Info: MindArk Blog | Proposal for Limited & Unlimited Items

[Msturlese]

again read all damn insane number of posts.

So the task is to Sink loot. NANO is just a short for "any useless shit that comes off monsters".

let monster drop more SHRAPNELS in outer planets, and release some useful attachment, like a (L) critical damage attachment for armors

 

[Ferial]

Instead of nanocubes use sweat. Nanocubes will only cause hunters to recycle a lot, driving MU on stuff up, causing crafters to charge more for their final products, and thus the increased cost for weapons/amps/etc. will only be passed along causing every step to cost more for no gain.

This is an interesting take, partly because I do not understand it. For whom is "driving mu on stuff up" bad? High MU is a good thing, for everyone (except the ones who just don:t care).

So basically, for this thought experiment we go back to the trusted "95% returns" since it is very easy to understand and very easy to math. For every 100 PED you put in you get 95 PED back. If average MU is 102% you get 1.9ish PED of markup for every 100 PED you spend. This brings you to a 96.9 ped return on 100 PED "invested". On average. This makes it very difficult for the player where the challenge is finding a source that provides an average MU over time to make up for the 5 ped per 100 deficit.

And then there is the pvp aspect. If average MU is 102, you can maybe, if you try a bit get 103-104 for what you sell. The same way, you can maybe source the stuff you need for 101.5.

In a situation where average MU instead is 120% (now this is too high, this comes with its own set of problems, but lets disregard that for a minute) :

You would now be losing 5 per per 100 in TT returns but you would instead be making 19 per per 100 PED spent in MU. You would be 14 ped into profit.

But, you are also sourcing your stuff for 120% and this entirely eats your profit, and then some.

So why is this desirable?

Because, rather than putting the entire focus on making sure you are putting all the eggs in the right basket in the "you vs game" aspect you now have two avenues in which to leverage skill and knowledge. You can make all the wrong choices and still come out ahead of you play the pvp aspect correctly. You can make all the right choices in game and come out ahead even if you just sell for "average market value" or you can try to do both and if you succeed you increase profits substantially.

If in the above example you could sell for 103-104 average and buy for 101.5. in the new example you can sell for 130-140 and buy for 115.

Do you see now how average MU being higher than MA rake (up until a certain point) is desirable. It puts less emphasis on the choices you make vs the game, and more emphasis on the choices you make vs other players. And as we all know (hopefully) it is much easier beating other players than it is beating the game

 

[jetsina]

Thanks for going a bit more in depth on this. This is also behind my thoughts on higher mus in the 'cost to play' because it is within the pvp economy rather than MA's rake.
If we all pay a rake to MA, but good players only get a small edge over poorer players, then everybody will be losing to play the game. That's not much of an incentive to a lot of people. The question is how many more players would be around if there were more pvp competition and some winners (at all levels due to the right decisions)? Initially it would mean whoever loses, loses more ofc, but if MA can then lower its rake whilst still doing ok as a company, then that lessens the losers' losses a bit again and more people are break-even or even in profit.
I know we're in a tough place. We need more players and/or active ones to be more active. Surely there will still be a tendency that people with knowledge of the game and more in-game skills will have an advantage, even if things become shifted.
(I mostly use UL, although nothing that cost me a great deal, just middling. We're mostly talking adjusted resto prices here. Yes, I want to be mindful of the attractiveness of much bigger stuff, but we need new blood too)

 

[saabx]

the problem with Unlimited items is that once you've got one, the balance is thrown off for good. You stop buying new L-items and resources

This is not true, we're using a shit ton of enhancers and amps (bought or crafted with resources) and we can use also any new L attachments (scopes, lasers, amps , tons of proposals in these posts) you're gonna design in the future.

 

[luc jefferson]

I strongly dislike both suggestions (I use UL and L items). I also don’t fully understand the problem you’re trying to solve.

My recommendation to MA: break the issue into smaller pieces and iterate with several modest, targeted changes rather than one sweeping “big bang” rework affecting almost every item in the universe. Smaller, reversible steps let you observe effects and adjust before creating major disruptions and would allow community to adopt smoother.

Here are some alternative ideas for some directions:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Profession‑specific restrictions

• Make some objectives or tasks only work with specific item classes (for example: objective A works only with UL items of type AB, but not C).
• This narrows UL/L dominance in the broader economy while preserving trust: UL must always remain better than the equivalent L item so grinders and investors aren’t betrayed.

1. Improve crafting and controlled decomposition

• Make crafting more attractive and accessible.
• Add a decomposition system for lower‑tier (L) items that yields components which can be rerolled or recombined—an intermediate step toward “real crafting.” More players crafting their needs increases item use and circulation.
• Do not allow simple recycling like L + L = L that bypasses real crafting; recycling should require effort or components.

1. Positive incentives to convert UL into L (if you really *must* reduce number of UL items)

• Offer missions or conversion options: UL item + rare component → a bulk quantity of the corresponding L item (examples: 100× same L item, or 200× previous‑chain L item, or 20× next‑chain L item).
• Let players decide and do the math: keep UL (TT+X) or convert to many L (Y%)—the economy will self‑regulate if values are sensible.
• This provides an outlet for players who are “UL‑rich” but stuck at progression caps, enabling them to advance faster without waiting for a buyer of their UL item.

1. New uses for nanocubes

• Give nanocubes fun, optional utilities to increase demand: temporary player‑built 3D structures (like monuments), in‑game mini‑games (e.g., puzzle/Tetris‑style) with cosmetic or small‑item rewards, or other novel gameplay uses.
• Make uses interesting, interactive and refreshing rather than purely transactional.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[GradenFoss]

Towards the UL proposal ppl have already pointed out in detail and in lots of aspects, how unadvisable that would be.

My own reasoning needs not go beyond this:
a) This is an RCE. I should be able to get going and do stuff using my PED card and getting immediate results.
b) Basic gaming mechanics should be kept basic. Go shoot--repair instantly--go shoot again.

Most of the problems mentioned w.r.t. the L proposal might be avoided considering the following alternative:
Limited items drop as (L,R).
They can be once repaired up to full TT, using Residue of the appropriate type (like with crafting). After that they become (L).
They also become (L) with the first use.
Repair needs not be full, item can be traded in both (L,R) and (L) versions.

 

[Shadowsong]

The problem that MA is trying to address is very simple - nobody wants to pay MU, everybody wants to sell with MU.

Solving that problem is bound to piss off everybody if they do it right

 

[aVaLON_52]

So to fix the problem with UL Weapons you want to create more pseudo UL items out of L items?
Do you notice the flaw in that concept?

you mean like this..?

In short, the faucet of tokens into the economy has been increased, participation in the format has also been very high, and the vendor has remained primarily used for the purpose of obtaining high-end UL items. This combined with expectations for restocks of these items has created a cycle which brings UL items into the game at an unsustainable rate - and frustration from players expecting and waiting for said items to be stocked.

Therefore, our plan is to remove UL items entirely from the vendor once stock is depleted

Originally Posted Here

 

[Raffaele Meiers]

Most of the problems mentioned w.r.t. the L proposal might be avoided considering the following alternative:
Limited items drop as (L,R).
They can be once repaired up to full TT, using Residue of the appropriate type (like with crafting). After that they become (L).
They also become (L) with the first use.
Repair needs not be full, item can be traded in both (L,R) and (L) versions.

MA should have considered this from the beginning. Otherwise, f.x. once a daily token weapons reaches Tier 10, it would be at Tier 10 forever. Compared to the cost of getting an unlimited weapon to Tier 10 for a fraction of the price or at least in 5 minutes if the amount of tier comps would be astronomical high so no one would use the system to preserve the Tier in the first place.
Resupplying weapons to renew usability wouldn't be a problem either, since you can get them at any time from the Daily Token Trader and no MU for Crafter/Hunter is generated.

 

[Phoenix]

So to fix the problem with UL Weapons you want to create more pseudo UL items out of L items?
Do you notice the flaw in that concept?

Exactly! And also create more pseudo L items out of UL items? xD

---

MA wants to merge them into one big pile called "You have to pay (more) markup to hunt/mine/whatever".

The thing with paying the MU on UL items is.... WE PAY FOR IT ALREADY, on the purchase of the item, in advance! Some deposit huge amounts of cash in order to have their turn at a "promise" for profit and/or performance by owning a UL item. Then they sell it and someone else puts in a huge amount of cash to buy it for that same "promise". There are better and worse "promises", and you pay accordingly. We also pay for enhancers, UL amps, lasers, scopes, we dont sell shrap, we convert it into Universal Ammo, which are basically "tool use tokens". With L you pay bit by bit in order to keep tasting that "promise"

Also, by buying a L gun, you don't have the risk of depreciation of the UL, which is very high at the moment, it might reverse some day, but its always a risk.

Not to mention how many L items you have to break before you reach a price you would have paid for an equivalent UL, plus by using the L you are keeping your PEDs liquid and can invest the difference into something else, like deeds, shares, shops.....

That's all it is. Its basically renting vs owning.

 

[Raffaele Meiers]

Also this poll won't tell you an totally accurate picture except how people feel about the unlimited suggestion.
In the past you've done poll in-game through a link. More people would probably do that poll ingame if they had link in RED msg.

Or finally install voting booths in the game, as you promised roughly 20 years ago.

 

[Ronus]

Go work at CCP for a year or two and learn how to run an economy properly.

 

[Zerkael]

Has any of the admins played the game? L item drop, very rarelly though. As a user of only UL items i do have alot of 101-102% Mu items that can be used to repair my weapon. I donnot mind it. But, sometimes on a hure run its mostly shrapnel. I do not like to.be forced to buy nano at a mark up to repair my weapon/armor and fap. Unless you make shrapnell act as nano to repair. Player should either be able to use nano or shrapnel or both. Then a hunter can be self suficient after MA takes its share of his money.
The L items, dont really care about.

 

[gabrynio]

I'm glad to see that the developers are aware of how unlimited (UL) items negatively affect the in-game economy. They essentially break the natural supply chain between hunters, crafters, and miners. At this point, it’s one of the most serious issues discouraging players. Fixing this won’t be easy — but it’s a necessary step if the game is to thrive.

Here’s one idea worth considering:

Instead of giving weapons a fixed efficiency stat, make efficiency a dynamic attribute that increases with usage. The higher the tier or level of the weapon, the longer it would take to fully max out its efficiency. This would create long-term goals and meaningful progression tied to actual usage.

As part of this change, all unlimited (UL) weapons would be completely removed from the game, not just from the loot pool. Existing owners would receive equivalent limited (L) versions of their weapons, but with 100% efficiency already unlocked as compensation for their past investment.

Additionally, all new (L) weapons should be available exclusively through crafting, to reinforce the interdependence between hunters, crafters, and miners — and to bring real economic flow back to the game.

PS Importantly, this would also solve the long-standing issue of outdated pre-Loot 2.0 weapons that no longer fit within the current loot and economy system. The proposed system would make all items subject to the same long-term progression and economic logic — regardless of their origin.

 

[Joat]

When I had this idea looong time ago I had the suggestion to weight tier level also, not only TIR,
and inluence should be based on percent of tt.
So if you want to maintain a T10 weapon you need another T10 to be combined with.

 

[Katla]

MA should have considered this from the beginning. Otherwise, f.x. once a daily token weapons reaches Tier 10, it would be at Tier 10 forever. Compared to the cost of getting an unlimited weapon to Tier 10 for a fraction of the price or at least in 5 minutes if the amount of tier comps would be astronomical high so no one would use the system to preserve the Tier in the first place.
Resupplying weapons to renew usability wouldn't be a problem either, since you can get them at any time from the Daily Token Trader and no MU for Crafter/Hunter is generated.

Focus on solutions, please. It would be easy to add crafted items into the "recycle L" operation as well as Tier comps. I am more afraid that the MU cost will be too steep, and no one will care to use the recycle action. There is already an overabundance of high dps, high tier UL items. UL will still be way more attractive. It is also possible to set a cap of recycle attempts on the same item, or increased cost per recycle. The cdf nd exceptional should be non-recycle or expensive (could easily scale price with amount of uses per item).

 

[SoberPhil]

One issue I see with nanocube repairs is their availability outside of Calypso. There may be none in auction, or they may be overpriced, which would make the whole thing even more cumbersome. So if MA decides to go with this I suggest they make nanocubes weightless and non-lootable at the very least. Dunno if possible currently but they might as well add them to the global auction tab (that exists but isn't used) and remove the interplanetary transportation fee for purchasing them. At least that way cubes will be readily available everywhere.

Another thing I'd like to suggest is to add a small bonus for nanocube repair, like 1% extra temporary TT, but they gotta make sure that this temporary TT is not returned in loot or when sold/recycled in the terminal, otherwise hold my Jester D-1. Maybe the efficiency this ability could be tied to a new skill? This bonus as well as the extra MU that hunters will be able to generate due to higher prices should offset any extra cost of repairing with cubes.

 

[Msturlese]

Another 2 hours reading...

this is a quest to solve a NON -existent problem
1. any (L) item works until last PEC of residual value, so stacking is USELESS and moreover the only items that have a "stackable opportunity" are ELM, just have an interface that put 2 item, give back one with randomized tier rate and sum of value, much like texturizing and paint if you think that it might be useful (same result bringing storage space to 1000 no need to save slots via stacking)

2. MU for an UL item is made by the cost to obtain it and is prepaid by the purchaser to PP and MA if competiong in an event or to the looter or puller in gase of secondary market. this price includes the benefit to go UL prepaying the mu... now you want to tax it again pretty socialist for a RCE...
(i got a BIG amount of euro in game so i am aware of this lol). i can repair my BP70 covnerting to nano in 10 minutes shooting, no benefit for the economy, i would use same garbage as TT food

Want to sink loot? there is a VERY fast way. make it recyclable to shrapnels instead of nanocubes. people will sink loot to keep going and GG

this is a "looser premium" not to get any sellable loot. and will automagically bring ANY MU to 101%

and please make for all developers MANDATORY PLAY THE GAME not with a Marco and GM Buffs, but with a 100 hp 100 EUR account, a 200 HP 2000 eur account and 400 hp 10.000 euro account to let them understand what is the game about... sometimes i feel they never killed a berycled......

 

[Turisas]

If devs wants to boost material circulation and crafting they should first reduce or remove completely most looted limited items, not tinkering their repairability.

Having high TT weapons in loot pool that sells at low mu isn't any better than selling loot directly to crafters. People who sell the weapons aren't loosing if there is still mu in crafting materials.

Make crafted weapons more desirable. Let planet parners release new weapons that uses planet specific loot.

 

[Equi]

I will be happy as long as you do not make the mistake of actually listening to playerbase. I don't care nanocubes I put everything tt most times. The menu for repair and trade should not be the same menu though that is only my opinion, you should not listen to it. Even when I am sober I have to check three times if I am in the right menu and even then feels weird to press repair on my most beloved items.

Thanks

 

[messi91]

I will be happy as long as you do not make the mistake of actually listening to playerbase

Unfortunately devs no longer have their own vision so they must learn the game through playerbase which is extremely bad for the economy.
They are hoping that the more players they satisfy the more revenue they might get for their shareholders which one paper might be ok but in the long run not so.

 

[Crone]

Thanks for asking, but you need to give all the information, when you ask these questions.

You are asking the wrong question.

A definition of economy is: "careful management of available resources". This implies that resources are limited in an economy. The Entropia Universe seems to have unlimited resources. This means, there is no economy in EU, until you fix that.

Your question should be: "We want to maximize total "resources of a specific kind" (all resources separately) in hands of (active?) players, how should we do this?".

I am an UL user and agree that they have a negative influence on the economy. However, we don't have one. Therefore it does not matter. The benefit of using UL items is no longer paying a mark-up for using said item. Your proposition would change that, by a small margin, or will this become a big margin? Either way, the players using them will be more elite than they already are. It's a bad idea. Ban UL weapons completely, could be a good idea. The problem with that is: what will people hunt Eomon for? You are in a difficult position.

Other players already mentionned other planets; are you destroying them completely?
Other players already mentionned carrying Nano. Are you for real, how do you see this happening?

Increasing the power of L items like that seems dangerous without knowledge of how it will turn out:. Let me give 2 scenarios that in my opinion are both possible.

I have a few questions:
1. What happens to the TT of the tier components?
2. How many tier components are we talking about?
3. Do we lose TT from combining L items, will 10 tt + 10 tt be 20 tt or 19 tt?

L items will become very popular, since they are now basically unlimited, at a price. Tier components will become increasingly expensive to keep the current tier of L items. Less L items will be up for sale due to people buying them to keep their high tier weapons alive. This can lead to 2 things.
A) UL weapons will be more expensive due to the alternative (L items) becoming more expensive.
B) People using L items cannot afford this increase in price and your effort will be pointless.

Another suggestion would be to extremely limit the variety in L items.

Your turnover went down 20% in 2024 compared to 2023, only for a small part this had to do with the change in exchange rate as you explain in the notes of your financial statements. I am pretty sure you already know what 2025 brings. These kind of drastical changes are possibly related to that. I understand the urgency for drastic changes.

I assume that, just like in a normal economy, it's the mid level players that finance your operation. You probably have data about that. Which you are keeping a secret, obviously. However, without all the information, I cannot help you.

1. What group of players do you need to keep happy due to the income/cashflow they generate? (Who are your cash cows?)
2. What impact do UL items have on your income/cashflow?
3. What impact do L items have on your income/cashflow?
4. What is the impact of "hero's" in the game?
5. ...

So many questions, so little answers.

Summary:
You are asking the wrong question.

Final note: We are the players, we are not the game developers. You are. I appreciate you are asking the community for input, but kindly take your responsibilities and continue to make the game more awesome, remember it is a game though.

Thanks for trying, Crone appreciates that!

Kind regards,
Crone

 

[FireFist]

Unlimited
If ur proposal is using nanocubes instead of ped - i think dumb idea...go fish...now if u want to make it so, nanocubes and peds can repair i say sure lets go for it. But, removing the idea of spending ped alone from repairing is no way forward...

I have an idea to implement for UL weapons though - same kinda idea for example - take 2x A&P Series Mayhem BP-70, Perfected - they have 125tt u refine them now you have 1x that is 250tt and retains the higher of the 2's TIR's and Tier's - Now the gun doesnt go away in a sense, it helps remove UL's out of the market. The biggest problem I could see happening here with this idea though we would need to think about it - ubers getting all the little parts making 1 big gun or armor this idea isnt limited to guns only - so, now u only have 1 in game and this could happen - not saying it would or wouldnt.

Limited

I think this all actually sounds good - though once u hit "max tt" on said refine item - for example 25% 25% 25% 35% - the extra 10% where would it go? shrapnel? Unlimited ammo? metal residue?

 

[jetsina]

I believe still unmentioned in almost 300 replies is making it easier for you to drop lower (L)tt items in loots, which would shift away from needing multis somewhat. People may still need to individually wait to loot more of the same weap, but players trying out mobs would more quickly be able to get an idea of the mu drops from their killing style (e.g. wasteful or economic).
Plus, there might also be a return to @boxes style (L) markets for what still wouldn't be auctionable, but may carry mu.

I think you could also make automated changes to items fairly easily to increase max tts to at least 10 or 20 peds, to further enhance auctionability of merged weaps.

Some have said that (L) thus becomes pretty much unl and ppl will keep high tiers and TIRs for ever. I admit I also overlooked that you state that TIRs (not tiers reached) would be a weighted average of the inputs (but main has more weight), which would usually result in losing at least some of the TIR value. People might really despise the 1-50 end of the spectrum, though, and average auction histories might very poorly reflect the range of popularity. I remember armatrix being like that if a very high TIR was being sold that could be used in CAT events with restrictions on them.
On keeping the existing tiers, it wasn't clear from the pic whether just one of each component would be required, or a variable quantity. There could be mathematical issues around either I think... Also, some have suggested using crafting components instead of tier comps, which could also be looked at.

Mainly, however, it should be noted that (L) still requires the same weap type to be combined, so the cost of upping the tt will still have an underlying mu depending on the weap type and be dependent on availability, unlike unl which will have an unlimited supply of nanocubes (or other) behind it at a presumably lowish mu even in the future.
Contrary to what others have said, nanocubes ARE very light, aren't they? But they are lootable in space I think, so pls consider this (or the transfer fee from auction planet to planet, or placeability on the universal auction).

My suggestion of all ammo being crafted, similar to EP crafting, still stands by the way. This could be via a range of new bps, or a selection like M/F on tailoring bps for which sort of ammo to make. As crafting can also be on auto in the background nowadays, people might choose their own speed of crafting their ammos if not buying from others.

As I've said, I mostly use unl but am open to suggestions for the good of the game. How to better handle melee, EP weaps, plus decay:ammo ratios and mus in the future (if you change things anyway) is something I'd like to see happen.

 

[EszCsq]

The following post is from Jonas, our Head of Content at MindArk.

Greetings Entropians,

We've got a couple of changes we want to run by you. This is just a proposal for now, nothing is finalized yet. We understand that the changes are pretty foundational and that this area is very sensitive, which is why we want your input before doing anything with it. The goal is to make sure we’ve looked at it from all angles before deciding whether to move ahead or make any adjustments to the design.

Unlimited​

The economy is arguably the most critical and unique part of the game, and the problem with Unlimited items is that once you've got one, the balance is thrown off for good. You stop buying new L-items and resources, which means demand drops across the entire resource chain. At the same time, you keep feeding the market with resources and L-items, which creates oversupply and pushes prices down.

What we're proposing is a change to the Repair Terminal: instead of using pure PEDs, it would use Nanocubes as input. We propose using Nanocubes because they're flexible, almost anything can be converted into them, there's a good supply, and the most important aspect is that they’re still part of the broader economy.

Limited​

For Limited items, the proposal is to add a system that allows players to Combine items of the same type into a single item. While Limited items remain limited with this change, there are some design issues with how they currently work. Items with very low TT value left are generally not appealing and often end up being useless. Even if they are still usable, carrying around 10 items at 10% each is not a great experience compared to using one item at 100%.

The most important and game-changing aspect is related to the loot. Dropping items with less than 50% TT, or even 75%, causes problems, mainly due to the reason above. It results in inventories being filled with "broken" items that will be difficult to both sell and use. If this limitation was removed, it would be possible to increase the number of item drops without increasing the total TT value dropped of each specific item type. While this update won’t bring a general overhaul of all the loot lists, it will give us more options for the future.

Being able to combine items would also open up some new possibilities in the construction system. The quantity and quality settings could be used more strategically. One example is that you could be focusing on quantity to produce more items with higher Tier Increase Rates. It would also reduce the necessity of using Residue.

The image below shows a prototype of how the interface for this system could look.

The main item is placed in the smaller box on the left, and all items to be merged into it go into the larger box on the right.

To keep the unlocked Tiers of the main item, the corresponding Tier Components need to be added in the smaller boxes at the bottom. These can be left empty, but doing so will reset the Tiers during the combining process.

The resulting Tier Increase Rate is calculated as a weighted average, based on the TT values of the main item and all input items. The main item has a higher weight in this calculation.

Share Your Thoughts​

To wrap up, this is just a proposal, and we’re looking to gather feedback before making any decisions. These are important systems, and we want to make sure any changes we make are in the best interest of both the game and the community.

Take your time, think about it, let it sink in, and then let us know what you think. Your input will help guide the path forward!

// Jonas, Head of Content

Unlimited Items – Repair Terminal Change​

“The problem with Unlimited items is that once you've got one, the balance is thrown off for good…”

Response: This framing feels overly reductive. UL items are aspirational goals for many players, and their existence drives long-term engagement. They don’t “break” the economy—they anchor it. Players who invest in UL gear often continue to participate in crafting, hunting, and trading. Penalizing UL users by introducing markup via Nanocubes undermines the very value proposition UL gear was built on: cost efficiency and independence from markup.

“We propose using Nanocubes…they’re still part of the broader economy.”

Response: While integrating Nanocubes may seem like a clever way to stimulate the economy, it introduces logistical and fairness issues:

• Nanocubes aren’t universally available across all planets.
• UL users would now need to manage markup and inventory for repairs—defeating the purpose of UL gear.
• This disproportionately affects decay-only weapons and amps, especially in mining and melee setups.

Instead of taxing UL gear, consider incentivizing L gear through buffs, event mechanics, or crafting enhancements.

Limited Items – Combining System​

“Items with very low TT value left are generally not appealing…”

Response: Agreed. The combining system could be a great QoL improvement. It addresses the clutter and inefficiency of managing multiple low-TT L items. However, implementation must be careful not to blur the line between L and UL.

“Dropping items with less than 50% TT causes problems…”

Response: This is a valid concern. Allowing combination of low-TT items could help clean up loot pools and improve usability. But safeguards are needed:

• Ensure that combining doesn’t allow indefinite preservation of high-tier L items.
• Maintain the limited nature of L gear—don’t let it become pseudo-unlimited.

“Being able to combine items would also open up new possibilities in the construction system…”

Response: This is promising. Strategic use of quantity/quality settings and reduced reliance on residue could enhance crafting depth. Just ensure that the tiering system remains balanced—preserving high tiers should come at a meaningful cost to avoid devaluing UL tiered gear.

Instead of weakening UL gear, strengthen L gear in ways that make it desirable without erasing the value of UL:

• Add event-specific buffs to L gear.
• Introduce prestige systems or second-tier upgrades for UL gear.
• Ensure Nanocube availability across all planets or offer portable converters.

P.S. This post was refined with the help of AI to ensure clarity and structure.

 

[James Jimbo Linehan]

so pls consider this (or the transfer fee from auction planet to planet, or placeability on the universal auction).

+

Ensure Nanocube availability across all planets or offer portable converters.

And a bunch more said the same but I'm too lazy to go thru right now.

Anyways if they did do this nano change then we do NOT want what you guys are suggesting with buying nanos off planet from caly for no extra fee or whatever...and it is the entire benefit point of the suggestion. Hard to get nanos on other planets provides an opportunity to make extra MU. This goes with literally every other item in game and is why there is MU at all (not wanting to farm yourself) and if you are savvy and ambitious enough you can profit in this game by doing things like this. I changed my mind tho this change ultimately doesn't do too much and will make the game even more confusing for new players. I like that it would boost trade a little bit rather than = farm, sell, farm, sell... I mean people would still do that but it will cut resources down which is great for over supply and make people buy on other planets to not risk space pvp loss. I just don't trust them to exclude mostly decay only UL melee, UL mining amps, and UL gun amps etc.

There is a far far superior and better way to fix what they are aiming to fix rather than make the game more confusing. Maybe I will type it up 1 day so they can not read it.

The limited gun change can cause some serious problems too. If anything make it where you can combine 2 of the same low tt guns once only in order to sell or use at full TT and that's it done deal its a "limited" item.

I get real nervous when MA makes changes like a simple thing like using same planet ores in space that anyone could forsee as a problem just wrecked the game for so many people who mine/craft. Or UL turn in for m-tokens during resource mayhem. Both unbelievably awesome ideas, both with a fatal mistake.

 

[The Mind]

MU for an UL item is made by the cost to obtain it and is prepaid by the purchaser to PP and MA if competiong in an event or to the looter or puller in gase of secondary market. this price includes the benefit to go UL prepaying the mu...

And it has been amortized long... long ago. If people think that they can milk a 1 time investment forever, they need to reconsider.
System is unsustainable at this point (as it became at loot 1.0 breakpoint). And it doesnt seem that small tweaks will save it.
Otherwise MA will just wait another year (a harsh, MU-less year) and trash them all in favor of a new and stable economic model (loot 3.0). And instead of any sort of transition, everything old will become obsolete overnight.
And, all tho the final outcome seems to be inevitable, looks like the choice of path is handed to the community this time (vs MA making this decision, as they did with 2.0).

 

[Bones]

We are all subject to whatever decision MA passes along , but as we have all seen , complicated systems do not often go well and are more often abandoned.

Please MA , do not reinvent the wheel to accomplish what is already available.
Previous L blueprints were made to enable stacking , which makes me believe it is already possible to stack other L items.

Test the impact of L item stacking on the economy first before creating another complicated system.
Please hold on the UL repair mu until EU5 has taken hold , or there is a way to make it palatable.

 

[Pettson&Findus]

We are all subject to whatever decision MA passes along , but as we have all seen , complicated systems do not often go well and are more often abandoned.

Please MA , do not reinvent the wheel to accomplish what is already available.
Previous L blueprints were made to enable stacking , which makes me believe it is already possible to stack other L items.

Test the impact of L item stacking on the economy first before creating another complicated system.
Please hold on the UL repair mu until EU5 has taken hold , or there is a way to make it palatable.

Agree

 

[Msturlese]

again read another 2 hour of lines
1. "UL were amortizing long ago, cant milk one time investment"... a bp70 was 100k ped. at 1% bullet impact of an armatrix (self crafted) 100k ped require 10m cycle to be amortized.. at 1500 ped per hour a simple BP70 6.666 hours non stop shooting or 9 months... on a rnomal life even with 6 hours gaming per day (a very high amount) requires 3 years. OPINABILE OPINION

LIMITED STACKING...
I am skilling MF on cornundo shore, i have nanocubed because they have no market about 800 ped of small weapons in 3 days, i killed Lahar, Medusa attack and nanocubed another 250 ped of small weapons. on ah average markup of a (L) range is 102% it is clear to me that this is not a problem of "stacking" but of lack of demand.

DEVS: lack of demand comes off 2 things: lack of people in need or lack of interest in the specific item. increase EFF of (L) looted weapons to 70/75 and people will gladly use them , increase DPP of looted item to 3.40 and people will fight to use them. add a 3% lifesteal to looted weapons and they will go to 110% mu add to them a 10% critical damage buff and people that is math blind will pay MU for it...

MAKE LIMITED INTERESTING to use

my LAST WORD ON UL... i got a 125 PED BP70, i need full repair, i killed monsters, got about 3000 ped loot on me... i go to TT, sell least interesting loot for 125 ped total value, repair in cash.... OR put 125 ped loot into RECYCLE panel, press recycle and repair in NANO... can you explain me the impact on economy? i work in capital market since 1994 and REALLY i can not see the difference for other gamers if i press SELL or RECYCLE.

does REALLY anyone believer that a hunter that cycle 200k to 1m per month need to buy nanocubes to repair from a newcomer or remain with a useless weapon? jokes on you id yuou really think it works this way.

main issues are
1. lack of new gamers to have a broad market
2. limited items not strong enough to be an alternative to mayhem
3. ARIS releasing items that destroy armatrix market killing the gizmo activity
4. AFK Crafting allowing (AS I POINTED MONTHS AGO) to produce without paying the time spent to crafters so less MU circulating.


last but not least, LIMITED mining amps sell for hundred of thousands of ped per day, but amps for weapons come from WEB SHOP (mayhem amps) so this section of crafting is not absorbing loots... bad part is that removing amps from boxes will kill the box key sales so it is a hard question....


all in all i agree that this is the wrong question and the proposals are to distract from real points


we are in OVERSUPPLY with everything, due to the fact that most of loot has no use, is just a filler, and is less useful than shrapnels.