Basically what it says— it’s currently difficult to stockpile reagents, so it’d be nice if you could put, say, a stack of six roan mice in there, which takes three hours to reduce, and then get six goo. For limitation, it’d probably have to be a stack, so no familiars or apparel, and no mixed batches; and possibly if you put six of something in, the result comes out all the same color as well.
The number drop down is already there, it just doesn’t do anything!
Basically what it says— it’s currently difficult to stockpile reagents, so it’d be nice if you could put, say, a stack of six roan mice in there, which takes three hours to reduce, and then get six goo. For limitation, it’d probably have to be a stack, so no familiars or apparel, and no mixed batches; and possibly if you put six of something in, the result comes out all the same color as well.
The number drop down is already there, it just doesn’t do anything!
The suggestion for a queue comes up pretty often. Personally I'd prefer
more cauldrons as queuing would not encourage checking in frequently as you could set it and forget it. If queuing was added, I think:
- It should be multiples of the same item rather than several different items
- The time to should be the same time (or slightly longer) than it would have been to melt them down individually (so five items should be at least two hours and thirty minutes)
- There should probably be a limit to the number of items brewed. At absolute most 30 items or fifteen hours... although personally think about half that would be best.
- The experience gained for brewing should be reduced in exchange of the convenience of being able to queue and/or you have to pay to queue items. Personally I'd prefer both. Lore wise it makes sense your experience wouldn't be as much as you aren't there learning and it really wouldn't affect leveling up as its crafting items that generally give you the most experience. The convenience fee should be per item, perhaps 500 T and could be explained as paying Baldwin or one of his apprentices to tend the brew in your stead.
- You have to finish the queue and collect the materials before you add anything else; no topping off the brew. You also can't cancel the queue mid-brew.
The suggestion for a queue comes up pretty often. Personally I'd prefer
more cauldrons as queuing would not encourage checking in frequently as you could set it and forget it. If queuing was added, I think:
- It should be multiples of the same item rather than several different items
- The time to should be the same time (or slightly longer) than it would have been to melt them down individually (so five items should be at least two hours and thirty minutes)
- There should probably be a limit to the number of items brewed. At absolute most 30 items or fifteen hours... although personally think about half that would be best.
- The experience gained for brewing should be reduced in exchange of the convenience of being able to queue and/or you have to pay to queue items. Personally I'd prefer both. Lore wise it makes sense your experience wouldn't be as much as you aren't there learning and it really wouldn't affect leveling up as its crafting items that generally give you the most experience. The convenience fee should be per item, perhaps 500 T and could be explained as paying Baldwin or one of his apprentices to tend the brew in your stead.
- You have to finish the queue and collect the materials before you add anything else; no topping off the brew. You also can't cancel the queue mid-brew.
No support. It'll make acquiring rare materials way too easy. Baldwin items would become worthless.
I know some people only transmute once or twice per day. But the baldwin materials are already fairly cheap in the auction house--blue sludge cost only 8kt, blue ooze 5kt and blue goo 4kt. Think about what would happen if people start to transmute 5, 10, or 20 times more items than they do now?? :\
No support. It'll make acquiring rare materials way too easy. Baldwin items would become worthless.
I know some people only transmute once or twice per day. But the baldwin materials are already fairly cheap in the auction house--blue sludge cost only 8kt, blue ooze 5kt and blue goo 4kt. Think about what would happen if people start to transmute 5, 10, or 20 times more items than they do now?? :\
Just a heads-up: I usually delete the threads I made before it reaches 10 replies because I want to keep my forum history tidy.
I do think some sort of queuing process- especially one that locked down an equivalent amount of time as it would take to transmute the items individually- would be useful, especially for those of us who do quite a bit of brewing. I think the disadvantage of being unable to use your cauldron until the stack is completed- and also being unable to pick up the results until the end of the stack- would offset the ease of material acquisition.
I don't think it would work nearly so cleanly as queuing up recipes- and that should probably remain at one at a time, so as to better safeguard time-sensitive brews like limited festival and 'event' recipes, but queuing up materials - particularly if it's one type of materials like DragonSage suggests, would be easier to handle than having to check in every half hour.
I do think some sort of queuing process- especially one that locked down an equivalent amount of time as it would take to transmute the items individually- would be useful, especially for those of us who do quite a bit of brewing. I think the disadvantage of being unable to use your cauldron until the stack is completed- and also being unable to pick up the results until the end of the stack- would offset the ease of material acquisition.
I don't think it would work nearly so cleanly as queuing up recipes- and that should probably remain at one at a time, so as to better safeguard time-sensitive brews like limited festival and 'event' recipes, but queuing up materials - particularly if it's one type of materials like DragonSage suggests, would be easier to handle than having to check in every half hour.
[quote name="DragonSage" date=2017-11-08 12:35:41]
The suggestion for a queue comes up pretty often. Personally I'd prefer more cauldrons as queuing would not encourage checking in frequently as you could set it and forget it. If queuing was added, I think:
It should be multiples of the same item rather than several different items
The time to should be the same time (or slightly longer) than it would have been to melt them down individually (so five items should be at least two hours and thirty minutes)
There should probably be a limit to the number of items brewed. At absolute most 30 items or fifteen hours... although personally think about half that would be best.
The experience gained for brewing should be reduced in exchange of the convenience of being able to queue and/or you have to pay to queue items. Personally I'd prefer both. Lore wise it makes sense your experience wouldn't be as much as you aren't there learning and it really wouldn't affect leveling up as its crafting items that generally give you the most experience. The convenience fee should be per item, perhaps 500 T and could be explained as paying Baldwin or one of his apprentices to tend the brew in your stead.
You have to finish the queue and collect the materials before you add anything else; no topping off the brew. You also can't cancel the queue mid-brew.
[/quote]
I have long wanted a queue because I am the person that sets something to reducing, then forgets it and wanders off for a few hours. So having this would be REALLY helpful.
I could also agree with these restrictions on it (I have often thought that 6 or 8 hours would be long enough to queue items, as that would cover most of a sleeping period or work period) I don't think adding time to it, with the other restrictions, would really be needed.
The only thing that isn't mentioned is how would the outcome be handled. If I remember correctly, the result is determined at the beginning of the brew (pretty sure, I thought it was opposite of eggs which are determined at hatching), so would there be lag as the site determines the outcome for 12 items (a six hour brew), or would it randomize it once and you get 6 copies of that item, or would it randomize it once every thirty minutes? I think that could be the only potential problem with this (the problem of materials deflating could be remedied by adding new recipes, especially ones that people might want to make over and over with, using said materials)
DragonSage wrote on 2017-11-08:
The suggestion for a queue comes up pretty often. Personally I'd prefer more cauldrons as queuing would not encourage checking in frequently as you could set it and forget it. If queuing was added, I think:
It should be multiples of the same item rather than several different items
The time to should be the same time (or slightly longer) than it would have been to melt them down individually (so five items should be at least two hours and thirty minutes)
There should probably be a limit to the number of items brewed. At absolute most 30 items or fifteen hours... although personally think about half that would be best.
The experience gained for brewing should be reduced in exchange of the convenience of being able to queue and/or you have to pay to queue items. Personally I'd prefer both. Lore wise it makes sense your experience wouldn't be as much as you aren't there learning and it really wouldn't affect leveling up as its crafting items that generally give you the most experience. The convenience fee should be per item, perhaps 500 T and could be explained as paying Baldwin or one of his apprentices to tend the brew in your stead.
You have to finish the queue and collect the materials before you add anything else; no topping off the brew. You also can't cancel the queue mid-brew.
I have long wanted a queue because I am the person that sets something to reducing, then forgets it and wanders off for a few hours. So having this would be REALLY helpful.
I could also agree with these restrictions on it (I have often thought that 6 or 8 hours would be long enough to queue items, as that would cover most of a sleeping period or work period) I don't think adding time to it, with the other restrictions, would really be needed.
The only thing that isn't mentioned is how would the outcome be handled. If I remember correctly, the result is determined at the beginning of the brew (pretty sure, I thought it was opposite of eggs which are determined at hatching), so would there be lag as the site determines the outcome for 12 items (a six hour brew), or would it randomize it once and you get 6 copies of that item, or would it randomize it once every thirty minutes? I think that could be the only potential problem with this (the problem of materials deflating could be remedied by adding new recipes, especially ones that people might want to make over and over with, using said materials)
If there's gonna be a bulk transmute feature, the transmute fee shouldn't be just 500t, but at least the [u]average LAH price of all the Baldwin's ingredients of the same type[/u] on the market. This is the only way I can think of that wouldn't affect the market too much.
For example, if you're transmuting for sludge, the transmutation fee for each item(except for the first item in the bulk, which would be free) should be: [quote] (400t*0.44 + 950t*0.21 + 1500t*0.15 + 900t*0.10 + 12500t*0.07 + 7500t*0.03) = [u]1790.5t [/u]
(Calculate by sumation of LAH price*drop chance of each color)[/quote]
If you go any cheaper than that, the market price will drop. The whole idea of Baldwin's brew's existence is that people can turn some of the worthless junks in their hoard into valuable items, if the market price of Baldwin's items becomes low too it pretty much defies the whole purpose :|
I don't know if it's possible for FR to have a fluctuated price, which reflects the AH price at that instance. If that's not possible, I'd say the fee of each should not be lower than 2000t.
[quote name="Jemadar" date=2017-11-08 18:54:24]
I have long wanted a queue because I am the person that sets something to reducing, then forgets it and wanders off for a few hours. So having this would be REALLY helpful. [/quote]
But that’s the problem, a lot of people do the same. But if bulk transmuting is allowed (with no or low transmutation fee), instead of getting only 1 materials in 3 hours, you would get 6. When people go to bed, they come back collecting more than 13, 14 materials in a single night. AH would be flooded with materials.
Furthermore, if the price of Baldwin's materials collapses, the only way the staff to maintain the value of Baldwin's items is to increase the brewing fee. Which I'd really, really hate to see.
If there's gonna be a bulk transmute feature, the transmute fee shouldn't be just 500t, but at least the
average LAH price of all the Baldwin's ingredients of the same type on the market. This is the only way I can think of that wouldn't affect the market too much.
For example, if you're transmuting for sludge, the transmutation fee for each item(except for the first item in the bulk, which would be free) should be:
Quote:
(400t*0.44 + 950t*0.21 + 1500t*0.15 + 900t*0.10 + 12500t*0.07 + 7500t*0.03) = 1790.5t
(Calculate by sumation of LAH price*drop chance of each color)
If you go any cheaper than that, the market price will drop. The whole idea of Baldwin's brew's existence is that people can turn some of the worthless junks in their hoard into valuable items, if the market price of Baldwin's items becomes low too it pretty much defies the whole purpose :|
I don't know if it's possible for FR to have a fluctuated price, which reflects the AH price at that instance. If that's not possible, I'd say the fee of each should not be lower than 2000t.
Jemadar wrote on 2017-11-08:
I have long wanted a queue because I am the person that sets something to reducing, then forgets it and wanders off for a few hours. So having this would be REALLY helpful.
But that’s the problem, a lot of people do the same. But if bulk transmuting is allowed (with no or low transmutation fee), instead of getting only 1 materials in 3 hours, you would get 6. When people go to bed, they come back collecting more than 13, 14 materials in a single night. AH would be flooded with materials.
Furthermore, if the price of Baldwin's materials collapses, the only way the staff to maintain the value of Baldwin's items is to increase the brewing fee. Which I'd really, really hate to see.
Just a heads-up: I usually delete the threads I made before it reaches 10 replies because I want to keep my forum history tidy.
Oh yeah I was thinking it’d be much more limited than a queue—put a stack in, get a stack out. stack in has to be all the same item (which is to say, something that actually stacks naturally in your hoard); the stack out also comes out all the same color, to maintain game balance. It wouldn’t have any effect on probabilities this way—you’d be no more likely to get the specific colors you want colors than before.
The combinatorics make it so that, for example, if you’re rolling for one color of six, assuming equal probabilities for each color, the likelihood that you don’t get at least one of the color you want becomes 1-(5/6)^n for rolling n times. So, for one roll, that’s 5/6 or 83%; for two, it’s 25/36 or 69%; 59% for three, and by four, it’s 48%, already better than half. And so on to infinity, rapidly approaching 0%. Restraining the result to be only in one color means it’s still the same gamble for a stack as it is for a single item—just higher risk for higher payoff, since you can, for example, keep trying to get yellow sludge, put in ten stacks of four in the cauldron, and end up with forty green sludge at the end of the day.
A fee, an experience reduction, a longer transmutation time, and/or a strictly limited stack size are all reasonable balance tweaks. e.g., you can only do at most four at a time; for diminishing returns, it takes 20% longer and yields 20% less experience for each additional item than it would have singly.
Oh yeah I was thinking it’d be much more limited than a queue—put a stack in, get a stack out. stack in has to be all the same item (which is to say, something that actually stacks naturally in your hoard); the stack out also comes out all the same color, to maintain game balance. It wouldn’t have any effect on probabilities this way—you’d be no more likely to get the specific colors you want colors than before.
The combinatorics make it so that, for example, if you’re rolling for one color of six, assuming equal probabilities for each color, the likelihood that you don’t get at least one of the color you want becomes 1-(5/6)^n for rolling n times. So, for one roll, that’s 5/6 or 83%; for two, it’s 25/36 or 69%; 59% for three, and by four, it’s 48%, already better than half. And so on to infinity, rapidly approaching 0%. Restraining the result to be only in one color means it’s still the same gamble for a stack as it is for a single item—just higher risk for higher payoff, since you can, for example, keep trying to get yellow sludge, put in ten stacks of four in the cauldron, and end up with forty green sludge at the end of the day.
A fee, an experience reduction, a longer transmutation time, and/or a strictly limited stack size are all reasonable balance tweaks. e.g., you can only do at most four at a time; for diminishing returns, it takes 20% longer and yields 20% less experience for each additional item than it would have singly.
[quote=hoarous]the stack out also comes out all the same color, to maintain game balance. It wouldn’t have any effect on probabilities this way—you’d be no more likely to get the specific colors you want colors than before.[/quote]
This won't help much on maintaining the game balance though. The problem is people could transmute more items in stacks than they do singularly(because people aren't always on time to collect the brew). Overall people would still get a lot more ingredients (of all colors) than they do today.
[quote=hoarous] Restraining the result to be only in one color means it’s still the same gamble for a stack as it is for a single item—just higher risk for higher payoff[/quote]
There's no risk in transmuting items. The items we throw in the cauldrons are basically junks, they barely worth anything. So even if they come out with the colors you don't want, nothing is lost. So why would people want to transmute one at a time when they can throw in a bunch? [LIST]
[*](Well second thought, there'd be one risk actually, that would be the transmutation fee you paid. So the problem comes back to how much should stack brewing cost. )
[/LIST]
Even if you lower the exp payoff and prolong the transmute time, the total payoff of stack transmuting would still be better than of single transmutation, unless you are constantly checking on baldwin every 35 minutes 24/7. Especially when people are going offline for a longer period of time, or for those who don't visit Baldwin very often, people will still go for stack transmute instead of single ones-unless the transmuting cost is high enough that people aren't drawn to stack transmute for it is not beneficial for them.
hoarous wrote:
the stack out also comes out all the same color, to maintain game balance. It wouldn’t have any effect on probabilities this way—you’d be no more likely to get the specific colors you want colors than before.
This won't help much on maintaining the game balance though. The problem is people could transmute more items in stacks than they do singularly(because people aren't always on time to collect the brew). Overall people would still get a lot more ingredients (of all colors) than they do today.
hoarous wrote:
Restraining the result to be only in one color means it’s still the same gamble for a stack as it is for a single item—just higher risk for higher payoff
There's no risk in transmuting items. The items we throw in the cauldrons are basically junks, they barely worth anything. So even if they come out with the colors you don't want, nothing is lost. So why would people want to transmute one at a time when they can throw in a bunch?
- (Well second thought, there'd be one risk actually, that would be the transmutation fee you paid. So the problem comes back to how much should stack brewing cost. )
Even if you lower the exp payoff and prolong the transmute time, the total payoff of stack transmuting would still be better than of single transmutation, unless you are constantly checking on baldwin every 35 minutes 24/7. Especially when people are going offline for a longer period of time, or for those who don't visit Baldwin very often, people will still go for stack transmute instead of single ones-unless the transmuting cost is high enough that people aren't drawn to stack transmute for it is not beneficial for them.
Just a heads-up: I usually delete the threads I made before it reaches 10 replies because I want to keep my forum history tidy.
Sorry, to clarify—yes, of course it would affect game balance, since it’s a functional change; i meant to maintain a reasonable game balance.
Time spent is a risk! Cognitive load—in this case the business of keeping track of what you want to do with the cauldron, when, and why—is a risk. Anything that goes into the “cost” half of the cost/benefit analysis can be considered a risk.
I think I failed to communicate that I put this forward because I think the current balance actually does need tweaking—as it is, the transmutation items that appear in more recipes in higher quantities (sludge, ooze, goo) are the same difficulty to create as the items you use less often in lower quantity (slimes and mucks). That seems unbalanced to me. I mean, I suppose you could go the other way, too—make the slimes and mucks more difficult to create. I don’t think anyone would actually want that, though.
Regardless, the market for selling materials, if that’s what you choose to do, will still be there. You will still get impatient people who go to the AH instead of making their own transmutation materials, or give up after three cauldrons of green goo and just buy the blue one they wanted. The market may get saturated for the lower rarity materials, true, but the rare materials will still appear at the same rate overall as before.
Sorry, to clarify—yes, of course it would affect game balance, since it’s a functional change; i meant to maintain a reasonable game balance.
Time spent is a risk! Cognitive load—in this case the business of keeping track of what you want to do with the cauldron, when, and why—is a risk. Anything that goes into the “cost” half of the cost/benefit analysis can be considered a risk.
I think I failed to communicate that I put this forward because I think the current balance actually does need tweaking—as it is, the transmutation items that appear in more recipes in higher quantities (sludge, ooze, goo) are the same difficulty to create as the items you use less often in lower quantity (slimes and mucks). That seems unbalanced to me. I mean, I suppose you could go the other way, too—make the slimes and mucks more difficult to create. I don’t think anyone would actually want that, though.
Regardless, the market for selling materials, if that’s what you choose to do, will still be there. You will still get impatient people who go to the AH instead of making their own transmutation materials, or give up after three cauldrons of green goo and just buy the blue one they wanted. The market may get saturated for the lower rarity materials, true, but the rare materials will still appear at the same rate overall as before.
[quote]Time spent is a risk! Cognitive load—in this case the business of keeping track of what you want to do with the cauldron, when, and why—is a risk. Anything that goes into the “cost” half of the cost/benefit analysis can be considered a risk.
[/quote]
Please notice the cauldron is often not claimed on time. People go to bed, people go to work, people simply forget or are too lazy to check the pot every 35 min so they left the cauldron sits there for 3 hours. These periods of time are not risks to them for they are a waste to them anyways.
(btw, stack brew doesn't need to be checked on as frequently as single brew, doesn't that mean stack brew actually has less "risk" than single brew for you invest less energy on it? lol)
[quote]The market may get saturated for the lower rarity materials, true, but the rare materials will still appear at the same rate overall as before.[/quote]
No, it won't. For people are able to brew a much bigger amount of items, the cardinal number becomes bigger and so the output would become bigger as well, not just common colored ingredients, but the rare ones also. We would have a much greater market supply while the demand remains unchanged-- the price of baldwin items would drop, probably quite a lot.
[quote]I think the current balance actually does need tweaking—as it is, the transmutation items that appear in more recipes in higher quantities (sludge, ooze, goo) are the same difficulty to create as the items you use less often in lower quantity (slimes and mucks). [/quote]
Honestly, I don't see why would that be a problem. Though they take the same transmuting time, mucks and slimes are made from apparels and familiars which are much rarer compared to materials, trinkets or food to begin with. The recipes hence use less muck/slimes and more sludge/ooze/goo to balance the use of all materials.
----
Lastly, whether a market supply-demand is balanced or not could be simply examined by viewing its market price. Right now the baldwin materials and items(especially those consist of pure baldwin mats) have certain values on the AH, but nothing outrageously expansive or super cheap(well, some are quite cheap). To me that indicates we have a well-balanced supply-demand and it doesn't need to be changed.
Quote:
Time spent is a risk! Cognitive load—in this case the business of keeping track of what you want to do with the cauldron, when, and why—is a risk. Anything that goes into the “cost” half of the cost/benefit analysis can be considered a risk.
Please notice the cauldron is often not claimed on time. People go to bed, people go to work, people simply forget or are too lazy to check the pot every 35 min so they left the cauldron sits there for 3 hours. These periods of time are not risks to them for they are a waste to them anyways.
(btw, stack brew doesn't need to be checked on as frequently as single brew, doesn't that mean stack brew actually has less "risk" than single brew for you invest less energy on it? lol)
Quote:
The market may get saturated for the lower rarity materials, true, but the rare materials will still appear at the same rate overall as before.
No, it won't. For people are able to brew a much bigger amount of items, the cardinal number becomes bigger and so the output would become bigger as well, not just common colored ingredients, but the rare ones also. We would have a much greater market supply while the demand remains unchanged-- the price of baldwin items would drop, probably quite a lot.
Quote:
I think the current balance actually does need tweaking—as it is, the transmutation items that appear in more recipes in higher quantities (sludge, ooze, goo) are the same difficulty to create as the items you use less often in lower quantity (slimes and mucks).
Honestly, I don't see why would that be a problem. Though they take the same transmuting time, mucks and slimes are made from apparels and familiars which are much rarer compared to materials, trinkets or food to begin with. The recipes hence use less muck/slimes and more sludge/ooze/goo to balance the use of all materials.
----
Lastly, whether a market supply-demand is balanced or not could be simply examined by viewing its market price. Right now the baldwin materials and items(especially those consist of pure baldwin mats) have certain values on the AH, but nothing outrageously expansive or super cheap(well, some are quite cheap). To me that indicates we have a well-balanced supply-demand and it doesn't need to be changed.
Just a heads-up: I usually delete the threads I made before it reaches 10 replies because I want to keep my forum history tidy.
