Want to Improve Hunting Loot? Fix Crafting

[remontoire]

Some ideas to improve loot via crafting - all are mine, so no promises of quality, you are welcome to shoot these down. Ultimately, more activity comes from more content, so:

1. Totally ban introduction of any new components on Calypso

2. Add unlimited blueprints for limited armor that make use of crafted shirts and pants and footgear in making the armor parts

• isn't it time there was a use for the basic pattern pants / shirts and manell shoes?
• make higher level blueprints use clothes from higher level UL tailoring blueprints
• the clothing component would soak up most of the markup on rest, as it can be tt repaired - much like the empty enhancer component does in enhancer crafting

3. Add incentives to own and use crafted L armors like Serum and Orca and at the same time, make possible to craft these (Phasm wool loots how often?)

4. Add particle beamers and make these craftable, and make sure the markup on the weapons is suitable for hunting.

• getting the tech skill finally is like xmas and mid-summer rolled into one for hardcore skillers
• make these be made out of hunting loot and components using hunting loot
• same for particle amps
• don't make the blueprints too high level

5. Make adjusted mining amps that use some components from hunting, that have low decay but use more probes / drop (think shear amps) and thus can tolerate higher MU for similar effects to non-adjusted.

6. Make new and better limited laser and blp amps - a limited amp should have higher eco than similar unlimited counterpart so that it is possible to buy the amp and stay eco. Use more of hunting loot in the blueprints of these. And drop unlimited blueprints!

7. Make new, customizable limited clothes. Make sure the number of uses is high enough that people will customize these.

I think overall, as long as bp components are looked at, it is better to use crafted items made from oils / wools / leathers and similar instead of the raw materials. Making sure there is a animal oil / robot part / tailoring material in every blueprint is really important.

 

[DoubleWolf]

I want to take this one step further: Let's eliminate ammo while we are at it.

Consider this scenario with regards to a crafting system like the one I mentioned above:

You build an L weapon worth 200 ped TT that costs 200 ped TT worth of materials to build. Someone buys your weapon for 200+markup. They take that weapon and go hunting until the weapon is completely dead. Since there is no ammo, they will have spent exactly 200 ped. If you give a 90% average return with perfect efficiency, they can expect to come back with ~180 ped in TT value, plus whatever they can get for markup. We also eliminate big TT globals/hofs in this scenario. Big loots would come from rare items, not from TT value. That way MA doesn't pay for big loots, other players do with their deposits.

So if they sell those materials that were looted back to you with markup to make another weapon, you would need 20 more ped TT worth of materials for your craft. This is where UL weapons come in. UL weapon hunters can hunt for materials and simply use ped to repair their items, however at a cost to efficiency as it is now, which would lower the average TT return rate. This would generate the extra amount of materials required while not having to create a weapon first to get those materials. You would simply use deposited money that was used to repair the gun to generate those materials.

Also consider that since the weapons do not use ammo, they would need to be returning to repair or buy items more frequently. This gives the extreme ped cyclers a reason to pause and not generate as many items as they normally would, reducing the supply of items, which would increase the markup.

There is an easy way for MA to implement this change without having to change the TT values of anyone's account. I look at something like an Opalo as an example. It's worth 3.8 ped. If you feel that is not enough ped to do a decent hunt with an Opalo, then simply modify the max TT value of an Opalo without changing the amount that people already hold on the Opalos in existence. So if I currently have a full TT Opalo, and MA wants to change the max to 20 ped so they can hunt without ammo, then simply leave my Opalo balance at 3.8 ped and make me repair the gun to full if I want to go on a hunt. I would've had to buy the ammo anyways. The same would go for L items. Just leave whatever is on there currently, and force people to buy a new weapon sooner.

Here's a list of things I'm proposing to implement this change:

• Eliminate all ammo and condition limits. Forces a near 1:1 between item creation and materials generated with UL weapons and deposits making up the difference
• Increase max TT value of items if necessary to allow hunts to be appropriate lengths
• Revamp entire crafting system to make crafting a near 100% success rate (varies based on skill) and make the cost of the click equal to the full TT value of the item, eliminating the need for residue.
• Eliminate huge globals/hofs/aths. These do not exist in our real life economy, so get them out. Make the big uber loots about looting rare items so that they are paid for by player's deposits, not by ped from MA.

 

[Doer]

So why on earth did you introduce about 10 new robot components to drop in beacons? If anything we should have fewer resource types, e.g. by consolidating extractor types, not more.

Simply moving the loot around by changing the loot tables in this way does not address the problem. All it does is piss off those of us who pay attention to, and make records of, our loot. There has already been one very substantial change in Calypso loot tables at the end of 2011, which was extremely annoying and which (as per my point above) made almost no difference to markups other than some minor changes in paint and extractor values.

That would actually be terrible. You're suggesting removing a stackable that can be sold for markup, tiny as it may be, that can be got from almost all mobs, just to be replaced with something that is complete TT food, like ammo.

I know that was just an example, but that would be the wrong way to go about it IMO. Don't replace any stackables with ammo, just reduce the amount of different stackables every mob can drop to 10-15 different stackables each AND remove ammo drops completely (other than explosives).

And back on-topic: a big problem is also that MA keeps making more and more different stackable types, while leaving a very large portion of the already existant ones remain completely useless. They could easily remove 2/3 of the existing stackable types and it would not have a significant bearing on EU's economy at all. Stop adding new crap, make new BPs use what already exists.

I agree with much of what remontoire suggests, as well as the comments above. There are too many stackables (looking at you, extractors) used in too few ways each. Furthermore, there are too many components that are not used for anything else. This isn't even a matter of making the basic components have markup: it's about making crafting more interesting.

Back in the day, orange paint enjoyed a pretty nice markup, yet dropped from noob mobs, because it would drop in only small quantities and only from small mobs, AND because there was demand for orange paint for skilling. There's something to be learned from the first point there. As for the second... MA/FPC/whomever is in charge now can't create demand on a sustainable basis (the "goldrush" of new game content and advertising blitzes are temporary), so they have to simulate it by modulating up and down different supplies. However, if everything was used for something else, it would at least create a demand, if not a markup. And that's a start to making things better. Someone is far more likely to craft something from their hunting loot if they can then make something from that, and so forth. And it is preferable to regularly loot some stackable that can eventually be sold for markup, rather than none. That means reduced quantities of one type of drop that does have some demand. This used to be the case for animal hide.

Going back to the OP: the real problem is that any markup paid to the hunters to craft desirable weapons and armor will come right back around to them in the markup of said weapons and armor. There's no magical fountain of PEDS: the buck stops somewhere. Still, i think very little has been done to close the loop of the economy of the game considering that it is closed.

 

[slasha]

That way MA doesn't pay for big loots, other players do with their deposits.
'''
Make the big uber loots about looting rare items so that they are paid for by player's deposits, not by ped from MA.
[/LIST]

You seriously think ma pay for some loot ? It all comes from others / your deposits

 

[DoubleWolf]

You seriously think ma pay for some loot ? It all comes from others / your deposits

MA doesn't have to give you straight up ped value for big loots is the point I'm saying. They can hand out ped all day long and it doesn't cost them anything until someone requests a withdrawal. But if you believe in loot pool theory, then instead of taking it from players first and THEN paying it out, just give players a low TT value item and have players use their deposits to pay for it in markup.

 

[sid]

I like what DoubleWolf has written so far as the point that there are too many unlimited hunting setups that don't buy enough from crafters. They add so much to the availability of resources, that there isn't enough of demand from those that primarily use (L).

For the market to thrive in it's current form, there must be loot that is worth hunting for - but when there is loot worth hunting for, those that don't rely on the (L) system will contribute to the availability until it is not worth hunting for. What course of action can a planet owner take to balance the system, without MA adjusting the usefulness of unlimited items?

I believe the system needs to be balanced in a way that doesn't rely on a constant influx of new players for the market to thrive.

 

[DeeDee]

I have been waiting for a rewamp of the crafting for so many years..

 

[Kratt]

I love, Love, LOVE this thread.

Let me add my 2 PECs:

While it is exciting to see an item appear in a loot window, it really only serves to remove a sale from a crafter. As has been mentioned in plenty of the above posts, crafters buy mats to sell items; this is the circle of economy. Looted items drive down the MU of crafted items. We wouldn't have to get rid of ALL looted items, but a reduction would help crafters.

Along these lines, it seems like making paint (for example) a crafted item rather than a looted item would increase the MU on the basic mats used to craft it. I would really enjoy reading discussion on this both positive and negative.

I think the point of this whole thread is that fewer ppl would complain about 75% TT ROI on their hunting trip if the MU was 115%. Following the laws of supply & demand means creating more need for lower MU items, such as animal oils. It strikes me that higher MU benefits ALL parties involved (although I'd like to hear from some crafters on this) including the PP (via increased auction fees).

Hope I've done more than just crytalize the thoughts of others here.

Mick

 

[Egrim]

cant agree more !!!!


Crafting is the back bone of EU !! give THEM SOME LOOOVE

how about a pure crafting event?
(yea lol)

 

[DoubleWolf]

For the market to thrive in it's current form, there must be loot that is worth hunting for - but when there is loot worth hunting for, those that don't rely on the (L) system will contribute to the availability until it is not worth hunting for. What course of action can a planet owner take to balance the system, without MA adjusting the usefulness of unlimited items?

I believe the system needs to be balanced in a way that doesn't rely on a constant influx of new players for the market to thrive.

I do think that the market needs to be geared toward L items to really flourish. If it's known that the items are more efficient and MA directly states that it indeed creates a better TT return because of that efficiency, in addition to the SIB bonus for those that want to use it, I think players would flock to L items even more than now. However, I still think there is a place for UL items. In my example a few posts back, there would still be a need for goods that can't be fulfilled by purely using L items to collect them. Let's also not forget the goods that we would loot that craft things like clothing or vehicles that are not used to generate any loot once they are created.

As far as "loot worth hunting for" goes, it is really in MA's best interest to have high markups on everything. If you start with a given amount of ped in circulation and a fixed amount of players, and they continue to cycle, the amount of ped in the game will decline from decay. If there is less ped in the game, it would mean there is less supply of goods to support the player base. If supply declines and demand stays the same, the price goes up. If the price goes up and the drain from decay continues to happen, then players will have to deposit to purchase items. So high markups combined with decay stimulate depositing. Not to mention players making withdrawals which also reduce the amount of peds in circulation. But these deposits wouldn't require new players to deposit. In this example, deposits would need to happen anyway, even if the player base remains fixed. It does, however, lessen the burden on existing players if there are new players joining and depositing.

If everything is near TT value, then players will only be depositing enough to play the game and wont be depositing to purchase items. And people wont be purchasing items if they don't feel that buying those items might give them the opportunity to loot better items.

But again, I think you need to eliminate ammo/probes, especially for L items, because that just generates more goods through pure ped value and not as much from the value contained in the items themselves. It puts too many items in circulation that simply aren't needed.

 

[sid]

..
But again, I think you need to eliminate ammo/probes, especially for L items, because that just generates more goods through pure ped value and not as much from the value contained in the items themselves. It puts too many items in circulation that simply aren't needed.

Or factories could be introduced (I heard something like that last time I played) so that newbies can produce those items, in tediously bizarre ways, on a ped in = ped out basis to to circulate the peds back down

 

[Egrim]

Thank you for this excellent post and I agree with the statements you make. I've been thinking about ways to attack these issues for quiet some time now and hopefully we will have time to get serious about it after the summer.

tbh instead of adding alot of shit .. like oh my ava looks so cool now mobojamob..

do something MA have never done before.. make Loot better...Not the TT return etc but what gets dropped.. as far as i know MA have dug their own grave with all the "improvments".. and serious after summer..this should be the prio 1 thing to do..dont add shit ppl get bored off after 1 week.. do something usefull with the peds WE PAY YOU.

and MA should start listen more to the ppl who play this game and now run their own race..like oh lets add hair..


PS. it dose not suprise me that MA dont get any big investors with the buissnes plan your running..

 

[Joat]

Nice post there JC.
When it comes to improve loot, there will always be winners and losers.
If MU increase on stuff in loot, that means the stuff needs to be
interesting enough to buy.
Stuff interesting enough to buy must be something that produce a
item that sell good, and a item that sell good needs to have a
steady demand from buyers.
Those buyers has to pay a higher MU, which probably means they gonna
lose a higher percent to others, no matter where their PEDs are comming
from, depo or ingame income. Except for some few.
I doubt that the loots higher MU will cover what those interesting items
MU gonna have, so then we might be back to state as it were for some year/s
ago, people left due to they pay too much to others.
This is the bad scenario thou'.
The good scenario could be that we do manage to play longer/more. Lets hope so.

 

[Neil Stockton]

It seems some folks missed the point I was trying to make so here's the short version:

Hunting loot only has MU based on its usefulness in crafting. Any truly useful long-term improvement must be based on that fact.

I got the point and agree completely Also, I'd like to see ammo removed from loot since it has zero MU (why is it even in there?).

 

[Doer]

I got the point and agree completely Also, I'd like to see ammo removed from loot since it has zero MU (why is it even in there?).

The less jaded consensus is that it is because there would not be gold coins (previous loot filler) inside a mob. (Why there would be extractors et. al, i don't know.)

The jaded consensus is that it is to make hunting seem less like a slot machine to avoid litigation.

 

[wizzszz]

But here's a plain simple truth: No one would care if TT returns were a steady 50% return, if all loot sold for over 200% MU. But why would that happen? Let's explore the truth about hunting loot.

So you are saying the crafters should pay for your loot?
Just because of MAs inability to distribute loot more evenly?

Sorry, can't subscribe to that point of view.

Thank you for this excellent post and I agree with the statements you make. I've been thinking about ways to attack these issues for quiet some time now and hopefully we will have time to get serious about it after the summer.

Why am i not surprised that you don't see(k) any room for improvement at MINDARKs end...?!?

 

[REVENGERbg]

well there has been a lot of opinions which i don't read but anyway i will post my own. First of all there is the over supply or as anyone know on the market (auction) you can see more than needed materials ( oils,wool,hides....) ores and guns ... + overstocking with blueprints and of course when there is more than has been used people start to drop there prices in order to sell there stuff faster even at the cost of lower profit which drops the mark up. About that there is few things that can happen to solve the problem first mind ark can put a cap or min prise for each item no matter armor gun material ore etc but they will have the chanse to choose what is profitable and many people will disagree so no win situation. So let's try to find another solution everyone know the problem with the sweat right ? more than is needed has been produced which bring the price down of course mind ark is happy cos this make the sweating harder and they lose less from non depositers cos. In order to solve the sweat price they need to decrease the amount of sweat that has been overstocking which can be done by finding another use of sweat where this is 100% needed and the price will go up same is with other items for example most common blueprints have flood the market and can be buy for 1 ped right ? so imagine if blueprints drop decrease a lot and all blueprints is used and cheapest one is like 20-30 ped it would be different right ? so let's try to do the same with hunting for example you can make the game drop a lot more ammo which have tt value so there will not be flooded the market with stackable materials used for crafting about mining hmm well there... i think we can leave the things stay at that situation or we can make few ores most common for example the one that is most used and it has low mark up becouse of over supply and rest will be fixed at some amount so the market from time to time need more supply then it has which will keep the mark up high and for the clothes unlimited guns + the mark up and paints they can be with low drop rate so the over stocking there is gone with time and they got some higher price for example 150% for cheapest paint etc and about crafting well we can make most of the loot residue so there will be aways flooded the market with residue but most materials will have some discent mark up and L items will have low mark up thanks to the low price of residue (overstocking) and let's talk a bit for a vehicles i think there will be good idea to decrease the drop of some of some for example the one that can fly and be used for transport gungnir and sleipnir so there price go up and not everyone can afford very cheap vehicle but there is a lot of problems that can appear with my idea for example most people will disagree because with the high mark up will apear more re-seller for example if you have mark up like 102% and you need to buy 500 ped tt at 100.5% in order to sell it for 102% and make just 1.5% for 500 ped = 7.5 ped but if you have some mark up like 150% re-sellers will be capable to make profit the 5-10 % depending on people how fast they need to get those materials at the moment (higher mark up) or after time (lower mark up) but this i think can be solve simply if you make some material to drop for example one week and more is drop after 2-3 days so there is some cicle made ...

 

[Grandmaster]

Thank you for this excellent post and I agree with the statements you make. I've been thinking about ways to attack these issues for quiet some time now and hopefully we will have time to get serious about it after the summer.

Here is your answer (in my op). Make desirable items players want crafted and mostly limited. ie motherships/spaceships should have been blue prints that sucked up alot of components to make.

The mechs coming with the new planet should be crafted only and mostly limited.

When ma introduced more melee items instead of droping straight to hunters they should have been limited crafted items.

There needs to be more want/need for crafted items for hunters/miners stuff to be worth more.

Mining amps/enhancers are good examples how desirable crafted items = nice mark up % for the components gathered through hunting and mining.

 

[whoeier]

hmmm i see many good things here, but lets start with the basics...

Rebalance the looting system itself: from the weard range <50% - >200% back to a more closer to cost line >75% - >150%

This would atleast make hunting more desirable and it makes the TT fodder more acceptable.


This would also work out for the best when there are less loot type drops per mob, when u check the listing on a mob its more above 20 different TT fodder types ( 100%-110% loots), not taking account the item drops on mobs.

Decreasing the TT fodder types, would make it possible to make it mob dedicated, wich means for specific TT fodder ull need to hunt that specific mob, making it more worth the hunt ( depending on desire from crafting etc. ) eq. slowly increasing the MU on the loot.

Both the above would rebalance crafting on itself, due to less available TT fodder components desired and the fluctuating balance between demand and supply ( hunters mostly look for mu items, making other TT fodder less available eq incresing the mu on it).

The above suggested thing would make the game ( atleast for me ) more desirable, due to the increased period my peds give ( ok not for gamblers ). Altho even for MA it would be more desirable due to the constant repairs ( According to themself, they live of the decay we make and repair ), the longer my peds go in hunting the more i repair beteen deposits ( ye I know this can be a kick off for another discussion.).

 

[Schism]

Black Hawk had similiar post long time ago.

New planets should think about this before they launch.

 

[JoseMTacoral]

I think that one of the few things that Entropia Universe loses to other MMO's in the poor range of clothes and it is exhausting and expensive system to acquire skills in occupations associated with manufacturing and coloring them. Somehow facilitate the manufacture and coloring of clothes and significantly increase the number of clothing designs would increase the demand for all involved stackables. Besides having more variety and lower prices allow greater visual impact and customizing of the avatars.

My proposal:

-> Recrease the skill requirements of the BP associated with manufacturing clothes.
-> Reduce the requirements for coloring and not distinguish between colors skills requirements.
-> Increase the number of clothing designs

 

[Naithen]

Ill buy alot of crafted L weapons "IF" i dont have to pay 50 to 60 bucks for a pistol/rifle that totally decays after a couple trips hunting.In fact i would love to try ALL of the L weapons at my level but i couldnt possible afford it because of cost\decay.
But i agree crafting needs a huge overhaul before we need space bugs to shoot.

 

[DoubleWolf]

Ill buy alot of crafted L weapons "IF" i dont have to pay 50 to 60 bucks for a pistol/rifle that totally decays after a couple trips hunting.In fact i would love to try ALL of the L weapons at my level but i couldnt possible afford it because of cost\decay.
But i agree crafting needs a huge overhaul before we need space bugs to shoot.

But would you pay 50 bucks if you knew you could get around 45 back in TT and were able to sell your goods at markup?

 

[Dr.D.C.]

Thank you for this excellent post and I agree with the statements you make. I've been thinking about ways to attack these issues for quiet some time now and hopefully we will have time to get serious about it after the summer.

oh sorry 2.2 rule!!!!!my fault.

i think that this post from Kim is very important. it points out (probably for the first time) that really loot need to be fixed from the MA official point of view. I m glad about this.
Not sure if fix crafting will fix the entire system, who i m to argue about? in effect just people from MA have all the necessary data to analyze that.

In each case this sentence is probably the most important we get from ages by MA.
Loot need to be fixed, we players know this since ever and i m happy that also MA now agree.

The next logic step now is to move from words to facts. MA should stop any other upgrade of any kind before to fix loot. This will help the game to prosper for sure.

dc

 

[JohnCapital]

Doc, I get your point, however, I am requesting you leave the derogatory remarks out of it. Yes MA/PC haven't done their best w/ loot. Just why do you think I wrote this OP? However, you'll note the lack of personal insults.

 

[Dr.D.C.]

Doc, I get your point, however, I am requesting you leave the derogatory remarks out of it. Yes MA/PC haven't done their best w/ loot. Just why do you think I wrote this OP? However, you'll note the lack of personal insults.

actually it was not sarcastic, i recognized my mistake, i say sorry and i fix it posting a more equilibrating one. Adult people do this in real life.
i think you should leave my second post. Maybe you want to re consider it?
in each case, according with the forum rules, i accept your moderation
DC

 

[JohnCapital]

OK it's possible I read sarcasm into it due to the prior post, but I'll take your word and restore it.

 

[Dr.D.C.]

OK it's possible I read sarcasm into it due to the prior post, but I'll take your word and restore it.

i really appreciate, and sorry for this OFF TOPIC.

DC

 

[Naithen]

But would you pay 50 bucks if you knew you could get around 45 back in TT and were able to sell your goods at markup?

Yes i would still pay the 50 bucks for a good L weapon that was going to last and when i say last i mean a good month of hunting.Why MA thought paying 50 bucks for a L weapon at my level was a good idea completly puzzles me.Heres MA's discussion:Ok for the players that have supported the game for many years the guys with the high skills were going to give them these L weapons that are incredibly expensive and they'll only last a couple hunts and they will love us for it!With regards to buying L weapons for hunting based of what return you get from loot? Loot sucks we know that but we still love to hunt so its the hope your paying for the hope you get something decent in return for the effort.

 

[DoubleWolf]

With regards to buying L weapons for hunting based of what return you get from loot? Loot sucks we know that but we still love to hunt so its the hope your paying for the hope you get something decent in return for the effort.

Well that's just it. We don't want to pay 50 bucks for a weapon with so much uncertainty of what we will get back. To do so is simply gambling. In any other MMO or RPG type game, if you go out and hunt a particular mob, you know you will always get something back, and it usually falls within a narrow range, like 90-100 gold, for example. The difference in those games is that the cost to kill is much less than what you get back in gold, so it's always possible to come out ahead as long as you play.

This game, being tied to real money, operates a little differently. But I don't see why I can't go out and hunt Atrox, and if it costs about 4 ped to kill, then you should always get ~4 ped back, and on average will be less than 4 ped. Let the reason we hunt be to loot rare and valuable items that players will deposit and pay for, not to maybe hit some lucky TT HOF full of oils. No one wants a big 10k loot full of oils, no one wants to sell 10k worth of oils, and no one wants buy 10k worth of oils. Everyone would much rather see a badass gun or an awesome piece of armor in their loot.

The whole loot and crafting system needs to be revamped, but I think it can still be done in a way that fully incorporates what we have right now. And MA needs to start letting good items drop more often and stop protecting the "investors" that paid for these items. Just like any investment, there is a risk that the price could go down. It shouldn't be up to MA to decide what these items are worth. Let the market decide. If there is stuff worth hunting for, more people will stick around and play which will balance out the demand with the increase in supply.