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

"

Psomm escribió:

I'll just throw out this fact:

I pull in 2-4 alcs every 10-15 minutes max whenever I want. (my methodology I researched the last few months after I wrote the "inventory p2w post and was obvious no one caught on, cared, or otherwise).

Great, could you throw us some more bones?

For those of you complaining about PoE free not having enough chest storage, ever played Diablo 2 classic (or expansion for that matter)? Lol.

"

Kirisute_Gomen escribió:

Let me ask you guys one question though. If people are capable of filling their stash with 400 rares, what difference does it make if they can pair them up to create another rare that is probably also gong to be junk? Essentially all you are doing is trading 2 crappy rares for a chance at a good one. Is that so bad?

So you mean you get 50% more rare than a normal player, and you get to pick the base item of 1 in 3 rares to suit your need

wow

"

hungryneko escribió:

"

Kirisute_Gomen escribió:

Let me ask you guys one question though. If people are capable of filling their stash with 400 rares, what difference does it make if they can pair them up to create another rare that is probably also gong to be junk? Essentially all you are doing is trading 2 crappy rares for a chance at a good one. Is that so bad?

So you mean you get 50% more rare than a normal player, and you get to pick the base item of 1 in 3 rares to suit your need

wow

Not exactly sure what you are getting at, but yes I get more opportunity for better gear with the time I've invested. I miss out on alteration, augmentation, chromatic, and alch shards by storing the rares instead of just vendoring though. Seems like a good balance.

In the case study I compare 2 players, one with 4 stash and one with 30+ stash, they invest equal amount of time, the one with 30+ stash clearly get an upper hand in alchemy, you don't really "miss out on alteration, augmentation, chromatic, and alch shards by storing the rares instead of just vendoring", because all those value are still there, you can simply vendor whatever way to suit your need. On the other hand, player with 4 stash don't have as easy access to alchemy.

Basically when one people start doing the alchemy recipe they will have from 0-50% more*rare than player who don't do it, the rate increase along with the number of stash you have, the more you have the closer it is to 50%, and you can choose the base item of the '0-50% more' rares (as it is in the form of alchemy)

more* rare here is multiplicative not same thing with iir

I suspect it is not only 0-50%, more like 0 to 50+50/2+50/4+50/8+etc because with the new rare from alchemy you can reuse it again for the recipe

You may be right, but the fact still remains that anyone can do this in open beta, if they feel like investing the time. Think of the stash as being a savings account. You can invest items into it for more reward later, or cash out as you go.

So I just got promoted from

"

Kirisute_Gomen escribió:

arguing like a noob

to

"

Kirisute_Gomen escribió:

may be right

Did you run out of conclusive data for your opinion?

Nope, I can do some more long posts to explain all the details but to hell, I gonna play the game now

"

Rare > magic, and that dynamic wouldn't change even if the supply outstripped the demand.

This isn't correct.


Theres a real lack of understanding the practical function of the economy late game in this thread, and it is making this thread extremely frustrating.

The currencies are ultimately crafting items.

If theres 1,000,000 alc orbs poured into the market now, their value as a currency will immediately lower, but their value as a crafting item will not alter as they are inherently controlled.

There is currently already sufficient alchemy orbs lategame for crafting because they are limited in usefulness by the number of scourings.

Alterations will always be more useful and consumed at a much greater rate than alcs lategame because they allow you to create an item with a lot more consistency (i.e. reduced variance, lower risk-reward).

Again as has been iterated many times in this thread, this isn't a pay to win mechanic, as (a) it isn't limited to those who pay and (b) their usefulness as an item is controlled by the structure of the economy (i.e. ultimately you arent "winning").

The issue here is whether the mechanic allowing the production of alchemy orbs at a much greater rate than their drop rates is desirable for the games economy.



Now you can call me an emotional blowhard all you want, but these are the ways the game is functioning. Also nothing new has been added to this thread in some time, (just the continuous explanation of the same thing ad nauseum) and its probably time for this thread to be closed.