Legacy items are bullshit

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

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?

Yeah, this kinda goes back to my earlier point about intentions. Do you seriously think GGG was so experienced in design that they intended desync, legacies, particle issues and a list of other things as long as my arm to be in the game?... C'mon, stop and think before you accuse them of hubris.

As an aside, if you read through the thread you can see a number of examples of why the difference between a nerf and a tweak is how players feel about it.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

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.

Are the new versions nerfed in the name of being too powerful? If yes, then: are the previous versions not nerfed, despite being deemed too powerful? If yes, hypocrisy confirmed. Binding is irrelevant to the hypocrisy issue.

Is binding (or lack thereof) irrelevant to economic issues as a whole? No, it's not irrelevant. I'm against it, but when I say irrelevant, I don't mean big picture, I mean in the context of a discussion on whether legacy items are bullshit or not, ex: this thread. They would still be bullshit even if bound.

This will probably offend a theoretician like yourself Scrotie, but let me put this in a Q&A format.

Q: "Are legacy items bullshit?"

A: "It doesn't matter."

Q: "Why? Why wouldn't it matter if they're bullshit?"

A: "For the same reason it wouldn't matter if Schrodinger's Cat was dead or alive, if everyone refused to open the box."

;) Maybe go and play the game... Or any game! I would but I'm at work.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

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?

The entire thread is about 'these items should not exist'

I don't disagree that it would be nice to have the database stability to make easy updates to items like this.

Is it possible? No

Should we be concerning ourselves with theoretical better situations? No, otherwise we have 0 lag situations as well to be assuming, as well as instant reaction times and perfect in the moment decisions with balance at a global scale being perfect.

Should we be concering ourselves with the ACTUAL REAL LIFE situation? Yes

Real life situation = Legacy items can only either be left as they currently are (Option 1), or as per my quote week downtime with potential catastrophic errors (Option 2).



Any argument we should be going with Option 2 needs to be ADDRESSING those points. Your main post makes mention that their database should be nicer. Should be. But your discussion is about whether the items should or not exist, which is IRRELEVANT to anything that is not in the cloud of 'lets have PoE 2 now' unrealistic situations

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Are the new versions nerfed in the name of being too powerful? If yes, then: are the previous versions not nerfed, despite being deemed too powerful? If yes, hypocrisy confirmed.

This is where I think your argument is flawed. GGG has made powerful items gated behind rarity. They have set a precedent that they think an OP item can be balanced by the fact that not many exist. The fact that they allow legacy items to exist but not allow new ones to drop does not prove hypocrisy. What if they feel legacies are balanced by their scarcity and the fact that they can only be removed from the item pool and never added? What if their balance to offset the power of these legacies isn't to nerf them all but to keep their numbers limited?

"

mark1030 wrote:

GGG has made powerful items gated behind rarity. They have set a precedent that they think an OP item can be balanced by the fact that not many exist. The fact that they allow legacy items to exist but not allow new ones to drop does not prove hypocrisy. What if they feel legacies are balanced by their scarcity and the fact that they can only be removed from the item pool and never added? What if their balance to offset the power of these legacies isn't to nerf them all but to keep their numbers limited?

Before I reply in full, I want to clarify something: do you really mean OP, as in overpowered? Or do you mean "best in slot" or "mirror worthy?" Perhaps you mean "otherwise overpowered?"

I think "OP item can be balanced" is a defacto contradiction in terms.

Relevant article about why you don't balance game breaking items by rarity:

http://gamestudies.org/1001/articles/ham

I mean things like uber atziri drops.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Relevant article about why you don't balance game breaking items by rarity:

http://gamestudies.org/1001/articles/ham

I'm not commenting on whether it's a good idea or not. It'm just saying the justification was used by GGG for items like Acuities when they were introduce, so they have a precedent of allowing some items to be balanced by limited numbers.

-