Vendor recipes overhaul needed

"

Xikorut wrote:

If this is true, I'm sure all of us rare matchers will be happy (and a little sad).

I wouldnt be sad because there are other and more convenient recipes to use rares. Think about chaos and regal orbs.
In my opinion those recipes are much more enjoyable. Dont you agree?^^

the name matching recipe is still there for regals as the triple name one , but it is also hard to get due to that added rare names that came in an earlier patch.

the double name formula is now for chance orbs , which feels more appropriate .. i guess.

I don't understand all the hate for the double chaos recipe , chaos orbs as drops are rare as to the point of being used as currency first and only.

the double chaos formula actually enables players a semi decent way to get enough chaos orbs to actually do something ( 20 + chaos orbs on one item etc)


the regal one isnt particularly viable anymore unless you really really horde rares . (20+ stashes) and even then that is alot of alts worth of currency that is just taking up space collecting dust.


as for the person who is against the double name formula on the grounds of it being pay to win. all the orb recipes would fall into that category.

any recipe that requires any number of items that uses any amount of rares / magics or common items will naturally be easier to do with 20 + stash tabs at your disposal.

but the shard system is also terrible. It takes so many damn shards to get an orb that you tend to forget you had them, and then you have 7 or 8 partial orbs floating around in your inventory taking up space.

plus it is boring .BOOOOOOORING! part of the fun of path of exile is the depth, there is no depth in having every damn recipe being the same :
loot items
ctrl sell for shards
reorg the orbs
rinse
repeat.

Not every recipe utilizes stash tabs in a p2w fashion. The chaos recipe, for example, requires no mor than between 25 and 50% of a single tab, for all chaos recipes a player will ever so. Name matching, on the other hand, benefits exclusively from having more tabs, as each tab respectively reduces the difficulty in finding a matched name. They can 1) afford the space to stash larger items, as space comes at less of a cost (f2p is limited to <= 4-space items if they wish to have any chance at justifying the cost in space available), thus vastly increasing the number of named items available to match, and 2) have a lot more space to fill for more named items for a chance to match. To the point that alch (even now with chance) income vastly exceeded the wealth gained from crafting chaos. Every time the name-matching recipe is made more difficult, it is only made more profitable (p2w) for those with excessive numbers of tabs.

As to your comment about being boring... ??? No idea what you're trying to say. Let me get this straight:
It would be bad because you (presumably) don't keep an organized stash (evidenced by having more than one stack of any single given shard)
It would be boring because having chance shards would somehow make the game something it already is...???

Please clarify again, why you're opposed to chance shards as a method of mitigating the p2w of buying stash tabs?

"

the double chaos formula actually enables players a semi decent way to get enough chaos orbs to actually do something ( 20 + chaos orbs on one item etc)

Can you explain this?

Currently you get 1 chaos orb if you sell a full set of rares.
If you sell an UNIDENTIFIED full set of rares you get 2 chaos orbs. I meant this is a bad recipe because it forces the player into a dilemma: ID items to maybe get something decent or miss out 1 potential chaos orb

"

the double name formula is now for chance orbs , which feels more appropriate .. i guess.

This is new to me, is this change applied to the alpha? Currently you get 5 Chances if you sell 1 unique, 1 rare and 1 magic of the same type, as far as I know(maybe +1 white)

"

but the shard system is also terrible. It takes so many damn shards to get an orb that you tend to forget you had them, and then you have 7 or 8 partial orbs floating around in your inventory taking up space.

Hmm, If you refer to the closed Beta I cannot see the problem. I never had that problem, because I sell rares to vendor and only give my Alts and Alchs into the stash, so the shards remain and will stack automatically.


In my opinion the looting system is satisying, but this can be personal referance. Whenever I vendor my items it feels like gaining a lot.
If you sell a full inventory you probably get 1-2 Alts, ~1 Augmentation and ~1 Chromatik(from RGB item)
And occasionally Alchemy shards but I think you have to understand the modmechanics in order to complete alch orbs(=farm rings/amulets and flasks even if they are magic)

"

Nasabot wrote:

"

the double chaos formula actually enables players a semi decent way to get enough chaos orbs to actually do something ( 20 + chaos orbs on one item etc)

Can you explain this?

Currently you get 1 chaos orb if you sell a full set of rares.
If you sell an UNIDENTIFIED full set of rares you get 2 chaos orbs. I meant this is a bad recipe because it forces the player into a dilemma: ID items to maybe get something decent or miss out 1 potential chaos orb

"

the double name formula is now for chance orbs , which feels more appropriate .. i guess.

This is new to me, is this change applied to the alpha? Currently you get 5 Chances if you sell 1 unique, 1 rare and 1 magic of the same type, as far as I know(maybe +1 white)

"

but the shard system is also terrible. It takes so many damn shards to get an orb that you tend to forget you had them, and then you have 7 or 8 partial orbs floating around in your inventory taking up space.

Hmm, If you refer to the closed Beta I cannot see the problem. I never had that problem, because I sell rares to vendor and only give my Alts and Alchs into the stash, so the shards remain and will stack automatically.


In my opinion the looting system is satisying, but this can be personal referance. Whenever I vendor my items it feels like gaining a lot.
If you sell a full inventory you probably get 1-2 Alts, ~1 Augmentation and ~1 Chromatik(from RGB item)
And occasionally Alchemy shards but I think you have to understand the modmechanics in order to complete alch orbs(=farm rings/amulets and flasks even if they are magic)

Well we need context , the chaos recipe is easy for me. but understand that I run brutis with 330 iir and 80 iiq. every 2 min i get 7 -12 rares . that is alot of disposable rares , since many of them will be item types you don't care about.

Thus you have an easy way to get chaos orbs. I admit i am streamlined for that thing . but that is mostly because I am a melee user which sucks at maps without being super godly twinked.


now the shards may not be a problem for some one who rolls with normal amounts of iir and iiq(50 - 100 and 20 - 50 )

but when brutis drops 25 items and takes 3 trips just to get all the items (not to mention killing yellow and brown mobs on the way too him). space becomes a major issue.

i always have incomplete trans orbs , alt orbs , alch orbs scrolls of wisdom , portal scrolls and what ever junk i picked up along the way that just fills up your inventory with garbage. It is not efficient and it is tedious .

as for the double name being chances , I heard it some where , not sure if it still is , so dont quote me but that is what I heard it was.

I was actually curious how you can say your game isn't pay2win when these recipes that require massive amounts of stash space give a huge advantage to players who spend money on stash tabs.

I love this game. It nears perfection. The game-play, mechanics, skills and atmosphere are superb.

So I am left scratching my head about the (non-) economy.

It IS pay2win. It interferes with game immersion, constantly jolting me out of the "flow". The trade messages clutter my screen. I am left with "currency" that noone wants, not even in-game vendors. There is so much "currency" in my (real-money-paid-for) bags that I couldn't match a trade request as I don't know what I have, even if I read them.

Bizarre.