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

[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.

[Aenarion]

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.

I beg to differ, Eve Online is very much a successful and growing MMO (albeit a relatively small market one), and not only are there item loss in Eve - anything and everything you fly can be destroyed anywhere, it is the main driving force behind that game's economy, which is by far one of the most robust and thriving economy that is almost entirely player driven in any MMO.

[Frein]

I beg to differ, Eve Online is very much a successful and growing MMO (albeit a relatively small market one), and not only are there item loss in Eve - anything and everything you fly can be destroyed anywhere, it is the main driving force behind that game's economy, which is by far one of the most robust and thriving economy that is almost entirely player driven in any MMO.

1. Eve Online is a niche market MMO.
2. I believe you can insure your ships in Eve and even then people avoid taking their expensive ships into PVP territory and instead prefer to cruise in tin cans they aren't afraid of losing.

[Perrin_Aybarra]

I beg to differ, Eve Online is very much a successful and growing MMO (albeit a relatively small market one), and not only are there item loss in Eve - anything and everything you fly can be destroyed anywhere, it is the main driving force behind that game's economy, which is by far one of the most robust and thriving economy that is almost entirely player driven in any MMO.

I think that the games that does not have an Item loss system have the gears become untradable upon equiping. Which then equals to an item loss economy-wise since you cannot resell it once you are done with it.

FFXIV let's you sell back what you buy, if the items are never destroyed NQ or HQ there will be a point where there is just too much gears in circulation. The only thing is that we will find ourselves with a double item loss system with the materia on top of it. The redeeming aspect is that the crafting system is being adjusted to make producing gears a lot easier, NQ or HQ (easier for HQ than now but will be still rarer), making it so the supply will meet the demand.