General Support Discussion

"

Barnabas wrote:

Have you EVER read my first post on the topic?

Classic fkn blind troll.

P.S I like it how your so open to understanding someones point of view in this BETA TESTING FEEDBACK PERIOD. Have you ever learnt to read? Pish, another snob nosed l33t kid.

I did read it. I was the first to reply to it.

I am not trolling you, although I was (am?) flaming you.

I also beta tested Diablo 3. What I learned from that experience is bad suggestions need to be killed, with fire, before they get an opportunity to grow and fester; failing to voice one's objections will eventually lead to ruin. Your idea is horrible, and I really don't want it to be part of this great game. However, I should give you some credit for trying, no bullshit/sarcasm. This game will improve most if ideas operate like a heavily populated cutthroat mode, where lots and lots of new ideas are submitted but the vast majority are killed, most of them early; the ones that survive will be something to be proud of.

By the way, you totally deflected my actual question, so no, you've probably never leveled a gem to 20. (I'm a big fan of reaction testing in terms of practical applications of philosophy.) If you can show me a level 20 gem and still like your idea, I'll reconsider your suggestion.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Barnabas wrote:

Have you EVER read my first post on the topic?

Classic fkn blind troll.

P.S I like it how your so open to understanding someones point of view in this BETA TESTING FEEDBACK PERIOD. Have you ever learnt to read? Pish, another snob nosed l33t kid.

I did read it. I was the first to reply to it.

I am not trolling you, although I was (am?) flaming you.

I also beta tested Diablo 3. What I learned from that experience is bad suggestions need to be killed, with fire, before they get an opportunity to grow and fester; failing to voice one's objections will eventually lead to ruin. Your idea is horrible, and I really don't want it to be part of this great game. However, I should give you some credit for trying, no bullshit/sarcasm. This game will improve most if ideas operate like a heavily populated cutthroat mode, where lots and lots of new ideas are submitted but the vast majority are killed, most of them early; the ones that survive will be something to be proud of.

By the way, you totally deflected my actual question, so no, you've probably never leveled a gem to 20. (I'm a big fan of reaction testing in terms of practical applications of philosophy.) If you can show me a level 20 gem and still like your idea, I'll reconsider your suggestion.

Ok dude lets look at a few facts instead of flaming, if you have something to put towards it then lets hear it. Ill state my reasons and ideas.

First of all, i clearly said in my first post that im not sure how long it takes to level a gem to 20, and taking into consideration the nature of my idea, the level could be reduced to allow for birthing. Remember, not all players will want to max their gems, some cannot due to Mana cost. So pros and cons of xp needed to level a gem becomes less important.

Secondly, you need to take into consideration the in-game economy. By having GCP as a very rare item, and highly sort after, it will only increase the items needed to barter. Also adding the need for more gems to barter for a high quality gem, means the cost of getting these gems will increase even more - especially rare gems. If 5-6 of the most rare gem is needed for one person (who may want a 2-3 of the gems on one toon) think of how many gems they'd be after? Also what about new players who would struggle to match the items needed to barter for one of these gems. Quality and Rare item gems help when looking for gems, and trying to get a head start in a gem quality, but you'd be very lucky to find the gem your after with high quality within a reasonable time frame.

At the end, i see it based around a random farm for gems and items in order to trade. Which means a long time spend somewhere farming some mobs over and over. Whereas in comparison, my idea allows players to get 5%-10% quality gems once they reach their toons end game. Also the economy would be more favored to everyone since a level 1 gem with good quality is birthed allowing low level players to use it. And since it could be made so maxing a gem doesn't need 4 weeks for a casual gamer to get, they would occur more frequently. Also since a birthed gem is only 5%, GCP are still needed for the serious player to get. Which means end game isnt impossible for casual gamers, and hardcore games will still feel top dog for having 20% gems.

So if you cannot understand the above, ill ask you a few questions.

1- Will your idea increase or decrease the overall market?
2- Will your idea be based off a random chance grind?
3- Who would benefit more from the idea ive raised, compared to the random grind? Hardcore players or casual?
4- Would the causal gamer be able to barter for 20 GCP to max one skill?
5- If so, how long would it take him to get 20 GCP for 1 skill?
6- If my idea went forth, would it mean end game for casual and hardcore players would feel rewarding?
7- Is birthing a level 1 gem with 5% quality a GAME BREAKER?
8- If the xp needed for gems is slightly reduced, what negative effect will it have on PoE?
9- If the barter for gem system was introduced, would people be more or less likley to farm gem quest rewards?
10- If so, would PoE desire such game play?
11- Would quest gem farmers get more of an advantage due to the fact they're abusing the reward system?

Ive simply put it out into the forums for DISCUSSION. Usually when people have an idea, believe, theory, they'd put the topic up for discussion and test its ability to stand. I've enjoyed your FACT LESS replies, but now id like you to talk like a mature human from earth instead of a 12 year flamer.

If my idea is balls up, COOL! Lets hear why! Is that so hard to understand?

If your not interested in talking, then fine by me. If you are, then answer my questions.

um i think scrotie missed the part where the lv 20 gem turns into a lv 1 with some quality not making duplicate. sounds perfectly reasonable to me despite how i never had a character higher than lv 55. most players have just 2 to 4 skills with full amount of links they desire, that leaves a ton of slots from other equip for extra gems. also some skills don't change dramatically much between levels, furthermore skills catch up in level insanely fast, specially when they continuously outlevel a player who prefers to stay back in a lower level spot to farm for items if they have no access to endgame maps.

In terms of when a gem should be maxed leveled in order to birth the new, it would be up to the devs to decide at what player level is considered end game. That way when a player has the desired gems leveling up to his end game level, those specific gems would birth the new allowing to be re-leveled.
I only mention this because it kinda seems maxing a gem takes a very long time, and im unsure at what level players could expect to see their gems maxed.

Hello
Yesterday i found Ground Slam - red gem. In 20 minutes it goes to 5lvl. It's bug?
3 lvls in really 5 minutes.

thats not giving enough information. what level was your character fighting in while you leveled up the gem?

"

Barnabas wrote:

I only mention this because it kinda seems maxing a gem takes a very long time, and im unsure at what level players could expect to see their gems maxed.

This is why I shut up; some things are best proven by experience.

Just do us a favor and post when (if?) you get one maxed.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Barnabas wrote:

I only mention this because it kinda seems maxing a gem takes a very long time, and im unsure at what level players could expect to see their gems maxed.

This is why I shut up; some things are best proven by experience.

Just do us a favor and post when (if?) you get one maxed.

Still isnt my problem is reading is an issue for you.

Ive talked the topic 'maxing a gem' more then once, with clear reasons behind them.

Last time i checked, your not from GGG, you dont work for them in any way, your not a moderator either. So why not just sit down, and let people raise ideas for the REAL people who can actually make things occur listen.

Last time i checked, you still didnt answer my list of questions. So it's very convenient to overlook certain areas, and quote others to suit yourself.

P.S - Does someone have to drink poison to know its not good? So i guess everyone should drink poison before they give out advice that poison isnt good for you.

Nice logic bro.

"

Barnabas wrote:

Last time i checked, you still didnt answer my list of questions. So it's very convenient to overlook certain areas, and quote others to suit yourself.

You're trying to turn this into a federal case. My point is very, very simple (but pretty difficult to prove): it takes so much effort to max-level gems that your suggestion is essentially moot.

"

Barnabas wrote:

P.S - Does someone have to drink poison to know its not good? So i guess everyone should drink poison before they give out advice that poison isnt good for you.

The more appropriate analogy is: you are suggesting people drink something mildly toxic (your analogy was so dark, let's say out "poison" is straight Everclear), I mock the idea in a condescending manner, and then you get indignant and ask me to complete a half dozen essay questions on why my idea is better.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Barnabas wrote:

Last time i checked, you still didnt answer my list of questions. So it's very convenient to overlook certain areas, and quote others to suit yourself.

You're trying to turn this into a federal case. My point is very, very simple (but pretty difficult to prove): it takes so much effort to max-level gems that your suggestion is essentially moot.

"

Barnabas wrote:

P.S - Does someone have to drink poison to know its not good? So i guess everyone should drink poison before they give out advice that poison isnt good for you.

The more appropriate analogy is: you are suggesting people drink something mildly toxic (your analogy was so dark, let's say out "poison" is straight Everclear), I mock the idea in a condescending manner, and then you get indignant and ask me to complete a half dozen essay questions on why my idea is better.

Your replies are less then logically acceptable indeed.

You attitude against this idea, is be default supporting a system which increases time and effort in grinding, whereas you criticize me that i should learn how to grind more to get a maxed leveled gem. So even if i were to get a 0% quality gem to maxed level, id still need to input 20 GCP or, trade in my maxed level gem with others to trade back a low level 20% gem. The emphasis is on blind grinding, whereas mine is on understand peoples time and effort, and giving a reasonable return without breaking the PoE economy.

Lastly, answering my questions privately might help you understand what we're actually talking about. But as it's, ive got no need to talk to someone like you, since ive directed nothing towards you, only towards GGG devs to look at.

While in your eternal wisdom, you deem it correct to 'kill with fire' this idea, yet your not suited for such a statement. So i suggest you know your place in beta, and understand your criticizem lacks suitable reference and backing, for me, or anyone else to take any notice of whatsoever.
So with that last statement, i hope you realize, i take no notice of anything you say, but i do however disproved your criticizem, and see it's weak and lacks proper thought.