Game needs Eternals back (and here's why) |Petition|

It feels like the big mismatch, in short, is that we want gear to be random upgrades, but we want our links to be static progression.

Links mean too much and skill/supports (aside from +chaos, enl/enh/emp, portal, det mines) are non-RNG acquired.

Ex. I can live with a weapon that does less damage but hits faster (ultimately higher dps) and makes me adjust to better on-hit effects (like life gain on hit as opposed to leech, flat damage as opposed to %damage, shocking). I can't live with going from a 5L to a 4L on my main skill unless the upgrade is like 40% MORE damage.

Ex. I can live with a body armor that gives me a ton of life and means I can swap my rings and gloves around for deeps, but not if the body armor goes from a 6L to a 4L (see also: why Tabula is used all over the fucking place).

Eternal-on-sockets-only orbs (and schemes like socket/link entropy, or being able to "move sockets" between items, or a million other things) could smooth out the socket and link progression, but first GGG has to really acknowledge that it's a core design problem.

And note that none of this has anything to do with affixes on rares. Seriously... endless amounts of confusion.

I didn't answer to you about the rare affixes, keep up. That was just a general comment, about something they should do if they really did not want the old eternals in game.

Do everyone on these forums read to misunderstand/talk smack without really reading/general slow minds you need to babysit every thought before they can keep up? Geez :D

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

It's also funny to see you guys saying that drop rate should dictate price. Clearly that's not true, and hence you shouldn't use rarity as a measure of power...

That's not what was said at all. There are many things that dictate price.

Chris said that they realised eternals were too powerful with exalt crafting, before they released them.

They naively balanced them by rarity. But that never was going to address the issue.

It's precisely because rarity doesn't solely dictate price that the balancing measure failed, that eternals were still too strong and why, as I said, "you can actually achieve items whose power reflects several times the amount of time you invest into acquiring the crafting materials" because you can circumvent the time factor and pay a cost that no where near reflects it.

Come on man, the whole point is that it's not easy to measure an item's power. So saying "you can achieve power [...] several times the amount of time you invest" is so simplistic. You're literally defining power as time to acquire and using that as your argument.

And "pay a cost that no where near reflects" is precisely my point about you saying scracity should dictate cost. No it shouldn't... A 99.9% percentile item is 500x as rare as a 95% percentile item, but it is in no possible world 500x as powerful.

In my opinion an items power is the delta it brings to your character's ability to perform the tasks you find important. In PoE there's a further BiS premium which some people are willing to pay, and others ignore. So even though Glyph Mark and Brood Twine have similar power, Brood Twine is 2x the price. Similar story with Onslaught Barb vs Foe Bite.

Without mirrors, eternals would be a money sink for perfectionists. By definition no one would pay a premium above crafting costs. Also they wouldn't drastically change the item power curve by any definition other than "time to acquire," which is a pointless definition.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

And "pay a cost that no where near reflects" is precisely my point about you saying scracity should dictate cost. No it shouldn't... A 99.9% percentile item is 500x as rare as a 95% percentile item, but it is in no possible world 500x as powerful.

That statement doesn't make a lot of sense. The 99.9% percentile item could be more powerful, less powerful, or as powerful as the 95% item, but GGG chose (pretty logically, I assume) that more powerful items should be more rare. But in principle, rarity and power are not directly connected: A 6socket completely unlinked item is AFAIK about as rare as a 6link, but obviously a lot less powerful. On the other hand, an Ice Tomb is probably not even 500x more common than a Shavs, but if you want to make a low life build, the Shavs is probably 500x more powerful (depends on how you measure power).

However, if we take the Exalt as the 95% percentile item and the Mirror as the 99.9% percentile item, and your goal is to get the BIS rares for your character, the Mirror is probably more than 500x as powerful as the Exalt, because on Standard, with a Mirror you can produce (clone) a BIS rare item, while with 500 Exalts you cannot produce such an item. You can do other things with the Exalt, though.

Eternals were mainly used for 6T1 crafting. For that specific purpose, they were as powerful as tens, if not hundreds of Exalts. And as Anuhart said, their price did not nearly reflect this power.

Out of curiosity, Anuhart: What did you use your Eternals on (if at all)?

Grant, I don't mind discussing subjects like this and you're welcome to your own opinion, but repeatedly telling me to change my thread name because it is a big lie and I'm trying to screw the population over is not going to get you a nice response from really anyone. Nevertheless, I apologize for comparing your behavior to a monkey's, that was inappropriate.

Now that we're back on track, I would in fact be willing to give up mirrors to bring Eternals back. I really don't care about finishing my crafts for profit reasons, for me it's just about perfecting my build. If I'm RT I wish the best sword wasn't a mirrored crit based one, seems silly you know? We're in a cookie cutter meta where one item is the best for literally everything.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

It's also funny to see you guys saying that drop rate should dictate price. Clearly that's not true, and hence you shouldn't use rarity as a measure of power...

That's not what was said at all. There are many things that dictate price.

Chris said that they realised eternals were too powerful with exalt crafting, before they released them.

They naively balanced them by rarity. But that never was going to address the issue.

It's precisely because rarity doesn't solely dictate price that the balancing measure failed, that eternals were still too strong and why, as I said, "you can actually achieve items whose power reflects several times the amount of time you invest into acquiring the crafting materials" because you can circumvent the time factor and pay a cost that no where near reflects it.

Come on man, the whole point is that it's not easy to measure an item's power. So saying "you can achieve power [...] several times the amount of time you invest" is so simplistic. You're literally defining power as time to acquire and using that as your argument.

And "pay a cost that no where near reflects" is precisely my point about you saying scracity should dictate cost. No it shouldn't... A 99.9% percentile item is 500x as rare as a 95% percentile item, but it is in no possible world 500x as powerful.

In my opinion an items power is the delta it brings to your character's ability to perform the tasks you find important. In PoE there's a further BiS premium which some people are willing to pay, and others ignore. So even though Glyph Mark and Brood Twine have similar power, Brood Twine is 2x the price. Similar story with Onslaught Barb vs Foe Bite.

Without mirrors, eternals would be a money sink for perfectionists. By definition no one would pay a premium above crafting costs. Also they wouldn't drastically change the item power curve by any definition other than "time to acquire," which is a pointless definition.

Why are you arguing the point.

Fact: Eternals were tested prior to release (where they were set as ~exalt drop rate/cost on the internal servers) and were found to be too strong in combination with exalts.

Fact: GGG then balanced them by reducing the drop rate 50 fold, expecting this would reflect in the cost.

Fact: It didn't reflect in the cost, the community valued them at like 2 ex.

Fact: Crafters were still able to acquire enough, because the cost didn't reflect 'balance' of rarity.

Fact: Rare items were crafted too strong, too soon, too cheap.

There is no arguing this, it comes from the horses mouth.

Where was it posted that Eternals were 50 times rarer than exalts? When Eternals were around I found 3 exalts and 2 Eternals in that entire time. So Eternals being 50 times rarer doesn't add up to me. Maybe just RNG though.

"

Char1983 wrote:

Out of curiosity, Anuhart: What did you use your Eternals on (if at all)?

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Why are you arguing the point.

Fact: Eternals were tested prior to release (where they were set as ~exalt drop rate/cost on the internal servers) and were found to be too strong in combination with exalts.

Fact: GGG then balanced them by reducing the drop rate 50 fold, expecting this would reflect in the cost.

Fact: It didn't reflect in the cost, the community valued them at like 2 ex.

Fact: Crafters were still able to acquire enough, because the cost didn't reflect 'balance' of rarity.

Fact: Rare items were crafted too strong, too soon, too cheap.

There is no arguing this, it comes from the horses mouth.

Ahaha, this really entertained me. You really crossed the line there and failed hardcore in thinking.



Are you familiar with basic economic thought?

What happens to the price of ANY good, when the supply drops substantially?

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Yet the eternal orb drop rate was ~50 times rarer than that of an exalt. OK, sure, if it took you 400,000 hours to get the eternals and craft the item (based on the drop rate of eternals and using 200). 400,000 hours of nothing but killing monsters, 110 years at 10 hours per day, OK the item you crafted reflected the amount of time you spent.

That's the problem. Chris explained the problem. Eternals were allowing people to craft too strong items too quick.

This is a specious argument and I'm surprised you raise it on Chris' behalf.

If we look at most issues, there's a base and a pillar. The apex of the pillar is the existence or otherwise of mirrors or eternals, with the reliance on trade and the effect on itemisation of players trading sitting below that, but the base of the issue is whether itemisation in this game is currently reasonable through the various means available to players.

If it takes you 4 billion hours to get to the best of a single type of item through any particular means, that means may as well be removed. That means is mirrors, at this stage, and it takes less than that amount but still an ever-attenuating amount of time. In future there will be no means if we presume that affixes will get upped again, because there won't be enough eternals to make that new perfect item. Which would raise the question as to why a perfect item should even exist in theory.

As a case in point, someone has a perfect Rebuke of the Vaal. Who gives a flying fuck? It means nothing to players nor to the game itself other than to exist as an extreme oddity for a single person out of hundreds of thousands who gets to flash around an item that probably shouldn't have existed for a few more millennia. And it's not even a good item in any case.

The game is about *I*. If I can't self-craft a perfect item because of self-imposed limitations like yours, that's one thing. But if I can't because it's effectively impossible, why not just remove the possibility of an item being that good and make 600 pdps the new highest damage for a two hander but make hitting 450-550 damage a lot easier?

Fundamentally, Chris and the team need to decide whether perfect should exist purely as dumb luck or something that's available through crafting potentially to all players but realistically only to few (because trade). The decision on eternals and mirrors flows logically from that.