albijoe wrote: Yes, over time, a late-game player will be able to amass more capital and items by making things faster, but they would be able to with more fusion slots as well, or any crafting benefit that must be paid for. This specifically I thought would add variance to the game, as I expect most people to not have the same BPs.
Its not the same though....Lets assume you we are all crafting the ocarina BP. Let us assume we have 2 cauldrons. Even if we try to be as efficient as we would have been with cauldron, the highest efficiency we can ever reach is exactly twice of what we could do with 1 cauldron. So with reference to the current scheme we could at best reach 2x efficiency. But in reality we can never reach 2x because the number of craft slots are still the same so we might actually reach only 1.5x-1.7x efficiency. This is because now eventho you can fuse twice as much, youll need to first produce twice as much which cant happen hence its the bottle neck.
In your current scheme, the craft requirement itself drops. So instead of 2 Nordic lutes I would now need only 1. Since the craft slots are the same, the output from my precrafting now can itself reach a maximum efficiency of 2x. Since my requirement itself has been halved. So effectively I'm producing twice as much and this cascades with my fusion so eventho I have one cauldron, the number of fusions I need to perform is also halved. So I end up with a maximum of approx 4x efficiency. Even if we are conservative, it woudd be around 2.5x to 3x.
In the first case, with more fusion slots, the demand for precrafts and goods will increase so market prices will increase strengthening the economy.
In your proposal, people would become more self-sufficient over time thereby reducing demand.
I know that the numbers I'm giving and the logic I'm trying to convey aren't exact and there are many other factors and I might also be wrong about it all but I'm just trying to explain my thinking as to why the additional fusion cauldrons is a linear growth trend while the permanent requirement reduction is an exponential growth trend over time as you reach end-game.
Anyway, I'm fine with whatever the devs choose to do with this or let things just be the way it is. Nevertheless your idea is quite good. I'm just apprehensive about its impact end game.