GGGs reasoning on not making a SFL?

Even if account selling takes place in a SFL realm, no one single account would have all of their wildest dreams coming true like they do in the other leagues. It would be more balanced. Single accounts would take months if not years to stock build packages for selling especially since a solo player would have to link everything himself with SF orbs.

1 item farmer per account vs hundreds farmers stocking 1 account in the other leagues/

[Removed by Support]

[Removed by Support]

[Removed by Support]

[Removed by Support]

Self found is essentially "No Trade", much like the races GGG already runs.

They'd just need to make a permanent or even a 4-month "W-NT" modded league: Wealthy No-Trade. All creatures have the Wealthy modifier. Done and done. No coding required - except perhaps to enable the "wealthy" innate.

If it ran as a 1-week "dead end" (no promotion to standard) pilot, we could see how it works. Folks could still group, but drops would be permanently allocated and no trading allowed.

"

Xavderion wrote:

This is actually what most RMT doomsayers are doing. GGG is doing a good job of reducing the impact of RMT, but people still act like it's the end of the world. If you want pro arguments for a SFL, think of something else. Less cheating isn't a really good one because most people (99,9%) don't care about the ladder since they can't compete with the people playing 18 hours a day. Or 24 hours, account sharing would be the tits in a SFL :D

I don't agree GGG are doing a good job against RMT, at all. I have my eyes on a case right now, if that guy is allowed to liquidate his full account into FG and EX and then into FG/$, which is ongoing right now, and can be nipped in the bud at this stage, it will be yet another negative to the 'good job'. While I'll accept there may well be positives I don't see, the blatant negatives speak volumes.

I don't want pro arguments for SFL, I want to see valid arguments against. I'm here not to promote SFL, rather to debunk the arguments against that fail. Because while these flawed arguments are ripe and believed, the game will not improve to the point that most pro SFL people will want to play it and not want a SFL. Which incidentally are improvements that would better the game for most if not all, give it some longevity and maybe let it live up to its name and the vision that was fed to us.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

1. Ricky Bobby "In all due respect" preface doesn't work. "I want to state there is nothing wrong with being obsessed with PoE forum. That said, you're a casual, and therefore your capability to make valid arguments is neutralized, because you're obsessed with the PoE forum." Sorry, it doesn't work that way; it's one or the other. I'm guessing the latter.

It works perfectly, I'm also in that group and say we are all bunch of casuals. At least I'm not the one who call others casual, so I can't see any contradiction there.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

2. Advocating versus being. SFL advocates a casual agenda. That's a fact; as I described earlier, a less casual agenda is one which tells players they must either endure tedium trying to overlevel/overgear for content, or escape tedium by risking their lives underleveled/undergeared for content.

Sidebar: Casual map system?

Someone pointed out that maps aren't good for this system, and when it comes to being underleveled, I agree wholeheartedly; the map system's design heavily discourages running higher level maps before their "appointed" time. However, the map affix system still manages to strongly encourage the occasional ultra-scary experience, costing you Chaos or the map itself if you choose not to run a deadly combination of affixes. So the map system is kind of a mixed bag in that department.

I made a point of saying SFL is advocating casualness, and that advocates don't necessarily play casually. For all I know, your response to the tedium-tedium-LeeroyJenkins choice pattern I described earlier is the same as mine — going Leeroy on it. If that's the case, in action you're probably as hardcore, perhaps even more hardcore, than me. However, we're not talking about what you do here, we're talking about what you advocate. Apparently, if that's the kind of behavior you use, then you're not fully satisfied with the way it is, and you want it easier. Without the tedium of trading or easyfarming, you want to just straight-up have better gear by the time you're put into that three-way decision, making the Leeroy a little less Leeroy. I called it casual advocacy because that's exactly what it is.

You were the one who say "I trade rarely so I have the right more than others to the title SF". Sorry but you make no sense and have no idea about how SF character progression works, as an SFL advocate I'm no way interested in better gear, I progressed with shit gear in the past, I'm fine with all. I always said my focus is to use orbs as they're supposed to work, for crafting. I don't see the point of going easy mode and buying an upgrade with some exalts.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

3. Obvious butthurt over the "c-word". Casual is not a dirty word. Nevertheless, you respond as if I have threatened your manhood and kicked your dog. The worst thing you can think of accusing me of in return is casual; the classic "I know you are, but what am I" argument. Well, I'm not accusing SFL of advocating casual play, I'm saying they advocate casual play. The difference is that an accusation implies a condemnation. I might have a problem with the SFL, but advocating a casual agenda is not it. I'm not 100% sure that life would be worse if, given that tedium-tedium-Leeroy three-way choice, the Leeroy choice was a little less hardcore. It might actually be a good thing; it might also not be, so I'm kind of on the fence. Slightly more casual might be an improvement.

I never said I'm not a casual, I don't really care what you would ever call me. My post was to point out the stupidity of calling others casual while being one.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

There's two main things here which bother me about SFL as a whole (as opposed to ignarsoll in particular): that SFLers are unwilling to embrace the casualness of what they want to do, forcing false pretentions the game would be more hardcore afterwards; and the fallacious believe that a separate league is an efficient vehicle to get the game closer to what they want. I've never had a major problem with the casualness itself, and I've never had a major problem with the end result which SFL supports would like to see. I just think you're lying to yourself about what you are, and you're lying to yourself about how to achieve your goals.

Buy overpowered gear, overcome difficulty game has to offer and consider yourself more hardcore than people chose this gameplay style. Sorry but this doesn't make sense.

Casual play to me means the guys that hardly put in the work and buy their gear off of jsp or other various item sites including RMT sites and or take stream follower donations as well as lotteries so they don't have to farm for themselves, scamming usually.

Hardcore is doing it yourself! Casual play is the unrestricted cloud-based effort.

Many true ''Hardcore'' players haven't seen a lot of endgame content but what they have done, they did themselve. On the other hand, Many casual players have beaten the end game uber bosses with their non-legit gear often not finding one single equipped item on their own.

The valid argument is simple and common (to the point of being a cliche): unlike Hardcore, there is no economic need for a separate league, because self-found players do not trade.

The argument that a separate league is needed is usually based on a desire for increased drop rates. This argument is invalid, because even that does not constitute an economic need for a separate league. All you really want is increased drop rates; the "separate league" part of the suggestion is essentially an elaborate sophistry, designed to convince others that a potentially massive droprate increase is okay. It's isn't; a moderate one, perhaps. If you subtract the bullshit, it's just a plea for increasing drop rates overall, in all leagues, without creating any new leagues. This isn't necessarily a bad suggestion; it's just a simple and common one (to the point of being a cliche). The popularity of SFL can mostly be explained by people trying to take a simple suggestion and gloss it up as a somehow fancy and creative one, when it's not.

The argument that a separate league would be nice in order to have a separate ladder and thus a separate competition, however, isn't a bad one. Especially when explicitly divorced from the increased drop rates suggestion. Some SFL supporters, such as Fourist, are known for taking this kind of stance. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with adding a "Solo" checkbox to each league which would give each character its own personal stash (to prohibit swapping between same-account characters), prohibited trading, and prohibited partying. Characters so marked could have their own ladder. I think that would be a cool competition, actually.

However, checking that box shouldn't increase drop rates at all. If you want better drop rates, just ask for them. For everyone. I don't know how far such an obviously casual suggestion will go, but I really think you'll do better if you drop the bullshit.