should be prevented somehow. I agree that a good way would be to increase the amount of rares needed for an alch and reduce the amount of rare names.
|
Posted by_tweety_#1039on Nov 19, 2012, 5:30:19 AM
|
"
_tweety_ wrote:
The problem is not the trade value of the different orbs. Who cares what an alch is worth compared to a fusing, if you think the ratio is wrong trade for one over the other, that is supply and demand at work.
The problem is that if you want to be rich in game, probably the best way is to buy a lot of stash tabs and trade for rares, you do not need to play the game. Wealth is not coupled to the amount of play time (as it should be), but to how many stash tabs you have and how active you are in trading. That sounds a lot like pay2win and should be prevented somehow. I agree that a good way would be to increase the amount of rares needed for an alch and reduce the amount of rare names.
That's another topic really, it does relate which is why its discussed, however its another topic.
The topic really is, what is the value of alchs because right now with that recipe, they are really like 2 rares = 1 alch, which means they are valued at about 1 alt.
Yet the drop rates of alts clearly doesnt display this so there is either a bug, or an oversight.
The pay2win aspect is really another topic (I happen to agree with you, funny is I used to not until I learned more about it)
|
Posted byMrDDT#4590on Nov 19, 2012, 6:48:58 AM
|
|
You can have unlimited tabs for free come OB. Therefore it is not P2W
|
Posted bySL4Y3R#7487on Nov 19, 2012, 8:16:48 AMBanned
|
"
SL4Y3R wrote:
You can have unlimited tabs for free come OB. Therefore it is not P2W
Is kidding yourself. Wake up Slayer.
|
|
"
MrDDT wrote:
The topic really is, what is the value of alchs because right now with that recipe, they are really like 2 rares = 1 alch, which means they are valued at about 1 alt.
Yet the drop rates of alts clearly doesnt display this so there is either a bug, or an oversight.
Well, that depends on if GGG originally took the recipe into account when setting drop rates.
In any case, I think this thread has already served its purpose. If GGG did not take into account the alch recipe in balancing the economy, then this thread has surely brought it to their attention.
Alteration Orb Union Local #7
"Holding the line, on sixteen to one!"
|
Posted byVoxelSquid#1095on Nov 19, 2012, 8:36:25 AM
|
