Suggestion: Refine anything into nanocubes, remove them from TT

[SoberPhil]

So I got a brilliant idea on this friday evening.

I saw multiple threads on this forum where poeple said that they cycle a lot and have to TT too much stuff because it's impossible to sell due low demand and low markup. I think most of us, me included, TTed stuff for 100% whereas that could've been sold if there were more demand/less of it on auction.

The solution is simple. For that we would need to remove nanocubes from the trade terminal and create a tool (preferably craftable L) or special terminal to refine anything we don't need into nanocubes and sell them. For this to work nanocubes would need to become auctionable of course.

This way you don't have to TT anything anymore because nanocubes are used in many blueprints, not only for crafting explosives. The downside is that nanocubes will have markup, but I don't think it'll go over 103-105% due to the sheer amount of stuff that is being sold to the trade terminal or auctioned for less than that.

What do you guys think?

 

[Ivo Jahrumble]

You could have just as easy bumped one of the other threads with this discussion. The solution you came at was presented already.

Question is why does MA want the economy to be turned off/ not enabled

 

[Art Jennifer]

Or they could just make blueprints that we actually want that use the ingredients we are TTing ?

 

[DrGirlfriend]

You could have just as easy bumped one of the other threads with this discussion. The solution you came at was presented already.

Question is why does MA want the economy to be turned off/ not enabled

You could have just as easily not made this negative comment that adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Ivo Jahrumble]

You could have just as easily not made this negative comment that adds nothing to the discussion.

Thank you. Still waiting for your constructive input then... Like me and several other did in the aformentioned threads that exist already...

I fail to see where is the negativity in pointing that we have discussed this already to the root cause and came up with preety much the same solution.

Question: - Is Mining Resources MU going up a good thing?

Prices only get up , because if you minning regular you going know whats miners become... And yes actual situation is bad bad for everyone 1 - Is bad to miner that even with stupid high mu fews items , they bare can hit break even 2 - its bad to hunt that not going buy overpriced wep 3 - Its...

www.planetcalypsoforum.com

 

[Hijacker27]

Or just replace nanocubes with shrapnel.

Problem solved

 

[DrGirlfriend]

Thank you. Still waiting for your constructive input then... Like me and several other did in the aformentioned threads that exist already...

I fail to see where is the negativity in pointing that we have discussed this already to the root cause and came up with preety much the same solution.

Question: - Is Mining Resources MU going up a good thing?

Prices only get up , because if you minning regular you going know whats miners become... And yes actual situation is bad bad for everyone 1 - Is bad to miner that even with stupid high mu fews items , they bare can hit break even 2 - its bad to hunt that not going buy overpriced wep 3 - Its...

www.planetcalypsoforum.com

A post on a thread does not a discussion on a topic make.

 

[Slyk]

I think this was explained before. All professions can be done with TT besides crafting if you remove nano cubes.

Hunters have ammo of 3 types, as well as a variety of weapons from the TT to skill up with
Miners have probes and finders in the TT to skill up with
Crafters only option for purely TT is Nanocube

While it is wack that there are BP's which require massive amounts of them, causing the noted issue, there has to be some type of outlet for TT'able grinding for each class. Crafting is still lagging behind the other professions because there is no pure shrapnel option in the TT.

Would make sense to have some 'Prototype widget' BP that uses nanos like EP1, which could allow crafters to get some lesser component bp's and skill directly from TT as the rest of professions get to do. Then change the problem blueprints which use high amounts of Nanos to use shrapnel or other components.

The only argument that glares at me with this is 'crafting is meant to be a supplementary profession done with your hunted and mined loot' which ends in...op's statement to remove them outright.

 

[Sulje]

Or just replace nanocubes with shrapnel.

Problem solved

how would you be able to craft shrapnel then? If we had no shrapnel 200 ped clicks, i don't know how the game could be played moving forward.

 

[Ivo Jahrumble]

As long as nanos from tt are used in EP bps to produce metal residue all other base loot will be redundant.

EP > Basic Filters
EP > Simple 1 Springs
and so on...

No more condition crafting on all those recycling bps that used to clean up the economy.

Like OP says. If everything could be converted to nanos and make them tradeable it would create a commerce of "spice" all around the universe to feed the crafters. The MU% of nanos would autoregulate itself as it comes from any excess loot one has.

It is a great idea. Now pitch it to MA and see if they do anything They won´t!

 

[SoberPhil]

Or they could just make blueprints that we actually want that use the ingredients we are TTing ?

Yes but then somebody would have to buy the stuff you're crafting. What would it be, new armor? weapons? There's a lot of both already.

 

[Art Jennifer]

Yes but then somebody would have to buy the stuff you're crafting. What would it be, new armor? weapons? There's a lot of both already.

Well no because the hunter could craft a gun or armour or fap. For example.

 

[Entropia Dao]

It could work if there is an option to remove nanocubes from tt and have a new terminal where you basically can throw in any loot and it converts it into nanocubes (ores, enmatter, hides, oils, leathers, animal parts,...)

We could call it the atomizer terminal.
This way the lowest possible tt for materials would equal the MU of nanocubes.

 

[SoberPhil]

It could work if there is an option to remove nanocubes from tt and have a new terminal where you basically can throw in any loot and it converts it into nanocubes (ores, enmatter, hides, oils, leathers, animal parts,...)

We could call it the atomizer terminal.
This way the lowest possible tt for materials would equal the MU of nanocubes.

Yes exactly. This would set a minimal markup across the game.

 

[halftoasted]

Nano are there to limit the impact of MU in crafters recipes. I do not see a use into making the process of nano more complicated or even one that cost which would give them MU.

 

[Edward-James]

It could work if there is an option to remove nanocubes from tt and have a new terminal where you basically can throw in any loot and it converts it into nanocubes (ores, enmatter, hides, oils, leathers, animal parts,...)

We could call it the atomizer terminal.
This way the lowest possible tt for materials would equal the MU of nanocubes.

i like your idea, but personally i would prefer keeping nanocubes as is.....and use your terminal idea to dump things for shrapnel

Eddie

 

[SoberPhil]

Nano are there to limit the impact of MU in crafters recipes. I do not see a use into making the process of nano more complicated or even one that cost which would give them MU.

If they wanted to limit the impact of MU on crafting then they would add more stuff like dianthus or lumis to the lootpool. Nanocubes going from 100 to 103% doesn't really change much in this respect, all it would do is give people a chance to sell their loot for some MU that is above 100% or 50 PEC (like some huge stacks of mats on auction for TT +1).

 

[AckerZ]

You could have just as easy bumped one of the other threads with this discussion. The solution you came at was presented already.

Question is why does MA want the economy to be turned off/ not enabled

Short term profit chasing at the expense of long term good product

 

[Katie Chalmers]

Nanocubes get used in a lot of blueprints as filler to lower the average markup of a crafted item. As soon as we remove them from the TT and they gain markup, that cost will get passed on to the hunters/miners that buy those crafted items and then everyone will complain about that. You aren’t solving a problem, but replacing it with another.

Loot can already be turned into nanocubes as it is. Sell your loot to the TT, then buy nanocubes with the proceeds.

 

[SoberPhil]

Nanocubes get used in a lot of blueprints as filler to lower the average markup of a crafted item. As soon as we remove them from the TT and they gain markup, that cost will get passed on to the hunters/miners that buy those crafted items and then everyone will complain about that. You aren’t solving a problem, but replacing it with another.

Loot can already be turned into nanocubes as it is. Sell your loot to the TT, then buy nanocubes with the proceeds.

But hunters and miners would also get more MU back for selling nanocubes at 103% instead of tting oils, hides, lyst and such for 100%. So it would kinda balance itself out while increasing MU output for everyone. The nanocube hike from 100 to 103% will not have such a dramatic impact as you are saying because it's really a small percentage of total input except for explosives.

For example, look at this ArMatrix BC-50 (L) Blueprint (L), it takes 5.17 PED of nanocubes per click, @ 103% that's 5.32, what a big effing difference, and you're putting at as if it were the end of the world, probably because you don't craft much yourself.

 

[Katie Chalmers]

But hunters and miners would also get more MU back for selling nanocubes at 103% instead of tting oils, hides, lyst and such for 100%. So it would kinda balance itself out while increasing MU output for everyone. The nanocube hike from 100 to 103% will not have such a dramatic impact as you are saying because it's really a small percentage of total input except for explosives.

For example, look at this ArMatrix BC-50 (L) Blueprint (L), it takes 5.17 PED of nanocubes per click, @ 103% that's 5.32, what a big effing difference, and you're putting at as if it were the end of the world, probably because you don't craft much yourself.

Not a huge increase with the Armatrix weapons, but its there. Widget crafting uses ALOT more, and gizmos. if cost of clicking these goes up, you will get more expensive Armatrix blueprints, which is one of the bigger factors in determining final markup of these weapons. So its maybe a bigger increase than you first think. But maybe not, I'm happy to concede on that one as I think others brought up better points anyway.

The independency argument is a good one. A hunter or a miner can play with pretty much zero interaction with other players if they want to, even if that is not the smartest way to play. They buy a TT or Unlimited tool and they can just sell all their loot at the TT, and restock with ammo/probes. Without nanocubes at the TT, a crafter has no option but to rely on hunters and miners maintaining a vested interest in farming and selling nanocubes, this can be troublesome, especially over time the game winds down/becomes less popular or players interests change over time. Sure, a nanocube shortage isn't likely to happen but the principle of independency is important nonetheless.

I would also like to hear from some EP4 crafters/gamblers to see how such a change would affect them. Would they still click as much? Would their be enough supply from hunters during mayhem periods (where you are looting shrapnel and not alot of TT food) to keep up with their demand?
I always see a lot of hate towards EP crafters, ruining the game etc etc, but I bet it does alot to keep the lights on for Mindark, and that's good. I doubt they would implement something that would kill an easy money maker for them,. but then again, they have had some fucken dooseys over the past week or so, so I guess anything could happen .

 

[Ivo Jahrumble]

Thats a big bunch of bs Katie.

This is a game with 3 main professions that should interact with each other to create an economy that flows. Not a game with redundant activitys that have no connection to each other.

Thats why we end up complaining that there is no MU. Every activity players do these days is redundant. Noone needs anything but everyone produces MU.

OA101/2 crafters relied on miners to gamble and the game didn´t die. On the contrary was far more live than these days.

If there was continuity to the life of loot, base loot should hover at 103/105%, not 100.5%. And that would be RCE with 3 core professions working together.

It is not that hard to understand that in practise players are paying an extra fee to play under current economy metrics. The economy/MA fails to provide the minimum conditions for the game to go on at a fair level, under the false pretext of crafter independancy (milking the cashcows), cheap guns (bypass of using OA101/st.dampers bps to produce metal residue and clean economy of resources).

MA can create as many tech gizmos, widgets bps they ant. IF they don´t sort out the redundancy of EPs those other bps wont have any demand ever.

If we fail to see that, then we really deserve to keep eating the shit we are given...

 

[halftoasted]

If they wanted to limit the impact of MU on crafting then they would add more stuff like dianthus or lumis to the lootpool.

Then there no rare, nothing has value, there no point to play multiplayer.

Nanocubes going from 100 to 103% doesn't really change much in this respect

I disagree. This is why Probes, Nano and ammunition are at TT in shops. To avoid the mess this would cause. Controlling MU on an activity. (Finder,guns, bp can have MU but never probes, ammunition, nano)
They bring the activity cost down and keep the rares having value. It allow the buyer of the craft to pay a respectful price even if some resources had high cost.
Even fort lahar has a handout mission which many complained at certain MU the mission was not worth it. Think MA didnt think of that ? They sure did! Mission too good = hunter dont get gun or the gun get super high MU making it less used. This way, should the MU fall on that gun, it will raise right back to stability because of lahar mission as people destroy guns to get reward.

Balancing a RCE is an art. Key aspect and their return/balance need cannot be neglected. Nano cannot have MU.
If you wanna play with that kind of mat. There is one item that barely get used. alien biogenic gel. It's designed with very similar core of what you suggest and without standing for the community as this statement. For the most part people dont like using that material

 

[Katie Chalmers]

Thats a big bunch of bs Katie.

You're right.
Ok, great idea.
10/10

 

[Entropia Dao]

i like your idea, but personally i would prefer keeping nanocubes as is.....and use your terminal idea to dump things for shrapnel

Eddie

Problem is that MA pays that 0.1% in "MU" that way, and they will take it from somewhere else for sure.
While if nanocubes are 101%, then some crafters might explore other options which in turn give a bit more MU to miners.

The sad problem now is that the professions are too segregated.

Thing is things like this won't happen because MA makes a lot of money of EP/recycle crafters.


Personally I would like to see an overhaul of the system where crafters get 100% TT return on average but no resources come from TT (nanocubes, probes).
that way there would be a big boost in MU and crafters couldn't complain about return. They might complain about MU prices, but we could tell them to farm the resources themselves then.
this + atomize stuff into nanocubes would create a natural cycle without crafters being shafted.

 

[SoberPhil]

Widget crafting uses ALOT more, and gizmos.

I would also like to hear from some EP4 crafters/gamblers to see how such a change would affect them. Would they still click as much? Would their be enough supply from hunters during mayhem periods (where you are looting shrapnel and not alot of TT food) to keep up with their demand?

So I opened the wiki to check some BPS and I can say that you're totally wrong about the alot more part. Here, take a look at this: http://www.entropiawiki.com/Info.aspx?chart=Blueprint&id=3262 this is Component Widget 4 Blueprint, total cost per click 1.00 PED TT and about 1.23 PED with MU. The TT includes 70 PEC of nanocubes @103% that's 0.721, so an extra 2 PEC, is that "ALOT"?? Same goes here, here and everywhere else, unless there's something I'm missing.

About EP4 crafters. Do you really think that someone who likes to cycle (let's call it that) 10k PED per 15 minutes is going to stop because he has to pay an extra few hundred PED on top? C'mon...

The supply/demand part now that is a good argument, but I don't think there's gonna be issues with that because if you go to auction and see how much stuff is being sold below 103%, including basic mining resources, oils, residues and such, it's a lot, like really a lot, so I don't think there's gonna be issues here.

The only people who might loose some income here are those petty resellers who buy stuff from noobs at 100,001%, those will become irrelevant on the spot.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Or just replace nanocubes with shrapnel.

Problem solved

There is not enough shrapnel out there being sold to supply the big exp 4 crafters.
If they made so shrapnel could be sold on auction then it could help fill that gap.
Then problem would be mostly solved for sure. Though shrapnel may raise in price maybe even higher than the 101% conversion rate.

 

[Hijacker27]

Though shrapnel may raise in price maybe even higher than the 101% conversion rate.

Good!!!

 

[halftoasted]

The TT includes 70 PEC of nanocubes @103% that's 0.721, so an extra 2 PEC, is that "ALOT"??

people are bitching over 1-2% in overall return and you call 3% not a lot on a item made by design to not have MU?
It's the same with enhancer. The [Empty Enhancer Component] in the TT is to control the MU in case the MU mats skyrocket.
Adding a nano tax after a mini mayhem where tax were key discussion of disappointment make no sense. This feel like hunters want to tax crafters.

Edit:

you're totally wrong about the alot more part.

I dont see how katie is wrong. Seeing that Comp Widget 4 which you linked use 70 nano per try(not success) and that it take 3 widget 3 which all took 70 nano per click, that widget 3 need 3 widget 2 per click which also need 70 nano per click which also require each 3 widget 1 that cost 46 nano per click.

That 2 pec of yours is multiplied so many time considering the path to get there and considering the success rate of a capped bp is anywhere between 36-46% success. 1 widget 4 click would take 70 nano, which need 3x widget 3(70 nano click), which need 9 widget 2(70 nano click), which need 27 widget (42 nano click)
(if 100% success on all craft)
At 100% success, which isnt what this game is at all. You would use way more than this so called 0.70p of nano for a singular widget 4 click. In fact, getting to widget 4 would probably cost you anywhere from 0.40-1.50p of MU at 103% nannies. We are just at widget 4... Just imagine making all the widget needed to make the Gizmo chain as well. Short story. Nano at TT is core to the engine functionality.

 

[SoberPhil]

people are bitching over 1-2% in overall return and you call 3% not a lot on a item made by design to not have MU?
It's the same with enhancer. The [Empty Enhancer Component] in the TT is to control the MU in case the MU mats skyrocket.

Adding 2 PEC on an item that costs 1 PED TT to make is most definitely not a lot. The [Empty Enhancer Component] in the TT is meant as a fodder and does not control anything, if the MU of the mats skyrocket, or if it falls down sharply, empty enhancer comps are still gonna cost the same, that's not meant to control MU, but to increase your cycle. And nobody wants to tax anybody, crafters can set the prices of their items as they see fit. Baseline is, the stuff that's shit to craft will remain shitty, the good stuff will remain good.