Legacy items are bullshit

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

In regards to spell block, thats what was really strong about block builds, they required very little investment in the tree and basically even less in gear to achieve max block and high spell block, which is extremely strong.

It took my Patch 1.2 Marauder 18 skill points to gain 34% chance to block from the skill tree. That is not what I'd dismiss as "very little investment".

Share tree please.

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

In regards to spell block, thats what was really strong about block builds, they required very little investment in the tree and basically even less in gear to achieve max block and high spell block, which is extremely strong.

It took my Patch 1.2 Marauder 18 skill points to gain 34% chance to block from the skill tree. That is not what I'd dismiss as "very little investment".

Share tree please.

How would I do that at this point? The 1.2 skill tree is banished and no longer available online. In order to get 34% block from that version of the tree, you had to trace a path from the Duelist up through the Templar area. It took careful planning and numerous trade-offs to manage that feat without gimping your HP or DPS.

We can still get access to the offline planner, I think 1.2 had the feature of share tree?

It won't work with it online, but I can import it.

Here's my 1.2 Marauder sword & shield build with 34% Chance to Block:



And here's what that build had to pass up, about 30% additional HP and DPS (without block):

"

RogueMage wrote:

Here's my 1.2 Marauder sword & shield build with 34% Chance to Block:

Spoiler

http://www.pathofexile.com/passive-skill-tree/AAAAAgEAxthYYz38jM_2SF8_f-PzBsEE458x-6C0eWgnL_uqC2HvDuRReA28n1ivqW6krDbobEa18vIvZKM6UnJsbqo1kqgYVEkaVTJ-DjwyCUrIX5jYvWoeecBhIZ_LWW3SIQY5hO8S4c8yVw3u2ZuDourM25HO3B1T34tPu-1Y26yv9zKE2eeRcqllTW5pw4asqnzZFFLEuL6nWfPyWiftR37V-MAar6L8S72BkFVmnhDwbBaZK6eE-tISvIcZGjh-4jbpgFapleNqT31RYA==

And here's what that build had to pass up, about 30% additional HP and DPS (without block):

Spoiler

http://www.pathofexile.com/passive-skill-tree/AAAAAgEAxthYYz38jM_2SF8_f-PBBOOfMft5aCcvC2HvDngNvJ9Yr6lupKw26GxGtfLyL2SjOlJybG6qNZKoGFRJGlUyfg48MglKyF-Y_o_YvWoeYSGfy4qvWW1N49IhhO8S4ZARzzKmV1cNm4Oi6oLkMZ7M25HOU9-LT7vtWNuQdPcyhNnnrnKpZU1uaeRRrKp82RRSxLi-p1nz8lon7Ud-1fjAGq-i_Eu9gZBVEPBsFpkrp4QSvIcZGjjsODrYfLst0sWK8B8Es6IAFE0CcQ==

I can't get the tree to work on this machine, if I remember I will find this post and reply tomorrow when I can view that tree.

I feel like everyone in this thread, to name the ones on the front page, are just either wilfully ignorant or just accidentally.

"Why do legacy items exist" is a question with a simple answer.

It is not "because people earned those items"

or any other stupid reason

It is "The difficulty in retroactively changing all items that have rolled those set mods is a task that would require [significant] realm down time, especially as they would need to make sure there are 0 errors. Even one bricked stash, or missing shavronne/etc would cause great outrage, and if caused by an error it is difficult compounded to check legitimate claims and then also to restore if they can even find out if one is legitimate"


So any discussion about legacy items, should they exist, lets remove them, no lets keep them, should not be discussing about how people lose hard work, or people are entitled, or people are jealous, or change is inevitable.

They should be saying
I think it is worth people losing their entire stash, and potentially having no one able to play for a week (lets be honest, picking a long time is more realistic than saying 30 minutes)


So everyone who wants them removed (not just 'it would be nice' but 'remove them now') is saying they want their entire stash and possibly existing characters potentially broken.

And to reiterate, errors in database major changes can be strange, it could be you have 0 legacy items but still have it happen to you!

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

What if I had this legacy item enjoyed the build and wanted to trade with a friend for an item that appealed to me more, guess I can't under your system because some sort of economic reason?

I'd support a compromise solution that would enable current Legacy owners to trade off unwanted Legacies to players who want them for personal use rather than trade speculation:

Make all Legacy items Account Bound on Transfer.

IMO, this should apply to Mirrored items as well.

Nice to see a form of binding posted with two sub factors.

Mention binding on this forum and it's instantly taken as a full 'everything, ever, is bound on generation'.

Binding is a tool that is completely ignored by GGG with PoE, almost universally used by Blizzard with D3 but used by scores of companies (Blizzard included, funnily enough) to varying degrees between the two far extremes, in hundreds of games, with great success.

You have the owner, where the item is bound to: To character, to account, even to party.
You have the condition: On generation, on pick up, on equip, on use, on transfer.
There are even other sub factors such as time, time until an item becomes bound, time an item is bound for, etc.

You of course also have free trade, never binding, ever, which is also appropriate in many cases.

The problem is when you do a PoE or a D3.
It isn't and never has been a binary... to bind everything or not bind anything, there is a massive gap between the two, a gap filled with successful long lasting games.

Utilising the many forms of binding where appropriate is good design, it allows for further good design and can fix mess ups. Whether pre-emptively or in response to a problem some items caused later on, a developer can do so much more when they use the tools which are available.

But when you make blanket policies like this....

"

Chris wrote:

While talking about the game economy, it’s worth noting that we’re strongly opposed to any form of binding of items. Some games cite it as an effective item sink, but we believe that the inability to trade an item after use greatly hinders the economy. We want players to be able to trade for an extremely valuable item without taking a massive hit to their net worth by equipping it.

Following a statement like this....

"

Chris wrote:

Path of Exile’s economy is the most important element of the game to us.

Then making a good aRPG, first and foremost is not your business and the tools to do so are irrelevant.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall at the office meeting all night piss up that decided mirrors and eternals were good for the game and binding wasn't, in any shape or form whatsoever.

I'd have literally fallen off that wall when they came to this part

which they then decided was to be... bound to account.

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

They should be saying
I think it is worth people losing their entire stash, and potentially having no one able to play for a week (lets be honest, picking a long time is more realistic than saying 30 minutes)

You do realize I started this thread by confronting this point head-on, before even discussing anything else, right?

So what if you're right. It's a pathetic, inexcusable, ludicrous position to be in. When designing the item database, did they really have the unimaginable hubris to believe they would never need to correct a mistake?

Regarding binding:
My position is that if a developer declares an item overpowered enough to justify nerfing the item, but then only nerfs some versions of the item and not ALL of them, then that is a hypocrisy: the continued existence of the unnerfed versions contradicts the alleged need to nerf. As such, binding is irrelevant to the discussion, at least from my point of view.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Regarding binding:
My position is that if a developer declares an item overpowered enough to justify nerfing the item, but then only nerfs some versions of the item and not ALL of them, then that is a hypocrisy: the continued existence of the unnerfed versions contradicts the alleged need to nerf. As such, binding is irrelevant to the discussion, at least from my point of view.

Irrelevant only in that it is a fourth option you left out of the original three choices you put forward, conveniently.