GGGs reasoning on not making a SFL?
" For your own benefit, force other people to play in a league that are inclined to leave fot a better alternative. How thoughtful.. No longer a forum dweller, please use PM for contact purposes.
|
|
" For your own benefit, expecting GGG to create a new league with modified drop rates you and many others desire, only to slowly but surely destroy whats left of the economy in the current ones. How thoughtful... ign:JaqenHghar
warbands |
|
"Now this is an example of useful discussion. :) By the way, I started a new thread in Passive Tree Feedback: pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/912444 When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
" I enjoyed reading this. Noblesse oblige
|
|
" I don't expect GGG to create the SFL, I expect GGG to give paid league option, then thankfully we won't have this unnecessary discussion. No longer a forum dweller, please use PM for contact purposes.
|
|
" This goes back to your original point, which was that you could remove the emphasis on trading by fixing the itemisation. The problem is that any (positive) change to itemisation will make it exponentially easier for traders to gear up and explode the power creep. There can be no middle ground as long as all items are transferrable and account bound items are basically a small extension of a self found league anyway. Other trading options could improve the situation but at the end of the day it is still trading and it will still be mandatory if you want to experience the whole game in a reasonable time frame. Again you aren't presenting any real solutions, you are just telling us that a SFL will not solve our problems with the importance of trading. Unless it becomes as easy as dropping items into a vendor window, I don't want to trade. P̯̹̙̥̉̏ͦͯA̠̝̰̣̯͕͚̲̭͈̥̠͑̓̿ͦ̾ͯ̍ͅͅȚ̜̦͕̞̞̠̮͎͔͙͔̺̺͉̟̿̿̏ͬ͛͋̍ͮ̌̚H̹͕͚̟͍̘̤̱̻̬͓̬̮̫̦͖̳̹ͮͨ̒̉ͮ̿̈ͪ̇̿͆ͭ̃ͭ̃ͭ̚ ̲̫̞̤͓̳͑ͬ̾͌ͯ͐͂̿͗ͨ͋͑̍͐͗̾̄O͕̮̻͔̳̠͉͖̳͖͈̻͇͈̣̙̪͈ͨ͐̒̽ͣ̋ͅF̣͎̞̞̯̝ͦ͌̆ͥ̈͐̾ͣ̔ͮ̐̀̏ͪ̚ ̟̩͙̙̩̮̻̼ͬ͑ͥͦ͗̿E̼̭̩̜͕̱̤̭̞͖̳͍̝̤̼͓̗ͩͫ̌ͬ̊̋̄͑͗̽X͕̰̪̱̲̩̙̦͓͓̯̠̤̝̝̯̣̥̀̋̌̍̚Ȉ̖̟͔̩̝̊̿ͪͅL̺͓̻̰̀͋̅ͮͧE͔̼͚͕̮̻̟̩̪̖̫̪̦͙̎̑͆̏ͨͅ Last edited by lukeiy#6623 on May 2, 2014, 4:15:45 AM
|
|
" Are you referring to Ambush and Standard, huh? Casually casual.
|
|
"Nupe. Even if you limit it to positive, it depends on what you mean by "positive." If you really do mean simple power creep, then... yeah, gotta agree with you there, nothing good would come of it. However, power creep is stupid itemization; the effects of bad itemization will have bad effects on the economy. However, if you mean diversification, then no. The health of an economy (real or digital) has a lot to do with the extent to which monopolization (or near monopolization) polarizes wealth. In a digital economy, ensuring that the maximum number of items are equally and simultaneously viable disrupts these pseduo-monopolies and opens up opportunities for clever players who think of builds others haven't. Example of increasing rare affix diversity: Build A and Build B both desire the same three prefixes on an item. GGG releases a new prefix, and now Build A still wants the old trio of affixes, but Build B wants the new one, in combination with two of the old. Example of increasing unique diversity: Build X and Build Y both consider the same unique to be best-in-slot. GGG releases a new unique, and now Build X still wants the old unique, but Build Y wants the new one. Note that this is dependent upon a wide variety of builds being simultaneously and equally viable. If Build A is much stronger than Build B (even after the new affix), nothing's really going to change. If Build X is much weaker than Build Y (even after the new unique), everyone will just abandon the old unique for the new one. With enough diversity, the ability for pseudo-monopolies to predict the economy begins to erode. The consensus might be that Build A is very strong, but suddenly a wild Build Q appears, with completely different items which were off the trading radar, and does very well (let's say, gets a YouTube vid as first XXX kill in a new league). Note the completely different feel of trading in an unpredictable metagame compared to a predictable one. In a predictable metagame, you build incremental value very slowly while eventually obtaining some amazing item which everyone already knows is amazing, and thus sells for an obscene price; in other words, it's a grind. In an unpredictable metagame, you theorycraft builds to utilize items which the economy currently undervalues, capitalizing on the surprise value of builds others may not have yet discovered, in order to make speculative trades which may gain lots of value over time; in other words, it's a mad scientist's delight. I think that, on some level, GGG is aware of these concepts, perhaps even is actively trying to design them into the game; they've spoken before about "emergent gameplay" similar to Magic the Gathering (and the best moments in Magic are generally caused by diversity). However, I feel GGG is doing a mediocre job of implementing it. There are occasions where you can theorycraft a build which uses an item the economy undervalues, and use it to great effect; however, I feel those opportunities are a bit too infrequent, marginalized by a relatively tepid balance of itemization and of builds. We do not need better items in the sense of simply outclassing the items we currently have. That won't solve anything, and causes additional problems besides. What we need are new items and builds which provide viable alternatives and coexist with the items and builds we have now, giving players more real options than they have now. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 2, 2014, 4:53:30 AM
|
|
" Ok, so lets say they add more mods which create more viable options than before. The mod pool is now even further diluted, gear is useful in more specific cases and drop rates of good items is still low but now there's an even lower chance of finding something useful for YOUR character. At what point does this make trading less necessary? P̯̹̙̥̉̏ͦͯA̠̝̰̣̯͕͚̲̭͈̥̠͑̓̿ͦ̾ͯ̍ͅͅȚ̜̦͕̞̞̠̮͎͔͙͔̺̺͉̟̿̿̏ͬ͛͋̍ͮ̌̚H̹͕͚̟͍̘̤̱̻̬͓̬̮̫̦͖̳̹ͮͨ̒̉ͮ̿̈ͪ̇̿͆ͭ̃ͭ̃ͭ̚ ̲̫̞̤͓̳͑ͬ̾͌ͯ͐͂̿͗ͨ͋͑̍͐͗̾̄O͕̮̻͔̳̠͉͖̳͖͈̻͇͈̣̙̪͈ͨ͐̒̽ͣ̋ͅF̣͎̞̞̯̝ͦ͌̆ͥ̈͐̾ͣ̔ͮ̐̀̏ͪ̚ ̟̩͙̙̩̮̻̼ͬ͑ͥͦ͗̿E̼̭̩̜͕̱̤̭̞͖̳͍̝̤̼͓̗ͩͫ̌ͬ̊̋̄͑͗̽X͕̰̪̱̲̩̙̦͓͓̯̠̤̝̝̯̣̥̀̋̌̍̚Ȉ̖̟͔̩̝̊̿ͪͅL̺͓̻̰̀͋̅ͮͧE͔̼͚͕̮̻̟̩̪̖̫̪̦͙̎̑͆̏ͨͅ Last edited by lukeiy#6623 on May 2, 2014, 5:08:20 AM
|
|
"With rares: You actually have a very valid point. As the diversity of affixes increases, the number of rares and rare-effecting currency which drops should also increase. I should note, however, that I am generally against increasing drop rates; increased diversity is on a very short list of things which would spur me to advocate such a thing. (Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything else which would.) Also note that the collarilary is also true: if GGG gets drunk and decreases diversity, I think they should also decrease the drop rate, because now there's less viable builds. With uniques: the structure of the GGG unique system voids the argument for increasing drop rates. Shavronne's Wrappings did not drop less when Infernal Mantle was introduced; the chance of Infernal Mantle is additional to the chance of Shavronne's Wrappings. So no change in the drop rate of previously existing uniques would be required, because, technically, every new unique they release increases the unique drop rate (it's the old chance, plus the chance of the new unique dropping). When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 2, 2014, 5:09:56 AM
|
|
