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

They definitely seem to have lost that real player down in the trenches perspective. I can understand mark and ggg from a top down perspective but they need to get a little more realistic about the day to day impact some of the game's flaws has on the average player.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

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.

Maybe because trading bypasses a scarcity of a item that it's scarce for no evident reason?
It wouldn't be a problem if the orb was common enough to be used in something.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

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.

What about the trade/everything else disparity? When a normal advice is: don't spend your orbs...well, something has gone awry.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

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.

Two things:
-There are some items where the list of mods makes too easier to figure out what you would really need (think chests, you have HP/ES, resistances, as mandatories). What makes a good rare can't be responded with "it depends" right now, except maybe with ES and HP.
-Most uniques can be surpassed by rares, but the likehood of that happening (like in the Bino's knife case) makes more practical to go for the unique and ignore rares in general, unless you are really wealthy. Power uniques are undersirable except for levelling. And this should be seen in a probabilistic fashion, not in a deterministic one.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

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.

Fair enough, but you could give a reason to fight more bosses. Just to keep things interesting.
And...the flipside to forcing some things is giving control, that could make for it.

"

Veruski wrote:

*embarassing himself*

Watch out, we got a badass game design expert over here :3

"

Xavderion wrote:

Watch out, we got a badass game design expert over here :3

"

If you need to use hyperbole to make a point, you only admit that your point is too weak to stand on its own.

read your own sig

"

Veruski wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Watch out, we got a badass game design expert over here :3

"

If you need to use hyperbole to make a point, you only admit that your point is too weak to stand on its own.

read your own sig

I wasn't trying to make a point, I was just mocking you :P

"

Xavderion wrote:

I wasn't trying to make a point

We know. You have nothing to add and you post pointless comments.

"

b15h09 wrote:

"

johnKeys wrote:

would still like a reply from Mark, to my post from page 5.
please.

we can argue about semantics and get into minor details all day long, but GGG don't seem to grasp, that their current concept is flawed from the core.

This probably troubles me more than the game flaws themselves. They seem unwilling to learn and grow from this first attempt of theirs at making a game. Some ideas are great, some are just bad, and they don't seem to know which is the wheat, and which is the chaff. Means that this game will only see marginal improvement, if any at all. Can't believe they went to Release with the game in the shape it was in.

The problem is that some of those flaws are opinions only. Just because a dozen people are vocal about certain flaws in this thread doesn't mean it is true for everybody or even a majority. People complain about GGG ignoring the flaws. Maybe they are just ignoring a few players and the majority of players don't see these things as flawed.

"

mark1030 wrote:

The problem is that some of those flaws are opinions only. Just because a dozen people are vocal about certain flaws in this thread doesn't mean it is true for everybody or even a majority. People complain about GGG ignoring the flaws. Maybe they are just ignoring a few players and the majority of players don't see these things as flawed.

How is GGG supposed to know what's flawed, then? Public opinion isn't a science, but it's not as utterly useless as you're painting it out to be.

If people don't speak up, where's the data? GGG can't solely use player numbers, since people that are otherwise extremely happy with the game might be leaving simply because they got busy and had to stop playing. If GGG acted purely on player count, they might be changing things for the worse that people are overall quite happy with.

This is the exact point of the Feedback forum. Its existence implies that GGG does need people's experiences in the game, and that GGG isn't making a game in a complete vacuum. GGG has no qualms about stonewalling certain requests (like watching johnKeys rail on the economy topic, again and again, for months to no avail, or never responding to Aux's "when does PvP come out?" post on every patch note), but they also have, on several occasions, taken player feedback into direct account when making this game.

Before they released SotV, they had a tabula rasa on which to build their next set of content. When they released SotV, it was targeted at "the endgame" because of the outcry of people that claimed to be bored with the endgame. All else equal, the community has a non-negligible power to direct those even-weight decisions.

1.2 is upcoming, and it needed a theme. Chris has already stated elsewhere on these forums that he felt (not from the ether, not from his box of cereal the morning prior, but from this community's comments) that there needed to be a larger focus on the beginning and middle of the game. For many of us, we're waiting with bated breath.

I didn't say feedback was pointless. I said feedback on something is subjective. One person says something works fine. Another person says it doesn't. If GGG doesn't 'fix' something that your opinion says is 'flawed' doesn't mean GGG doesn't care or doesn't listen, which seems to be the mentality of the "it's broke but GGG don't care" crowd.

"

mark1030 wrote:

I didn't say feedback was pointless. I said feedback on something is subjective. One person says something works fine. Another person says it doesn't. If GGG doesn't 'fix' something that your opinion says is 'flawed' doesn't mean GGG doesn't care or doesn't listen, which seems to be the mentality of the "it's broke but GGG don't care" crowd.

It does mean that GGG doesn't care or didn't listen... to the person requesting the fix and who claimed the flaw.

If you're suggesting tempered expectations, then I agree.
If you're suggesting that the issues GGG doesn't address "aren't real issues", then I disagree.