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

"

hungryneko escribió:

Ok so say we have 2 players with exactly same stat, however

Player 1 with 4 stash tabs

Player 2 with 30+ stash tabs
...

Player 1 is unable to effectively pull out the alchemy recipe as 4 stash is pretty tight already for all the things he want to keep. So he don't even thing about pulling the trick.

Player 1 is an idiot for not making multiple accounts and dualboxing to trade between them -- exactly like in D2.

Too inconvenient? Pay for more stash space.

Can't afford it? So sad, too bad.

A total of $65 gives 25 stash slots, which is comparable to the price of a new game -- with the option to pay incrementally.

If you like the game that much, why not pay?

Otherwise, don't worry so much about matching rare-names. You'll make friends by leaving rares on the ground.

It's still not Pay2Win.

"

Kirisute_Gomen escribió:

The problem is you aren't listening and arguing like a noob who doesn't even have a character in ruthless yet.

While you rank below me in the ladder...

once again; it can not considered P2W for real:

-the orb system works in a way, it regulates itself: more available (alch) orbs simply lead to more USED orbs.

-the actual flood by the race rewards are a special case, easily under control by GGG (and I expect the rewards after the beta get opened to be much lower)

-the floating value of an orb (that you can get in multiple ways: alch) compared to another one (mcuh more rare, and only one source:GCP) is just logical and not a thing to worry about (the medium-rare runes in D2 also loose worth by time of a ladder, just by their increasing availability) Additional, GCP's have a very special use that takes them out of the economy, they are designed by this to stay ultra-rare and valuable.

And, as said before, there will be ways to reach (nearly) the same possibilities, with only some more effort (if), and without paying anything. If trading will work the best way, it even will not demand running multiple instances of the game to share your loot between (your) accounts.

And finally, if anyone calls that more effort (here: more stash and more loot handling) as an 'unfair advantage' - you have to invest more time (compared to an 'ultra-casual' freeplayer) first to have a chance to get any reward from recipe & stash - but investing more time will always give you an (unfair?) advantage... you probably could play so much to find more alch's others ever would get from the recipe...

Its similar to the interaction between 'immortal call' and enduring cry - the 'problem' (if considered as one) isnt each of them, but their combination, and the solution isnt to get rid of one, but to balance the interaction (for our case of economy: the droprates)

And in come the emotions. No amount of denial or loud-mouthing is going to make the problem go away. On one hand you have the blowhards:

"

RavenousRaven escribió:

The only real issue here is the desirability of the mechanic, and whether its working as intended; any p2w accusations are ludicrous.

"

Zinger86 escribió:

You will note that most of the people here have raised the 'possibility' of this formula being p2w

"

Kirisute_Gomen escribió:

The problem is you aren't listening and arguing like a noob who doesn't even have a character in ruthless yet. So far, every "problem" you have with the current system has been made to look like it is not a real issue (by me).

"

Daemonjax escribió:

Too inconvenient? Pay for more stash space.
Can't afford it? So sad, too bad.

On the other, here's what's actually happening in Wraeclast:

"

Wega52 escribió:

As a big time user of this recipe and with 40 stash tabs, I really think this needs to be changed. The marked is going to be flooded with alchs, and even now it's getting harder and harder to sell them.

So let's recap. I couldn't resist the urge to keep thinking about this, 6/10 made me post, etc.

- The recipe by itself was not broken.
- Stash tabs by themselves are not broken.
- The combination of the two generates alchemy orbs at a much higher rate than normal, and can only be achieved with real life cash.

We have two problems.

In an alchemy-saturated economy, the price will drop to what the vendor gives for an arbitrary rare. Alchemy orbs would drop to roughly half an alteration orb. Does GGG want this?

In the meantime, the market is adjusting downward. Many people have made a lot of in-game money by matching rare names and selling the alchemy orbs at rates that were stable pre-matching+stashtabs. Until the price bottoms out at half an alteration orb, stash tabs are pay-to-win. Does GGG want this?

We are at a curious point in the game's life. We would have no problems concerning pay-to-win if the recipes did not exist or were removed, but we will also have very few problems in the future if we leave the recipe unchanged and just wait long enough for the market to understand that it was hanging onto the past price for too long. It is only right now that this is a problem.

At the end we are left with two options.
1) Remove the recipe, return the market to previous alchemy orb valuation, and deal with zero complaints about pay-to-win. Lose a fun minigame in the process.
2) Leave the recipe alone, let the market value the alchemy orb at half an alteration, rebalance the game assuming an alchemy orb is worth half an alteration, and deal with decreasing volumes of pay-to-win complaints. Keep the minigame.


I suggest number one, but I trust GGG to do the right thing and to give this as much attention as it deserves.

I like how you quote me and call me a blow hard when im objectively dismissing overblown and uninformed claims and addressing the real problem, then compare me against a quote which is identical to what i have already said in the same post you misquoted me.

Just to top it off you make the same conclusions I had already made, but in 3 times as many words, and phrased like you had made some grand discovery.


tldr; wut.

"

RavenousRaven escribió:

I like how you quote me and call me a blow hard then compare me against a quote which is identical to what i have already said in this thread.

Just to top it off you make the same conclusions I had already made, but in 3 times as many words, and phrased like you had made some grand discovery.


tldr; wut.

Because the p2w accusations are not ludicrous in the short term and you are pretending otherwise, mostly. In addition, your comment on crafting was completely incorrect (an increase in the number of alchs does affect crafting).

Are you even reading this thread?


It's not worth addressing anything you're saying because its already been written in the previous 14 pages.

Let's say you remove it then. Think about what happens. All rares get vendored and then everyone has alteration shards in abundance. Meanwhile rare maps are much harder to create, causing issues there, and it is harder to gear new characters. So you want to make the maps system even worse than it is, and the game harder for new characters, instead of leaving the economy as it is. It has survived for how long? I likehow the conversion rates have normalized and it works well with vendor prices on other orbs.

I'm not a blowhard...i'm just defending a system that is fun and rewarding, and gets you interacting with other players. Why should I care that someone spent alot of their time investing in the recipe to gain 50, 100, 200 alch orbs? It doesn't effect me or the current economy in the slightest.

Also, if you are going to quote me, address my entire statement. Every sentence is adding to my argument against yours. Picking one sentence and arguing against that is not addressing the entire gameplay mechanic, and isn't helping your arguments.

"

RavenousRaven escribió:

Are you even reading this thread?


It's not worth addressing anything you're saying because its already been written in the previous 14 pages.

Funny, I said the same thing.

"

Kirisute_Gomen escribió:

Why should I care that someone spent alot of their time investing in the recipe to gain 50, 100, 200 alch orbs? It doesn't effect me or the current economy in the slightest.

You mean you don't care that it affects the current economy. There's a difference.

So from what I am seeing there are two main concerns in this thread. One that players who buy additional stash tabs are going to be able to create more alchemy orbs. Two that the increase number of orbs is going to cause a deflation of the currency.

Solutions:

1.Allow un-identified rare items to sell for 1-5 alchemy shards. This provides some balance between the player with 4 tabs and the player with 40.

2.Create a new recipe: 1 identified rare item + 1 skill gem + 3 orbs of alchemy = new un-identified rare item with the same sockets/quality/base type. This recipe will clear some of the excess orbs from higher levels.