jewels discussion: bringing RNG and Economy to the Passive Tree

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

miljan wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

I said perfectly viable. This means you can usually faceroll through the game solo self-found. How much easier can it get than faceroll? Do you want D3 normal difficulty where it's literally impossible to die?

And I said its not, as the balance is off and progression is slow, risk/reword is bad, time/reword is bad. We talked about this when I posted problems PoE has. You literally said they are problems if you do not trade. You changed your mind?

I didn't change my mind, I was talking about rare items. You repeated over and over again how everything is limited from level 1 due to RNG and trade balance and that's simply not true. D2 and PoE are very similar in that regard, where it's very easy to acquire like the bottom 80% of items without ever having to trade, while it's hard to do with the top 20% of items. The balance isn't off and the progression isn't slow at all. If it is, then D2 had the same problems? Or the problem is just you.

It is true, everything is limited from level 1. You can not use skill you want because of RNG on items. Its the most simple example of showing how the system is very different than d2. So nothing wrong with me, you just dont remember how d2 was, and that it didnt have this crappy progression and problems. And this problems are all in the game becuse of balance around trading as curency sink, if you dont understand than dont know what to say than

"

miljan wrote:

It is true, everything is limited from level 1. You can not use skill you want because of RNG on items. Its the most simple example of showing how the system is very different than d2. So nothing wrong with me, you just dont remember how d2 was, and that it didnt have this crappy progression and problems. And this problems are all in the game becuse of balance around trading as curency sink, if you dont understand than dont know what to say than

You can't use 6L from level 1 because that's part of the progression. It's like complaining about the fact that you can't use level 30 skills in D2 from level 1 (aka stupid).

"

Splift wrote:

You are wrong when you say GGG designed the game to require trade because its just not true.

DE themselves advertise their game with "It is designed around a strong barter-based online item economy..".

I have my problem with this "require to trade". The game is based and balanced on the option that you can trade. You can say you don´t need to do it but you can´t say the game is not made/balanced around trading.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Temper wrote:

Then I'll give you some legal tier argumentation ... as the claimant the onus is on you to provide any or all information from the IRS and US legal system outlining the ramifications (including money laundering) that may or may not have arisen from Blizzards implementation of taxable and non taxable virtual content sales,both in the real money auction house and game gold auction house.

After reading that information carefully yourself (after you've found it yourself) you can then begin to decipher (all by yourself) why in part the huge knee jerk reaction (complete 360 of design actually) of Blizzard to axe all auction house style trading and tighten the noose with BOA.

It all has zero to do with the balance of an ARPG.

Interesting theory but it doesn't explain why Blizzard just didn't implement PoE-style trading with no real money involved (against ToA RMT aside). I also chuckled at the 360 :3

"

Temper wrote:

I can compare an ARPGs sate of gameplay balance with any other ARPGs state of gameplay balance .... if they're both ARPGs.Seems by your own words though that POE isn't an ARPG,and I'm fine with that.

Yes you can, but you can't compare drop balance, it just doesn't make sense.

"

Temper wrote:

As for the last sentence... fucking seriously Xav.. that's some rocket science size thinking right there mate,you should run for a seat in politics,pointless points seem to be your strong point.Or perhaps consider a career in game development yourself. =P

Not sure what the problem is with the last part of my post. You were talking about games like Titan Quest, that have a multiplay but are inherently solo offline games. It would be stupid to balance Titan Quest around trading. Thus it's not comparable to PoE or vanilla D3. Or even D2 which was a hybrid between TQ model and D3/PoE model.

"

Temper wrote:

At any rate,I'm not sure you've realized yet that I've actually agreed with earlier points you've made about POEs design and why it will always be the way it is or just being cyclic for the sake of being cyclic.

I realized :)

What's 180 degrees between friends ... what no reach around ? Besides it's been a long day being my 7 year olds birthday. =P (it's fixed)

Because it offered the path of least resistance in rectifying the problem with the addition of also stemming,in part,what you'd like to put aside (RMT) which can't/won't be put aside by Blizz as it appears to be a *thing* for them.

I'm not sure I need to explain anything if you're familiar with ActiBlizz's business and development practices where the best solution to a problem is always the easiest solution,and in a lot of cases ends up no solution at all.

Game Balance isn't just about drop rates and item rarity which is what I've been trying to point out to you economy fixated lot.I don't recall comparing drop rates and rarity myself,just gameplay balance.

I agree about balancing multiplayer optional games around trading ...... I'm telling you that you're being "Captain Obvious" by stating it ... multiple times .. even after being agreed with..... =p

I'll have to disagree on the D2 being a hybrid I'm afraid.There's absolutely nothing about it that was designed around an in game economy,even it's item acquisition model (rates and rarity) are on par with similar ARPGs,including but not limited to TQ:IT and Sacred 1&2,of which all boasted a few items that the vast majority of players would never own from legitimate gameplay.

lastly ... are we done with the circular discussion yet because my head hurts

lol

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

miljan wrote:

It is true, everything is limited from level 1. You can not use skill you want because of RNG on items. Its the most simple example of showing how the system is very different than d2. So nothing wrong with me, you just dont remember how d2 was, and that it didnt have this crappy progression and problems. And this problems are all in the game becuse of balance around trading as curency sink, if you dont understand than dont know what to say than

You can't use 6L from level 1 because that's part of the progression. It's like complaining about the fact that you can't use level 30 skills in D2 from level 1 (aka stupid).

Read again what i wrote.
I didnt say anything about 6 link items. So i guess I need to draw it down to you and spell it so you understand.

In d2 you are limited by level so you can use your skill (and few point in earlier skill, that most of time you will max out for synergies). In Poe you are limited by level (ever skill gems has a minimum level same as in d2) and sockets and color on the item you want to put it in. So yes, unlike in d2, you have aditional limitation (as additional layer of RNG) on character progression. I complaining about the fact you can not use a skill even if you have level for it (like in d2) because the skill is tide to the item and RNG that is there only as currency sink because of the stupid balance around trading.

I talk about bad mechanic in the game that make the game progression bad compared to any other arpg out there, and that are there only for pushing people to trade or as sink. And I already wrote a list of them back several pages ago, so dont want to repeat again.

"

Splift wrote:

You are wrong when you say GGG designed the game to require trade because its just not true.

You are so very very wrong there. A multitude of times Chris has said in videos that the game mechanic were designed from the ground up around trading and the economy.

"

Chameleon wrote:

"

Splift wrote:

You are wrong when you say GGG designed the game to require trade because its just not true.

You are so very very wrong there. A multitude of times Chris has said in videos that the game mechanic were designed from the ground up around trading and the economy.

I don't think we even need Chris' quotes.
the game is designed around trade and co-op, and that's that.
many things can be debated, but that is a fact.

my questions are:
1) why?
2) is the dominance and seeming-non-bias of RNG, derived from this?

I believe the answer to (2) is "yes", but I have yet to find a good answer for (1).

regardless, this RNG dominance and "Economy-uber-alles" design will now make its way into the Passive Tree.

Splift, Xav, and BMBI will argue that's a good thing, because they don't mind (or even enjoy) trading, and the presence of Jewels in the tree opens up both tons of building possibilities, AND the ability to change stuff quickly at the most core level.

Pyro doesn't mind, because he's super-efficient and can make just about anything work, no matter how RNG screws him over and from how many directions.

but I do mind.

"

johnKeys wrote:

"

Chameleon wrote:

"

Splift wrote:

You are wrong when you say GGG designed the game to require trade because its just not true.

You are so very very wrong there. A multitude of times Chris has said in videos that the game mechanic were designed from the ground up around trading and the economy.

I don't think we even need Chris' quotes.
the game is designed around trade and co-op, and that's that.
many things can be debated, but that is a fact.

my questions are:
1) why?
2) is the dominance and seeming-non-bias of RNG, derived from this?

I believe the answer to (2) is "yes", but I have yet to find a good answer for (1).

regardless, this RNG dominance and "Economy-uber-alles" design will now make its way into the Passive Tree.

Splift, Xav, and BMBI will argue that's a good thing, because they don't mind (or even enjoy) trading, and the presence of Jewels in the tree opens up both tons of building possibilities, AND the ability to change stuff quickly at the most core level.

Pyro doesn't mind, because he's super-efficient and can make just about anything work, no matter how RNG screws him over and from how many directions.

but I do mind.

you just summed up this entire thread

Ill give ya this Johnny, you dont give up

Going to repeat what i posted earlier in this thread.

Jewels have a max of 4 stats and are thus extremely easily crafted even for solo players.

And when they introduce a jeweler master, it will only get easier.

Rng enters your build the moment you drop your first white item.

You using cleave but drop a 2-hander mace? bad luck [Edited by Support]. This only increases and expands as item affixes come into play coupled with base types and the multitude of builds.

But at least the jewels are very "low-key" stat sticks and will be craft-able/available to all players at a cheap price if done smart.

Peace,

-Boem-

for a non-trader, "easily" is very relative (RNG), and "cheap price" has no meaning whatsoever, Boem.

fact of the matter is, something which was once 100% likely to happen, will now be subject to RNG.
one more "trade, or suffer the consequences" mechanic, in a giant heap.
the worst one yet.

I'm well aware of the advantages of Jewels in the Tree, but people who can't quite get into the mindset of a SF player who has to take his chances with RNG, should at least try to do so.
try to understand where I'm coming from and why RNG in the Passive Tree, is such bad news for me.