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

"

Casual_Ascent wrote:

"

Raudram wrote:

Why does this thread even exist?

Because it's a suggestion sub-forum.

Precisely, this isn't offtopic to be making jokes.

"

I find my posts in this thread quite relevant, if you do not, that is an issue with you, not the quality of my posts.

There is no "quality" behind ignoring the discussion. Especially when you're effectively trying to derail it.


~~~


Goetz,

"

So you are going to acknowledge that this is 100% just for players of standard, because the amount of temp league players that would play all 7 characters to 80 is likely the same or less then the amount of people that play in standard, which according to GGG can be no greater then 20%.

I don't play standard at all and I want this feature. The number of people who play a given mode is not really relevant to the feature itself, except that I don't see this feature coexisting with HC due to conflict of interest.

"

Just compromising over and over and over again creates a game that neither casuals nor hardcore players are interested in.

This is a wonky type of Slippery Slope argument. Some games do have a good mix of content for both hardcore and casuals. D3 and Warframe both come to mind. No game is perfect, but at least they make the effort.

"

I mean your issue correlates to your specific playstyle moreso then an issue with the process.

This is close to an ad hominem argument sans the typical insult. It's a mistake to think I'm the only one who feels this way about it. As I stated before, I'm part of a demographic that finds this to be an issue with the game. It's not very different from the demographic of super hardcore progression grinders finding not enough to do in end game. And yes, it IS boring to do the same thing repeatedly too many times. That's exactly what I was saying. That's why we want a way to skip past it once we have shown mastery over it.

"

Jennik wrote:

"

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.

Why do so many people have trouble understanding what pay2win is? It's very simple, and always has been.

"Real-life money gives an in-game advantage." Bam! Done. It's not that hard, see?

The more interesting question is, "Why is pay2win considered almost universally undesirable?"

This is more complicated, but it's also not so hard to understand: Once in-game success is linked in any way to real-life income, most people begin to feel that their in-game efforts are devalued, and to an extreme extent for anyone living in an industrialized country. Furthermore, many people begin to have a different perspective on the game, where any gains therein have an equivalent real-life currency value. Both of these things KILL all the fun connected to in-game success (especially acquisition of in-game wealth and/or status). Also wallet VS. wallet is rarely fun for anyone, though a game with zero PvP, even a game with no multiplayer whatsoever, is not immune to the phenomenon.

So we can ask what kinds of pay2win are tolerable, based on the second question above (stash tabs, for example, are tolerated by most PoE players for exactly this reason), but tolerable pay2win doesn't magically become not pay2win.

In practice, with the exception of stash tabs all of PoE's microtransactions are cosmetic, which give no in-game advantage. It has been a bragging point for them for a long time, one which they are unlikely to be willing to give up.

Regarding whether or not the OP's suggestion is pay2win, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Does the instant level-up provide an in-game advantage?
2. Does the instant level-up cost real-life money?

If the answers to both of those questions are "yes," then it is indeed pay2win. If the answer to even one of those questions is "no," then it is not pay2win.

Pretty simple, really. I think people just like to complicate the whole thing in order to avoid facing certain truths.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Pretty simple, really. I think people just like to complicate the whole thing in order to avoid facing certain truths.

I think that a common way of thinking here is :
If paying with real money makes you significantly better at the game, it is p2w.
Because and advantage that basically does not matter much is not that big of a concern.

That's how I see it.

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

"

I find my posts in this thread quite relevant, if you do not, that is an issue with you, not the quality of my posts.

There is no "quality" behind ignoring the discussion. Especially when you're effectively trying to derail it.


~~~


Goetz,

"

So you are going to acknowledge that this is 100% just for players of standard, because the amount of temp league players that would play all 7 characters to 80 is likely the same or less then the amount of people that play in standard, which according to GGG can be no greater then 20%.

I don't play standard at all and I want this feature. The number of people who play a given mode is not really relevant to the feature itself, except that I don't see this feature coexisting with HC due to conflict of interest.

"

Just compromising over and over and over again creates a game that neither casuals nor hardcore players are interested in.

This is a wonky type of Slippery Slope argument. Some games do have a good mix of content for both hardcore and casuals. D3 and Warframe both come to mind. No game is perfect, but at least they make the effort.

"

I mean your issue correlates to your specific playstyle moreso then an issue with the process.

This is close to an ad hominem argument sans the typical insult. It's a mistake to think I'm the only one who feels this way about it. As I stated before, I'm part of a demographic that finds this to be an issue with the game. It's not very different from the demographic of super hardcore progression grinders finding not enough to do in end game. And yes, it IS boring to do the same thing repeatedly too many times. That's exactly what I was saying. That's why we want a way to skip past it once we have shown mastery over it.

Then I give you permission to ignore my posts that are relevant to the op, and will continue my discussion with those people who wish to discuss. "It's time for pre-leveled/ pre ascended characters to enter the cash shop". that is the title of the thread , and no matter where you may have decided to try and take things, it is still the topic.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Pretty simple, really. I think people just like to complicate the whole thing in order to avoid facing certain truths.

I think that a common way of thinking here is :
If paying with real money makes you significantly better at the game, it is p2w.
Because and advantage that basically does not matter much is not that big of a concern.

That's how I see it.

Sounds like a pretty arbitrary (=completely subjective) definition to me, making it far less useful.

The definition I stated above is both widely accepted and not arbitrary. People just like to muddy it up so they can claim that their suggestion "is not pay2win, man. It doesn't help *that* much, so get your pay2win argument out of here!"

That definition is too broad to be useful, and we're not talking about it as a paid for feature anymore anyway. We are discussing its merits as an unlocked feature through some combination of game progress, character levels, challenge completion, etc.

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

That definition is too broad to be useful, and we're not talking about it as a paid for feature anymore anyway. We are discussing its merits as an unlocked feature through some combination of game progress, character levels, challenge completion, etc.

I guess some people are also trying to make the suggestion as tolerable p2w as the stashtabs are. Still don't get why stashtabs are more tolerable than this suggestion. The in game advantage you get and the achievement of accumulating currency becomes as easy as taking candy from a baby.

In terms of making this a free for all unlockable, i think it has less of a chance of being implemented than the "as p2w as stashtabs" version. Hypothetically though, since it is a free for all unlockable, it needs to be insanely hard to unlock, like by killing merc malachai solo self found in hardcore (without using p2w stashtabs :P). What do you guys think?

This suggestion will never ever happen and it SHOULD never happen.

Why you may ask? I'm not talking about pay2win or pay for convinience.
What I mean is, that it would be unfair for those who can't buy pre-leveled characters over and over again.

Now you may ask: Why would that be unfair if it's not pay2win or pay for convinience?
It's quite simple: As soon as GGG implements this, GGG has no reason to improve the leveling experience from 1-60 anymore. That means everyone who can't afford to buy a preleveled character is forced to play the boring content and GGG will probably never change anything about that, since people can buy (money talks) lvl 60 characters if they want to skip the boring content.

So instead of demanding pre-leveled characters, we should seriously think about making the leveling-process itself much more interesting and more rewarding. A player shouldn't think "leveling to 60 again, great~...", he should think "Ok, lets do it again".

For example:
- You can earn a map piece after finishing an act (map piece is random)
- That means 4 map pieces per difficulty
- If you manage to finish a difficulty, you should have a complete set for one map
- There are 3 different treasure maps, depending on the difficulty
- Those treasure maps are not exactly hard to play (not much harder then other tier 1-3 maps)

Now lets explain what those maps do:
- Map from normal difficulty: 100% quantity, 500% rarity, map size is twice as big as normal maps with twice as many enemies (especially, many magic/rare/unique monsters)
- Map from cruel difficulty: 200% quantity, 750% rarity, map size is twice as big as normal maps with twice as many enemies (especially, many magic/rare/unique monsters)
- Map from merciless difficulty: 300% quantity, 900% rarity, map size is twice as big as normal maps with twice as many enemies (especially, many magic/rare/unique monsters)

The reason behind this scaling is, that people shouldn't just farm normal difficulty for a great map, the cruel and merciless maps must be much better, so players invest the time to get these map pieces. The advantage of this would be, that the lvl 1-60 playthrough would bre rewarding, since these maps would have a VERY high chance for good drops. You could also sell the map pieces for good currency.