GGG's argument about AH/state of trade that is grinding my gears - 2018 edition
" That's cool bro, your basically claiming every player in PoE is skilled and has game-knowledge. Because that's the pre-requirement to making efficient choices in PoE. Players without game-knowledge will handicap themselves when making choices. That's the very basic premise of a game, you get punished for your lack of knowledge and learning not to make the same mistake provides pleasure. And then there is the sub-set of players that have the game knowledge, but actively handicap themselves without ignorance taking part in that decision.(SSF crowd, people with special rule-sets or pushing mechanical limits that are not meta) I like it, it's totally unrealistic, but it's a fun little thought. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
" I showed this to 3 of my friends, who according to steam has 1925, 1350 and 880 hours played respectively. None of them identified with your fairy tale. So while it may very well be exactly how you play, you should consider the fact that it may not representative at all and there is no reason to believe that it is. |
|
" It's a representation of efficient time management in PoE. To be clear and what i already stated multiple times, i fall in the "self-handicap" group. I play SSF, i play with own imposed rule-sets and i play to push mechanics to their limits(in a trade environment). I don't play for max-efficiency since that not my kind of "fun". But i am also aware that GGG needs to balance around max efficiency and not around me. Peace, -Boem- edit : i am however, fairly curious as to what their tale was of progression. And if their way is more efficient then what i described. Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes Last edited by Boem#2861 on Feb 15, 2018, 12:43:23 PM
| |
|
Ok let's say GGG balances around max efficiency. So what? How does that change anything about my argument?
The following is still a realistic situation: A player in maps or acts 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". It does not become unrealistic just because it's not "max efficiency". That player would still either get an easier game or decreased drop rates if trading was made faster. This does not in any way imply that GGG would or should rebalance the game after that players, that is a different discussion. You call him handicapped all you want, it still does not change these facts. This perfectly refutes your fantasy that trading would not happen more often no matter how much the trade system was improved. |
|
" If changed trading has no impact on the most efficient layer of players and my assumption that GGG balances around the most efficient players is accurate then there is no impact to balance. If instant trading holds no impact on current trading behavior for efficient players(which i don't propose, just using to illustrate an extreme scenario) and GGG balances around their current behavior there is no impact. The occurrences of trading might increase for inefficient players, but if the premise is correct that GGG doesn't balance for them it holds no relevance to over-arching design decisions.(like loot distribution/drop-rates/probability rates of crafting etc) This all rests on the assumption GGG balances around the most efficient layer of players.(the most "skilled" players, or most "knowledgeable") Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
" Premise 1: GGG balances around the most efficient layer of players. Premise 2: Faster trading would not affect the most efficient layer of players. Argument: Faster trading would not affect balance. Did I get that right? Well, that argument flies right in the face of reality since GGG themselves are directly saying that faster trading would affect balance. My assumption is that they are concerned about the balance for the vast majority of players, who are in the "non-efficient" group, who even you now seem to agree would be affected. Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Feb 15, 2018, 1:52:53 PM
|
|
" I never stated inefficient players would not feel a change, my point has always been that a player who trades with skill and game knowledge would feel no changes irrelevant of trading efficiency being increased. And that inefficient players simply need to "git gud".(gain knowledge and improve) And like i already pointed out previously, i have every reason to question the validity of what GGG states if it is in direct contrast with the actual game state. Since they have already proven that they are not true to their original intentions and design goals. I whispered 3 random 40/40 players some time ago and linked them my little write-up of efficient character progression in the current game state and if they could comment on it. (these are just random people on the forums whom i don't converse with in-game or play with, for whatever its worth) Since i don't mind being proven wrong in my assumptions. So far i got one reply and he simply stated that it's accurate(though he also expressed that this saddens him) maybe he will comment further down the road since i did link this thread so maybe he will be compelled to write something. Just to say, that perhaps for you this is not the PoE you are playing, but it is the PoE that's relevant to GGG.(since they represent the highest achievable game speeds and dictate most efficient ratio's of balance vs time spend vs attaining goals) I am perfectly capable of realizing GGG is against certain introduction to the trade system(like instant buy-outs) but not for the reasons stated. And that reason is easy and a problem they are already combating, boting. I find it perfectly reasonable as a business decision to not want to implement such a system if it leads to an increase in potential boting and thus also resources redirected to fighting them.(a losing battle) Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
" Well... " " Don't trip when you're pack pedaling. " Why would anyone believe your rectal derived assumption that GGG only cares about the balance for the most efficient layer of players? If your second premise is true the first one flies right in the face of reality since GGG themselves are directly saying that faster trading would affect balance. A much more reasonable assumption is that they are concerned about the balance for all, including the vast majority of players, who are in the "non-efficient" group, who even you now seem to agree would be affected. Put in a different way, if your second assumption is true: Option 1: GGG only cares about the balance and thus the gameplay experience for the most efficient layer of players. GGG are lying about their reasons to be hesitant to make further improvements to trade. Option 2: GGG are concerned about the balance and gameplay experience for all, including the vast majority of players, who are in the "non-efficient" group, who even you now seem to agree would be affected. Which one did you say was true again? Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Feb 15, 2018, 2:27:34 PM
|
|
|
Let's assume that GGG balances around the mid-tier player.
All of a sudden their crafting balance is entirely lopsided, since the most efficient layer is gathering currency's at a double rate as they are balancing probability's around. Also there is no back pedaling going on there. Under my parameters its not a realistic example. Since i have always been using "uses trading efficiently and with skill" as the barometer for GGG's balance. Thus your example is not realistic, since such a player would not do what you are suggesting. You simply posted an example that falls outside of the parameters i defined GGG balances around and then stated "see, they do behave differently, ha!". If we assume a skilled player using trade, he will simply not behave as you are describing there. Therefore he is non-existent to GGG's overall balance. Or alternatively, he will behave like you are describing, but deliberately play inefficient. And from the feedback i got, my description of the current efficient ways to progress in power are like i described. That's feedback from 40/40 players, so i assume they have a reasonable amount of game knowledge and skill, resulting in efficient play. Peace, -Boem- edit : your free to disagree about my premise that GGG balances around the most efficient play. And believe what they are stating. just like i am free to conclude the opposite. edit2 : maybe it's required to clarify, that balancing around the most efficient play doesn't imply they don't care for the non-efficient player. But generally, top-encounters require efficient play to get access to. They obviously do care for all players and provide everybody with content. But in order to get access to some of it, your going to have to become efficient and play by the rules required to access it. And those rules usually mean efficient time management, resulting in economic power, resulting in character power and the chance to participate in the end-game content. The game offers a lot more then that for players not interested in being efficient, but they will likely not be granted access to end-game content. I am one of those players that plays inefficiently most of the time and i have no personal issue with this balance choice. Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes Last edited by Boem#2861 on Feb 15, 2018, 4:09:30 PM
| |
" Sounds about right. That's why there are extremely rare items like exalts, mirrors and 6xT1 rares, they are there for the top player to chase and spend inordinate amounts of resources on, while plebs like you and me can still hope to find or craft an upgrade if want to. The claim that only the top layer of players are on GGGs radar lacks any sort of evidence and does not hold up more than a second to the least bit of rational thought. " The problems are with your so called parameters, not with my example. My example is realistic, because it's based on the reality. That it's doesn't fall under your extremely specific and unproven notions of "efficient" and your extremely unlikely and unproven notion of what GGG balances the game based on does not change the fact that for an actual player, improving the trade system will lead to increased rates of trade. Which you have consistently denied through out the entire thread. Do you now agree that for majority of players trading is not as efficient as it could possibly be? " We still have these options: Option 1: GGG only cares about the balance and thus the gameplay experience for the most efficient layer of players. GGG are lying about their reasons to be hesitant to make further improvements to trade. Option 2: GGG are concerned about the balance and gameplay experience for all players, including the vast majority of players, who are in the "non-efficient" group, who even you now seem to agree would be affected. Yeah, you are free to conclude that option 1 is true, but if you do so why would anyone take anything you say seriously ever again? |
|
