GGGs reasoning on not making a SFL?

"

Worldbreaker wrote:

1. This was just my opinion on it. I said that. Hmm, let's say ambush if I wanted to I could legitimately do a Shav/Crown of Eyes build, one of the more/most expensive builds in the game. Realistically I could liquidate all my gear and get everything but a 6l shav. I am very good at saving orbs though and only splurge on occasion. Also in my opinion, the gear is dirt cheap in the broader spectrum of things. You will most likely find 100's of exalts worth of items/orbs before a Kaoms Heart or Shavronnes Wrappings yet they cost far far less than that. Now, if they were going for 200-500ex non legacy, then I would be more suspect of RMT affecting the price. Going by chaos to exalts on a smaller scale, you find/recipe maybe even thousands of chaos before an exalt drops for you, yet they are only 20-40 chaos. If RMT was as big as its made out to be I would suspect them to be much much higher. RMT companies focus on big and rare, and I'm not seeing it affecting us like it could be.

2. Your suggestion for a SFL is bland and only suggests removing trade, then people made up their own dream fantasy SFL and hopped on board. However in THIS very thread starting at page 65 when details were being hashed out shit hit the fan, it exposed the fact everyone had thier own idea about what it should be. Pro SFL guys arguing with other pro SFL people. Your survey was based on an idea, people frustrated by trading, drop rates, group play, rng gated content saw this as the Moses of ideas, they didn't even know where they were going, they just didn't want to be "here" anymore.

I challenge you to post a well thought out structured explanation of what SFL should be, and see how many agree in a survey, bonus points if done on Reddit.

I will help a bit and tell you johnkeys made a thread about what it should be, which led to arguing and the thread dying.

Worlbreaker, first of all - thank you for debating this in a constructive way. I know for me and for many others, this is a relatively impassioned topic, so I think the way you've gone about debating it is both constructive and respectful - thank you.

On the point above regarding the impact of RMT on PoE's virtual world economics, I disagree with your assessment. Fundamentally, I can think of no items that are not more efficient to trade for than to self-find. Perhaps there are some that I can't think of, but the vast majority are *generally* (ie some lucky sods did find a Shav quickly) more efficient to trade for. By efficient I mean "cheaper" when comparing time required to farm the specific item versus time required to farm for the orbs to trade for said item. None of that supports what I think is your contention - ie that RMT has not materially exacerbated in-game price inflation. Perhaps we should agree to disagree?

On the point of not being able to reach a consensus on what a SFL should look like - so what?

If you asked everyone on here to design their ideal ARPG, you wouldn't get consensus. If you asked them to design their ideal car, you wouldn't get consensus beyond "well, it's a car". If you asked them to design their ideal dress, etc etc. None of that means that people don't design ARPGs, cars and dresses which are wildly popular, or massive failures, and anything in between.

I believe that, if GGG want to test an optional SFL, they should design it themselves. As of course, they would. I trust GGG because they've made the best game I've ever played, PoE. I trust them to implement an SFL in a way that I would enjoy. Just because the peanut gallery (and I include myself in that) can't agree on what it should look like is entirely, completely irrelevant. Do you only buy/play/etc man-made things in life that conform to your ideal?

Petrov.

"

mrpetrov wrote:

"

Worldbreaker wrote:

1. This was just my opinion on it. I said that. Hmm, let's say ambush if I wanted to I could legitimately do a Shav/Crown of Eyes build, one of the more/most expensive builds in the game. Realistically I could liquidate all my gear and get everything but a 6l shav. I am very good at saving orbs though and only splurge on occasion. Also in my opinion, the gear is dirt cheap in the broader spectrum of things. You will most likely find 100's of exalts worth of items/orbs before a Kaoms Heart or Shavronnes Wrappings yet they cost far far less than that. Now, if they were going for 200-500ex non legacy, then I would be more suspect of RMT affecting the price. Going by chaos to exalts on a smaller scale, you find/recipe maybe even thousands of chaos before an exalt drops for you, yet they are only 20-40 chaos. If RMT was as big as its made out to be I would suspect them to be much much higher. RMT companies focus on big and rare, and I'm not seeing it affecting us like it could be.

2. Your suggestion for a SFL is bland and only suggests removing trade, then people made up their own dream fantasy SFL and hopped on board. However in THIS very thread starting at page 65 when details were being hashed out shit hit the fan, it exposed the fact everyone had thier own idea about what it should be. Pro SFL guys arguing with other pro SFL people. Your survey was based on an idea, people frustrated by trading, drop rates, group play, rng gated content saw this as the Moses of ideas, they didn't even know where they were going, they just didn't want to be "here" anymore.

I challenge you to post a well thought out structured explanation of what SFL should be, and see how many agree in a survey, bonus points if done on Reddit.

I will help a bit and tell you johnkeys made a thread about what it should be, which led to arguing and the thread dying.

Worlbreaker, first of all - thank you for debating this in a constructive way. I know for me and for many others, this is a relatively impassioned topic, so I think the way you've gone about debating it is both constructive and respectful - thank you.

On the point above regarding the impact of RMT on PoE's virtual world economics, I disagree with your assessment. Fundamentally, I can think of no items that are not more efficient to trade for than to self-find. Perhaps there are some that I can't think of, but the vast majority are *generally* (ie some lucky sods did find a Shav quickly) more efficient to trade for. By efficient I mean "cheaper" when comparing time required to farm the specific item versus time required to farm for the orbs to trade for said item. None of that supports what I think is your contention - ie that RMT has not materially exacerbated in-game price inflation. Perhaps we should agree to disagree?

On the point of not being able to reach a consensus on what a SFL should look like - so what?

If you asked everyone on here to design their ideal ARPG, you wouldn't get consensus. If you asked them to design their ideal car, you wouldn't get consensus beyond "well, it's a car". If you asked them to design their ideal dress, etc etc. None of that means that people don't design ARPGs, cars and dresses which are wildly popular, or massive failures, and anything in between.

I believe that, if GGG want to test an optional SFL, they should design it themselves. As of course, they would. I trust GGG because they've made the best game I've ever played, PoE. I trust them to implement an SFL in a way that I would enjoy. Just because the peanut gallery (and I include myself in that) can't agree on what it should look like is entirely, completely irrelevant. Do you only buy/play/etc man-made things in life that conform to your ideal?

Petrov.

1. Yes, we can agree to disagree. I find it hard to claim something like RMT affecting me or the economy when the economy has been pretty stable since OB, with the exception of legacies which would and will continue to rise in value.

2. The details are important, by saying "remove trade" they (GGG) will tell you that you don't need a league to not trade. The way I initially thought SFL was is that people wanted a league without the option to trade so they wouldn't, similar to your RMT analogy, or people that ask for their accounts to be deleted so they stop playing.

Then people said they wanted increased drops to balance not being able to trade, which again was asinine to me because now SFL wanted it balanced around something they wanted to be rid of???

Then I saw the diamond in the rough, someone wanted a solo self found, similar to what I posted on 65, and I was all for it. Drop increases, groups, RMT none of it mattered, just a solo competitive environment. This made me happy and all for a SFL, which caused arguing about what it should be.

In any case, if you want them to take the idea seriously you need to come up with more than just "remove trade" because as Chris said, you can play self found now, no one can agree on what it should be, someone wanted a SFL with trade enabled where Chris responded "we have no idea what that means"

And your last statement, kind of baffles me. GGG, already stating their position on it, is left to come up with what they don't think we need to begin with? That sounds more far fetched than giving them an outline of what we want it to be rather than, "delete this it sucks".

If they removed trade tomorrow, had a new permanant league tomorrow, with that being the ONLY difference, would you be happy? Would free to play players be happy they can't mule? They are as crucial as supporters, and I would want a level playing field without my tabs being an excuse for "winning". From there the idea is dominoes.

"

Worldbreaker wrote:

And your last statement, kind of baffles me. GGG, already stating their position on it, is left to come up with what they don't think we need to begin with? That sounds more far fetched than giving them an outline of what we want it to be rather than, "delete this it sucks".

If they removed trade tomorrow, had a new permanant league tomorrow, with that being the ONLY difference, would you be happy? Would free to play players be happy they can't mule? They are as crucial as supporters, and I would want a level playing field without my tabs being an excuse for "winning". From there the idea is dominoes.

I violently agree with you on this: GGG should not try and design a SFL unless they have a vision of what it should be, and they want to implement it. Designing something to fail is easy, and no way would I support GGG designing a SFL just to "prove it doesn't work".

I'm not going to get drawn in on what I'd like to see on a SFL. I'm not a game designer, just a consumer. Picking apart my version (if such a thing existed) of a SFL in order to detract from the overall objective of testing an optional SFL is not a bait I will take.

Thanks again for the discussion!

P.

"

DirkAustin wrote:

So, what i gather from you post is that we should have a SFL for anyone who has a different vision on what a SFL should be?

We got so far: SFL with Party play, solo only, drop rate buff, no drop rate buff, and some others.

I dont think we need a SFL at all but if GGG decides to at least make a longer race or a 4 month league for it they should be the ones deciding what goes in it and what doesnt.

No Dirk, that's not what you should gather from my post. What you should gather from that one part of my post is that designing an SFL (if they were minded to, which they are not currently) is GGG's role and we should not abandon the concept of an SFL because a bunch of consumers can't agree on what it should look like. Any more than why VW don't design their cars by public consensus, etc etc. Come on man, I know you feel strongly against SFL, but let's please try and keep this sensible.

P.

"

DirkAustin wrote:

Im not as against it as much as im for small increments like a SFL 1 week race then one for 2 weeks or 1 month. Last but not least a 4 month SFL just for try for see and for know.

Cool, I respect that. Your position, no issues here.

"

DirkAustin wrote:

The question how SFL would affect non SF players is the same as asking why do SF players not play that way in the existing leagues. Its simple, making a SFL lets only SFL people to chat with one another same as HC and SC and the 4 month chats are all seperate except for guild chat.
Player communication is what is being torn apart if too many perma leagues are added.
Play SF all you like while chatting with non SF people.

I'm really, really struggling to understand you. What social (ie non trade) chat groups do you hang around in, apart from direct whispers to your friends (which are not impacted by playing in a dedicated SFL) or your guild (which are not impacted by playing in a dedicated SFL)?

"

DirkAustin wrote:

This whole SFL thing seems awkwardly like cough*racial segregation in american schools*cough.

Seriously? Are you from Mars?

P.

"

DirkAustin wrote:

Well, why 'segregate' SF players from the rest based on how they want to play? Playing SF is possible as it is. period.
Next thing you know people will want a solo SF. Then we get a trading only league where you cant equip items yourself and we have split up the playerbase as much as it gets.

Also, global chat isnt trade chat and its not cross league like whispers and guild chat.
Furthermore, in a SFL you would not be able to play with your non SF friends based on the mere fact they play in a different league. SFL proponents are alienating themselves just because they want a few things here and there that are not in any other league yet or a little bit different than they wish they were.

After all this time you've gone back to "Playing SF is possible as it is". If that is the depth of your understanding of the SF topic, and if you really think SFL proponents spend this much effort advocating for things that are "a little bit different" or "a few things here or there", then I despair.

I can see why you enjoy global chat!

P.

"

Worldbreaker wrote:

I agree, solo play needs love, trading is fine for me in the normal leagues as far as myself using it sparingly. I do think there is an issue with people abusing it by doing nothing but trading/flipping, which is what trade is often compared to. They have made solo play more attractive by punishing groups with increased hp and decreased XP (compared to CB). It would be nice if there was a bonus of some sort to solo play, like the longer you go solo the better/higher the bonus gets, until you party and it resets, or haven't killed anything for awhile. Don't really know.

Yes, the problem is "how".

I don't do party play, so I have noe idea if party play is "where it should be", but it seems that way, because there isn't a lot of complaining or debates around the subject. So let's say party play is where it should be. How to give some love to solo play, that woun't hurt party play?

An easy option would be to flat out buff solo play, as in IIQ or IIR bonuses. I do not think that this is a good option. But an IIQ or IIR bonus upon killing a boss solo, would be better.

An other option, is to reduce the "character level IIQ disadvantage" upon farming lower level content. Beacause a solo players have to do a lot more lower level farming than party players.

An other thing, is to flat out buff the drop rates of maps, beacause a solo player have to craft the map themselves, but a party can split the bill by 6.

My ideas is, ofc, flawed. But as I do not believe in a SFL, and I do not believe in account bound items, the solutions are limited. But the game needs some love for solo play, as a BIG part of the community is solo players.