GGG's argument about AH/state of trade that is grinding my gears - 2018 edition

Your counter-argument that you find impeccable and impervious is meaningless because power-creep and character power in relation to content is so absurd that i find the notion of trading prior to lvl 75 laughable in the current game-state for any skilled player.

And when discussing non-skilled players, your whole point becomes moot.

Since your saying that GGG would have to alter drop-rates if trading was increased in efficiency, but drop rates are not balanced around non-skilled players to begin with, the game tells them to "git gud".

Like i said, your using dota 1 arguments to disprove an argument around dota 2.

Your basing your whole notion of balance/drop-rates and character progression/character power on the notion of PoE anno 2012.

Guess what, it's 2018 now.

Like i said, you need to start playing PoE, talk with some people in-game and perhaps learn to play efficiently or at least understand what efficient play is.

Anybody that runs to maps in 10 hours on his first character of the league(no trade/craft/grind) is going to find your "counter-argument" so far from reality he's going to fall flat and laugh.

But hiy, in your mind you've given a perfectly reasonable example that does the current game-state justice. So, whatever? A waste of time is a waste of time.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Anybody that runs to maps in 10 hours on his first character of the league(no trade/craft/grind) is going to find your "counter-argument" so far from reality he's going to fall flat and laugh.

I think you will find that most people will understand that something can be true even if it does not apply to them personally.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Anybody that runs to maps in 10 hours on his first character of the league(no trade/craft/grind) is going to find your "counter-argument" so far from reality he's going to fall flat and laugh.

I think you will find that most people will understand that something can be true even if it does not apply to them personally.

It's irrelevant because we are discussing drop/loot table balance in relation to player skill and his participation in the provided tools of the game.(trade efficiency)

IF ggg was balancing around the player you are describing that struggles in act4 to progress, then guess what, he wouldn't be struggling.

In fact, every start of the league from 2014 on-wards has proven that players get to end-game faster and faster.

And that's at the start of a league, without trade being activated as a function of player power.
Which i account for in my parameters of when trade becomes an efficient tool for power progression.

Looking at reality disproves your point, yet you keep insisting your perceived reality is the true one.
Like i said, get a grip of what efficient play in PoE is and the kind of play GGG is balancing around.
You don't have to play efficient, but you do have to realize it exist's and it's most likely the base-line around which GGG balances it's in-game tools.(reward skill and game knowledge, while punishing the absence of those actors)

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

IF ggg was balancing around the player you are describing that struggles in act4 to progress, then guess what, he wouldn't be struggling.

You have incentive to trade even if you are not struggling, you can always speed things up. So that is a moot point.

"

Boem wrote:

Looking at reality disproves your point

No, it really does not. There are any number of other examples that are also based on reality that proves my point.

The concept that people will trade more if trading is made faster and more convenient is not rocket surgery.

"

Boem wrote:

You don't have to play efficient, but you do have to realize it exist's and it's most likely the base-line around which GGG balances it's in-game tools.(reward skill and game knowledge, while punishing the absence of those actors)

GGG stated themselves that improving trade would affect balance.
That goes against your very narrow mind so I am going to assume that you will claim that they lied.

"

Sickness wrote:

The concept that people will trade more if trading is made faster and more convenient is not rocket surgery.

Yeah it's not, ignoring the fact GGG already balances the game around skilled people that utilize trade.

And those people already trade as much as they desire, no barriers are preventing them from not doing so currently.

Which makes your claim that putting the current trade interface in the core game effect their trading behavior redundant.

You assume the current barriers prevent knowledgeable people from using trade which is the most efficient form of character progression in almost all cases currently.
That simply doesn't line up with reality.

The current barriers prevent nobody who has a clue how efficient grinding and crafting is in relation to trading from participating in the later.

"

Sickness wrote:

GGG stated themselves that improving trade would affect balance.
That goes against your very narrow mind so I am going to assume that you will claim that they lied.

Of course they are capable of lying, i assume your not twelve and wearing rose tinted glasses.

They totally didn't start out to make a hardcore grinding arpg and then half-way down the road casualized the game to it's current state. Increasing power creep and reducing skill-pre-requisite to participate in end-game.

I already told you this before, you claim GGG as omnipotent. And i already told you to look at reality and their claims and put them next to one another instead of just going on "hear-say".

Of course i will doubt what GGG says, i'd be a fool not to given their past track record. I'm no longer twelve and i know people are motivated by more then their desires if they are responsible grown-ups.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

you claim GGG as omnipotent.

No, I don't. But they certainly knows far more than you do. That you have to accuse them of lying to be able to argue your point just shows how weak your position is.

"

Boem wrote:

You assume the current barriers prevent knowledgeable people from using trade which is the most efficient form of character progression in almost all cases currently.
That simply doesn't line up with reality.

Here is reality:

A player in maps thinking "I'll keep going with my current gear a little while longer and hope for some upgrades instead of alt-tab, search, contact seller, hope he is not afk and in the right league and still got the item".

That is a realistic scenario where the speed and convenience of the trading system has significant effect on the outcome.

That players skill level or whether the game is balanced around that player or not is irrelevant to the fact that improving the trade system would lead him to trade more. It's simply an irrefutable fact.

Here is GGG:s statement:

"

Easy trade means reducing drop rates
Compare two hypothetical games. In the first game, trade is very difficult. The majority of items that can't be used by your character are not traded to other people. In the second game, trade is very easy. Many of the items that you can't use are traded to other people for items that you can. In the second game, because of trade, you have a much higher acquisition rate of useful items. While that sounds great if you want instant gratification, in reality it means that the second game either receives reduced drop rates relative to the first, or ends up being a whole lot easier and less challenging to achieve goals in.

They are consistent.


Your argument that we are somehow beyond a point where trade rate has capped is ludicrous and a single example proves you wrong.

"

Sickness wrote:

Here is GGG:s statement:

"

Easy trade means reducing drop rates
Compare two hypothetical games. In the first game, trade is very difficult. The majority of items that can't be used by your character are not traded to other people. In the second game, trade is very easy. Many of the items that you can't use are traded to other people for items that you can. In the second game, because of trade, you have a much higher acquisition rate of useful items. While that sounds great if you want instant gratification, in reality it means that the second game either receives reduced drop rates relative to the first, or ends up being a whole lot easier and less challenging to achieve goals in.

And this is the game-state we are currently in.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

And this is the game-state we are currently in.

Sure, then the argument becomes:
Easy trade means reducing drop rates
Compare two hypothetical games. In the first game, trade is very easy. The majority of items that can't be used by your character are traded to other people. In the second game, trade is very very easy. The vast majority of the items that you can't use are traded to other people for items that you can. In the second game, because of trade, you have a much higher acquisition rate of useful items. While that sounds great if you want instant gratification, in reality it means that the second game either receives reduced drop rates relative to the first, or ends up being a whole lot easier and less challenging to achieve goals in.

Don't you see how it's all relative and the idea of having crossed a magical barrier into the "enchanted easy trade land" is ludicrous?

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

And this is the game-state we are currently in.

Sure, then the argument becomes:
Easy trade means reducing drop rates
Compare two hypothetical games. In the first game, trade is very easy. The majority of items that can't be used by your character are traded to other people. In the second game, trade is very very easy. The vast majority of the items that you can't use are traded to other people for items that you can. In the second game, because of trade, you have a much higher acquisition rate of useful items. While that sounds great if you want instant gratification, in reality it means that the second game either receives reduced drop rates relative to the first, or ends up being a whole lot easier and less challenging to achieve goals in.

Don't you see how it's all relative and the idea of having crossed a magical barrier into the "enchanted easy trade land" is ludicrous?

No because your assumption is they manipulate drop rates to account for that easy trade.

When they also pose in that statement

"

or ends up being a whole lot easier and less challenging to achieve goals in.

Is the game easier? Is it less challenging? Are goals easier to achieve?

Have they reduced drop-rates?

The answer to the first three is yes and the answer to the later is no they have not. In fact they have done the opposite(unique balance changes making t1 drop more frequently, implementation of divination cards, increasing character power relative to content resulting in more kills per minute etc etc)

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

No because your assumption is they manipulate drop rates to account for that easy trade.

No. My assumption is that they manipulate drop rates OR let the game become easier.
You know, exactly as they said would happen and exactly what you are saying did happen.

That still leaves you to explain the magical barrier into the "enchanted easy trade land", IE. why the thing we all agree has happened would not continue to happen if they continued to make trade easier.