A Veteran's Proposal for a Self Found League - Poll Included!

I approve the idea, now to make it cool.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

SL4Y3R wrote:

Since I'm not that big of a trader anyway, or usually I should say, RMT doesn't affect me as much as those who solely rely on trading for their gear.

I just don't want it in a league if it's possible. If the downside is you cannot trade, that downside is meh to me. This is why I'm such a stickler about not raising the droprates. I've never really had a problem advancing.

+1. =^[.]^=

If you trade at all then your not self found. Doesn't matter if its just a little bit or just currency or whatever.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Thus, you're expecting them to fund an experiment they're already pretty sure would turn out badly. You can't reasonably expect that.

Any rational explanation why's that? There has been more demand over the years for a SFL than a CT.

The difference here is one is a negation, one is an affirmation. Cutthroat is a thing; non-trading is an absence of a thing. The SFL movement is not united around wanting to do something; it is united around wanting to not do something. They aren't asking for a buff, but instead for a nerf so drastic, so powerful, they believe the only way their pleas would be heard is if they offered to segregate themselves from the majority of the population, which would continue in an unnerfed state.

As such, someone believing that the SFL would be an improvement for their gameplay is a lot like believing nerfing a powerful, popular would improve their gameplay; in contrast, someone wanting more Cutthroat is a lot like believing buffing a particular skill one enjoys would improve their gameplay. In the case of Cutthroat, the effects are far more predictable and benefits far more direct.

If an SFL were created today, SFL supporters would feel something akin to the joy of the long kill, finally defeating a foe they've sought vengeance against for so long. But after vengeance is completed, what then?

This all reminds me of your views on looting options. You would give the same kind of rants about how it wouldn't actually make the game better, but here we are and I believe most players would say the game is better for it.

You preach that the main game should be fixed but how? What is GGG actually going to do to fix the issues? From what I can tell absolutely nothing. Therefore a new league is one of the few things GGG might actually consider.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

New leagues stimulate temporary renewed interest; key word is temporary. In the short term, yes, creating a self-found league would draw players in. Every time GGG releases new leagues, new players return to the game in order to try those leagues out... and then they leave again a couple of months later, until/unless GGG releases more new leagues. It is the continuous release of new leagues which best maintains PoE's player population, and any one-time release of a new permanent league will only last for a short while, as long as it takes the novelty to fade (and don't say it won't).

So, as far as this point goes, the question becomes: what type of temporary league options would one have with self-found leagues? This question is completely unanswered in the opening post.

I believe this is a flawed premise. To preface:

Path of Exile has expertly designed layers of scarcity in gear progression. It is a genuinely hardcore experience, trying to level and progress through any stage of the game, where the next stage demands another or greater quality out of your itemization. These requirements are rarely ever met by any one single item; it is often a trade off between which sockets, links, and other item modifiers you are able to sacrifice to meet that requirement. It is a truly engaging and challenging process, which is brilliantly executed.

And then trading just goes and shits all over it, removing this progression entirely and allowing you to skip straight to the end of the itemization chain (for your level).

To regress: why this is a flawed premise: It is certainly true that interest in ladder leagues begins to wane towards their end, and is renewed again when another new league is introduced. I contend that the reason is trading. It expedites progress through all stages of the game, exchanging a small amount of grinding for genuine difficult loot finding and decision making. All content, therefore, becomes accessible in relatively short order, and once the "end goal" is achieved.. what is there left to enjoy, but to wait for a fresh start with a new mechanic to do it all over again?

If you remove trading from the equation, and examine the demographic we're talking about, I think you'll find they're an entirely different kind of player than the usual trade chat warrior. We're talking about players who want to actively engage in the loot finding process, who want to enjoy every small victory along their long road to glory. These are players who are invested in the long term; not players who will do all there is to do, see all there is to see, in less than four months.

Edit (I should say): It's easy for us both to speculate, but it's irrelevant, what has previously caused dedicated players to lose or renew interest, because we're discussing a league which breaks conventions, targeting a demographic that has been largely untested.

I would play and support a SFL.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

The host would pay but I think there should be, as with guild contributions, a way for players to donate to a private league's overall rent.

If GGG play it right they will use the void league to allow private or custom leagues to be easier than the so called parent league, Standard. I've talked about this to Chris briefly and he acknowledged that the void league renders the old Golden Rule of no league ever being easier than Standard obsolete.

But I think they would absolutely have to charge for that option. The fear that people might get bored and move on (and thus stop supporting) if they get an easier PoE is a legitimate one.

In essence, my proposal simulates people buying the game as it might look, economy and loot wise, were it offline and not tailored to "encourage" aggressive trading.

I personally agree with Charan on this issue. It also has the benefit of focusing GGG's limited development time on something that is very cool: leagues with different rules that can be rented and set up by players.

"

mrpetrov wrote:

To the extent there are material development resources at GGG required to implement a SFL (e.g. bind-on-pickup functionality)

everything is already implemented
BoA
league management
ladder

what's left is political decision

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

The main reason, which you haven't addressed at all, is money... real money. How is GGG going to profit off this?

want to talk about money?