0.9.9 Patch Notes

It's funny with all the "fusing are too hard" crying going on. The same people that are crying for easy 5 and 6 links would be handed those items and then cry that the game is too easy and quit after.

Go play WoW, I heard they have welfare best in slot over there.

inb4 I've never tried it.

I currently have a 6 socket Chaos plate that I've put over 1200 fusings into looking for a 6 link. I've also 5 linked a sword and an Int Chest. Man up. Bottom line.

"

CoffeeBreath wrote:

I've got a kitten here, and I swear by all the gods of darkness that I will start chopping bits of its tail off till the patch is deployed. Hurry devs, save this poor kitty.

3/4 of a tail left on this defenseless little kitten, guys.

Patch launches in 30min, post up above this thread.

26?

It is frustrating how often people make assumptions or generalizations or flat out tell you what they think you're saying.

I don't want easy 5-6 links. I don't want to 'win the lotto easy'. I don't want to be handed great items on a platter. I don't want welfare epics, dumbed down content, or free stuff. I do not, in any way, want rare loot to be any easier to get.

I just want it to be more consistent.

Some people like to gamble, some don't. I believe that the game would benefit from a way to gain gear that does not rely on massive randomization, or on trading for the inferior cast-off gear of someone who does gamble. As I said before, which every critic seems happy to ignore, I'd be perfectly happy with a little preview window where you use the orb - it is consumed - and you get a little box that says 'This is what your item can become. Do you want the old or new version?' This would use the exact same number of chaos orbs or fusings or what-have-you to get the new item - it just wouldn't render your current one useless in the process. Or I'd like some sort of a purchasing system for no-downgrade orbs at a statistically average cost - 500 fusings? 200 chaos orbs? Whatever.

I don't like gambling. I don't mind variance - items can drop or not drop, their stats can be good or bad. What I don't like is spending resources I have to no benefit, or to a detriment. It's one major reason I won't play Korean MMOs - their item upgrade system often runs the risk of destroying the gem, reverting the enchant stack to 0, or destroying the item altogether on a failed upgrade. Those kind of systems are keyed to certain kinds of people who enjoy certain kinds of risk/reward mechanics based around luck - they enjoy the thrill of risking materials for profit. I don't.

This, being the beta, is my feedback. It can be taken or ignored in the spirit it is intended. Criticism that I'm trying to dumb down the game, that I want free loot, or that the community will be better off without my kind of entitlement don't promote any useful discussion. Ultimately GGG will determine what mechanics at endgame are an essential core part, and which mechanics have alternatives, options, or choices. If the gambling is a core mechanic, I'll understand. Variety in games isn't a bad thing. It just won't be a system I'm able to play long-term.

"

Finnien wrote:

II believe that the game would benefit from a way to gain gear that does not rely on massive randomization.

I stopped reading right here.

"

Some people like to gamble, some don't. I believe that the game would benefit from a way to gain gear that does not rely on massive randomization, or on trading for the inferior cast-off gear of someone who does gamble. As I said before, which every critic seems happy to ignore, I'd be perfectly happy with a little preview window where you use the orb - it is consumed - and you get a little box that says 'This is what your item can become. Do you want the old or new version?' This would use the exact same number of chaos orbs or fusings or what-have-you to get the new item - it just wouldn't render your current one useless in the process. Or I'd like some sort of a purchasing system for no-downgrade orbs at a statistically average cost - 500 fusings? 200 chaos orbs? Whatever.

I don't like gambling. I don't mind variance - items can drop or not drop, their stats can be good or bad. What I don't like is spending resources I have to no benefit, or to a detriment. It's one major reason I won't play Korean MMOs - their item upgrade system often runs the risk of destroying the gem, reverting the enchant stack to 0, or destroying the item altogether on a failed upgrade. Those kind of systems are keyed to certain kinds of people who enjoy certain kinds of risk/reward mechanics based around luck - they enjoy the thrill of risking materials for profit. I don't.

Spending resources with the risk of bad result is a core mechanic of Diablo like games, what where you expecting?

"

WizardLife wrote:

Spending resources with the risk of bad result is a core mechanic of Diablo like games, what where you expecting?

I've played Diablo, Diablo II, Titan Quest, Torchlight, Sacred, Dungeon Siege 1-3... you get the idea.

Of the above games, only Torchlight contained a gambling system.

Randomization of loot is a core mechanic. Gambling has been associated with the genre before, but by no means is a core mechanic.

"

Finnien wrote:

I believe that the game would benefit from a way to gain gear that does not rely on massive randomization, or on trading for the inferior cast-off gear of someone who does gamble.

see. theres your problem. you assume trade gear is all inferior.

i have bundles of good stuff i've looted or linked that i'd be happy to trade for a price, and the gear is a) good and b) unneeded by any of my characters.
there is however no decent system for me to trade or make these items available to view and purchase currently. in my view this is the failure of the current economy system.

"

WizardLife wrote:

"

Many players play for fun, and feeling like this can easily cause them to stop playing, maybe not even come back again.

"

People use this crazy “internet” to talk about video games. Some people talk about the market for the games, some talk about the games, some even talk about game systems and game mechanics. Many of the best games have demanding learning curves. StarCraft? That’s one of those games. Call of Duty? Eh, sure. For the sake of an example, we’ll consider it valid. As we’ve been discovering during the last half-century, man’s inherent curiosity also lends itself to electronic rule sets. It’s our competitive nature. We don’t care if it’s other people or whether it’s computer code. We want to examine it, we want to learn it, and we want to get the better of it. We want to win.

Some pursue their goals more passionately than others. Thus, “I play for fun” was born, and we were all dumber for hearing it. It’s an excuse that would never be tolerated in any other form of recreation and only gets a free pass because “it’s video gamez lol why are you takign this so seriously??”

http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/i-play-for-fun-the-four-dumbest-words-in-video-games

Just read that article on the-gettho.org. Fantastic. +200