Legacy items are bullshit

"

pwpp wrote:

can't find ggg post

This thread was temporarily closed due to a miscommunication between me and the moderation team. Obviously since resolved.

---

I feel "hypocrisy" may have been too strong a word. Appropriate? I sure think so. But still strong.

The tension here is between game balance and item access. There are lots of feels on item access, and I don't want this thread to devolve into "you're just jealous" arguments any more than it has already.

So let's look at game balance. I do not believe a nerf is something to be taken lightly for a game in public release. I'm not saying they should never happen, but the seriousness appropriate to the act implies scarcity.

What a lot of the arguments thus far haven't centered on is that a nerf has happened to create every legacy item. Is a nerf truly taking itself seriously if it stops halfway and only touches some of the items? No. No it's not. It is a mockery of what a nerf should be.

If the situation is really that bad, if the item is really that degenerate, then nerfing all forms of it is the appropriate action. If it isn't that bad, if you can justify even one case of the item continuing to exist as-is, then why bother nerfing the item at all?

If you remove the context of nerfs, legacy items don't seem so bad. Some players have better gear than others, it is an ARPG, that's how it works. But the context of a nerf cannot be removed. It is not that we are in coach staring at those first-class seats mentioned earlier, it is that we can't sit in them, while others can, because "oh, The Company decided it's not safe to let people sit there anymore." If so, why the fuck are people still sitting in them?

I mean, hell, at least "they got here first" would be more honest. You won't find me complaining how Headhunter belts don't drop anymore, except via Zana's map device.

I get the sense you're thinking of nerfs as serious statements of intent - i.e. "we have changed this because it needed to be changed or else the game would be ruined". I tend to think of them differently. Nerfs are generally tweaks, nothing more - more like "eh (checks the direction of the wind), I think that could be tweaked down by 5%".

I can't equate the existence of a nerf with 'hypocrisy' of pre-nerf items existing. I don't think it's hypocrisy to not change an explicit (if forced) design decision mid-stream.

Do I think GGG would eventually like to design a new game with a 'no legacies' approach? Yeah, I think so.

Do I think GGG stay up late at night rocking back and forth about the existence of some different versions of an item they may now think 'is generally okay' but which may still change in future? Naw.

If I asked a GGG staff member 'are you okay with the majority of X item being the new version, with only x% being the old version'... I suspect they'd say sure, no worries mate.

It's the difference between the theory of game design and the practicalities of running a quasi-MMO.

"

davidnn5 wrote:

I get the sense you're thinking of nerfs as serious statements of intent - i.e. "we have changed this because it needed to be changed or else the game would be ruined". I tend to think of them differently. Nerfs are generally tweaks, nothing more - more like "eh (checks the direction of the wind), I think that could be tweaked down by 5%".

Give me a single historical example of any unique having a value reduced less than 10%. Example: if Kaom's had gone from +1000 life to +950.

We do not live in the world of your "tweak" nerf.

I feel for you, Scrotie. Some genuinely amazing arguments in this thread.

My personal favorites:

1. "Nerfing legacy items will destroy them! Why do you want to destroy our items!"
No, it will not destroy them. It will update them to the status GGG—the highet authority in this game—deems appropriate.

2. "We/I/they worked hard for those items, why should they be destroyed!"
First of all, why exactly do they deserve of those items, and the guy who started playing two months ago and also worked as hard, not?

I would also direct you to Path of Exile's ToS, which quite clearly states:

"

Unless otherwise stated in these Terms of Use, Grinding Gear Games is the owner or licensee of all rights including all copyright, trade marks and other intellectual property rights relating to or included within the Website, Materials and Services (“Rights”). For the avoidance of doubt, and to the greatest extent permitted at law, the Rights include without limitation all rights in respect of all graphics, logos, text, images and all other elements included in and deriving from the gameplay and virtual world featured in POE, including without limitation in-game names, characters, locations and any virtual items (“Virtual Items”) and their associated benefits or properties acquired or provided for use within POE.

Here's a quick summary: you don't own your virtual pixels. You don't own anything in PoE. You can't dictate anything with regards to your supposed property simply because it isn't.

3. "Ur just jellus! U envee!"
The single most amazing "argument", sponsored by the department of self-projection.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

What a lot of the arguments thus far haven't centered on is that a nerf has happened to create every legacy item.

That's flat out wrong. It might be that it makes for a good argument, but it is still nonetheless completely wrong. Some legacies are worse than current versions. Why don't we hear people complaining about Legacy Crowns of Thorns existing and ruining the game? Could it be that despite claims of lofty ideals, it truly is envy that drives the argument against legacies?

For reference: http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Crown_of_Thorns

Here are some others in case you think Crown of Thorns is the only unique that has an inferior legacy version: http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Chin_Sol
http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Darkray_Vectors
http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Hyaon%27s_Fury
http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Immortal_Flesh
http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Infractem
http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Kaom%27s_Primacy
http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Lightbane_Raiment
http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Oro%27s_Sacrifice

Got tired of looking, but I think there are more. So where's the outrage about these legacy items?

I should probably be clear here, since the conversation's getting heated, that I'm not arguing against legacy changes. I just don't think there will be any. Certainly confident enough that I'd pick the 'bet on legacy changes' table over most any other table in a casino.

Here's a simple test:
If (potential gain from changing all legacies) > (potential lost players due to salt + potential lost players due to game downtime) changing = win.

GGG's probably done the maths.

Scrotie: I agree that in terms of the maths, and by itself, a 50% reduction in kaoms life looks huge and like a virulent reaction against an OP item. But no item or passive change works in a vacuum. I'm simply saying that a big change to an item doesn't necessarily equate to a major dislike or ardently felt need for the change. Players hate items; devs generally look at systems and change parts as needed, but don't hate any part in particular nor are they necessarily confident the change will perfect the system. Perhaps it's a subtle point.

"

mark1030 wrote:

So where's the outrage about these legacy items?

There shouldn't be any in the first place. The main argument is that there should be no such thing as a legacy item, for reasons already stated and reiterated ad nauseam.

The means by which the concept of legacy is to be eradicated from the game are plentiful, and have also been named. I like the options where they're forcibly rerolled to up-to-date stats or become account-bound to preserve the "fun" for the owner but prevent them from being such an undeservedly strong economic intrument. For those items that became more powerful as a result of the rebalance, well, why not apply the same rules for their legacy versions, too. I doubt anybody would seriously object.

There's no good reason an item that was once a common drop would magically change to a limited luxury, which serves mainly obsessive hoarders and RMT dealers (who get their supply of items and orbs from, unsurprisingly, obsessive hoarders as well). The sheer concept of legacy is a perfect breeding ground for RMT deals.

I've heard an RMT argument from a couple people here. Are you guys trying to say that if somebody was willing to pay real money for a legacy shavronne's, they somehow wouldn't be willing to pay for a shavronne's if there was no legacy version? It doesn't seem like RMT use would increase or decrease either way. The only thing that would change is the relative amount of money somebody would pay for a better version of something.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

davidnn5 wrote:

I get the sense you're thinking of nerfs as serious statements of intent - i.e. "we have changed this because it needed to be changed or else the game would be ruined"...

Give me a single historical example of any unique having a value reduced less than 10%...

I elided out the bit about tweaks, because I want to emphasize a broader issue that this brings up. In response to your challenge, here's my example, a Legacy Unique that was tweaked down by 10% as a consequence of the infamous block nerf:



With Patch 1.3, GGG decided to reduce the base block percent of most shield types. In the case of the Crest of Perandus, post-1.3 drops have only 31% chance to block, versus the Legacy version's 36%. (Before patch 1.3, Perandus' block chance was actually 40%, resulting in an item that was both nerfed and Legacied by the same stroke.)

In retrospect, it's quite obvious what motivated GGG to nerf long-standing block chances on the Skill Tree as well as on shields. GGG came up with a new melee tactic they wanted to try out involving counter-attack skill gems that are triggered on block. Problem was, many melee players were running builds with up to 75% block, and GGG felt this would trigger counter-attacks too frequently. Hence, they pre-emptively nerfed block rates across the board to make way for counter-attack builds.

The result was a complete debacle, as the unprecedented block nerf broke virtually every affected melee build that relied on block. Some players gamely tried out the new counter-attack gems, but they were largely rejected as incapable of compensating for the builds' lost defenses, and lacked adequate offensive power to compete with existing attack gems.

My point is not a quibble about what percentage of tweaking should have been done for this nerf. No, I'm challenging the presumption that GGG only makes Legacy-creating nerfs when game balance absolutely requires drastic measures be taken. To the contrary, my conclusion is that GGG is most often motivated to nerf Uniques in response to their popularity, regardless of whether they are OP or not. When GGG sees a build proliferate to cookie-cutter status on the ladder, they view it as a threat to build diversity, and nerf it to make way for other builds to take its place. With GGG, it's more like moderating a popularity contest than systematic fine-tuning of gameplay balance.

In other cases like the block nerf, Legacies such as Perandus were produced as collateral side-effects of more capricious intents. GGG has established a track record of abruptly altering long-standing game mechanics simply to shake things up with a new "meta" that will force players to adopt new builds. The burgeoning list of fresh new Legacies shows GGG has come to accept the inevitable consequences their whims often dictate.