Why i will not be returning to path of exile ever again. (I assume this is feed back GGG wants?)
" The most important differences are: you avoid the whole trading system and you don't "interact" with other people. Other important aspects: utility and efficiency of trading and crafting. Edit: Of course there are crafting systems where you do trade and interact to get the materials for crafting, but the joy comes from the actual minigame in the actual crafting itself: FFXIV. This message was delivered by GGG defence force. Last edited by mazul on Jul 16, 2014, 7:15:01 AM
| |
" Start checking for implants dude |
|
" Ressources needed to craft an item according to a known recipe don't fluctuate. Using Orbs in PoE i wouldn't call crafting, but gambling. It would be best if they just called it gambling, maybe less people would be upset for not getting their currencies worth and ragequit. Strangely, trading in PoE is much more like crafting than using your orbs on items. It's more linear and controllable, like crafting would normally be. | |
|
The baseline is this thread is simple and people that don't (want to) understand please do not reply.
Trading in PoE is far more efficient as crafting (read gambling). This is almost inevitable and trading will always be more efficient. But the balance between drops and crafting on one side and trading on the other is hard to see. Crafting is gambling and a casual gamers will think twice before wasting the orbs that took so much effort to finally get to crafting. Progression through drops and crafting is more fun, more meaningful and more rewarding. GGG should focus on balancing drops and crafting more with trading. And there are several ways to do that: - Improve drops: For example make them (indeed) less random. Less random isn't so hard to understand Mark. Less random means less random so you have a better idea what you're going to get. A couple of examples: This boss drops swords, this area drops items above level x, this type of monster drops items above this rarity, items of this level have mods above this level. etc etc etc. - Improve crafting: You don't have to improve drops if players can use drops more easy for crafting, so make crafting less random and more meaningful Last edited by Startkabels on Jul 16, 2014, 11:46:48 AM
|
|
|
So, OP just now came to the conclusion that competitive RNG isn't really all that competitive? lol.
No. Calm down. Learn to enjoy losing.
| |
|
Lol knew it, GGG don't even care to improve the game confirmed i am done 100% quitting will make a giveaway thread too soon. got about 250+ EX of gear on standard.
The only game you need to win at is on the internet.
|
|
" Can I Haz Yer Stuff? | |
" Then I have no idea what this part of your post was supposed to mean: "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? "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. "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. "Random loot is a staple of ARPG games, and the randomness of "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. "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. Last edited by Mark_GGG on Jul 17, 2014, 1:44:05 AM
| |
|
Wow, thanks for that in depth answer! ^^
|
|
"Lotto? Is that a Freudian typo? Just razzin' ya. :p "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. Choosing your maps almost entirely by layout and the expected quantity of monsters contained therein offers a far smaller window for preference than what is actually possible. "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. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 17, 2014, 12:09:39 AM
|
|
