It's time for preleveled/preascended characters to enter the shop or be made available somehow.

"

Turtledove wrote:

It seems to me, that's some pretty convoluted logic. If GGG had more development funds then they could more likely afford to improve the leveling content, is the reality of the situation.

Just as convoluted to assume they'll use those funds to improve leveling content.

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

It seems to me, that's some pretty convoluted logic. If GGG had more development funds then they could more likely afford to improve the leveling content, is the reality of the situation.

Just as convoluted to assume they'll use those funds to improve leveling content.

Just think about it. There's two possibilities here, either they think it should be done or not. If they didn't think improving the leveling content was important then they just plain wouldn't do it no matter what. So we can eliminate that possibility because then it's just plain irrelevant, they're not going to do it. But, if they'd like to improve the leveling content then they just need to have the resources to do it. Saying give them less resources means it is LESS likely they will do it rather than more likely.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

It seems to me, that's some pretty convoluted logic. If GGG had more development funds then they could more likely afford to improve the leveling content, is the reality of the situation.

Just as convoluted to assume they'll use those funds to improve leveling content.

Just think about it. There's two possibilities here, either they think it should be done or not. If they didn't think improving the leveling content was important then they just plain wouldn't do it no matter what. So we can eliminate that possibility because then it's just plain irrelevant, they're not going to do it. But, if they'd like to improve the leveling content then they just need to have the resources to do it. Saying give them less resources means it is LESS likely they will do it rather than more likely.

You have to make the assumption that GGG has the funds to do it as part of their development cycle already (if they didn't they wouldn't be developing new content). What is more likely is that it isn't their priority. Giving people a shortcut therefore would make it even less of a priority, making those extra funds superflous. Now I'm not saying that they wouldn't do it, I'm saying that those extra funds likely have little stake in what they do.

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Just think about it. There's two possibilities here, either they think it should be done or not. If they didn't think improving the leveling content was important then they just plain wouldn't do it no matter what. So we can eliminate that possibility because then it's just plain irrelevant, they're not going to do it. But, if they'd like to improve the leveling content then they just need to have the resources to do it. Saying give them less resources means it is LESS likely they will do it rather than more likely.

You have to make the assumption that GGG has the funds to do it as part of their development cycle already (if they didn't they wouldn't be developing new content). What is more likely is that it isn't their priority. Giving people a shortcut therefore would make it even less of a priority, making those extra funds superflous. Now I'm not saying that they wouldn't do it, I'm saying that those extra funds likely have little stake in what they do.

Here's how software development works after a product has been released and is in the mode where the developers are making enhancements in subsequent periodic releases. They have a list of enhancements that they would like to implement. This list is far larger than what can be done. It is likely looking many releases out into the future and occasionally things will drop off and be added. Anyway, if improving the leveling content is not on the list then we're out of luck, it is not going to get done. If that is the case then the best way to deal with it would be to start a thread "Needed Enhancement for Leveling" or something like that. Then maintain the OP with the suggested enhancements. If it is on the list then there's a better chance of it being implemented the more resources they have. Now I agree that some things might make some things less likely to be implemented but we have to assume that the GGG developers are smart enough to know these pros and cons with/without our input. For example they might have already decided that PoE2 is higher priority than leveling enhancements. Since we can't even see the list, trying to second guess these kind of things is not reasonably possible for us in our position at least that's my point of view.

The point that Ghoul is alluding to, but hasn't explicitly said, is that creating the lvl 60 start eliminates the need to improve the leveling content because it gets skipped anyway. What neither of you have said is that those funds could improve the rest of the game, regardless of the state of leveling.

I've only read the first and last page of the thread, but I think I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that ANY pay2win additions more blatant than stash tabs, and pay2level more than qualifies, will lead to a mass exodus from this game worse than anything we've seen before.

You think all the players leaving due to the Labyrinth is bad? It would be far worse than that.

"The sky is falling" has never been a valid argument for any game. You really should read a lot more than just those two pages, though. There's a lot that your oversimplified view is not addressing.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I've only read the first and last page of the thread, but I think I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that ANY pay2win additions more blatant than stash tabs, and pay2level more than qualifies, will lead to a mass exodus from this game worse than anything we've seen before.

You think all the players leaving due to the Labyrinth is bad? It would be far worse than that.

Please read the rest of the thread. Then come back and explain how people would be "winning," however you choose to define that, by doing this. Nobody has been able to figure that out so far.

"

Jennik wrote:

Please read the rest of the thread. Then come back and explain how people would be "winning," however you choose to define that, by doing this. Nobody has been able to figure that out so far.

By your definition the only time winning was ever sold were the win fireworks then I take it. Pay to win as a concept doesn't require you to "win" anything.

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

"

Jennik wrote:

Please read the rest of the thread. Then come back and explain how people would be "winning," however you choose to define that, by doing this. Nobody has been able to figure that out so far.

By your definition the only time winning was ever sold were the win fireworks then I take it. Pay to win as a concept doesn't require you to "win" anything.

Edit: The question I asked would go nowhere since the answer was obvious. I'll give a more worthwhile response instead.

Let's ignore whatever my definition of pay to win is, as that's completely irrelevant to the conversation. If you believe this is pay to win, first, provide the definition of pay to win you're using. Then explain how this is pay to win according to that definition so that people know what you're talking about.

As I said, nobody has been able to explain how this is pay to win yet. They've made the claim that it is repeatedly, but that claim isn't being supported by actual arguments. It'd be super helpful if somebody would back up this claim.