GGG: Your System encourages RMT and Botting.

"

deteego wrote:

"

Novalisk wrote:

I played D2 from release, I can say from a experience that Blizzard did a lot of nerfs in D2, some more severe than what GGG has ever done.

Example: Arkaine's Valor 1.08 to Arkaine's Valor 1.09+

Yeah, and the nerfs were nothing to do with D2's economy, you missed the central point of what I am saying, which is that D2 was never ever designed, or balanced, with an economy in mind, PoE is.

You have absolutely no way to prove that without a quote from D2's devs.

D2 had dedicated trade chat. D2 had safe trading. D2 had closed battle.net so people couldn't hack in their items. Blizzard went after D2 RMT shops in ebay. Blizzard continuously nerfed items and skills that they deemed too powerful. Blizzard went after duping constantly.

You want to tell me D2 was designed without the economy in mind? The burden of proof is on you.

"

Novalisk wrote:

You have absolutely no way to prove that without a quote from D2's devs.

Their actions speak louder than words, the exact same devs created a clone of D2 which had no economy either, they did this on purpose, have a read of relic's development blogs and forum posts. D2 wasn't a game designed with an economy, "hardcore" and "nolife" players created the economy for themselves. The only reason the game had an economy is because you could trade, just like you can trade in TL2, but none of these games expected people to aquire their items through the economy

"

Novalisk wrote:

D2 had dedicated trade chat. D2 had safe trading. D2 had closed battle.net so people couldn't hack in their items. Blizzard went after D2 RMT shops in ebay. Blizzard continuously nerfed items and skills that they deemed too powerful. Blizzard went after duping constantly.

Uh, none of the stuff you mentioned had anything explicitly to do with economy, unless you are claiming trying to prevent cheating means designing with an economy in mind?

"

Novalisk wrote:

You want to tell me D2 was designed without the economy in mind? The burden of proof is on you.

I just, ffs you couldn't even trade properly because the devs put in a money cap

"

Vincendra wrote:

I DO NOT WANT THIS GAME FALL TO BOTTING OR RMT. Please reconsider your complete RNG system, because "impatient" players will always seek a shortcut through Botting and RMT.

Exactly correct: always. Which means that, if GGG "reduced the RNG," it wouldn't stop RMT at all; it would just mean that RMT sites would charge less per item, and their bots would farm more items per hour.

The only way to "combat" RMT supply-side is to make it so players don't want your items, or want your items less. In order to destroy/reduce their dollar value, you have to destroy/reduce their value, period. Which means: destroy or cripple the gameplay for legit players. What you're proposing is kind of like chemotherapy: poisoning the body in order to poison the cancer. However, RMT is resilient, and chances are such measures would kill the game itself just as quickly as they killed RMT.

The real way to combat RMT is through investigation and punishment of RMT participants. Surgery, not chemotherapy.

"

DirkAustin wrote:

You are doing it wrong. You are not supposed to have a main char. You gotta have many chars and have fun actually playing the game instead of playing the trading or crafting game.

Although I agree that this is a viable way to alleviate the issues which OP complains about, I feel rather strongly that it isn't something GGG should force upon its players. A lot of players are one-character players, and that isn't a playstyle we should be persecuting. Plus, OP mentioned that he is a racer, he just doesn't feel like rerolling multiple characters in each league.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Exactly correct: always. Which means that, if GGG "reduced the RNG," it wouldn't stop RMT at all; it would just mean that RMT sites would charge less per item, and their bots would farm more items per hour.

Actually it would, RMT's only work when based on one principle (assuming the game intentionally isn't designed with RMT in mind)

The difficulty and/or time versus reward ratio, and how well the game can be botted due to gameplay design. If it takes too much time to progress in the game and/or players do not see effective rewards for their time, they turn to RMT, plain and simple

Want an example, have a look at TL2. Has as much "trading" as PoE explicitly designed into the game, however PoE completely relies on trading for the endgame, TL2 doesn't.

Difference?

In TL2 you can acquire almost all gear you need, self found. Reward is simply and obvious there, crafting is deterministic, so even if you don't get the loot you don't want, there is a way around this

"

JohnNamikaze wrote:

TL2 is not a good example since I can easily dupe items from in-game command prompt. TL2 is mostly aim for offine gaming.

Most people don't even know that duping exists. Its still a legitimate example if you actually read what the relic devs posted about designing their game (who for anyone who doesn't know, are the original creates of D1/D2, aka blizzard north)

EDIT:

Heck even better example, if TL2 cared about the economy, they wouldn't even implemented duping, and the game wouldn't have client side items like D2

"

deteego wrote:

Their actions speak louder than words, the exact same devs created a clone of D2 which had no economy either, they did this on purpose, have a read of relic's development blogs and forum posts. D2 wasn't a game designed with an economy, "hardcore" and "nolife" players created the economy for themselves. The only reason the game had an economy is because you could trade, just like you can trade in TL2, but none of these games expected people to aquire their items through the economy

A handful of D2's dev team over the years and their design philosophy of TL2 doesn't tell you about how D2 was designed. D2 may have started as a trade-less game before I started playing, but on release it already had trade support, and Blizzard continuously added more economy support like adjusting the rarity of high runes, nerfing popular MF builds, banning players for using mods like maphacks, and so on.

"

deteego wrote:

"

Novalisk wrote:

D2 had dedicated trade chat. D2 had safe trading. D2 had closed battle.net so people couldn't hack in their items. Blizzard went after D2 RMT shops in ebay. Blizzard continuously nerfed items and skills that they deemed too powerful. Blizzard went after duping constantly.

Uh, none of the stuff you mentioned had anything explicitly to do with economy, unless you are claiming trying to prevent cheating means designing with an economy in mind?

You just stated GGG nerfed builds because "RMT'ers were farming with them", but when Blizzard does it it's to "prevent cheating"? Get real. In a game without an economy, what does it matter if players cheat? TL2, your own example of a self-found game, lets players cheat.

"

deteego wrote:

I just, ffs you couldn't even trade properly because the devs put in a money cap

Gold actually meant something back when gambling in D2 was worth-while. By the time blizzard nerfed gambling, people were already trading in SoJ's and perfect skulls. And later on blizzard added runes which replaced SoJ's as the new currency.

"

Novalisk wrote:

A handful of D2's dev team over the years and their design philosophy of TL2 doesn't tell you about how D2 was designed. D2 may have started as a trade-less game before I started playing, but on release it already had trade support, and Blizzard continuously added more economy support like adjusting the rarity of high runes, nerfing popular MF builds, banning players for using mods like maphacks, and so on.

None of those things explicitly have anything to do with economy. Blizzard has always had a harsh stance on cheaters, regardless if their game has an economy or not. Blizzard was just as harsh in wc3 in regards to map hacks and banning players, guess what, that game had no economy to speak of (and yes, they also did balance Wc3)

Unless you think balancing games means that they have an economy :/

"

Novalisk wrote:

You just stated GGG nerfed builds because "RMT'ers were farming with them", but when Blizzard does it it's to "prevent cheating"? Get real. In a game without an economy, what does it matter if players cheat? TL2, your own example of a self-found game, lets players cheat.

Uh, map hacks and banning players for breaking the rules (i.e. cheating) has nothing to do with the economy. Get back to me when you know what you are arguing about.

When I see D2 nerfing drop rates from chests because its too easy for bots to farm from them, then you can legitimately say they cared about an economy. When they create artificial sinks so players don't get overloaded with currency, then you can claim they cared about the economy.

"

deteego wrote:

Gold actually meant something back when gambling in D2 was worth-while. By the time blizzard nerfed gambling, people were already trading in SoJ's and perfect skulls. And later on blizzard added runes which replaced SoJ's as the new currency.

This isn't proving your point at all, if Blizzard North wanted to make D2 a game with an economy, they would have removed the gold limit. Its an incredibly trivial change that would take one day at most . Trading SoJ's was something that the top 1% of players did amongst themselves, D2 devs didn't give a shit about it

EDIT:
Heck, even further, they would have implemented currencies, like copper/silver/gold, to make it easier to trade in bundles

Trade support has nothing to do with economy? Nerfing popular MF builds has nothing to do with economy? Banning players for using farm tools like map hacks that don't affect other players has nothing to do with economy? But GGG nerfing skills has 100% to do with botters, right?

Item sinks? D2 invented the ladder system, the most efficient item sink ever created.

"

Novalisk wrote:

Trade support has nothing to do with economy? Nerfing popular MF builds has nothing to do with economy? Banning players for using farm tools like map hacks that don't affect other players has nothing to do with economy? But GGG nerfing skills has 100% to do with botters, right?

Item sinks? D2 invented the ladder system, the most efficient item sink ever created.

Read what I said, none of those things have anything explicitly to do with an economy. Do you understand what the definition of the word explicitly means? Those nerfs were not done with the intention of stabilizing an economy. PoE's changes were. You think every single change is an "economy" change, you are wrong

The nerf in drop rate to chests/jars is a very good example, because that change has nothing to do with single player play and everything to do with the economy, because the only reason such a nerf was ever done is because botters are able to just run through areas and break every single jar/open every chest, which is much more efficient then playing the game (to get loot). This caused massive economy inflation

Honestly get off your high horse, when the original designers of D2 said that they designed their game to be played, with no economy (and they said this in relevance to D3), they bloody meant it, and they had the exact same thoughts in mind when they made D2

If D2 was made with an economy in mind then,

1. There would have been no gold limit
2. There would have made decimaled or grouped currencies (like 100 copper = 1 silver) to make trading easier
3. It would have been, more or less, unable to progress well on self found (major difference between D2 and PoE)

The fact that blizzard banned people is no indication they cared about trading, its an indication they cared about forcing people to legitimately play their game

You are ignoring what the original D1/D2 developers said about their game design and philosophy, the people that actually created D2. Just because some people (and its obvious you are one of those people) lived in their own bubble where they created an economy, doesn't mean that the D2 devs, when they design D2, sat down and said, "this game is going to have an economy, where we expect people to acquire items primarily through trading at some stage of the game"