A blueprint for a crafter is equivalent to a weapon for a hunter or a finder for a miner. Ingredients are our “ammo” or “probes,” and the crafted item is our “loot.”
Now imagine that one day MA removes the ammunition for your weapon - meaning you can no longer use it. Or removes probes for your finder, leaving it unusable. Then, the next day, they say:
“Since your item cannot be used, we have decided to remove it.”
This is effectively what happened to crafters. First, the “ammo” (ingredients) became unavailable. Then the “tools” (blueprints) themselves were removed.
Why was there no transition plan? Hunters and miners have attachments for their gear, and they are offered improvements such as adjustments and tiering. Land, shop, and apartment owners can modify their property to increase usability and value. But no comparable options were offered to crafters.
Crafters are central to attaching market value to the loot of hunters and miners. We create the equipment that provides them with advantages. We are essential to the role-playing and economic structure of the game - because of crafters, there are suppliers and customers. Yet in this case, crafters were left without options.
Why were crafters not offered the possibility to purchase the required ingredients at TT value in order to craft out their Limited prints before removal?
Why was there no opportunity to upgrade affected blueprints into new regulated versions - Adjusted, Improved, or Modified - through additional investment?
Such options would have preserved value, allowed balancing of rarity, and maintained trust. Instead, variance was reduced and long-term progression was weakened.
The larger issue is trust.
How can players justify investing significant time and money into long-term goals within a Real Cash Economy if there is a risk that those investments may later be removed?
Should players withdraw large wins instead of reinvesting them?
Is long-term commitment being discouraged?
There has also been discussion about introducing repair tokens or similar systems for maintaining gear. Can players feel secure investing in equipment if there is uncertainty about future mechanics? What guarantees exist that similar removals will not happen again?
A serious and transparent explanation is needed. Removing the “ammo,” and then removing the “tools” that depended on it, undermines confidence in long-term investment.
Without clear communication and predictable policy, trust in the economy cannot be sustained.
