Legacy items are bullshit
"
not sure if on topic
It is worth noting that the article refers only to constructed formats, and not to limited formats such as draft or sealed deck. As such, the amount of packs opened is purely a matter of monetary commitment.
Most limited formats have a fixed number of categorized RNG pulls, without the ability to utilize outside cards - for example, in a typical MtG sealed deck, everyone gets 50 commons, 15 uncommons, and 5 rares, where there are 100 different commons available, 80 uncommons, and 50 rares. However, it is possible to introduce new pulls along a progression - for example, a sealed deck league which runs once a week for a month, where each week the players get an additional pack for their card pool. Limited and constructed formats generally have wildly different metagames with hugely different power levels. However, imagine if the pack-per-week league lasted for years instead of a month. Over time the limited metagame would transform into a near-constructed metagame. While I readily admit balancing by rarity is a bad move for constructed formats in CCGs, I am far from sold in terms of balancing by rarity in limited formats. If that limited format is one which eventually transforms into constructed, you may find yourself in a position where balancing for rarity is the most sensible early on, yet becomes less and less attractive over the arc of progression. 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.
|
|
"Why not just pick one of the three options I gave? Sigh. In any case, I do not believe you can balance an item's power by changing how often it drops, but I do believe you can balance how often an item drops by changing its power (to a certain extent). By which I mean: if a best-in-slot item for build A is significantly better than best-in-slot for build B, regardless of droprate, then very likely either build A ends better than build B, or the best-in-slot for build A becomes best-in-slot for both build A and build B. At best, build B becomes a stepping-stone for build A to use while it is waiting for the goods to either drop or be traded for. Build balance becomes fucked. System fails. On flip side: Gear progression in slot stops once best-in-slot item is acquired. Continued gear progression in a slot is desired to end simultaneously with both gear progression in other slots and experience progression; in practice, impossible, but the aim is to come as close as possible. Thus balancing for gear progression justifies making best-in-slot items drop very, very infrequently... and reducing the power of an item to less-than-best status justifies it dropping more frequently. Obviously, increasing an already-best item's power is irrelevant to its droprate. Note, however, the underlying assumption that it is actually possible to acquire during the trek from 1 to 100. Unless the builds are designed to stepping-stone into another build through planned obsolescence, all "build around me" uniques are best-in-slot items. But the real question is: is an item best-in-slot, or overpowered? If it's best-in-slot, its droprate should be balanced appropriately (that is, approximately once every never). If it is overpowered, changing droprate won't fix anything. 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#2697 on May 20, 2015, 9:33:50 PM
|
|
" I won't shoot the messenger, :P Add a Forsaken Masters questline
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 |
|
" I think Mark and I have the same view. Basically, it doesn't matter what might theoretically be nice if GGG aren't going to change anything. As such, this thread seems to be a pointless exercise. Sure, theorycraft what might be a nice system, but address all the concerns - including significant game downtime - if you actually want the developer to agree to implement your new system. Otherwise, you might as well be wondering what the game would be like if it had sharks with laser beams. |
|
" Who knows, maybe in the future this can be fixed (Like desync was fixed). I don't ignore the whole technical issue behind that. Anyway, people like CanHasPants have come with workarounds. The situation is bullshit, maybe it's impossible to change existing items, but it's not hopeless, nor fruitless to talk about the issues. Add a Forsaken Masters questline
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 |
|
" It is hopeless to circle jerk by discussing everything based no 'they shouldn't have legacy items because its unbalanced' or 'they need to remove them because not everyone can have them' The only discussions which ARE relevant is the fact that they would require either a new game (PoE 2.0 which is not relevant to legacy items), or significant downtime for a major database change. And its not a case of 'they can just change it' it would require significant work so at this point is not really a possibility. And as such every discussion that is not about discussing that is stupid. Ala 99% of this thread |
|
" About the database thing, maybe there are workarounds (again, CanHasPants said something interesting). Deterministic Lockstep was a significant effort too. Although one could say they were more motived economically to change it. Sorry, but I'll have to disagree about how stupid is this. Add a Forsaken Masters questline
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 |
|
|
I feel fixing the legacy item problem would be a "recapture" mechanic. By which I mean a lot of previously quit players would return to the game.
But I also feel nerfing existing legacy items would cause some players to quit. This is why GGG should make a point of buffing things back to legacy levels in instances where it doesn't hurt much. For instance, I don't really understand why we couldn't have the old Silverbranch back. What am I missing? 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.
|
|
" Legacy version doesn't drop, so the only way to get it is to buy it off of somebody who doesn't see any personal use for it anymore (the rarer case) or the one who has invested into collecting them at an earlier point to drive the prices up (the lot more frequent case). Whereas normal Shavs enter the economy regularly and are procurable by means of normal play, legacy ones are a lot, lot more expensive (prices being 100% at the whim of sellers), especially considering they're almost always pre-6L'd, and in terms of time investment, paying for one in real money (whether directly or by purchasing orbs first) may end up the only available option at all if one has set to attain it somehow. " The difference is already well reflected in in-game currency. Ultra-rare and/or massively OP uniques cost anywhere from ~3x to ~10x the average price of their non-legacy counterparts. Anticipating this, some of the more adventurous hoarders have invested into overpowered uniques, and when the nerfs that legacied them hit, their wealth predictably exploded... for doing what would amount to essentially nothing in in-game terms. And when you're sitting on hundreds and thousands of exalts that you have no good use for, it becomes really hard to resist the temptation and just pawn it off in an RMT deal for a very yummy sum. Several known players have been caught red-handed on that, what more is there to say really. " Eh, that's really dull of you. Yes, typically RMT businesses deal in pure currency, but you know very well as do I that some of them have dealt in items as well (remember that crazy mirrored phys wand?). But the more important part is that RMT as a whole is not, and has never been, limited to standalone businesses. Players RMT among themselves using popular sites. A certain well-known Russian social network has a page almost entirely filled with RMT trading messages for PoE, which I have seen myself. I mean, is this surprising to you or anything? People who engage in RMT trades will of fucking course want to increase their wealth by investing into items-to-become-legacy or items-recently-legacied so that they'll be able to trade them away for money in a way GGG will never be able to detect, unlike botting which is a lot simplier. Given large enough starting investment fund in in-game currency, this is as absurdly easy as it is profitable. [EDIT: Redacted site names.] <Tyrfalger> Exactly, the next act is going outside Sarn and into those wheat fields (see the map) to become a farmer. Then we can spend our days endlessly farming. Wait a minute... Last edited by moozooh#4289 on May 21, 2015, 6:55:40 AM
|
|
|
I didn't mean legacy RMT has never happened, but there is a difference between Big RMT and the relatively small number of peer-to-peer transactions. More often than not (to put it very conservatively), a RMT buyer will RMT the currency then trade the currency for a legacy.
GGG are no doubt aware of peer-to-peer sites. 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.
|
|
