Hardwork vs RNG

Hardwork vs RNG
This idea/suggestion is Open. You can respond to ask questions or discuss the idea and either vote it up or down if you believe it should or should not be implemented, respectively. Popular suggestions and ideas will be considered by the development team to become reality in-game.
juspar

juspar

Proposal
Allow Collections NPCs (there are 4 of them) to trade a quantity of common items within a collection for a rare item in the same collection.

For example, if a Weed type VII is a 1/10 drop chance, but a Weed type X is a 1/100 chance - 10 of the VII might be traded for a X at the NPC. Or maybe 1.5 times the ratio, so that the work is more, but at least reliable.
Justification
RNG is frustrating and demoralizing. If we had a way to out work it as well, that would give us a better feeling of agency. Would also stablise the collections economy.
Motivation
RNG is frustrating and demoralizing. If we had a way to out work it as well, that would give us a better feeling of agency. Would also stablise the collections economy.
The RNG is a malicious sadist, it hates all players. Give us a way to out work the RNG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CNiper
Upvote 4 Downvote
If we had a way to out work it as well, that would give us a better feeling of agency.
Click to expand...
What does "a better sense of agency" mean to you? What I am reading of this suggestion is it amounts to a dislike of roll chances and wanting there to be an alternative around that roll chance because it is "frustrating." This amounts to the same suggestion as increasing the loot rolls, but the substance of the change suggested, in either case, seems to just be that everything should be easier to get.

Would also stablise the collections economy.
Click to expand...
How is the collections economy unstable? And how would this change make it more stable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: juspar
I'm good with things as is. That is the purpose of collections. It doesn't make much sense to allow you to trade in more common collections for more rare ones - it defeats the point.
 
Aconite said:
What does "a better sense of agency" mean to you? What I am reading of this suggestion is it amounts to a dislike of roll chances and wanting there to be an alternative around that roll chance because it is "frustrating." This amounts to the same suggestion as increasing the loot rolls, but the substance of the change suggested, in either case, seems to just be that everything should be easier to get.


How is the collections economy unstable? And how would this change make it more stable?
Click to expand...
If implemented the way its rolling around in my head, it would not be "easier" it would just be a feeling that you could see progress. Not only waiting for some random chance that could happen on the next item, or it could be 30 more hours of grinding.

If you as devs want this item whatever it may be to drop approximately every 1000 "events", and some other item to drop say every 100 "events". If after 1500 I do not have the first one, but I do have 15 of the second one, have I not done enough work to have "earned" the rare item. Then I could trade my effort, not my luck, for the thing. It's just a thought. RNG is incredibly frustrating, but I don't want to make it easier just more reliable. I'd see trading the equivalent of 1.5 times the expected effort of the actual item. Maybe you get lucky and get it sooner anyway. Maybe the odds come out exactly as intended and on your 1000th (in above example) you get it. But if RNG is not in your favour, and you run way past the intended grind, you can buy out with the spoils of the effort you put in.

Rare item drops don't sit around on the market, they are snapped up right away because rare is, rare. This means a value can't be established for them. Any given transaction is more about the luck of who happens to see it first. What sells for 200k this week, might sell for 1M next week, and 150k the week after. Being able to construct the value of all the items in a set around a building blocks of lower level items would allow prices to normalise.
 
PhilmorALF said:
I'm good with things as is. That is the purpose of collections. It doesn't make much sense to allow you to trade in more common collections for more rare ones - it defeats the point.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we trade common collections for uncommon ones, but the common items inside the same collection for the rarer ones. Maybe that was what you meant and your opinion stands, but just want to make sure you were disagreeing with what I was actually trying to propose.
 
juspar said:
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we trade common collections for uncommon ones, but the common items inside the same collection for the rarer ones. Maybe that was what you meant and your opinion stands, but just want to make sure you were disagreeing with what I was actually trying to propose.
Click to expand...
Yes - that is what I was disagreeing with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: juspar
You must log in or register to reply here.
SWG Restoration is a fan-made, non-profit, community-driven, project.
Not affiliated with nor endorsed by Daybreak Games, Lucasfilm Entertainment, Electronic Arts or The Walt Disney Company.
Star Wars ™ & © Lucasfilm Ltd. No marks or intellectual property are owned by or licensed to SWG Restoration.
Top Bottom