Why i will not be returning to path of exile ever again. (I assume this is feed back GGG wants?)

"

sidtherat wrote:

"

SL4Y3R wrote:

Agree with Shags. This just isn't the game for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. The reasons you like D3, are the exact reasons I don't. And that's fine.

Although I will say, luck exists in both games.

E: and why didn't you want this moved out of GD? It's clearly feedback.

because this is dead forum

today is 15th right?
i can see on the bottom of feedback post listing 2 posts from 13th

'in feedback no one can hear you scream'

This is where threads get seen by devs, not general discussion.

OP: I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of you being upset at your thread being moved to feedback when you explicitly identified it as being feedback in the thread title. It clearly belongs here, because it is feedback.
For you to post a thread in GD which you clearly identify yourself as feedback, indicating it's in the wrong place, and then go on to say in your post that if it's moved to the correct location this will somehow "confirm your fears about their game" doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what upsets you about someone getting a Tabula Rasa. The driving point of these games is the hope to get a lucky drop, and I don't see how that's possible at all to have that if people can't actually get a lucky drop, which unless I'm mistaken, seems to be what happened that you're complaining about.

You suggest that you want changes so that "items will be less random better rare drops" - could you perhaps expand on what you mean by this? Particularly the "less random" part - I suspect you actually want less variance in the random results, rather than them not actually being random, but I don't want to make unwarranted assumptions.

Post edited to correctly address the OP rather than the quoted parties in the bit regarding the post title.

"

EveningPrimroseAmber wrote:

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

I'm not entirely sure I understand what upsets you about someone getting a Tabula Rasa. The driving point of these games is the hope to get a lucky drop, and I don't see how that's possible at all to have that if people can't actually get a lucky drop, which unless I'm mistaken, seems to be what happened that you're complaining about

you proved my point GGG cares so little they won't even read posts correctly. I'm not pissed certain people got OP uniques at level 4

Then I have no idea what this part of your post was supposed to mean:

"

EveningPrimroseAmber wrote:

some people got super lucky 1 example is a guy in global chat and got a tabula rasa drop before they even hit level 4...(was linked in global 1 and 2 by the same person i don't have a screen shot sorry)

With bullshit luck like this why should i even play this game? (Yes i'm salty about it)

You explicitly called out someone getting lucky as a problem, and gave the person who got an early Tabula drop as an example of this. Surely you can at least see how I could reasonably reach the conclusion that this occurring upset you, based on your words?

"

EveningPrimroseAmber wrote:

i'm pissed people ruined a brand new leauge 2 days into it starting. people already have 20+ exalts by playing "path of trading" how is that fair?

Those exalts don't come from trading originally - they come from drops which people got by playing the game. Any change that increases drops will increase the number of exalts that are being traded like this, because they ultimately come from the same source. I don't understand why you feel the league has been "ruined" because a significant number of exalts have dropped, and are now being traded.

"

EveningPrimroseAmber wrote:

you don't want people playing maps "end game" content you'd rather have people play 12+ hours everyday of trade 1-10 spam ripping people off with currency exchange and item flipping.

That's simply not true. We absolutely want people playing end-game content. We also want people trading. We understand that trading isn't for everyone and not everyone enjoys it. We also understand that some people enjoy trading, and they're our players and customers as well.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Mark really, can we get an answer on why there is such an insistence on so much randomness in the rewards? It seems you guys then try to plug the gaps with 'economy' and trade2win. I have a hard time understanding why you guys chose a system that is so harsh to the actual play experience.

Random loot is a staple of ARPG games, and the randomness of loto loot is a significant part of what makes it interesting to keep playing, because luck can strike at any time, and allows people to, to at least some extent, choose content while farming based on their preferences - if certain item types only drop from a certain area, then you have no choice about where to farm, and probably are pushed to build to best farm that area. Chris could probably give a much better answer here, as this is a fairly big topic that's mostly out of my depth. But I can attempt to address some of your specific questions to the best of my ability.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Furthermore you guys insist on uniques being the only items with interesting mods yet they never drop. Why don't you allow rares to have some interesting mods too? Why not let rares have an uncommon affix that lets a single affix be from a pool of generic and non-game breaking yet fun and interesting unique affixes?

Rares and uniques fill different niches. Ultimately, rares are more about raw power and uniques more about enabling specific things that rares can't do. Uniques are in general intended to be less flat-out powerful than the best possible rares, but be better for certain builds which get benefit from their unique mods. In addition, "interesting" mods tend to fall into categories that better fit uniques, such as build enabling mods, which belong on uniques because enabling new builds is a big part of the unique design space, very niche things that are useful to some builds but if put on rares would mostly serve to frustrate players by further diluting the mod pool. And some of the things uniques can do are only considered interesting because only uniques do them - if any rare item could roll something like spell leech, it ceases to be interesting, because it's just a part of the regular game anyone can get.
Ultimately, I don't think there's that much overlap between "generic and non-game breaking" and "fun and interesting" - generic things tend not to become interesting simply by being freely available - what makes them interesting is that you can't usually get them. And on top of that, on a unique, we know which other mods it will interact with on the same item, and what the base properties of the item type itself are, which make it much easier to fit something in the "fun but not game breaking" range, which simply isn't possible on rares to the same extent.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

And why not let magic items have 3 affixes. How hard would it be to allow them to randomly have up to 2 prefixes or up to two suffixes?

It wouldn't be hard to implement at all, but I don't see what benefit this would give to counter the cost of attacking the identity of magic items - it removes the ability for magic items to have the classic "mod names" which are inherently limited to one prefix and suffix by their nature (I'm assuming we both agree we want to avoid items called "Arcanist's Hunter's Bow of the Storm of the Bear"). This isn't important from a mechanical perspective, but is important from a player understanding perspective in that the naming scheme communicates the number of mods the item can have and makes them more distinct from rares in an easy-to-understand way, and is very common among a lot of games that many of our target audience will have played - that familiarity makes it easier for those potential new players to understand and get into the game.
It also has a few slightly nice consequences when crafting magics such as you always know which kind of mod will be added when you use and Orb of Augmentation on a magic item, although that's more of a nice bonus than a reason.

This may well be my last post in the thread - almost certainly not going to find time for any more sizable posts like this for a while - 1.2.0 work is getting busier.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

randomness of loto

Lotto? Is that a Freudian typo?

Fixed, but with the mistake left in as well for humour's sake.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Just razzin' ya. :p

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

luck can strike at any time, and allows people to, to at least some extent, choose content while farming based on their preferences - if certain item types only drop from a certain area, then you have no choice about where to farm, and probably are pushed to build to best farm that area.

This is one thing where I both agree and disagree. Choosing what content to farm based of preferences such as monster composition and tileset is something which I think shouldn't be totally done away with — you don't really want to force players into running the exact same content over and over again. On the other hand, preferences such as monster composition and tileset are very trivial preferences, and there would be much more in the way of meaningful choice if certain areas/monsters/content had a better chance of dropping certain items rather than others, allowing players to perform more targeted farming.

I feel the position you express here doesn't strike a nice balance. The best answer would be a balance wherein your choice of area to farm was meaningful in terms of biasing the loot you receive, yet at the same time not so overwhelming that you feel duty-ridden to go with that bias every single time (unless you're particularly OCD; but OCD players are players too). You'd want something which is noticeable to players without having to run a group data collection project, to make them aware that such a bias exists and thus that it's something they can choose... but not really any more significant than that. That would be meaningful choice.

As hinted above, I don't have time for an in depth reply, but I've learned not to underestimate the extent to which a small gain from doing A over B makes some players feel "forced" to always pick A.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

In addition, "interesting" mods tend to fall into categories that better fit uniques, such as build enabling mods, which belong on uniques because enabling new builds is a big part of the unique design space, very niche things that are useful to some builds but if put on rares would mostly serve to frustrate players by further diluting the mod pool. And some of the things uniques can do are only considered interesting because only uniques do them - if any rare item could roll something like spell leech, it ceases to be interesting, because it's just a part of the regular game anyone can get.

I agree with the words here but not with the actions. Prime example: Bino's Kitchen Knife. "On killing a Poisoned enemy, nearby enemies are Poisoned." Okay, so you're trying to design a weapon which works primarily with the Adder's Touch notable; cool idea, clear design intent, like the core conept. However, by making the other numbers too good on the rest of the weapon, this is not the primary thing for which the dagger is used... as a matter of fact, it's rather rarely used with Adder's Touch. It probably should have had a higher damage-over-time bonus, and been on a slower knife base to limit, but not utterly squash, CoCS use; I'm wouldn't suggest lowering the crit chance on Bino's, since it's supposed to be designed around the crit-centric Adder's Touch, but an enemy can only be poisoned once, so speed is less important to the Adder's Touch plan while speed is hugely important for CoCS. It seems like GGG is more prone these days to making errors which transform what should be niche uniques into better-than-most-rares power-creep-causing disasters.

I was going to do a quick response (in the general case rather than Bino's specifically) about what I perceive to be a difference in supporter uniques to GGG ones, but I won't because a) it'll take too much of my time, b) I'm not the best person to talk about that topic and c) I'm aware I have a habit of coming of has harsher/meaner on the forums than I mean to be and I don't want to risk inadvertently offending anyone for the sake of pointing out an unimportant tidbit that might or might not be relevant, and is getting fairly off the main topic of the thread.