Spiral Knights - Gate Construction Rebalance and Material Sinks

Gate Construction Rebalance and Material Sinks

22 replies [Last post]

Sat, 01/28/2012 - 15:39

Providence

1. Allow players to turn [color] shard materials into minerals.

Item descriptions for the various shards already indicate that they are small, small chunks of minerals----why not allow players to smash their light shards into a small chunk of luminite? I suggest 5 shards for 1 unit of mineral. 5 shards can be sold to the vendor for 5 crowns total, that 1 unit of mineral can be put into the gate and the player is paid 5 crowns----that's an equivalent exchange, except it now gives common materials an additional use and can sink them from the economy faster.

2. Allow players to turn other 0 and 1 star materials into minerals.

Again, smashing 5 units of 1* materials into 1 unit of mineral is an equivalent exchange, AND gives players another way to remove these extremely common materials from the game economy. I'm not just suggesting this because I need a use for all my Ecto Drops. I really do think this will revitalize Gate Construction. Some players might try to abuse it and troll people with various kinds of gates----but anyone is free to counter them with opposite minerals. I don't think there ought to be a cost to make minerals out of materials, as that would ruin the exchange rate and discourage people from actually using it. I would say that players can only smash 5 of the same type of material at a time (so 5 ecto drops only, not 3 ecto drops and 2 gel drops).

3. Bring back alloys.

...but don't make them as powerful as they were before. Materials that don't have a clear mineral equivalent could be mashed together as alloys, and given enough alloys it sweetens the payout for putting minerals into a given stratum or something. Or alloys that increase payout for a single mineral, not a whole stratum. I like the idea of alloys, but I don't think they were given enough time or diversity to see how that would really work. This thing, I could definitely see charging players for. A crown or CE cost, or both (like crafting, which it would be) would be acceptable I think. If using the crafting framework, 1-5* versions of alloys would be good. It could work sort of like Krogmo or Sanctuary crafting; they're not real recipes, just options that a vendor or machine offers when you're there. For alloys, I think smashing 4 or 5 star materials might be okay for 5* alloys, but that might do funky things to the market for rare materials.

4. Restrict which strata players can put minerals into.

Players should ONLY be allowed to put minerals into strata they can actually play! Tier 1 players only ever play Tier 1, why should they help choose what Tier 2 and Tier 3 players do? T2 players can put minerals into T1 and T2, and T3 players can put minerals everywhere.

Please please please. At least do number 4!

EDIT:
Also, a bonus for allowing the materials to minerals trade: players can get the Master Miner achievement faster. This achievement, along with the other mineral achievements, is just so far out of reach for most players because it takes so much friggin' time! Giving people a way to get minerals outside of picking up a random amount every level makes these achievements something players can just do the math for; it's a lot less time consuming and frustrating, and would make people feel like it's something they can do.
Low level players don't even bother with Dauntless Delver and its ilk, at least make it easier to get other cheevos. It's not like these even give them a prize, just a little recognition. :3

Sat, 01/28/2012 - 20:06

Repartee

I approve

Sat, 01/28/2012 - 23:31

Severage

Well...what else am I going to do with those stacks of 700 materials?

~Sev

Sat, 01/28/2012 - 23:54

Vivix-Core

[]

I support point 4.

Sun, 01/29/2012 - 00:06

Skold-The-Drac

Approved by this knight

Yeah.... +1 that's all i got.

Sun, 01/29/2012 - 20:43

Cobalt

Me gusta.

Sun, 01/29/2012 - 21:57

Duke-Sky

I made a Shard -> Mineral thread months ago

http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/12669

I had suggested 1 shard make 10 minerals, but with a crown fee attached. (5 crowns per shard)
Even a more costly conversion is fine to me, as its real purpose is giving a material sink (at least for shards) where people sacrifice shards to greater influence gate construction.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 18:49

Providence

@Dukesky

I suggest that 5 shards make 1 mineral (as opposed to 1 shard making 5 minerals) because of a lore limitation----in the shard item descriptions, they are described as being pieces of mineral that are too small to power the gates. It wouldn't make sense to break a shard into minerals, since that would make them even smaller pieces.

I don't actually suggest a cost for this conversion, that would disincentivize the whole process a little bit. I say 5 shards for 1 mineral just kind of arbitrarily. With alloys coming back, it would be possible to boost the worth of the mineral up past the 5 crown cost for the shards. Of course, making the alloys would cost something, but I figure power players would be able to do the math and figure out when it would be profitable to do it.

Sun, 01/29/2012 - 23:54

Fehzor

I suggest making it so that

I suggest making it so that other materials have more of a role in this. Namely, scrap metal. Shards are amazingly useful, and IDK if you guys would like me getting 100000 of them with my saved up minerals that I never deposit because I'm a hoarder. But scrap metal... that should be used more often.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 00:08

Biodragey

+1 But anyway theres a problem in your thinking 1: Alloys are only used by GM's and are still here

2: You are refering to boosting not alloys Alloys change it completely while boosts put a amout of minerals into a gate for crowns

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 00:31

#10

Providence

@Biodragey

No no no. I want to replace boosting with alloys. Nobody uses the boosting feature now because it's not immediately clear what it does. I think that having alloys as a usable item in the inventory would make people more likely to do it, and I want to introduce specific alloys. Example: an alloy that boosts red mineral payout on one stratum or the whole gate, or an alloy that boosts payout for an entire stratum or the whole gate. More variety than the alloys that were available in beta.

Also, GM alloys are special, just like all GM things. They don't function anywhere near to anything the players would use. I don't want alloys that randomize the strata themes, I want them to work like boosts but with more variety.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 06:10

#11

Milkman

The milkman seal of approval!

I like the alloy idea.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 07:13

#12

Duke-Sky

@ Providence

First of all, my name is DUKEsky, not DUDEsky. Ok, dude?

Second of all, I'm aware of the lore. You're taking it way too literally. This isn't about "OMG OMG OMG it'd be so cool if..."
It's about the need for a material sink. No one is going to to sacrifice 5 shards for 1 mineral,
when at best 1 mineral = 4 crowns. FOUR

Lore can change.
Like maybe whichever NPC converts the shards to minerals figures out a way to grow full minerals from shards,
hence the fee for conversion.

Quit clinging to flimsy lore like it's gospel.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 09:00

#13

Phoenyx

I agree with 1 and 4. also

I agree with 1 and 4.

also another way to help balance the system a bit.
http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/41942

2 I think has merit of turning low level materials into something more useful but I dunno if minerals is the way to go on that.

3 I can't speak for I wasn't around when alloys were.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 10:52

#14

Providence

@Dukesky

Sorry about the name mixup. I misread it.

If 1 mineral = 4 crowns at best, or usually 3 crowns, why should 1 shard become 10 minerals as you say? That takes an item that has a 1 crown value and turns it into potentially 30 or 40 shards. If you attach a fee to that conversion to balance the payout, and it becomes less clear to players what the real value is. Your idea can work too, but I think mine is a little bit clearer to the ADD players who don't read or do the math to come up with optimal uses for their resources. I'm suggesting a conversion system for dummies, if you will.

As for your lore issues, fine, whatever. I ran with the lore because it was logical and already exists. It made sense to me without any alterations.

@Phoenyx
I can't speak for other players, but I pick up purple crystals because I like undead levels. With a revamped gate construction system, other players would be able to offset all the purple crystals my guild and I are throwing in...but I agree, crystal offering needs to be more random and they need to be viewable inventory items.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 17:45

#15

Duke-Sky

Providence

You're still talking about converting to minerals to shards, I'm talking about converting shards to minerals.

(Light, red and dark shards are largely worthless and the excess could be removed if converting them to minerals was allowed.
It's a means to removing excess bloat from the economy. Just as we needed crown sinks, we need material sinks. Normal crafting is not keeping up with the excess)

As far as your reluctance to accept lore changes: Originally we could only receive UV's from crafting, now we can pay to apply them AND receive up to 3 UV's on one item. Also, originally, the Shadow Lairs didn't exist nor did Krogmo's Coliseum.
Who would have thought that stranded Knights from a giant spaceship would stoop to fighting in an arena for the amusement of monsters?

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 18:31

#16

Providence

@Dukesky

The things you have cited are lore additions and revisions, neither of which I am opposed to. I never said that the lore shouldn't change. All I said was that I based my suggestion on current lore because it's already there. It was easier to point to something that was already there. This isn't a big deal.

Furthermore, we are talking about the same thing, but with reversed definitions. I AM saying that shards should become minerals. I am saying that shards should be combined to create minerals, whereas you are saying that shards should be broken or grown to create minerals. Same concept, opposite process, same goal, same result. Both ways would work to remove shards or other materials from the economy, I just think mine is simpler. It makes sense to me. It's fine for you to disagree but you seem to be mischaracterizing my argument, which makes it look like you haven't actually read it.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 18:59

#17

Duke-Sky

@ Providence

You have "Material Sink" in your thread title but minerals -> shards (what you want) creates more materials, not less.
A 'sink' means to take excess out, not put more in.

You're trying to fight fire with gasoline.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 19:12

#18

Providence

@Dukesky

Dukesky. It IS a material sink.
It creates minerals, which are of little value, by removing shards (a material of little value).

You turn 5 shards, a material, into 1 unit of mineral. That mineral can ONLY be used on a gate. You CANNOT turn minerals back into shards. By turning 5 shards into 1 mineral, you remove the material from the economy. That is a sink.

This does not create more shards at any point in the process. It removes shards because they turn into minerals. They cannot turn back. That is the whole point. Why do you keep saying that I want minerals--->shards? That is blatantly untrue. It is clear that you either did not read any of my posts, or you did not comprehend any of them.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 19:33

#19

Repartee

@dukesky

You should look it over again because I think you're misreading something friend.

"Again, smashing 5 units of 1* materials into 1 unit of mineral is an equivalent exchange, AND gives players another way to remove these extremely common materials from the game economy."

^There is NOTHING about minerals into materials. At all. Please read it. Again and again and again. And again.

You both are talking about the same thing and I'm not sure how you got so confused when it says that clearly that you two are of the same opinion. The only main problems you seem to have with it is NOT having a larger number of minerals for the use of materials, and that the conversion has to be based on using shards with a cost for transfer.

> 5 1* materials = 1 mineral. Materials being grouped into categories for their corresponding mineral. Not necessarily keeping it to ONLY shards. That's why the mineral conversion requires a larger number to mitigate the opportunity for profiteering and bypasses the need for crown intake. If we look at opportunity costs you're still breaking about even (technically still losing money if you are advantageous) when you could make profit off the materials themselves still (this is called opportunity cost).

The idea is to not multiply the materials into minerals because then it allows for greater changes to the gate construction process without the invested time sink of running the dungeons. The main problem with the projected idea you have towards mineral construction is that with the proposed introduction of alloys (from this thread) which would boost mineral->crown gains is that with a higher number of minerals you're making a fair amount of crowns for relatively useless materials if you decide to engineer such a pay gap in the first place.

I can be honest Dukesky we don't need a higher conversion of shards/materials to minerals AND THEN a cost to transfer:
Shard -> 10 Minerals because with alloys or cost difference someone like ME would love to then slam 200-300 minerals into the opposing color to make a net difference of probably 1-2cr per without the vested interest beyond creating an alloy. But with opportunity cost of materials at the required rate of 5 per mineral and the money I could make for either crafting or sale of said materials I'd not think it was worth the effort.

Tue, 01/31/2012 - 08:34

#20

Phoenyx

@Providence

If you like undead gates you should go for yellow not purple because purple seems to be way more common then yellow

Also for the lore. They could build it into the game that a gremlin is looking for materials to help with their repairing of the clockworks and is willing to trade minerals, which they have plenty of since they live in the clockworks, for materials.

Tue, 01/31/2012 - 11:41

#21

Providence

@Phoenyx

Oh that sounds like a good way to work in the other materials! It wouldn't make sense to turn scrap metal or gears into minerals, but trading them for minerals sounds perfectly logical.

Do you mind if I quote you in the top post?

Fri, 02/03/2012 - 02:46

#22

Phoenyx

@Providence

Quote away.

Search

Gate Construction Rebalance and Material Sinks