Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Recently the cost of cross-realms chalk was brought down a lot. it now costs me 26772 silvers in the Landing with a mediocre amount of trading skill. It is brought down to 24094 with citizenship.
I could be wrong, but it seems like the cost of the shadowglass lens (25000 silvers) was set at that at least partly because those in charge did not want cross-realms chalk obtained for too cheaply. Since the price of cross realms chalk has been brought down a lot (cut in half), can we please get the shadowglass lens price brought down?
as it is, there is absolutely NO incentive to use alchemy to make the chalk. Here's the cost as-is:
Shadowglass Lens: 25000
Uncut Diamond: ~5000 (what you could sell it for to gemshop).
Aster Opal: ~5000 (what you could get for it at gemshop).
Quartz Sand x2: 900
Essence of Air: ~250 (what you could get for selling it at alchemist).
Vial of Pearlescent Oil: 100.
ROUGH TOTAL: ~36250 silvers.
We're already spending extra time to make the chalk; I feel like it should always be cheaper to make it than to buy it already made.
~Moredin
Holy crap. I didn't know about the shadowglass lens cost, and I STILL thought it was too expensive (because aster opals are worth more than their gem value, due to being rift gems).
But thats absurd. I get the chalks for about 22k with citizenship in Cysaegir.
Given the extreme amount of investment required to get that far, I think the Shadowglass lens and the aster opal should be cut, and toss in another diamond to keep the cost around 11k.
This is one of those rare opportunities to make a change for alchemy that actually offers some vague sense of "worth it".
Jeez, it was hardly worth it before. I was getting chalks for 41k before the price drop. Why would I master alchemy, then suffer through gathering aster opals in the rift so I could save 5k per shift?
On the other hand, they could make the chalk have multiple uses. I think 3x would be fair (6 total, since each shift is 2 scribings). That, at least, would be something, and would run about 12k per "use".
But thats absurd. I get the chalks for about 22k with citizenship in Cysaegir.
Given the extreme amount of investment required to get that far, I think the Shadowglass lens and the aster opal should be cut, and toss in another diamond to keep the cost around 11k.
This is one of those rare opportunities to make a change for alchemy that actually offers some vague sense of "worth it".
Jeez, it was hardly worth it before. I was getting chalks for 41k before the price drop. Why would I master alchemy, then suffer through gathering aster opals in the rift so I could save 5k per shift?
On the other hand, they could make the chalk have multiple uses. I think 3x would be fair (6 total, since each shift is 2 scribings). That, at least, would be something, and would run about 12k per "use".
yeah I agree...cut the aster opals. took me awhile to find someone who even knew what they were worth so I could post an estimated value. someone else said they are worth 9k not 5k too.
another alchemy product was supposed to offer a vague sense of "worth it" also uses shadowglass lens: sanct-breaking crystals.
~Moredin
another alchemy product was supposed to offer a vague sense of "worth it" also uses shadowglass lens: sanct-breaking crystals.
~Moredin
I guess to summarize his and my proposal into a price summary:
Shadowglass Lens: 5000 (really should be 5000 considering that it's used in sanct-breaking crystals too....how often do you want to break a sanct so bad you'll pay over 5k?)
Uncut Diamond x2: 10000 (what you could sell it for to gemshop).
Quartz Sand x2: 900
Essence of Air: ~250 (what you could get for selling it at alchemist).
Vial of Pearlescent Oil: 100.
PROPOSED TOTAL: ~16250 silvers.
~Moredin
Shadowglass Lens: 5000 (really should be 5000 considering that it's used in sanct-breaking crystals too....how often do you want to break a sanct so bad you'll pay over 5k?)
Uncut Diamond x2: 10000 (what you could sell it for to gemshop).
Quartz Sand x2: 900
Essence of Air: ~250 (what you could get for selling it at alchemist).
Vial of Pearlescent Oil: 100.
PROPOSED TOTAL: ~16250 silvers.
~Moredin
Looks like the sanct-breaking crystals also take a rift gem.
So even with a 5 use lens, the sanct crystals run somewhere between 10,000-15,000, depending on the value you assign to the "hard to get" factor of Rift gems, and the chalks are about 16-21k, depending on the same.
I'll admit, thats a big difference from 25,000 per shot and 25,000 for 5 uses, but still. I can buy chalks for approximately the value of making them, without any effort, compared to the effort of mastering alchemy and gathering rift gems.
So even with a 5 use lens, the sanct crystals run somewhere between 10,000-15,000, depending on the value you assign to the "hard to get" factor of Rift gems, and the chalks are about 16-21k, depending on the same.
I'll admit, thats a big difference from 25,000 per shot and 25,000 for 5 uses, but still. I can buy chalks for approximately the value of making them, without any effort, compared to the effort of mastering alchemy and gathering rift gems.
Bumping because it needs to be addressed.
>Recently the cost of cross-realms chalk was brought down a lot. it now costs me 26772 silvers in the Landing with a mediocre amount of trading skill. It is brought down to 24094 with citizenship.
>I could be wrong, but it seems like the cost of the shadowglass lens (25000 silvers) was set at that at least partly because those in charge did not want cross-realms chalk obtained for too cheaply. Since the price of cross realms chalk has been brought down a lot (cut in half), can we please get the shadowglass lens price brought down?
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
>Recently the cost of cross-realms chalk was brought down a lot. it now costs me 26772 silvers in the Landing with a mediocre amount of trading skill. It is brought down to 24094 with citizenship.
>I could be wrong, but it seems like the cost of the shadowglass lens (25000 silvers) was set at that at least partly because those in charge did not want cross-realms chalk obtained for too cheaply. Since the price of cross realms chalk has been brought down a lot (cut in half), can we please get the shadowglass lens price brought down?
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
Well I imagine you'd only get answers from a GM if they
1. Have the desire to add this to their plate
2. Have the power to start adjusting things, I imagine changing one cost might then create the need to change other related, which is the entire reason there is this request for chalk to be reviewed in the first place.
I imagine that anyone that found the arguments convincing made a note of it.
Just my thoughts on what almost comes across as badgering.
Lochiven
>Just my thoughts on what almost comes across as badgering.
Sometimes badgering becomes necessary with a profession who's issues are decades old, or older, and are frequently met with harsh resistance and claims that it is either not important or not warranted, or by being ignored altogether.
Unlike Moredin, I would have been satisfied if they just said "No", but we haven't even gotten that much. Utter silence has been our response for a month and a half.
>I imagine changing one cost might then create the need to change other related
It might, and its not like Alchemy doesn't need it. However, this one is very obvious; it was a slightly cheaper, alchemy based version of a component that cost 50k to make. Now, it costs significantly less to purchase, and the "cheaper" version is more expensive. In other words, we can go to the trouble of nearly mastering general AND trinket alchemy so that we can have the fun of wasting more money to make an item we could purchase for less. You know what that is called? A WASTE OF TIME!
I am not aware of any other similar component that has seen such a dramatic cost reduction, and if there is one, by all means . . . adjust it.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
Sometimes badgering becomes necessary with a profession who's issues are decades old, or older, and are frequently met with harsh resistance and claims that it is either not important or not warranted, or by being ignored altogether.
Unlike Moredin, I would have been satisfied if they just said "No", but we haven't even gotten that much. Utter silence has been our response for a month and a half.
>I imagine changing one cost might then create the need to change other related
It might, and its not like Alchemy doesn't need it. However, this one is very obvious; it was a slightly cheaper, alchemy based version of a component that cost 50k to make. Now, it costs significantly less to purchase, and the "cheaper" version is more expensive. In other words, we can go to the trouble of nearly mastering general AND trinket alchemy so that we can have the fun of wasting more money to make an item we could purchase for less. You know what that is called? A WASTE OF TIME!
I am not aware of any other similar component that has seen such a dramatic cost reduction, and if there is one, by all means . . . adjust it.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
Oh don't get me wrong I know I'd love a response to this and a good many other things as well. The trend seems to have been rather to operate quietly and then just some random tuesday have an announcement with something new and unexpected. I do play a variety of characters however so I know I'm more agreeable to the trend than someone who plays mainly or solely a specific profession that hasn't seen as much love as others.
Lochiven
>Sometimes badgering becomes necessary with a profession who's issues are decades old, or older, and are frequently met with harsh resistance and claims that it is either not important or not warranted, or by being ignored altogether.
IRVINETOMOE
Shadowglass lens cost is a professional issue that's 'decades old, or older' and requires badgering staff?
>I'd still like to hear it. it takes 5 seconds to post "we're looking into it and we'll let you know."
~Moredin
What if they aren't looking into it? Would you settle for a post that says that?
-farmer
IRVINETOMOE
Shadowglass lens cost is a professional issue that's 'decades old, or older' and requires badgering staff?
>I'd still like to hear it. it takes 5 seconds to post "we're looking into it and we'll let you know."
~Moredin
What if they aren't looking into it? Would you settle for a post that says that?
-farmer
>Shadowglass lens cost is a professional issue that's 'decades old, or older' and requires badgering staff?
Did I say that? Where did I say that? I'd like to see it.
What I DO see myself saying is "a profession who's issues are decades old, or older". What tends to happen with new issues is that they hang around for a few years, and then join the club with the others, like illusions, animate dead, 725, or professional TP cost discrepancies, etc. This is one that is . . . relatively new, three months maybe. But based on progress in Alchemy, this looks like one that will hang around for a few years if not addressed early.
>What if they aren't looking into it? Would you settle for a post that says that?
If I got a post from an Alchemy GM saying "we are not looking into it at this time", at least I can add one more reason why Alchemy is a waste of time, rather than holding out hope that something useful may come from it. Certainty, at the least. Its hardly an ideal outcome, but its better than just being ignored.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
Did I say that? Where did I say that? I'd like to see it.
What I DO see myself saying is "a profession who's issues are decades old, or older". What tends to happen with new issues is that they hang around for a few years, and then join the club with the others, like illusions, animate dead, 725, or professional TP cost discrepancies, etc. This is one that is . . . relatively new, three months maybe. But based on progress in Alchemy, this looks like one that will hang around for a few years if not addressed early.
>What if they aren't looking into it? Would you settle for a post that says that?
If I got a post from an Alchemy GM saying "we are not looking into it at this time", at least I can add one more reason why Alchemy is a waste of time, rather than holding out hope that something useful may come from it. Certainty, at the least. Its hardly an ideal outcome, but its better than just being ignored.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
>Just my thoughts on what almost comes across as badgering.
No, message boards are the appropriate forum (so to speak) for issues like this. Persistence is fine, so long as it doesn't cross into flaming. However, bear in mind that if you absolutely insist on a timely answer for a query or proposal, the answer will almost inevitably be "No." The dev staff is constantly shorthanded and we have many more projects on our plate than we can adequately handle. My own personal response to the query is this: The complaint seems reasonable and I'd have no objection to the change (without having looked at the issue in any more depth than it has been presented here). I would not, however, choose to work on it myself given how many other tasks I have. Perhaps another staff member will feel differently in the future, so feel free to keep posting.
No, message boards are the appropriate forum (so to speak) for issues like this. Persistence is fine, so long as it doesn't cross into flaming. However, bear in mind that if you absolutely insist on a timely answer for a query or proposal, the answer will almost inevitably be "No." The dev staff is constantly shorthanded and we have many more projects on our plate than we can adequately handle. My own personal response to the query is this: The complaint seems reasonable and I'd have no objection to the change (without having looked at the issue in any more depth than it has been presented here). I would not, however, choose to work on it myself given how many other tasks I have. Perhaps another staff member will feel differently in the future, so feel free to keep posting.
>While you're responding here Finros, can you answer what's the status of the thrown review?
you're really hijacking my ancient alchemy thread in the magic folder to ask about thrown review?
I swear to God I'm a reasonable man but if you try to take over a thread I've been bumping for weeks I will, for the first time in my life, take a freaking grudge from the boards into the game. and even if you have 30 million experience points you will not like how rapid fire and implosion feels. Do we understand each other?
start your own thread. yes we sorcerers are on edge.
~Moredin
you're really hijacking my ancient alchemy thread in the magic folder to ask about thrown review?
I swear to God I'm a reasonable man but if you try to take over a thread I've been bumping for weeks I will, for the first time in my life, take a freaking grudge from the boards into the game. and even if you have 30 million experience points you will not like how rapid fire and implosion feels. Do we understand each other?
start your own thread. yes we sorcerers are on edge.
~Moredin
>A simple question was asked, calm down. And I could care less about your threats.
well I apologize. so are you in the habit of waiting until GMs respond to other threads, then swooping in with your own concerns?
mind telling me why you couldn't start your own thread to begin with? like I did?
~Moredin
well I apologize. so are you in the habit of waiting until GMs respond to other threads, then swooping in with your own concerns?
mind telling me why you couldn't start your own thread to begin with? like I did?
~Moredin
Since staff lists are next to impossible to come by the past couple years, and Finros is obviously reading this thread, it's the best way to ask and hopefully get a staff answer of whether or not the last GM working on a project is still on staff or not. And I was mistaken, it was Konacon who took over after Lusus disappeared. The knowledge of whether or not a specific GM is still on staff is all I'm really looking for here. If he's not on staff, there's no point starting a thread asking for updates on his progress.
-Richard/Fjalar.
-Richard/Fjalar.
