GGGs reasoning on not making a SFL?

"

BlazedAs wrote:

Is it just Americans who say could care less instead of couldn't care less? I've heard this in TV shows and stuff, so strange.

"

Xikorut wrote:

"

BlazedAs wrote:

Is it just Americans who say could care less instead of couldn't care less? I've heard this in TV shows and stuff, so strange.

Uhh... I got nothing. Just shortening they saying, I guess. Like a nearly silent n't.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

Xikorut wrote:

"

BlazedAs wrote:

Is it just Americans who say could care less instead of couldn't care less? I've heard this in TV shows and stuff, so strange.

Uhh... I got nothing. Just shortening they saying, I guess. Like a nearly silent n't.

If only.

They'll actually explain that it means they could care less, but don't. Or they could care less but as a 'well I could, but it wouldn't be much'.

Which just begs the question, why the fuck not just say couldn't to begin with?
Then again, they write then for than and than for then, and too for to and to for too, so it kinda goes with the flow that they don't mean what they say.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Don't forget should of/could of instead of should have/could have. Only the dead can know peace from this rustling.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Don't forget should of/could of instead of should have/could have. Only the dead can know peace from this rustling.

If you need too use hyperbole too make a point, you only admit that you're point is to weak too stand on it's own.

;)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Trading is optional drivel

"

Jojas wrote:

"

ecogen wrote:

No it is literally not optional, given that people don't have infinite time. I'll give you a simple example. With the current drop rates, craft 1 GG item for any slot and by GG I mean GG. It will take about 10 years of farming if we go with the average cost and with the average exa/et drop rates. And before people go all "LEL YOU WANT KAOMS RAINING FROM THE SKY" I'll say again: 10 years for 1 GG item.

Most players in PoE have unconsciously created a ceiling for solo play and don't even take into account other aspects in the game which have been labeled in their heads as achievable only by trade/rmt. That's why they have the balls to say "you can play SF just fine in the current leagues".

Ten years might seem like an exaggeration, but I think the number might even be too low. I have about 750 character levels on all my chars combined and, having run most of them with something between 30 and 100 IIQ managed to find 2-3 exalteds and 1 eternal. I don't know how many of them you need to create one GG weapon, but several thousand alterations and 200 exalteds and eternals each might be about right (with ~1% chance for a specific top-tier affix and - just - 4 desired affixes: IPD% (twice), added phys. damage, IAS).

That would mean my 750 character levels times 200, so 150.000 char levels or playing 2000 chars up to the level of 75. For one weapon with 4 top tier affixes. :D

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@Xavderion: Sigh.

You're never going to find me saying that trading is required, because it isn't. You can play the game without trading, ever, and still progress as high as you want to. The only question is how much time it will take; the answer will still be finite, even if it's a very considerably amount of time.

However, the truth of the matter is that the entire "required" distinction is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if something is required or not, it matters if it's optimal or not. You can make a build focused around dealing thorns damage, and that build can kill things (perhaps more than you'd even think)... but in practice, virtually no one will do this, because there are much better ways of killing monsters. The primary reason I'm against saying "you are required to trade" is that it's a butchering of what the term "required" actually means; as far as actually playing the game goes, it's suboptimal, and that suffices for all reasonable discussion.

I want to say one thing very firmly: I do not believe that a tradeless PoE experience should be as optimal as one with trading. At all. I do not believe in the sort of balance which excludes one strategy and focuses solely on another. Instead, I believe in combining strategies, and having situations where one strategy is best, and then later situations where that strategy is not best; for example, I believe a build which uses two separate damaging skills, one singletarget and one multitarget, should be better than any single-skill-spam build. I think someone who exclusively farms should be at a disadvantage to someone who both farms and trades...

...However, I also think someone who excessively trades should be at a disadvantage to someone who both farms and trades. Although I think this is a point where the SFL folks greatly exaggerate the extent of the imbalance, it's nevertheless on this point where I can find some common ground with them, because there are some elements of the game which seem to push the balance a little too far over to the trading side.

Well that, and things which can make trading a more enjoyable experience are good for everybody.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Finally.

A Scrotie post that hits the nail on the head without being laced with wild OTT generalisations and sly jabs. (yes I realise I'm as guilty at times).

These posts have been sorely missed, sir. (I don't think I've seen one since just after I spoke up for you in a SFL thread months ago, which was kinda 'WTF?')

*tips hat*

I'd only add, that I actually don't want to be as optimal as trading, I want the longevity, tedium, RNG, suboptimal synergies and all that shit that self found gives and trading removes/minimises. I'm perfectly happy to be taking the more resistant path with my exile, but right now it's not really a path at all.