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

A higher level requirement won't be enough to mitigate abusive use of the mechanic I think. It's hard to tell, but one thing I know for a fact is that if there's potential for abuse, it will be abused. I can see someone leveling as left side flame totem to 70 so they can buy a level 60 ranger and a bow. Stuff like that. And not doing it would put you at a disadvantage.

I'm not saying there isn't a level where it would be unrealistic to abuse it in such a way, but I'm certain somebody would try and probably succeed at doing something like this, SOMEHOW.
my evasion is so high i only insta rip sometimes
-----
Bug Fixes:
People were using cyclone for actual melee builds, so we nerfed it and made blade vortex. Also, we went ahead and made cyclone great for CoC casters while we were at it.
How is it abusive to slog it enjoyably up to (insert level here) and finally get to have a little bit of fun experimenting with builds?

It's a video game. For fun. Entertainment.
"
Jennik wrote:
"
gibbousmoon wrote:

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?



This may blow your mind, but not every person in the world shares your definition of pay to win. I know, crazy, right? But that's how it is.

I don't find your personal definition to be useful, since it isn't about the competitive aspect of games. If you check around, you'll see that the vast majority of people who complain about pay to win aspects of games are purely interested in how it affects competition. Many conclusions drawn from your definition will not be useful due to this. That would include your complaints about this feature.

If you care to defend your belief that pay to win by your definition is a bad thing, please explain why allowing Jimmy to pay money so that Jimmy can improve his personal experience without gaining a relevant advantage over anyone else is a bad thing. I expect you will have trouble with this. Maybe you'll surprise me. We'll see.


I disagree with your premise that a personal definition even exists in any useful sense. I'm only interested in a word's denotation*. The word "pay2win" has a very long history of referring to any paid feature (generally anything not purely cosmetic) which provides an in-game advantage over other players. Trying to create new "personal definitions" is exactly the illegitimate practice I am shitting on. It was the entire point of my post.

"
If you care to defend your belief that pay to win by your definition is a bad thing


While I do believe that, that is not what I said. I said that it is widely considered a bad thing. While I respect your (and any other) minority opinion on the matter, the reasons I agree with most people are already stated in the post you partially quoted. But I will summarize in a way that applies most generally to all games:

Games are designed and balanced around the availability of certain resources to the average player.

And that's it, really. No other reason. Because once particular resources can be paid for with real money, everything else is influenced. You know the people in this thread who are worried that pre-paid leveled up characters will influence GGG's desire to make low-level gameplay, uniques, skill gem level-up dynamics, areas, etc. better? Yeah, they're talking about that one single sentence.

It all trickles down.

"
without gaining a relevant advantage


See, now you are putting words in my mouth. If there is no advantage to be gained, then it isn't pay2win, see? But I already said that. So the burden of proof is on you to explain why leveled-up characters which are paid for with real money does not provide ANY in-game advantage over another player spending no money. Good luck with that.



*denotation (n): "the explicit or direct meaning or set of meanings of a word or expression, as distinguished from the ideas or meanings associated with it or suggested by it; the association or set of associations that a word usually elicits for most speakers of a language, as distinguished from those elicited for any individual speaker because of personal experience." (Random House)
Wash your hands, Exile!
"
Casual_Ascent wrote:
How is it abusive to slog it enjoyably up to (insert level here) and finally get to have a little bit of fun experimenting with builds?

It's a video game. For fun. Entertainment.


You're really failing to see the big picture, and your own failure isn't my problem. I already spelled it out explicitly once.
my evasion is so high i only insta rip sometimes
-----
Bug Fixes:
People were using cyclone for actual melee builds, so we nerfed it and made blade vortex. Also, we went ahead and made cyclone great for CoC casters while we were at it.
Last edited by Legatus1982#1658 on Jul 8, 2016, 10:34:16 PM
That not a failure on his part. There is no abuse in leveling up to 80 to unlock the feature, then LOSING 20 LEVELS to make a new one. By that logic, it's abusive to even create level 1 alts. Everyone should just play bad builds, or builds that aren't very effective at end game. Yep, that's the way it should be done. Absolutely.

*facepalm*
Tired of trolls? Ignore them.
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1473168
Last edited by Albinosaurus#7360 on Jul 8, 2016, 10:50:54 PM
"
Legatus1982 wrote:
"
Casual_Ascent wrote:
How is it abusive to slog it enjoyably up to (insert level here) and finally get to have a little bit of fun experimenting with builds?

It's a video game. For fun. Entertainment.


You're really failing to see the big picture, and your own failure isn't my problem. I already spelled it out explicitly once.


My own failure? Please explain.
"
Albinosaurus wrote:
Again, I never said not to trade. However, if they are worried about what some level 60 guy is doing, they already lost the chance to be at the top of the ladder

You are soo wrong.
2 Weeks flashback HC perandus race :
Hvc rip at 91
Hvc rip at 89
Hvc is the first to reach lvl 100.

See ?

By allowing a player to instant lvl 60 if one of hist char is > 80, or even 90, you have just removed many hours of play to his way to the first place.
That's only a HC point of course.

And as said a bit earlier, there will be ways to exploit this, instant reroll an ideal character to farm dried lake maybe, or whatever.

Stop splitting hair with you supposed "economic philosophy" .... people are people, and the majority of them will take the easiest / more rewarding way they can find, and that is trading, and that implies competition.

PoE is a game, you can use than to tell people ( mostly raging ones ) to chill and stop getting carried away that much by a game, but it's basically irrelevant in a discussion about the balance of the game.
This is why in this case, it is a strawman.

And you are not just really asking for compromise, instant way to level 60 is already a part of the cherry on top of the cake already.



"
Casual_Ascent wrote:
My own failure? Please explain.

honestly, many things have already been said in this thread, I would invite you to re-read it, but it would be pointless I guess.
I would not want to go through those pages again either tbh.

Anyway, I don't see GGG implementing such a thing ever ( might be wrong ofc, the game is already so much freaking easier than what it used to be ), so I don't think that it's actually usefull to keep discussing here, especially seing how the conversation is going.
SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
Just trying to come up with ideas to help keep people other than the 1%ers around, playing, having fun, spending money, telling their friends, etc.

No hate
"
Casual_Ascent wrote:
Just trying to come up with ideas to help keep people other than the 1%ers around, playing, having fun, spending money, telling their friends, etc.

No hate

Just thinking that this proposal belongs to a 1% player population and it would not benefit the 99% of the playerbase.
SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
"
Fruz wrote:
"
Casual_Ascent wrote:
Just trying to come up with ideas to help keep people other than the 1%ers around, playing, having fun, spending money, telling their friends, etc.

No hate

Just thinking that this proposal belongs to a 1% player population and it would not benefit the 99% of the playerbase.


It really would benefit.

It would give people who normally wouldn't bother an actual reason to strive for level 70 (or whatever).

Many casuals want to fool around with many characters, but don't bother because of the time involved.

Once they've played through the game once, it's over because of the slog of doing it over and over again... slowly.

It benefits the 1%ers too, as they're going to have more lowbie players around to buy their high ilvl stuff from the places the lowbies never access anyway.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info