Was in coma just woke up

"

Mashgesture#2912 wrote:

.

Oh, look at that, now I’m walking into contradictions? You’re really making this hard to keep track of, huh? Let’s break it down, though, because I’m sure that was just a slip-up on your part, right?

You’re upset that I want you to answer the question directly, but then when you dodge it, you act like that’s my fault? That’s some next-level mental gymnastics. Maybe you should answer the actual question i posed, like, what does 'catering' mean in this context? Is it predatory monetization? Bad game design? It’s really hard to follow you when you’re constantly tap dancing around specifics.

But, hey, you’re absolutely right, give it enough time, and your arguments unravel by themselves. Good job on proving that point for me.

game is fine for me. sucks you are so negative though. wish you the best.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

..

Lets just hope you'll realize you are telling me that I cant tell you to do your own research.

But then in the same breath you tell me anything I say will just be dismissed as "trust me bro"


For you, I suggest paying attention to the things you say to people as you are indeed contradicting yourself

"Was in coma just woke up"

go back to the coma

"

Mashgesture#2912 wrote:

.

Oh wow, you really think you’ve got something here, don’t you? Adorable.

So let’s get this straight, you dodge the question again by telling me to ‘do my own research,’ and when I call that out as a lazy non-answer, suddenly I’m the one contradicting myself?

Here’s the thing: if you actually had a solid argument, you’d just make it instead of constantly deflecting with ‘go look it up yourself.’ But instead, you act like you’re dropping some philosophical truth bomb while sidestepping literally every direct question.

So no, it’s not that you ‘can’t’ tell people to do research, it’s that it’s a laughably weak response when you refuse to back up your own claims. You can say whatever you want, but don’t be shocked when people roll their eyes at your empty rhetoric. Try again.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

...

I mean now you're just being angry and antagonistic so go off then.

Hopefully moderation will step in for you as you arent really contributing anything to the discussion.

"

Mashgesture#2912 wrote:

.

You’ve spent this whole time dodging direct questions, throwing out vague ‘do your own research’ cop-outs, and now that I’m calling you out on it, suddenly I’m angry and antagonistic? Isn't that slightly convenient.

Also, the irony of you saying I’m not contributing when all you’ve done is hand-wave away questions and pretend you’ve already won the debate without actually making a coherent argument?

But hey, if you’re banking on moderation to step in because you can’t handle some pushback, that tells me everything I need to know. I’ll let you have the last word if it makes you feel better, go ahead, tell me how I ‘just proved your point’ or whatever keeps the mental gymnastics routine going.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

Please do. And also give the example of the cattering and how that made it objectively worse.

I never used the words "objectively worse", but "worse for the dedicated/loyal/settled players"? PoE 2 versus PoE 1, WoW, Diablo 3, Diablo 4, Guild Wards 1 versus 2, TES: Oblivion versus Morrowind just to mention a few.

Look, I get it, you're probably one of those "the more popular a game is, the objectively better it is" crowd, which is as ignorant as it is false. If you're not one of those, then fine, my mistake - but what are you doing here then? It's like saying Britney Spears 'makes/made' better music than Tool or Dream Theater just because she'd maybe catered to a wider audience. But for people that actually loves music and the technical side of it? Hardly...

PoE benefits greatly from it's ecosystem and economy, and it's one of the main design pillars of the game - and while it's already sectioned off by several different leagues, making even more leagues with their own ruleset and difficulty setting based on every single person out there is arguably a stupid way to go about things.

There should be room for hard games out there, as well as easy ones. There should be room for difficult games out there, as well as simple ones. There should be room for time consuming games out there, as well as 5-hour games. There should be room for deep games out there, as well as shallow ones. If every game out there MUST cater to everyone, we quickly end up with zero diversity.

We have an easy mode; it's called "SC Trade" and "Standard". That isn't easy enough for everyone, which is fine. But an "easy mode" wouldn't be easy enough for everyone either, so where does that leave us? What is do damn wrong with them catering to the people that actually likes the damn game.

"

Phrazz#3529 wrote:

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

Please do. And also give the example of the cattering and how that made it objectively worse.

I never used the words "objectively worse", but "worse for the dedicated/loyal/settled players"? PoE 2 versus PoE 1, WoW, Diablo 3, Diablo 4, Guild Wards 1 versus 2, TES: Oblivion versus Morrowind just to mention a few.

Look, I get it, you're probably one of those "the more popular a game is, the objectively better it is" crowd, which is as ignorant as it is false. If you're not one of those, then fine, my mistake - but what are you doing here then? It's like saying Britney Spears 'makes/made' better music than Tool or Dream Theater just because she'd maybe catered to a wider audience. But for people that actually loves music and the technical side of it? Hardly...

PoE benefits greatly from it's ecosystem and economy, and it's one of the main design pillars of the game - and while it's already sectioned off by several different leagues, making even more leagues with their own ruleset and difficulty setting based on every single person out there is arguably a stupid way to go about things.

There should be room for hard games out there, as well as easy ones. There should be room for difficult games out there, as well as simple ones. There should be room for time consuming games out there, as well as 5-hour games. There should be room for deep games out there, as well as shallow ones. If every game out there MUST cater to everyone, we quickly end up with zero diversity.

We have an easy mode; it's called "SC Trade" and "Standard". That isn't easy enough for everyone, which is fine. But an "easy mode" wouldn't be easy enough for everyone either, so where does that leave us? What is do damn wrong with them catering to the people that actually likes the damn game.

I actually agree with a bit of this. As someone who frequently labels Guild Wars 1 as one of the top 5 games ever made of all time, Guild Wars 2 seems to be more popular with current gamers, despite being... almost an objectively worse game WHILE also being a completely different game as well. (sigh)

Music is a good analogy for your point, too. Very much so!




I think you're making an off-topic point, though. At least for what I'm saying, anyway.

I'm saying that there has to be a way to merge Standard and League in a way where both sides can be happy, and we don't have one side totally getting the axe like Standard is currently getting. Why have 80% of the ARPG crowd hooked, when you can have 90%? It might only be +10%, but it's potential for free real estate.

If League and Standard merged in the most basic of ways we can imagine on the surface level, we would have:

1) a game mode that receives the newest League mechanic on the patch of its release, which is what League players want out of Leagues,
2) and a game mode that doesn't reset all of your characters, which is what Standard players want out of Standard...
3) ... all in one game mode. No need to split up the playerbase. No need to worry about multiple game modes to try to balance. All of GGG's energy gets put into the same basket, with no need to split THEIR "playerbase" either.

The only downside is that the economy would not reset. This is also something League players want out of Leagues, but it's ALSO something that Standard players would very much enjoy, in regards to the BENEFITS of what that does. (Which is active trading, non-inflated prices, lots of stability, etc etc etc.)

And so... I am simply saying... there must be a way to accomplish this. All we need is a way to normalize all of the built-up wealth, like a currency sink that appeals to the insanely rich, but doesn't negatively affect the poor/newer players.

There IS a way for the two worlds to merge, and have everyone be happy.

Sadly, however, the majority of players - seeing as that they are on the winning side - are all too busy saying, "TOO BAD SO SAD, THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR NOT ENJOYING WHAT I ENJOY!" They don't want to rock the boat, because the leaks aren't on their side of it.