[dev1017]Potential problems with item loss from failed materia synthesis

[Frein]

Apparently the current idea is to let people augment their gear with up to five pieces of materia, however, only the first one is safe while the rest are risky (progressively more so?) to attach.

For this thought experiment I am going to assume that HQ versions of top gear (think Crab Bow +3, etc) will remain rare and extremely expensive even past the item revisions.

Unless item rarities go through radical shifts, I expect the combination of rare gear and item loss to create significant problems. The problem is, of course, that those items are too rare and too expensive for risky materia ventures, which means people will more likely experiment with cheaper weapons, such as NQ ones or lower rank items, when they want to go for five materia augments. But can a Crab Bow +3 with one materia compete with a regular Crab Bow with five? We can't say for sure, but I'd say it is unlikely, yet I expect the materials for the HQ version to possibly be even hundreds of times as expensive.

Only those who are extremely far above the median wealth can afford to attempt augmenting very high quality gear. Successful augments further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, while non-successful ones cause very painful losses. The variance is simply too great and the risk/reward ratio so bad that only people who simply cannot come up with an alternate use for their money can afford it.

It reminds me of the equipment enchantment system of Ragnarok Online where you could end up with unbelievably rare item combinations* and have them vanish into thin air when your entirely luck based, risky enchantment attempt went wrong. This system was not fun and only a miniscule fraction of the player base could afford to put these items together, let alone multiples as insurance in case it blew up on you.

*HQ version of a rare drop attached with one or several extremely rare cards plus the several expensive ores needed for the enchantment process with the risk for failure increasing with each attempt past a certain enchantment level.

[Arcell]

You're assuming that HQ versions of gear will remain rare and extremely expensive, that's not likely. HQ is going to be guaranteed with HQ parts and the amount of materials required for synthesis will go down so the rarity of those items will go down considerably. They'll still be rare(r) than the NQ versions though. Is a NQ Crab Bow with 5 materia better than a HQ Crab Bow with 1? Probably however those who gamble and win get that HQ Crab Bow with 5 materia, a completely unrivaled bow in all aspects.

[Atomisk]

There is going to be no more HQ +1 +2 or +3 just nq and hq from what I've heard.

[Soulfire]

Unfortunately I've been combating this in a thread that doesn't use the tag. The guy mentioned that +3 bow there, too.

Anyway, I hope it's fine to just quote my two posts here.

Quote from "[dev1017] Materia crafting system (name tentative)"
"A failed attempt to attach materia will result in the loss of all items involved in the process, barring the key item."

What is this, a free-to-play game?
Oh, wait...

I am 100% against this, and if it wasn't mathematically impossible I would be more.

To me this is the epitome of free-to-play. As in in my head it's what made all those F2P games I played suck.

And
if
I
could
remember
all
of
them
off
the
top
of
my
head
we
would
probably
have
a
nice
long
list
of
games
not
worth
playing.

Pay money, attempt to upgrade your gear, lose it all, pay more money...
I hate this renowned mechanic with great passion.

I'm not of the gambler mindset.
Time is valuable.
I like my work to actually count for something.

I don't know what's up with you people saying "I'd like all my time and effort to get washed down the river because it'll stimulate the game's economy!"
You've either got a screwed up sense of fun or a desire to wreck others'. (Or bad judgment.)
How 'bout you discard your entire inventory and start buying?
That'll stimulate the economy in perfectly similar fashion. You'll be so pleased!

You must be new to the mmo life then. Ragnarok Online was already mentioned above (twice) and there were other games as well that used it quite succesfully. None of those were free to play either.

It actually did make one feel like one achieved something in even posses an item with a higher upgrade level.~

New to MMO life? I've been doing this for over six years. Granted I did not play many pay-to-play games, so I'll give you that.

When I said it was the epitome of free-to-play I meant it summed up the mechanics I personally would not expect from a pay-to-play game. To my dismay, it appears my expectations have been betrayed, and a number of pay-to-play games are using such systems.

Let me say that again in a way easier to understand. It's not about what's in free-to-play or pay-to-play games. It's about quality. When I have to pay monthly fees to play a game, I expect quality.

Currently this game is free-to-play because it did not meet that bar - that bar of expectation of quality held by so many.

You know what I hate to see?

Tears.
People crying over losing something important.
And especially the jerks who say stuff like "Quit your QQing."

This will become what you see. Over, and over, and over again.

That is NOT an enjoyable environment. That is NOT quality. It makes me so very, very FURIOUS at the people responsible for implementing that system. I do not want to hear how Square Enix caused my dear friends to suffer.

All of it for what? One guy to feel like he accomplished something, you say?

Many others fall into depression and shed actual tears, all so that one guy can have a coveted item and feel accomplished? Feel accomplished because of LUCK?!

Last I checked this game was gonna be based on skill and strategic planning.
Last I checked the aim was to make this game as enjoyable as possible for everyone.
I must've missed the memo that said otherwise.

[TheVedis]

just a thought on this

if you care that much about your +3 item
and dont want to lose it, or even chance it

dont enhance it! you already get more stats just cuz its hq, you dont need to fully slot the item with materia past the first

[tymora]

Try socketing Aion gear with 6 stones...(forget what they are called)...

Although you don't use the base gear on failure, just all the socketed parts.

[Amineri]

It's looking like the stat bonuses from materia are roughly comparable to the stat bonus gained from a +3 item (perhaps slightly smaller, but more flexible).

As an example, my weapon of choice, an [item=4080301]Iron Halberd[/item] +3. Base stats on Iron Halberd are 169 attack, 150 accuracy, critical 142. So, the +3 adds 26 attack, 23 accuracy, and 22 critical. That is, I could get the same effect by using an HQ Iron Halberd and socketing in three materia with these stats.

So, if an HQ item is roughly equivalent to an NQ items with 3 or 4 materia (but the NQ item is more flexible as to what the bonuses are), this progression makes a bit more sense.

Additionally, the possibly loss of the HQ item is a necessary part of the adjusted economy, as it is the only realistic HQ item sink in the game. If HQ items were not lost, then saturation would occur once each player had bought a single HQ item of each type.

With the proposed system, a player will start with HQ item with 1 materia. This will likely be stronger then an NQ item with 5 (or roughly equivalent). However, the player still has a need for another HQ item, if the price is suitable. Slotting a 2nd materia into an HQ item, while owning just the 1, is too high a risk. However, if a 2nd HQ item is bought at a satisfactory price, then the risk is substantially reduced.

This system will essentially stabilize HQ item prices over a long enough period of time that the dev team had enough time to introduce new gear before the market reaches saturation.

[Frein]

You're assuming that HQ versions of gear will remain rare and extremely expensive, that's not likely. HQ is going to be guaranteed with HQ parts and the amount of materials required for synthesis will go down so the rarity of those items will go down considerably. They'll still be rare(r) than the NQ versions though. Is a NQ Crab Bow with 5 materia better than a HQ Crab Bow with 1? Probably however those who gamble and win get that HQ Crab Bow with 5 materia, a completely unrivaled bow in all aspects.

Ok, let's switch it up. Instead of Crab Bow, we'll use Champion's Lance. Champion's Lance requires a Bloody Lance Head from Great Buffalo. HQ Bloody Lance Heads will be extremely rare unless some changes are done here. The only C.Lance +3 I've seen for sale was up for 178 million gil and I think it's very possible they'll become even more difficult to obtain.

Additionally, the possibly loss of the HQ item is a necessary part of the adjusted economy, as it is the only realistic HQ item sink in the game. If HQ items were not lost, then saturation would occur once each player had bought a single HQ item of each type.

No successful MMO has item loss because while realistic, it is not fun. MMOs naturally slowly slide towards a post-scarcity economy, which while desirable (no matter what clueless Keynesians will tell you), does not exist in real life.

With the proposed system, a player will start with HQ item with 1 materia. This will likely be stronger then an NQ item with 5 (or roughly equivalent). However, the player still has a need for another HQ item, if the price is suitable. Slotting a 2nd materia into an HQ item, while owning just the 1, is too high a risk. However, if a 2nd HQ item is bought at a satisfactory price, then the risk is substantially reduced.

So I'll pay 180 million for an item that's roughly equal to or worse than one that costs 500k. Then I'll buy another one just for a chance to get it up to two materia. Until I manage to climb up to the full five I may have had to fork out 180 million a dozen times or more. That raises the effective gil measured cost of a HQ C.Lance with five materia to billions of gil assuming the materials even exist. And god forbid they introduce a new, superior materia type, which will make you want to purge your Lance and start all over again. Still having fun with this?

[Xenor]

The only C.Lance +3 I've seen for sale was up for 178 million gil and I think it's very possible they'll become even more difficult to obtain.

Just because an item is up for sale doesn't mean it's worth that much. A Champions Lance +3 is worth maybe 20 million maximum. Anyone stupid enough to pay more than that deserves to lose as much gil as the buyer can get.

Bloody Lance Head +3 is not in the game, it's not an item that can drop. Not all mobs drop +3 versions of items. Weapon heads are one of them. Iron Plate +3s don't drop either. How SE will change Champions Lance synth to accommodate this remains to be seen.

HQs will become common. If I could guarantee a crab bow HQ by having all HQ mats I'd have made dozens of them by now. While I have indeed made dozens anyway the majority were +1s. The new HQs will be equal to +2s and +3s.

[Frein]

HQs will become common. If I could guarantee a crab bow HQ by having all HQ mats I'd have made dozens of them by now. While I have indeed made dozens anyway the majority were +1s. The new HQs will be equal to +2s and +3s.

I really find it hard to believe that all gear from now on will be common enough that everyone can realistically expect to obtain a dozen of them.