Suggestion: Make limited gear diffrent from the unlimted part

[ProActive Mango]

How about instead of copy the stats from ul to limited gear, add diffrent and abit better stats to limited gear.
An example.

Ul ring = 4% life steal, 3% crit, 10% reload.
Limited ring = 5% chance of healing 70hp, On crit, gain 20% reduced damage, every 20th reload gain 10% runspeed...

the stats are just made up but the idea is to get something else for the limited stuff than what the unlimited variants offer, this would make the limited market abit more attractive than what is is today.

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

Well for weapons at least, the base L versions are slightly better or require a lower level than the UL versions. Obviously this doesn't count for like fen and mayhem stuff, but for loot 1.0 stuff I guess mostly.

But I agree, we need more.

 

[TheOneOmega]

Broadly speaking, a genuine concept of ownership, as uniquely permitted by UL items, is and must remain central to the Entropian experience. I'm not a fan of trying to incentivize people onto (L) items as part of their long-term game play strategies, as this seems to be a fundamentally less meaningful mode of play. Building a collection of items over time is part of what keeps Entropia amenable to long player life spans, measured over years and decades.

The argument for economic benefits of pushing (L) items onto players probably has some legitimacy, but we should be careful not to overweigh it. Acting to improve markup in one part of the economy may result in offsetting markup declines in other parts that are much more difficult to attribute to the cause, resulting in the aggregate effect on markup being weaker than observations suggest. It's very hard to say when and to what extent this happens, but I'd argue we should expect it to be significant, for the simple reason that aggregate markup is as much a function of aggregate player budgets as it is supply factors.

A second reason we should be careful is that because the aggregate economic benefits of pushing (L) items onto players are so hard to measure, it would be difficult to ever identify when an appropriate balance had been achieved. It would always appear that marginal economic benefit could be attained by pushing the relative prevalence of (L) items just a bit further. Thus there is a danger that the economic argument just keeps getting pressed more and more over time, until (L) items dominate the market and UL items are no longer considered viable. Indeed, I believe the history of this discussion already shows signs of this slippage.

What I think players actually want is to use UL items themselves, but have everyone else stuck on the (L) junk, in order to boost their own average markup. My opinion is that we've extracted more than enough juice out of the economic benefits of (L) items, and we should probably try to focus on better ways to improve markup, more targeted toward stackables than items.

 

[Epik]

No

 

[Gopher]

2.0 L weapons should be better than their UL 2.0 counterparts, no reason that the L should be same/worse, you can only use it for a very limited amount of cycle.

 

[atomicstorm]

A limited ring is basically an unlimited version unless it decays for time spent used. Better yet, don't use time but shots spent decay.

 

[Fanan]

Taking as example a kinetic 9 unL vs kinetic 9 L, the efficiency on the L is a little better. The problem is the availability when everyone is looting shrapnel on mayhems and not hunting mobs that drop this kind of L chips, unless you stack tones of them before hand it is not a easy route to go L when Mayhem is going on.

Edit:
Stats from wiki: kinetic 9 unL 2.858 DPP @ 55.6% VS kinetic 9 L 2.888 DPP @ 57.9%.

 

[Epik]

2.0 L weapons should be better than their UL 2.0 counterparts, no reason that the L should be same/worse, you can only use it for a very limited amount of cycle.

Invest in the UL one then? This thread is just another complaint thread for people who don’t want to actually put money in to the game but want the same benefits as us who do. L versions should be WORSE then the UL version if any change was to happen.

 

[Gopher]

Invest in the UL one then? This thread is just another complaint thread for people who don’t want to actually put money in to the game but want the same benefits as us who do. L versions should be WORSE then the UL version if any change was to happen.

The UL one is still wayyyyy better even if the L had slightly increased stats, the 2.0 L ones have a lot of MU usually. I would love for you to try to make as much profit as a bc-80 mayhem aug UL with a L version of the bc-80 aug. Most 2.0 L weps you cant even profit with cause they have too much MU (RDI pistol for example). 2.0 L versions being slightly better doesn't hurt anyone, rather it helps them, as getting them in your loot increases your MU gained.

 

[Epik]

The UL one is still wayyyyy better even if the L had slightly increased stats, the 2.0 L ones have a lot of MU usually. I would love for you to try to make as much profit as a bc-80 mayhem aug UL with a L version of the bc-80 aug. Most 2.0 L weps you cant even profit with cause they have too much MU (RDI pistol for example). 2.0 L versions being slightly better doesn't hurt anyone, rather it helps them, as getting them in your loot increases your MU gained.

I think you missed my point L items SHOULD BE WORSE you should not be able to make the same with a L gun as you can with a UL gun if that was the case NO ONE would invest in the UL guns what would be the point when you can use L for a “better” gun and not have ped tied up in 1 item. people wanting L to be better are people who want to play but not pay go sweat or something if thats what you want

 

[Gopher]

I think you missed my point L items SHOULD BE WORSE you should not be able to make the same with a L gun as you can with a UL gun if that was the case NO ONE would invest in the UL guns what would be the point when you can use L for a “better” gun and not have ped tied up in 1 item. people wanting L to be better are people who want to play but not pay go sweat or something if thats what you want

You can't unless your getting your 2.0 L weps at 0% MU somehow

 

[ProActive Mango]

A limited ring is basically an unlimited version unless it decays for time spent used. Better yet, don't use time but shots spent decay.

The ring was just an example, it can be weapons, faps, armours or amp and so on.

 

[Epik]

You can't unless your getting your 2.0 L weps at 0% MU somehow

And now I’m confused to what you’re even responding to in my post?

 

[JohnCapital]

How about instead of copy the stats from ul to limited gear, add diffrent and abit better stats to limited gear.

Can you please provide an example of UL & (L) that are the same that you feel should be different?

I'm aware of some like Angel armor, both are spot on exact, except (L) has significantly better durability (so (L) is technically better)
Others, such as Martial, the UL & (L) have a few differences.

Personally, I can't afford Martial UL, so I get (L) instead.

That what folks get for asking so much for their UL gear over the years. MA goes and invents (L).

 

[atomicstorm]

The ring was just an example, it can be weapons, faps, armours or amp and so on.

I am with you. Just pointing out the flaw with limited rings.

 

[Gopher]

And now I’m confused to what you’re even responding to in my post?

Making the same

 

[Katie Chalmers]

I don’t really think we need better L items, whatever the stats are, markups will be set, they will be too expensive, and we will be back here complaining about that, people overpay for L efficiency as we see with current L 2.0 guns.

What we do need is more L items in general.
Why is there not an L nano blade? Why do we have a shallow DPS ceiling on L mindforce chips? Why is it almost impossible to skill power claw with L pathways? (Those L Argo claws could have been nicer with ammo, and add them to regular argonaut loot) We have plenty of holes to fill.

Expanding armatrix to include a larger array of L gear is one we have been asking for for ages. Armatrix mindforce chips/amps, armatrix melee amps (ammo burning), Armatrix clubs, claws, maces, higher level weapons above XX-105. Or just a new series of crafted weapons that fulfil this role.

The daily terminal is limited and can also benefit from all the above. You would get alot more people cycling dailies if they had more things to spend tokens on.

 

[lethal]

If you're using limited, then you're at a big disadvantage compared to UL because all of your markup is pure loss. The armatrix series does a great job of forcing markup and making the limited items contribute to the economy by absorbing resources and making loot have value as well as making players cycle to make the weapon on multiple levels. For example, you need to use hunted loot to craft components (5% tt loss long term on the components), some of them being multi-step where only roughly 40% of the end product is what you need to make the gun. Then the gun its self has tt loss and ~40% success rate to make, so this makes a lot of hunting and mining mats get burned for a single weapon and capping the viable craft at a markup that makes them never able to compete with other weapons of the same EFF, DPP, and damage. As long as weapons are introduced in this format where they burn a lot of hunting and mining mats and take multiple stages of crafting to make, then I can guarantee that adding weapons with comparable or slightly better than the top gear stats will only benefit hunters with unlimited gear and limited hunters.

Having limited gear that was comparable to mod nano even would benefit the economy and unlimited hunters as long as a lot of materials were burned in the process. The markup is forced because of markup of materials and multiple steps of tt loss, so it could never beat UL, just give UL players more markup on what they loot.

 

[ProActive Mango]

I don’t really think we need better L items, whatever the stats are, markups will be set, they will be too expensive, and we will be back here complaining about that, people overpay for L efficiency as we see with current L 2.0 guns.

What we do need is more L items in general.
Why is there not an L nano blade? Why do we have a shallow DPS ceiling on L mindforce chips? Why is it almost impossible to skill power claw with L pathways? (Those L Argo claws could have been nicer with ammo, and add them to regular argonaut loot) We have plenty of holes to fill.

Expanding armatrix to include a larger array of L gear is one we have been asking for for ages. Armatrix mindforce chips/amps, armatrix melee amps (ammo burning), Armatrix clubs, claws, maces, higher level weapons above XX-105. Or just a new series of crafted weapons that fulfil this role.

The daily terminal is limited and can also benefit from all the above. You would get alot more people cycling dailies if they had more things to spend tokens on.

Yea i agree that limited items has a high markup but that can be adjusted from mindarks point of view adding more limited gear from hunting and mining loot, add more recipies for BP´s.
One way to make blueprint more affordable and more accessible is to add blueprints in miningloot aswell. There are many ways of making gear affordable. If limited items had 110% value it would be great for the looter and the buyers aswell, but its not valuable for the buyer when an items is 130%. Mindark needs to kick that little dog out the window that is in charge of the balancing and hired a more aggressive pitbull.