1
Closed suggestions / Re: Expanding the list of gifts for companions
« on: September 30, 2013, 11:07:26 pm »
Companion loyalty doesn't seem to degrade so this would be pointless.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Closed bugs / [Map] Barrels of Fun trap
« on: September 30, 2013, 10:46:40 pm »
This was a 1 vs 1 match. This is primarily just to inform people to not use this part of Hinkley until this is fixed. If you do get stuck in it, use ~suicide.
3
Closed suggestions / Re: The case for the LSW Single Shot
« on: September 30, 2013, 10:27:05 pm »
The only problem I have with this is that it makes BG that much more viable. We'd see more LSWs in PvP which would increase diversity, though. Worth a try. I'd decrease its single shot range just so it doesn't overshadow other snipers. 40 range sounds reasonable in that it would allow it to combat rocket launchers. In practice, though, it would probably just overshadow rocket launchers, so I'd say that 35 range would be better, maybe 37 to compete against bursters.
4
Closed suggestions / Re: Blueprint rework
« on: September 30, 2013, 10:20:34 pm »PvP is so encouraged in this that there are few to no other games that can be compared to FOnline: Reloaded. Many iterations of FOnline have been reduced to a single prevailing faction such that the game quickly becomes a "Win the wipe" gametype instead of a continuous game. Where that's the case, anything not conductive to "Winning the wipe" is discouraged. That's frustrating, as it reduces the practicality of quests and other content unless it contributes to winning.But there are people playing this game that have no life. Even now someone out ther is puting his 732nd bosar into his 27th vertibird. Hard to get items are only hard to get if you play this game like a normal person.
Not a valid argument against a better system.
If that were a valid argument, then games like d2, d3, path of exile, (any kind of ARPG that utilizes an itemization system), would fail miserably.
People that play more will be rewarded more. Thats how it is and how it should be.
Sure im not the one that is going to be the one that is gonna play more and be rewarded more, but that does not mean that THAT is not the way how it is supposed to be.
I'll add that the "Win the wipe" gametype is terrible and not fun. No one likes it but unless you win it you can't enjoy the enjoyable parts of the game, of which there are few because far more effort is put into trying to make "Winning" more difficult instead of into actually content, which would be actually enjoyable to make, suggestions about which wouldn't be 90% garbage.
A PvP environment that does not permit insurmountable advantage to players who play non-stop is ideal. Private mines are one mechanic that makes great strides to permit all players to PvP, even if they do need improved a bit. More like that is good. Limited use blueprints would be a nice spice to the game but unless used sparingly it would only impede upon what enjoyable content does exist. I'm still for the idea of limited limited use BPs and needing BPs in inventory to craft, though. The riskiness of it would implicitly discourage crafting but without testing it there's not much way to know if it would work as intended.
5
Closed suggestions / Re: Blueprint rework
« on: September 30, 2013, 10:11:16 pm »
Blueprints serve very little purpose currently. I think we're agreed on this. I personally enjoy them, as hunting for them and trading for them is like a mini-game, even if it is mandatory. I don't think that justifies their existence and I would prefer they just be removed along with professions, as they both discourage PvP by limiting good equipment to people who have invested a great deal of time into the game. The community for FOnline: Reloaded is already small - it doesn't need to be split further by convoluted mechanics devised by the now-hopefully-defunct want-to-be-game-devs of FOnline: 2238. The special stats afforded to some crafted weapons are nice in that they add some variety to a PvP environment that's very focused on one or two particular weapons at any given time. I would keep that system.
With this personal position established, I'll comment on your suggestion.
I'll assess that your suggestion is, at its core, that limiting the availability of Blueprints would limit the availability of certain weapons. This is only true for craftable weapons. Avengers and rocket launchers may be very easily farmed for, so this change would only make it more difficult for them to be crafted. This would make the special stat system for weapons less used, which would be a shame. If blueprints weren't permanent, there would be a number of different ways to make them and the system surrounding them better, and some options wouldn't necessarily inhibit PvP, or impede on other mechanics.
1. Add a timelimit to the use of a blueprint. Use it, and you have x amount of time where you can craft that weapon. Timer starts upon consumption.
2. Blueprints, upon consumption, have a certain number of uses.
3. Blueprints must be kept in inventory to craft. This circulates blueprints more and encourages PvP. I prefer this and think that this is a good idea. Unfortunately, crafters who have already consumed blueprints do exist. Refunding their blueprints would work but the sheer number of them prevents this from being done manually. A script would need to be written specifically to add the item blueprints back to the inventory of those crafters with them already consumed which, while not really time consuming or difficult (essentially an if statement for every blueprint) it would make implementation a bit more difficult.
4. Blueprints in inventory have a certain number of uses. Like the above, this encourages PvP, but reduces blueprint circulation a bit. I predict that needing blueprints in-inventory will lead to them being frequently lost in unrecoverable encounters, which alone would reduce the circulation more than enough.
More frequent spawns of blueprints would be ideal even with #3. Provided that my prediction is well-founded, #4 would be redundant. Combining them would be ideal, where limited use blueprints would be for more powerful, meant-to-be-rare weapons and armor.
Limited use blueprints for items that are meant to be rare is a nice idea. I'm more interested in Combat Armor MK2, Enclave armor and Brotherhood armor being crafted with those limited use blueprints than I am power armor, though. There's no doubt that the broken economy will permit the wealthy to purchase a great deal of, say, Hardened Power Armor blueprints, and be mostly unbeatable, unless those blueprints would be just as or less available than the armor itself. Combat Armor MK2 is easily farmed (moreso than any other armor, I should note, which should be changed,) Enclave armor is not a huge upgrade from MK2, and Brotherhood armor, while generally the best non-power armor, is not such a huge step up that it would be a significant advantage in PvP, even if it is a good counter to gatling lasers. For weapons, the best would still be available to the wealthy at nearly all times, but this would help balance the economy, so this is fine to me. So long as the main advantage would be weapons like Gatling Lasers with +5% crit chance or something, anyway. Avengers should be a limited use blueprint, too, and maybe rocket launchers. This would certainly help diversify PvP, at least in the future. At implementation, there would be a surge of wealthy factions with a great deal of limited use blueprints but this supply would not last. Factions with a lot of TC would be more wealthy to purchase good equipment and blueprints but not so much that TC would provide such an insurmountable advantage so as to discourage PvP. In fact, it would encourage it, due to a lust for equipment that's currently depressingly and consistently sated.
With this personal position established, I'll comment on your suggestion.
I'll assess that your suggestion is, at its core, that limiting the availability of Blueprints would limit the availability of certain weapons. This is only true for craftable weapons. Avengers and rocket launchers may be very easily farmed for, so this change would only make it more difficult for them to be crafted. This would make the special stat system for weapons less used, which would be a shame. If blueprints weren't permanent, there would be a number of different ways to make them and the system surrounding them better, and some options wouldn't necessarily inhibit PvP, or impede on other mechanics.
1. Add a timelimit to the use of a blueprint. Use it, and you have x amount of time where you can craft that weapon. Timer starts upon consumption.
2. Blueprints, upon consumption, have a certain number of uses.
3. Blueprints must be kept in inventory to craft. This circulates blueprints more and encourages PvP. I prefer this and think that this is a good idea. Unfortunately, crafters who have already consumed blueprints do exist. Refunding their blueprints would work but the sheer number of them prevents this from being done manually. A script would need to be written specifically to add the item blueprints back to the inventory of those crafters with them already consumed which, while not really time consuming or difficult (essentially an if statement for every blueprint) it would make implementation a bit more difficult.
4. Blueprints in inventory have a certain number of uses. Like the above, this encourages PvP, but reduces blueprint circulation a bit. I predict that needing blueprints in-inventory will lead to them being frequently lost in unrecoverable encounters, which alone would reduce the circulation more than enough.
More frequent spawns of blueprints would be ideal even with #3. Provided that my prediction is well-founded, #4 would be redundant. Combining them would be ideal, where limited use blueprints would be for more powerful, meant-to-be-rare weapons and armor.
Limited use blueprints for items that are meant to be rare is a nice idea. I'm more interested in Combat Armor MK2, Enclave armor and Brotherhood armor being crafted with those limited use blueprints than I am power armor, though. There's no doubt that the broken economy will permit the wealthy to purchase a great deal of, say, Hardened Power Armor blueprints, and be mostly unbeatable, unless those blueprints would be just as or less available than the armor itself. Combat Armor MK2 is easily farmed (moreso than any other armor, I should note, which should be changed,) Enclave armor is not a huge upgrade from MK2, and Brotherhood armor, while generally the best non-power armor, is not such a huge step up that it would be a significant advantage in PvP, even if it is a good counter to gatling lasers. For weapons, the best would still be available to the wealthy at nearly all times, but this would help balance the economy, so this is fine to me. So long as the main advantage would be weapons like Gatling Lasers with +5% crit chance or something, anyway. Avengers should be a limited use blueprint, too, and maybe rocket launchers. This would certainly help diversify PvP, at least in the future. At implementation, there would be a surge of wealthy factions with a great deal of limited use blueprints but this supply would not last. Factions with a lot of TC would be more wealthy to purchase good equipment and blueprints but not so much that TC would provide such an insurmountable advantage so as to discourage PvP. In fact, it would encourage it, due to a lust for equipment that's currently depressingly and consistently sated.
6
Closed suggestions / Re: Drug mechanic rework
« on: September 30, 2013, 09:12:09 pm »
If drugs are buffed, specifically in the way you want them to be, non-drug builds would cease their viability in PvP. This would give stronger factions in the game, particularly factions successfully in TC, and specifically my own faction, a huge advantage over all others. To prevent this, drugs would need to be hugely reduced or entirely removed from TC loot, which would only make TC loot even more useless than it is now, discouraging TC in the first place, ergo discouraging PvP.
As-is, drugs are very optional and do not give an advantage over other, non-drug builds, other than permitting more gimmicky (and usually less viable) builds. You would defeat this and make them mandatory, except only already-powerful players and factions would have a steady supply whereas less-off factions and players would be at an enormous disadvantage. This discourages a competitive environment, which is counter-conductive to the apparent focus of FOnline: Reloaded. If not that, then a competitive environment is discouraged anyway, as balancing this would defeat the purpose of other PvP-encouraging mechanics.
As-is, drugs are very optional and do not give an advantage over other, non-drug builds, other than permitting more gimmicky (and usually less viable) builds. You would defeat this and make them mandatory, except only already-powerful players and factions would have a steady supply whereas less-off factions and players would be at an enormous disadvantage. This discourages a competitive environment, which is counter-conductive to the apparent focus of FOnline: Reloaded. If not that, then a competitive environment is discouraged anyway, as balancing this would defeat the purpose of other PvP-encouraging mechanics.
7
Closed suggestions / Re: Stonewall, Heavy Handed, and Rocket Launchers
« on: September 30, 2013, 09:01:54 pm »
Mostly I agree with the idea of providing some counter to the knockback effect of rocket launchers. Currently, the weapon doesn't do very much damage. Comparatively, it's pathetic, and only viable due to the range and knockback effect.
One potential solution (although not necessarily meant as a solution to rocket spam), as you suggested, is to improve stonewall to allow a specialized build to effectively counter the use of rocket launchers.
As a prediction, the advantage to the rocket launcher to the more effective bursting big guns is the reduced potential of friendly fire, which makes them far more viable in large groups, which does have the added advantage of juggling single or entire groups of players similar to the effect of Heavy Handed/melee knockdown builds, but would not necessarily be the main advantage. If we assess that adding a much higher chance of hitting targets between you and your actual target with the rocket launcher, which would add a chance of friendly fire near equivalent to that of other, bursting BGs, the rocket launcher loses its advantage of "rocket juggling" in PvP in large groups due to it losing its ability to be used en masse. Furthermore, the need of a specialized build --with one less perk choice due to one being dedicated to Stonewall-- defeats the purpose of making Stonewall prevent rocket launcher knockdowns. Although I definitely do agree that the perk should function like that merely because that's the purpose of its existence, something more conducive to the goal of the perk would be more productive.
Also, although not necessary, a perk which prevents the knockdown of a rocket blast should also prevent other knockdowns, just so it doesn't become counter-intuitive, as a measure of good game design (as opposed to whatever the 2238 devs were doing, not sure "bad design" does it justice.) This would provide a huge disadvantage to the already disadvantaged pancor jackhammer and would effectively eliminate the viability of heavy handed entirely. For this, changing Stonewall to something more specific to rocket launchers, or perhaps making it a support perk with high endurance + high SG or EW requirement (to avoid BG users simply taking it and changing nothing except for making heavy handed and pancors worthless), instead of the general "prevent knockdown" would promote better balance.
TL;DR: I agree that stonewall should serve its intended purpose provided that it should exist at all. I disagree that it should exist, as even changing it won't make it a viable counter to rocket launchers. In addition or instead, rockets should also have a much higher chance to hit targets between the user and the target, which prevents its use en masse to rocket juggle. Similarly, it would make it function much more similarly to other BGs, and its main advantage would become a reasonable counter to the popular low-hp sniper.
I would personally prefer Stonewall be made into a more specialized rocket-counter support perk for SG and EW, just so its use doesn't impede on already difficult-to-do viable SG or EW builds, at least compared to the brainless ease of viable BG builds.
One potential solution (although not necessarily meant as a solution to rocket spam), as you suggested, is to improve stonewall to allow a specialized build to effectively counter the use of rocket launchers.
As a prediction, the advantage to the rocket launcher to the more effective bursting big guns is the reduced potential of friendly fire, which makes them far more viable in large groups, which does have the added advantage of juggling single or entire groups of players similar to the effect of Heavy Handed/melee knockdown builds, but would not necessarily be the main advantage. If we assess that adding a much higher chance of hitting targets between you and your actual target with the rocket launcher, which would add a chance of friendly fire near equivalent to that of other, bursting BGs, the rocket launcher loses its advantage of "rocket juggling" in PvP in large groups due to it losing its ability to be used en masse. Furthermore, the need of a specialized build --with one less perk choice due to one being dedicated to Stonewall-- defeats the purpose of making Stonewall prevent rocket launcher knockdowns. Although I definitely do agree that the perk should function like that merely because that's the purpose of its existence, something more conducive to the goal of the perk would be more productive.
Also, although not necessary, a perk which prevents the knockdown of a rocket blast should also prevent other knockdowns, just so it doesn't become counter-intuitive, as a measure of good game design (as opposed to whatever the 2238 devs were doing, not sure "bad design" does it justice.) This would provide a huge disadvantage to the already disadvantaged pancor jackhammer and would effectively eliminate the viability of heavy handed entirely. For this, changing Stonewall to something more specific to rocket launchers, or perhaps making it a support perk with high endurance + high SG or EW requirement (to avoid BG users simply taking it and changing nothing except for making heavy handed and pancors worthless), instead of the general "prevent knockdown" would promote better balance.
TL;DR: I agree that stonewall should serve its intended purpose provided that it should exist at all. I disagree that it should exist, as even changing it won't make it a viable counter to rocket launchers. In addition or instead, rockets should also have a much higher chance to hit targets between the user and the target, which prevents its use en masse to rocket juggle. Similarly, it would make it function much more similarly to other BGs, and its main advantage would become a reasonable counter to the popular low-hp sniper.
I would personally prefer Stonewall be made into a more specialized rocket-counter support perk for SG and EW, just so its use doesn't impede on already difficult-to-do viable SG or EW builds, at least compared to the brainless ease of viable BG builds.
8
Closed suggestions / Re: Weapon viability in PvP
« on: September 30, 2013, 08:07:53 pm »Has someone even TRIED to PvP with a pancor jackhammer with 3x BRD?The pancor is actually a very good weapon. It's main advantage is the knockback ability, which sets it apart from other weapons. The damage mod on shotgun shells is also very good, and the (lack of) hit percentage on bursts means that it does good damage within its entire range. Unfortunately, the pancor is rarer than the Avenger due to no NPCs using it (to my knowledge) and the need for Blueprints. It's shorter range is the main drawback, though.
I wanna see someone test out some build like that
(that's why I want a PvP event to happen so I can test it)
I've used the pancor extensively within Hinkley and it does top avengers. Unfortunately, it's worthless in any open environment, which is so common that it's nearly never brought to TC. On the flip side, where a player using it is not in an open environment, it makes rocket launchers a complete joke in that it outdamages them and gives a much more dramatic knockback effect. Ultimately, because it's far more situational than big guns, it's less viable.
There's not much that I could think of to improve the pancor reasonably. It's still very good, as I said, but only a bit more viable in PvP than melee is. At the core, this is a problem with big guns being applicable to all situations and vastly outdamaging everything else.
9
Closed bugs / Re: [Balance][Exploit] Extended Cap. Batteries sale prices
« on: September 29, 2013, 11:36:01 am »I'm reporting an issue. It's your or the other developers' calls whether or not it's recognized. I don't understand why you seem to be taking this personally insofar that you're being condescending where it's wholly unwarranted.This practice further exacerbates the issue of the broken economy in Reloaded and should be quickly and swiftly remedied.This is my favorite part.
Economy was, is and will be broken in every FOnline game for many reasons. If you care about game economy so much, then why you are posting it here instead of sending me a PM? Jesus, you guys from ARWH are really strange
10
The Thunderdome / Re: Forum PvP
« on: September 29, 2013, 06:04:22 am »
Credit to The Little Shits for finally resorting to mutie merc spam. There's really nothing to say here.
11
Closed suggestions / Weapon viability in PvP
« on: September 29, 2013, 02:25:46 am »
I'll start by stating an absolute: Avengers are the only viable weapon in PvP currently.
EDIT: Avengers and rocket launchers. My most insincere apologies to the single guy who absolutely had to whine about this to me even though that's not the point of this thread.
Expanding, viability of weapons is a matter of weighing usefulness to availability. Avengers are commonplace and perhaps one of the easiest Big Guns to get. They are currently the highest damaging weapon in the game all things considered, ergo they are the most prevalent in PvP. Balancing these is not necessarily an issue of their damage or immediate usefulness in PvP but also their availability. Consider how easy they are to find as loot from various sources and to craft, consider their range, damage, and how commonplace the ammunition is with even better conditions. Now it becomes obvious that all other weapons are discouraged from use in PvP, which leads to the act of fighting other players being incredibly uninteresting and devoid of diversity.
Specifically, the issue of weapon viability in PvP is also an issue of economy, where gross weapon availability nets the constant use of the best possible weapons: avenger miniguns. Fixing the economy will make great strides in increasing weapon diversity in PvP. Actually balancing all of the weapons is another way to go about it, which I'm definitely a supporter of. Currently weapons in general do far too much damage for any semblance of tactics to be viable. It's currently a matter of standing in a firing line and waiting in the case of defense, and in the case of offense locating said firing line and attacking it from the side. Everyone uses an Avenger and a rocket launcher or they aren't viable.
How these weapons are actually balanced appears to be entirely up to the developers, being aware that most the community is heavily biased. Although not the purpose of this thread, I'd like to recommend all BGs force walking. Big Gun users would become far more stationary and their role in PvP would be different, rather than making Small Gun users redundant, or Energy Weapon users worthless. It would encourage the use and effectiveness of ambushes, and even a wealth of availability of big guns would not cause them to overshadow all other weapons.
EDIT: Avengers and rocket launchers. My most insincere apologies to the single guy who absolutely had to whine about this to me even though that's not the point of this thread.
Expanding, viability of weapons is a matter of weighing usefulness to availability. Avengers are commonplace and perhaps one of the easiest Big Guns to get. They are currently the highest damaging weapon in the game all things considered, ergo they are the most prevalent in PvP. Balancing these is not necessarily an issue of their damage or immediate usefulness in PvP but also their availability. Consider how easy they are to find as loot from various sources and to craft, consider their range, damage, and how commonplace the ammunition is with even better conditions. Now it becomes obvious that all other weapons are discouraged from use in PvP, which leads to the act of fighting other players being incredibly uninteresting and devoid of diversity.
Specifically, the issue of weapon viability in PvP is also an issue of economy, where gross weapon availability nets the constant use of the best possible weapons: avenger miniguns. Fixing the economy will make great strides in increasing weapon diversity in PvP. Actually balancing all of the weapons is another way to go about it, which I'm definitely a supporter of. Currently weapons in general do far too much damage for any semblance of tactics to be viable. It's currently a matter of standing in a firing line and waiting in the case of defense, and in the case of offense locating said firing line and attacking it from the side. Everyone uses an Avenger and a rocket launcher or they aren't viable.
How these weapons are actually balanced appears to be entirely up to the developers, being aware that most the community is heavily biased. Although not the purpose of this thread, I'd like to recommend all BGs force walking. Big Gun users would become far more stationary and their role in PvP would be different, rather than making Small Gun users redundant, or Energy Weapon users worthless. It would encourage the use and effectiveness of ambushes, and even a wealth of availability of big guns would not cause them to overshadow all other weapons.
12
The Thunderdome / Re: Forum PvP
« on: September 29, 2013, 01:58:42 am »There is no member of ARWH with a character named "Vedaras" which includes me. I possess no such character.
Imrin Vedaras, is that you ?
Who is it?
13
Closed suggestions / Advice for improving the economy
« on: September 29, 2013, 01:50:24 am »
Due to the economy, private mines are now commonplace. This should not be balanced around permanently as an inevitable wipe will reset this assuming that the then-economy would be stable. If we account for this, however, it's evident that without reducing the frequency of HQ ore as it is now, even further reduced sale prices will not balance the mass sale of Good Metal Parts as even a stack of 500 is trivial to the massive amounts that private mines provide. Furthermore, the current use of private mines is to supply an entire faction with resources adequate to equip all of its members. For this, it makes little sense that only a single player has access to this mine, and hugely encourages the use of slaves in these private mines such that one player is in control of an enormous amount of worth for an entire faction. Of course, the actual investment of 70k for a private mine is currently trivial, which creates a self-sustaining cash flow of Private Mine -> HQ ore -> Good Metal Parts -> Extended Cap. Battery -> Caps -> Private Mine, which results in a massive surplus of caps and resources. This process should be inhibited to improve the economy, the changes of which should eventually be reverted after the ideal economy is achieved or a wipe is enacted. Players who have exploited the unbalanced areas of the game will be at an enormous advantage during this time but this will not be an issue as these are otherwise inept players.
I recommend: Treat private mines as an additional faction base, requiring a faction for their creation, and adding a faction terminal to the private mine. With this, you can increase the cost of private mines without discouraging their use. After easier changes, this should be a priority, as it's an enormous contributor to the current state of the economy. Reducing the length of private mines to 1 week from 2 temporarily should also help to sort this economic issue out, requiring the mines to be purchased more frequently as an entire faction endeavor, making the cost more reasonable. Current private player-owned mines should remain unchanged until depleted.
I recommend: Treat private mines as an additional faction base, requiring a faction for their creation, and adding a faction terminal to the private mine. With this, you can increase the cost of private mines without discouraging their use. After easier changes, this should be a priority, as it's an enormous contributor to the current state of the economy. Reducing the length of private mines to 1 week from 2 temporarily should also help to sort this economic issue out, requiring the mines to be purchased more frequently as an entire faction endeavor, making the cost more reasonable. Current private player-owned mines should remain unchanged until depleted.
14
Closed bugs / [Balance] Private mine resources strongly slated in favor of HQ ore
« on: September 29, 2013, 01:44:27 am »
Problem: Private mines provide far more HQ ore than anything else. Although not necessarily a balance issue initially, this means that HQ ore is commonplace and, therefore, so are items derivative of HQ ore. This is the chief contributor to the use of Good Metal Parts, Extended Cap. Batteries, and whatever else is being used to make absurd amounts of caps. This also means that regular ore and minerals are rarer than HQ ore and minerals while the reverse should be true.
Steps to recreate:
1. Obtain a private mine.
2. Either mine resources manually or use slaves to do it.
3. Observe as gathered resources are mostly HQ ore. The very low amount of regular ore and minerals reduces the ability to craft PvP gear, which implicitly discourages it while the focus of this server is on PvP.
Solution: Increase the frequency of normal ore and mineral nodes in private mines, reduce the frequency of HQ ore and slightly reduce the frequency of HQ minerals.
Steps to recreate:
1. Obtain a private mine.
2. Either mine resources manually or use slaves to do it.
3. Observe as gathered resources are mostly HQ ore. The very low amount of regular ore and minerals reduces the ability to craft PvP gear, which implicitly discourages it while the focus of this server is on PvP.
Solution: Increase the frequency of normal ore and mineral nodes in private mines, reduce the frequency of HQ ore and slightly reduce the frequency of HQ minerals.
15
Closed bugs / [Balance][Exploit] Extended Cap. Batteries sale prices
« on: September 29, 2013, 01:00:18 am »
Problem: Extended cap batteries require only 1 good metal part and sell for a price comparable to the pre-nerf good metal parts. The use of Extended Capacitor batteries to bypass the Good Metal Parts nerf has become commonplace. I have tested this personally as well have killed many "traders" carrying 50+ extended cap batteries to various towns to sell to various traders for all of their caps. This practice further exacerbates the issue of the broken economy in Reloaded and should be quickly and swiftly remedied.
Steps to recreate:
1. Obtain Good Metal Parts.
2. Obtain EW Crafter level 2 - a small investment.
3. Craft Good Metal Parts into Extended Cap Batteries at an advanced workbench.
4. Sell Extended Cap Batteries to a merchant which accepts them.
5. Observe as they sell for a far greater amount than their actual worth and a price comparable to pre-nerf Good Metal Parts.
Solution 1: Nerf the sale price of Extended Cap Batteries.
Solution 2: Increase the crafting requirements of Extended Cap Batteries.
Screenshot:
Steps to recreate:
1. Obtain Good Metal Parts.
2. Obtain EW Crafter level 2 - a small investment.
3. Craft Good Metal Parts into Extended Cap Batteries at an advanced workbench.
4. Sell Extended Cap Batteries to a merchant which accepts them.
5. Observe as they sell for a far greater amount than their actual worth and a price comparable to pre-nerf Good Metal Parts.
Solution 1: Nerf the sale price of Extended Cap Batteries.
Solution 2: Increase the crafting requirements of Extended Cap Batteries.
Screenshot: