What do you think about the new crafting/dusting system?

(Xyfurion) #61

Yep, you did well.

(Equanimity) #62

The only problem I have with decreasing the cost(s) of the new crafting system is that it devalues all of the rarities immensely. To those of us who already have at least a few good colbalts this should be seen as an overall negative. I’d rather ‘pay more’ in the future than have the cards I worked so hard for in the past be worth significantly less than the effort(s) I put in to them. I’d rather see the old system brought back for that reason alone (plus of course the lack of meaningful progression) than changes to this new system.

If changes are to be made to this system I would very much hope they’re at least retroactive, as myself and I’m sure many others have already invested a lot of cards and credits in to it. I will say I’m extremely happy with the results I’ve gotten thus far in my crafting of many silvers from scratch though. Felt like good value and I really like the silver skins personally. Hence my indifferent vote on the poll.

(Terminal_6) #63

What if we paid credits to recycle instead of craft? It would be a miniscule amount, and probably a small amount of variance between rarities. For example, if it cost an arbitrary 15 credits to dust a Lead, then only an arbitrary 150 credits for gold. It would allow for rarity shortcuts, whatever the term for that is. I mean it would cost less to recycle 10 Golds and make a Cobalt than recycling 1,334 leads. (1334 Leads x 15 cred = 20,100 and 10 Golds x 150 cred = 1,500)

However, it’s a major change from the “pay up front” model we have now, where all the costs are incurred during crafting. I don’t know if that was a deliberate decision, it seems less marketable imo. I have no idea what I spent crafting up to Cobalts under the previous system, and it certainly wasn’t from 864 Leads. Whatever the cost, it was less psychologically daunting than 50K up front now.

Also, depending on actually mathematically formulated recycle costs, it could be slightly more cost-efficient to turn a ton of Leads into Golds and then into a Cobalt instead of going directly to Cobaly, but would that be such a bad thing?

(Klaus Morgenholz) #64

Do you want to know why the previous system was better? You found good cards along the way that you kept. This forces you to one-shot for a high tier. Why would I go for that when I can have a decent card in bronze tier?

(Klaus Morgenholz) #65

This summarises my feelings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMwOPuxb-Jo

(copperCucumber) #66

SHITY

(Runeforce) #67

This is only true if you discard any remaining fragments. If you don’t, you will have 6000 remaining fragments after recycling two cobalts and crafting a new. Those are worth credits, 16.23 credits pr. fragment, if you believe The_NOOB’s calculations. That gives you a net saving of 71380 credits pr. transaction compared to the old trade-in system.

This is also not true. It is explained that way by the devs, for the sake of simplicity, but under the hood, the mathemathics take the new drop rates from equipment cases into consideration. This is one of my many gripes with Sovrakha’s video.

(Szakalot) #68

lack of progression is a VERY strong point people are making.

imo - go back to old tradeup with old tradeup fees, but allow us to recycle cards to make fragments which can be used either instead of the tradeup fee (so burn more cards to bypass the credit requirement) or to craft weaponkits (which seem impossible to obtain atm).

this way the middle-class rarities preserve their value, while we can still scrap useless leads and irons to fragments that have multiple uses

(Klaus Morgenholz) #69

Look at it this way:
With the old system, if i traded up from bronze to silver and I got a card I wouldn’t use, it still had some value, because I would trade it up for gold for a small amount of credits.
With the new system, unused mid-tier cards are worth a lot less, because they will be dusted for much less value.
Look at how much the value of elite cases has dropped. If you bought a pack of 10 elite cases before this update, you could trade your silvers into gold for 4000 credits.
Now, you have to dust them and spent 25000 credits. Who in their sane mind would purchase a 10 pack? I did, before this update. I won’t do it again unless it’s fixed.

(The_N00Ba) #70

The 16.23 I stated some where… I honestly forget where is actually stated directly by Exedore himself. It is the value he presented in his post about this in announcements.

The fact that we can obtain cards from cases other than leads does not remove the idea that those cards have a value of leads. This idea can be observed by looking at the fragments received by recycling cards. let’s look at the cobalt.

According to exedore’s post you receive 13,000 fragments from recycling a cobalt. 1 lead is worth 15 fragments.

13,000/ 15 equals around 864 due to rounding. 864 is the amount of leads required to make a cobalt in the previous system. so

1 cobalt = 864 leads and the rest of the card rarities hold true to this idea as well. This means all card rarities are just piles of lead cards but their in game market value is still different as determined by the in game economy.

That is at least some of my observations

(MarsRover) #71

I still don’t understand why this system had to replace the old one. They could easily coexist.

(blobjim) #72

I think credit costs need to be removed and low loadout cards need to have their salvage values slightly increased and the system will be perfect.

(Xyfurion) #73

I just want an adequate response from SD/Nexon on this matter. So far, we haven’t heard suqat. (I didn’t watch the stream on Monday btw so if they said anything, I haven’t heard of it yet).

(MisterBadmin) #74

It would be impressive if you had watched the stream on Monday.

Stream was canceled.

(doxjq) #75

Well, I did make that poll about whether or not people thought locked teams were a good idea or a bad idea when matchmaking comes out. It had something like 56 people against locking teams and 9 people for it. They did kind of address it in the next stream since people were concerned about it, but I gather they’re still going to lock teams despite what a lot of people think.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if they do read this thread but still leave the system as it is regardless of how many people hate it.

That said I do think people will accept this system more if they do balance the credit costs. As much as I personally hate the new system I’d probably accept it with some credit cost balancing, because I don’t exactly expect them to ditch the system completely. It would be too hard to reverse now.

(Szakalot) #76

@Dox your poll was biased as fuck, not sure how much of an argument you want to make out of it

(Icecoal) #77

It’s a step in the right direction , but the credit cost are too high

(The_N00Ba) #78

I find when compared to the full trade up cost, the new costs are less. 50,000 < 322,000 for cobalt as an example. The main issue though from what I have noticed is when people buy cases with real money. 50,000 > 10,000. On one side of the coin it can be said people are upset that they are getting less free stuff in game. On the other side it can be said people are paying real money to get free stuff and are questioning whether or not they are getting their moneys worth. The idea is similar for people using their free cards. looking at the math I am feeling some of the costs of the higher rarity cards do need to come down a little. Free stuff does counteract the cost but currently it looks like the demand has gone down at that price. Granted I do not have access to the big picture like SD and NA have. They can see the demand at the macro level for the game. it may not have changed at all for all I know. :slight_smile:

(fluorescentUrchin) #79

It has benefits and drawbacks, hence I voted indifferent. My biggest problem with it is how triggered the community has gotten over it

(doxjq) #80

Not entirely sure where you’re going with this. If my poll is that bad make another one and word it however you please - You’re going to get the same result.