Combine 2 Rares to a Univsersal Rare

[TheSpin]

How about a recipe for every artisan at the end of every tier that allows them to combine any two rare harvests into a single universal rare harvest that can be used in any recipe for that tier.  This would bring up the demand of less popular harvests and reduce the demand on the really popular ones.  In lower tiers the hard metals are extremely valuable and rare leather is worthless, at upper teirs Silicate Loam is ridiculously expensive (4pp each) while Incarnadine is like 30 gold each.

Perhaps a quest could be implemented in order to obtain these recipes, or whatever.

I thought of this idea while reading over the Bring Back Ink post, but since nobody commented it on there I thought I would make a post of my own in the hopes of getting a little input about what fellow crafters think of this.

*edit*  After reading some suggestions here, I'd like to slightly alter my primary suggestion.

1.  All artisans get a recipe to turn 2 rares from tier X into 1 universal rare material for tier X

2.  Each tradeskiller gets recipes specific to their class to convert the universal rare material into whichever rare they desire for the item they wish to make.

*edit #2*

The idea of incorporating this into the secondary tradeskills rather than the primary tradeskills has been suggested.  I think this might be a great way to implement this.  There have been a few suggestions to how this would best be incorporated into secondary tradeskills, but here is my idea for how it would work best with tinkering and transmuting.

1.  Transmuters can draw out the 'rare' quality from the rare harvests by transmuting raw rares.

2.  Tinkerers can make a device that can take a large amount (100 or 200) of common harvests and create a rare material which could then be imbued with the items transmuters have withdrawn from the orignal rare materials.

3.  All players can then buy the transmuted rare materials, and the tinkered rare materials and combine the two together into a single complete rare harvest.

A couple variations could be considered with this idea...you could have a simple version where 1 rare harvest is transmuted to 1 material and then it takes 2 of these materials to combine with the tinkered item,  or you could have that 1 rare harvest transmute to a random number...say 2 to 3 materials, and then require 5 total transmuted materials to combine with the tinkered item.

I'm not exactly sure how coding would work with this idea because combining X number of transmuted items with 1 tinkered item might be a problem, so it might be easier to use a simpler version.  I think this concept would not only provide a solution to the value discrepency of rares in all tiers, but it brings more value to both the tinkering and transmuting professions (and possibly additional ways to level them up).

[Thraxarious]

    Interesting, but that would mean a trivialisim to most low end rares. Though ICly it would be rather odd to have used two raw bones to make blackened iron chest armor...or two sisal roots to make that imbued Silver ring...

[Zard]

I like this idea. Aren't rares supposed to be equally rare? If so, allowing you to combine two rares you don't need into something you do need (or can sell) sounds fair to me. Of course, if peeps knew this change was coming they would buy up all the cheap rares on the broker -- just like those in-the-know did with the Adept I's prior to transmuting hitting the live servers.

[Meirril]

I'm opposed to this idea. You would think this is similar to the ink proposal so I wouldn't be, but its not and I am.

Let me explain. The idea with ink is a step back to where the spell raws use to come from. Ink was origionally used by alchemists, jewelers, and sages to make spells. Ink was made from jewelery-stone raws (soft-metals and stones). Loam was introduced later and inks removed. Forcing any one of the raws to support 2 of the archatypes was a disaster. Origionally the soft metal had mages and scouts on them while loam was just for fighters. Loam prices were slightly lower than gems. Gems were depressed in price like hard metal is now because people were desperately looking for the in short supply soft metals. Soft metals were tripple the price of gems and loam. Incidently, hard metal at that time was about twice the price of gems and loam as the crafted armor was considered good.

Then scouts were moved to loams. What happened? Loam skyrocketed to double the price of jewelery rares until the market reaches satuation. Eventually it becomes lower value than the jewelery rares. To alieviate this entire mess, I proposed moving to add ink back into the equasion as an equalizer. Yes, its a throwback to the bad old days of subcomponents. I just think its a fair way to do it.

Unfortunately, outside of spells the equipment produced by tradeskills isn't as highly in demand in the top tier as it was before. It is in high demand as far as twinking alts is concerned. The market regulates these prices based on supply and demand. Lower demand crafts get lower prices for their raws. They in turn can chage less for thier wares and still make a decent proffit even thought their materials arn't in as high of a demand. Crafters who use high demand materials see this and are a bit jelouse. They shouldn't be, they will sell goods at a higher rate and even thought they probably won't make as much coin per combine, it should even out over time.

Your idea would hurt the market. Now the bottom of the market would be a minimum of half the top end. While this would prevent outrageous spikes, it also prevents bargains from occuring.

Also from an immersion prospective, there is something satisfying about working with the "correct" rare. Having a magical go anywhere material that doen't "naturally" occur seems a bit...ok so it is a world of magic. I still doesn't feel right.

While your idea has some merrit, I'm still opposed to it.

[Valdaglerion]

I rather like this idea. Rather than get bummed about finding a rare you dont need and hope you can sell it for enough to buy the one you do need you would actually get some use out of your efforts. I also appreciate the comment made about all rares being equal, I got a chuckle out of that.Silicate Loams: 2.5p stillIncarnadine Cluster: 7.5gLOL - hmmm, 1 silicate = 23 Incarnadine....I think it would definitely shore up the issues with specific node drop rates and/or server user usage of a particular node type. It would certainly level out the economies and add another layer to it.Further thoughts on this?

[Valdaglerion]

Meirril wrote:

Also from an immersion prospective, there is something satisfying about working with the "correct" rare. Having a magical go anywhere material that doen't "naturally" occur seems a bit...ok so it is a world of magic. I still doesn't feel right.

2 words -[Insert Type] MaterialThe magic , go anywhere imbuing material. While I like the concept of this idea I will agree it need a little more thought put into it. You bring a good point about the right type of raw. Further consideration would require a reworking of recipes which could be a headache for Domino. For instance -To make a Mahogany Counter - you currently need mahogany. With this new material the recipe would need to be offset by some type of wood which is not currently needed in the recipe because a lack of wood in the recipe makes the recipe silly. For instance, you might have to offset the mahogany rare with 15 redwood +1 universal rare (this under the premis that the magical universal rare changes the redwood to mahogany).Without that type of logic it does undermine the ingredients of the recipe. /sighMore thought needed....

[Off]

I've found myself going back and forth about going back to the way it was and keeping things the way it is.  I think adding inks would be a nice idea, as I agree it would put some extra balance in the game for both adventurers and tradeskillers alike.  The OP doesn't have a bad idea at all, and I think that might be doable too, but I still feel like we could have our cake and eat it too.    A little bit of balance can go a long way in my opinion.

[TheSpin]

Meirril wrote:

Your idea would hurt the market. Now the bottom of the market would be a minimum of half the top end. While this would prevent outrageous spikes, it also prevents bargains from occuring.

Also from an immersion prospective, there is something satisfying about working with the "correct" rare. Having a magical go anywhere material that doen't "naturally" occur seems a bit...ok so it is a world of magic. I still doesn't feel right.

While your idea has some merrit, I'm still opposed to it.

I think that a minimum of half the top end is a very reasonable.  I think it would improve the economy rather than hurt it.  When the current top end is more than 10 times  higher than the bottom end I think there is a flaw.  Certain rares would still be desireable over others, but no rare would be useless.

 From an immersion perspective, I can see the argument and cannot fully dispute it, but...   1. It's a fair tradeoff to solve some problems and   2.  It's a bit of a stretch, but it makes more sense than the whole idea of having loams that come as biproducts of hard metals that are used to make potions and poisons, so it can't just be thrown out for this reason alone.

I'm not saying this solution is 100% better than other suggestions, but it may be easier to implement than adding in Ink and then changing hundreds of recipes to use ink.  I don't really know a lot about coding, but based on the types of changes I've seen thus far in eq2 this seems like a far easier solution.  Simply add the recipes to make the universal rare, and then flag the rare as a substitute for any other rare in that tier...seems like an extremely simple solution from a coding perspective compared to others that have been suggested.

[TheSpin]

Artemiz@The Bazaar wrote:

Meirril wrote:

Also from an immersion prospective, there is something satisfying about working with the "correct" rare. Having a magical go anywhere material that doen't "naturally" occur seems a bit...ok so it is a world of magic. I still doesn't feel right.

2 words -[Insert Type] MaterialThe magic , go anywhere imbuing material. While I like the concept of this idea I will agree it need a little more thought put into it. You bring a good point about the right type of raw. Further consideration would require a reworking of recipes which could be a headache for Domino. For instance -To make a Mahogany Counter - you currently need mahogany. With this new material the recipe would need to be offset by some type of wood which is not currently needed in the recipe because a lack of wood in the recipe makes the recipe silly. For instance, you might have to offset the mahogany rare with 15 redwood +1 universal rare (this under the premis that the magical universal rare changes the redwood to mahogany).Without that type of logic it does undermine the ingredients of the recipe. /sighMore thought needed....

This brought up another interesting idea...

I'm assuming it's easier to add new recipes than change old ones and by using that assumption this could be the perfect solution to keep the immersion factor.

Additional recipes could be given to each tradeskill class in order to convert their "Universal Rare" into a specific rare used by their class.  A Jeweler, for instance, would recieve recipes to add X number of common harvests with the Universal Rare to convert it into either a Loam for their adept 3s, Either type of Soft Metal for jewelry, Roots for scarfs, etc.

[greenmantle]

Elegant solution to the idea that one "rare" is rare and the next is common as dirt. Allows for different populations across servers, variations in the flavor of the month and would help stabilise markes and prevent some one with accses to a pile of plat  buying up 300 of xx rare  to manipulate the price.

 The suggestions so far are too complex,  each would require the creation of a new rare to be incorportaed into thousands of recipes or a whole new suite of rare creation/conversion recipes with the arguments of who gets them do they give exp etc etc.

Simple solution:

 Opps Fitzwoggle's magical steam powered gnomish transmuting device, give the gnome your two rares and his new wonder device produces the rare set on the dial after only a short pause to transmute the magical energy. No recipes required perhaps even possible with a tweak of an existing merchant.

Loss of rares due to coal/steam failure is not the responsibility of the management. Exposure to fumes emmited by the process may be toxic care should be taken to limit exposure. People exposed to the fumes should not attempt to control a rhino for 24 hours. Any suggestion that Fey are the result of an accident involving the inventors assistant and a dragonfly are stongly denied. There is no truth to the viscious roumor that halflings and gnomes once had seperate accomodation and the large crater west of Qeynos is remains of the gnomish township as a result of a malfunction of the prototype.

[Snowdonia]

How about combining the two ideas?Instead of any 2 rares = any rare in the game to make any item, how about any 2 (or more) rares = an ink to make any Adept 3?

[TheSpin]

Snowdonia@Runnyeye wrote:

How about combining the two ideas?Instead of any 2 rares = any rare in the game to make any item, how about any 2 (or more) rares = an ink to make any Adept 3?

Not all tiers have a shortage of adept 3 components, my suggestion addresses all tiers equally well.  Many tiers it's the hard metal that is the most valuable.

Additionally, if you implement ink you then have to change every single adept 3 recipe to use ink instead of the current material.  Adding 8 or so recipes per tier is probably a lot easier than changing hundres of existing recipes.

[Kenban]

I think people are trying to fix this problem in the wrong way. Having generic combines which take two rares and pop out a different type of rare just makes no sense. Now having said that having a method to change one rare to another could work. Putting in NPC's which allow you to trade in your "worthless" rare and have it exchanged for what you do need would work. In RoK it should be a person on one or more of the factions maybe x faction needs certain ones and will give you anything other then that item. Or maybe you can go to a faction and they have too much of a rare and will trade you for some type of rare that they need. To prevent the rares from becoming competly universal and make it so that people will still want to get the right one to start with there has to be a charge for the service. Maybe 20 gold at Tier 8 or as the original poster said 2 for 1. As long as the cost is not too high it will even out the worth of all the rares within reason. Plus it actually makes some sense instead of having a universal rare. (Although I also support the idea of ink)

[Snowdonia]

TheSpin wrote:

Additionally, if you implement ink you then have to change every single adept 3 recipe to use ink instead of the current material.  Adding 8 or so recipes per tier is probably a lot easier than changing hundres of existing recipes.

You do realize that what you are saying you are trying to avoid with inks will undoubtedly happen with this NEW universal rare as well right? Only, instead of it just being the rare for say 2k/15k recipes, it'd be 15k/15k. They still need to code the recipes to recognize their normal rare AND the new universal rare.I don't know coding mind you, but I can't see how your proposed rare is going to magically avoid the problems the ink alternative is going to have.Kenban,I like that idea.

[Cusashorn]

I always thought it'd be nice if carpenters could make some furnitures that actually required rare components for everything and not just the main.

[Meirril]

Cusashorn wrote:

I always thought it'd be nice if carpenters could make some furnitures that actually required rare components for everything and not just the main.

For the love of Orihime why would you want more rares involved in the creation of furnture?!? What possible benifit could come from that?

[TheSpin]

Kenban wrote:

I think people are trying to fix this problem in the wrong way. Having generic combines which take two rares and pop out a different type of rare just makes no sense.

With the additional idea of adding recipes to convert the universal rare into a specific rare I believe it makes perfect sense.  Each type of rare harvest makes gear of equivalent quality, so you could easily argue that there is a magical property, I'll call it an essence, to every rare harvest that gives it the ability to be made into mastercrafted items.  If you could somehow extract this essence and then magically imbue common materials with this essence, it would convert these common materials into a rare material.  Of course some essence could be lost in the process, hence the reason it requires two rares instead of just one.

[Oakleafe]

TheSpin wrote:

Kenban wrote:

I think people are trying to fix this problem in the wrong way. Having generic combines which take two rares and pop out a different type of rare just makes no sense.

With the additional idea of adding recipes to convert the universal rare into a specific rare I believe it makes perfect sense.  Each type of rare harvest makes gear of equivalent quality, so you could easily argue that there is a magical property, I'll call it an essence, to every rare harvest that gives it the ability to be made into mastercrafted items.  If you could somehow extract this essence and then magically imbue common materials with this essence, it would convert these common materials into a rare material.  Of course some essence could be lost in the process, hence the reason it requires two rares instead of just one.

Very nice explanation.Although I have to say, I am against the original idea of a universal rare I am warming to the idea of converting multiple rares plus raws into existing rares of the same tier as it allows for fairness for all craft classes and doesn't just concentrate on scholar classes (as some ideas do).Any comments on how the broker market would be affected would just be guess work, but I do wonder if making the number of rares required higher (3 or 4, for example) might help keep prices from dropping too low due to the higher number of sales required but equally drop the highest prices due to this propose conversion process.  All guess work and supposition though!

[TheSpin]

Oakleafe wrote:

Any comments on how the broker market would be affected would just be guess work, but I do wonder if making the number of rares required higher (3 or 4, for example) might help keep prices from dropping too low due to the higher number of sales required but equally drop the highest prices due to this propose conversion process.  All guess work and supposition though!

I agree that the broker prices are hard to predict with this idea, but I think there are a few things you can predict overall, in the short term compared to the long term.

In the short term rares across the board would severely decrease in value because there are so many low priced rares that would be converted into other rares that there would be an overflow of even the most valuable rares right now.  This could actually pose problems and risk trivializing the rare harvests for a little while.  This could be counteracted by introducing recipes that require more than 2 rares and then later going to the 2 for 1 formula.  It could also just be set for a 3 for 1 formula as an easy middle ground, but I would prefer to see 2 for 1 to bring up the value of rares across the board a little bit.

In the long term the prices will even out where there will likely be a high range of a rare and a low range for all rares in a given tier, and the low range would never drop below half of the price of the high range.  The high range would drop to a lower number for every tier and the bottom range would increase.  I think this is exactly what is needed considering there are rares that are  1000 times more valuable than other rares in the same tier right now.

[Deson]

TheSpin wrote:

Oakleafe wrote:

Any comments on how the broker market would be affected would just be guess work, but I do wonder if making the number of rares required higher (3 or 4, for example) might help keep prices from dropping too low due to the higher number of sales required but equally drop the highest prices due to this propose conversion process.  All guess work and supposition though!

I agree that the broker prices are hard to predict with this idea, but I think there are a few things you can predict overall, in the short term compared to the long term.

In the short term rares across the board would severely decrease in value because there are so many low priced rares that would be converted into other rares that there would be an overflow of even the most valuable rares right now.  This could actually pose problems and risk trivializing the rare harvests for a little while.  This could be counteracted by introducing recipes that require more than 2 rares and then later going to the 2 for 1 formula.  It could also just be set for a 3 for 1 formula as an easy middle ground, but I would prefer to see 2 for 1 to bring up the value of rares across the board a little bit.

In the long term the prices will even out where there will likely be a high range of a rare and a low range for all rares in a given tier, and the low range would never drop below half of the price of the high range.  The high range would drop to a lower number for every tier and the bottom range would increase.  I think this is exactly what is needed considering there are rares that are  1000 times more valuable than other rares in the same tier right now.

Statistically all rares are the same; the differences lie in how people value them. If you're going to end up doing all that work to control rare supply and demand under the proposed system, wouldn't it be easier and smarter in the long term to at the very least review how the system uses rares in the first place?If you propose a change that cascades into bigger changes--especially when caused solely by the first change-- it's a fairly good sign you just need a new system; you're likely to end up building it anyway, may as well actually plan it.

[Oh]

I like the op's suggestion although at my level it isn't a large issue i can still see the writting on the wall for the problem. To make this even simpler on the coding side just introduce new transmute recipies requiring transmute (kind of duh but hey keep the tradeskills intertwined) that make a specific type of rare from 2 of the existing types of rares for that tier. Meaning you don't have to change tons of recipes to require a "universal" rare, the recipies stay the same it's just the transmute recipies that are a bit more complicated or just more of them to keep it simple.

[Vonotar]

Your all over thinking this...Drop the 'magicial super-rare', drop the 'multiple receipes', simply add a couple of merchants who are prepared to swap two rares (of the same tier) for any other rare (of the same tier) of your choice.Win-Win for everybody1. People can get the rare they need if they have two unwanted rares2. Rares still stay rare, since each transaction removes a rare from the system3. Would go a long way towards reducing the stockpiles some people are sitting on4. Would encourage harvesters to harvest all nodes and not just cherry pickAnother twist could be that you have to see certain merchants for the type of rare you want.  E.g. visit the miners at the top of Solusek Eye for hard metals (from an RP perspective they would be happy to trade as they need rare wood/roots/loam etc for their operation).

[Deson]

Banedon@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Your all over thinking this...Drop the 'magicial super-rare', drop the 'multiple receipes', simply add a couple of merchants who are prepared to swap two rares (of the same tier) for any other rare (of the same tier) of your choice.Win-Win for everybody1. People can get the rare they need if they have two unwanted rares2. Rares still stay rare, since each transaction removes a rare from the system3. Would go a long way towards reducing the stockpiles some people are sitting on4. Would encourage harvesters to harvest all nodes and not just cherry pickAnother twist could be that you have to see certain merchants for the type of rare you want.  E.g. visit the miners at the top of Solusek Eye for hard metals (from an RP perspective they would be happy to trade as they need rare wood/roots/loam etc for their operation).

If we're just going to make rares NPC convertible, why even have different ones? That would be the effective end anyway. At least under the current system those low demand rares facilitate some form of player interaction be it direct trades or broker transactions.

[Vonotar]

Deson wrote:

If we're just going to make rares NPC convertible, why even have different ones? That would be the effective end anyway. At least under the current system those low demand rares facilitate some form of player interaction be it direct trades or broker transactions.

Ditto if we make them receipe convertable, or any other suggestion in this thread.At least having to travel to an NPC that would be prepared to trade components is more realistic that a complex system of magical transmuting receipes.Besides, any system that converts 2 rares to 1 rare will have the effect of removing the lesser wanted/more plentiful rares from the markets thus closing the gap between the cheapest and the most expensive rares.  When that happens there will be less need for "2 to 1" transactions (in whatever form they take) as it would be economical to sell your two rares and buy the one you want (AND have change left over).

[James_UK]

This will lead to a drab uniformity in prices IMO - I would not like to see it implemented.

[TheSpin]

Well it looks like the two biggest alternatives or complaints to this idea are that it's overly complicated and that it would potentially ruin the market.

I have to disagree on both accounts.

I think it's simple because it doesn't involve relearning anything or rewriting recipes.  It only involves a slight addition to what currently exists.  At most it would be an additional 8 recipes per tier to add.....one to convert the two rares into the universal essence, and one for each type of rare (so 7 total) to convert that essence into the chosen rare. 

Additionally, I think that player run things are generally preferred to dumbfire merchants that just trade stuff.  It seems a little lazy/easy and doesn't promote the multiplayer aspect of the game if you just visit a merchant and trade him for what you want.  It also doesn't address all tiers evenly if its based on factions that take a long time or level requirements to aquire.

I think the market would benefit from it in the long term.  Are you really ok with certain rares being 1000% more valuable on the broker than other rares in the same tier?  Every rare should be useful in some way.  Yes it would even the market out a bit, but when the current price ranges from 10 gold incarnadine to 5 plat silicate loam, can you really say that's the way it should be?

[James_UK]

Some rares are more expensive - just don't see a problem with that.

[Cusashorn]

Meirril wrote:

Cusashorn wrote:

I always thought it'd be nice if carpenters could make some furnitures that actually required rare components for everything and not just the main.

For the love of Orihime why would you want more rares involved in the creation of furnture?!? What possible benifit could come from that?

Create a furniture with twice the status reduction of a regular rare of that tier.

[Valdaglerion]

James_UK wrote:

This will lead to a drab uniformity in prices IMO - I would not like to see it implemented.

As the above postings are asking about broker results - james hit it on the head. The same thing occurred when transmuting was introduced. All adepts of a single tier leveled out in price, not because of the supply or demand of the particular spell but because all spells of a given tier could be transmuted into one of 2-3 possible components of an equal value.The same would occur in the rares market if this idea is implemented. Personally, I still like the idea because the markets eventually (after about 6 months) stabilized and prices reduced on previously unused spells and gear also.I further think the idea of various merchants introduced is very interesting. I have enjoyed the faction merchants and the logic seems solid. A merchant in one area  might value hard metals more than wood, say dwarves over elves. This would open a barter system where you could take the hard metal you dont need and trade it for perhaps 2 woods from the dwarves but if you have 2 wood and need hard metal you would have to go to the elves. It would be a system of values and trade and not a 1:1 consistently for swapping.Interesting turn this thread has taken.

[Laiina]

Thraxarious wrote:

    Interesting, but that would mean a trivialisim to most low end rares. Though ICly it would be rather odd to have used two raw bones to make blackened iron chest armor...or two sisal roots to make that imbued Silver ring...

Well, not really.

For example, root rares are much more common, since they drop now from both roots and bushes.

And even though the spawn rate is similar, the demand is not. Any rare that is used in spells is in much higher demand than most others, just because of the sheer number of spells.