Self found can use a bit of love

It's silly to say no-trade leagues are impossible for GGG to implement. They have. They will again.

It would, however, be unwise to create permanent or multi-month self-found leagues. If the problem is that there are people with food who are well-fed, and people who are starving, the solution is not to remove the well-fed people. The only two rationales I've seen behind such a suggestion are
1. to implement a different, separate form of bread, and
2. to allow self-found players to be competitive ladder racers.

The right way to go is "self-found" fixes which apply to the entire continuum of trade frequency. There are players who never trade, players who barely trade, players who trade a little, players who trade a lot, and players who don't even farm (bro). There are players who trade gear prolifically but never trade maps. Solutions should address more than the tiny, extremist niche at the far end of the self-found spectrum.

I wouldn't be against separate ladders to rank players who endure particular self-restrictions, however. A self-found ladder is fine. An unascended ladder is also fine (and could probably be implemented by a third party without GGG intervention). Maybe some others. But no special compensation is deserved.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

It's OK to not trade for maps, you just have to use the right terminology when complaining about it.

For eg:
If you say "The map system sucks for self-found players", GGG won't seem to care.
If you say "The map system sucks for sustaining maps", GGG will seem to care a lot, and will release like 50 patches to try to get the balance right. Even though 'sustaining' maps yourself is exactly the same as playing self-found.

This isn't true at all. When you're trying to self-sustain maps, the rolling goal is "do not run out of maps of relevant tier" which means you roll MUCH higher than "expected return of 1 relevant-tier map on average" to avoid the failure state; you need better than break-even odds. When you trade for maps, the rolling goal is "generate more market value than currency invested," which means you shouldn't be rolling your maps to nearly as high of a standard; you only need break-even odds. This is a HUGE difference in rolling philosophy.

If that represented how players think and play, then I would agree with you. However, it doesn't. When most people talk about sustaining maps, they usually don't consider trading for them. Sure, there are people who do trade for maps, of course. But if you look at the threads people post that GGG seem to take interest in, they all talk about 'sustaining' maps by just getting map drops.

If you ask for advice about how to sustain maps, how many people will suggest that you trade for them? If you answered 'zero' - you're correct! They will all post about their alc-n-go strategies, or which maps to chisel etc...
If you make a post saying that maps are too hard to sustain, how many players will reply saying the game is balanced around trading? Again, the answer is practically nobody. People will reply saying they agree with you, or that you just need to roll your maps better, etc...
Who says "just buy some maps if you run out"? <- people replying in self-found threads, that's who. It's the only time people even think of it.

Most people play pseudo self-found when it comes to their map pool, they just don't acknowledge it.

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

It's OK to not trade for maps, you just have to use the right terminology when complaining about it.

For eg:
If you say "The map system sucks for self-found players", GGG won't seem to care.
If you say "The map system sucks for sustaining maps", GGG will seem to care a lot, and will release like 50 patches to try to get the balance right. Even though 'sustaining' maps yourself is exactly the same as playing self-found.

This isn't true at all. When you're trying to self-sustain maps, the rolling goal is "do not run out of maps of relevant tier" which means you roll MUCH higher than "expected return of 1 relevant-tier map on average" to avoid the failure state; you need better than break-even odds. When you trade for maps, the rolling goal is "generate more market value than currency invested," which means you shouldn't be rolling your maps to nearly as high of a standard; you only need break-even odds. This is a HUGE difference in rolling philosophy.

If that represented how players think and play, then I would agree with you. However, it doesn't. When most people talk about sustaining maps, they usually don't consider trading for them. Sure, there are people who do trade for maps, of course. But if you look at the threads people post that GGG seem to take interest in, they all talk about 'sustaining' maps by just getting map drops.

If you ask for advice about how to sustain maps, how many people will suggest that you trade for them? If you answered 'zero' - you're correct! They will all post about their alc-n-go strategies, or which maps to chisel etc...
If you make a post saying that maps are too hard to sustain, how many players will reply saying the game is balanced around trading? Again, the answer is practically nobody. People will reply saying they agree with you, or that you just need to roll your maps better, etc...
Who says "just buy some maps if you run out"? <- people replying in self-found threads, that's who. It's the only time people even think of it.

Most people play pseudo self-found when it comes to their map pool, they just don't acknowledge it.

Yep, pretty much. I mean, I've suggested people trade for them, but 1 isn't much more than 0.

The way supply and demand works, this means it's really advantageous to roll low on maps you've traded for. Looking at the market for buying maps and contrasting that with the widely accepted rolling advice is essentially proof that what you're saying is true.

"

I know it to be true because CW himself has confirmed it.
You should think before doubting your superiors.

source ?

let's see ....

Still no self found improvements in the new patch. GGG, fixing the problems listed in the OP will improve the game for all players, but to a greater degree will remove the extreme awfulness for self found players. Please make POE a game we can all enjoy. Stop forcing us to trade in order to have a non-awful POE experience.

"

Jgizle wrote:

What part of the games design dont you understand? This game is balanced around trading. This game is balanced around trading. This game is balanced around trading.

This game is balanced around trading, but everybody has to use 3rd party tools, because in-game trading features simply suck?
Public stash tabs are (relatively) recent addition, but the game was balanced around trading before nevertheless.
If they want to balance PoE around trade, they should've given us interface to trade without jumping trough 3rd party hoops...

"

Telzen wrote:

What improvements could they make for self found play that doesn't effect the economy for everyone else? Self found is already easier than its ever been, you remember the time before gem vendors and all the buffs they did for unique drops right?

You say this as though self found players should be grateful and just shut up and walk away. Self found/loot only is still in a bad place and can stand improvement to the benefit of all.

Most of the naysayers are chiming in because they imagine their precious trading will come crashing to a halt; that is the whole premiss of their argument. Claiming you play self found yourself does you no favours as it is obvious you do not.

POE is not a game based around trade, it is an ARPG(action role playing game) where players develop characters using game loot and the skill tree to try and take on the challenges provided by the game. The game offers some provision in game for those players who wish to trade. However, third party sites have changed certain player expectations and the balance of the game, with many planning endgame play and builds around the rarest uniques available.

The trouble is, trading has become endemic, a crutch, with high level play being near impossible without it. We have even reached a state where some players live solely for farming gear for trade, whose idea of endgame is amassing ever larger piles of currency while losing sight of the arpg elements altogether. Yet others who cannot get through the game without trading for items to gear up, and that is a very sad state of affairs.

"

Hexcaliber wrote:

POE is not a game based around trade, it is an ARPG where players develop characters with the tools at hand and try to take on the challenges provided by the game

Which are not mutually exclusive.

PoE is a game designed around trade, you like it or not.
Chris said it, the most important aspect of PoE for him is the economy.