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

"

Boem wrote:

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.

No, you can't have it both ways.
If they care about "non-efficient" players, they care about the effect an improved trading system will have on those players. That means that the entire 30 pages of you claiming that the effect of an improved trading system on those players is irrelevant because only the efficient players matter becomes null and void.

"

Boem wrote:

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.

I agree with that.

"

Sickness wrote:

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.

Why are you concluding there is no evidence for this?

Meta builds are constantly being forced in and out, this is because of the efficient players.
Xp ratio's are being tweaked and pushed upwards, this is because of the efficient players.
Crafting probability's are extremely unlikely, this is because of the efficient players.
boss hp was doubled across the board, this is because of the efficient players.

There are numerous examples of changes being forced into the game that inconvenience the mid-tier player and show no consideration towards them but are solely aimed at keeping the top layer busy.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit :

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

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.

No, you can't have it both ways.
If they care about "non-efficient" players, they care about the effect an improved trading system will have on those players. That means that the entire 30 pages of you claiming that the effect of an improved trading system on those players is irrelevant because only the efficient players matter becomes null and void.

Yeah because they can't simply give casuals the story content and mid-tier players the mid-tier maps while balancing around the top end as a baseline of "skilled play" and "efficiency ratio".

Obviously they can balance drop rates/loot probability and other balance factors around the top-end while keeping other content play-able without the necessity for this efficiency.

The raging you see on the forums when it comes to content is exactly that.

A casual or mid-tier player wanting to get into end-game but being denied access.
Or players looking at an efficient player and going "why can't i have what he's having".

"

Boem wrote:

Meta builds are constantly being forced in and out, this is because of the efficient players.

No, their business plan relies on changing the meta. This was stated numerous times during the beta.

"

Boem wrote:

Xp ratio's are being tweaked and pushed upwards, this is because of the efficient players.

No, it has never been easier to reach 90.

"

Boem wrote:

boss hp was doubled across the board, this is because of the efficient players.

Player DPS had gone up more than double. It was simply a correction to power creep.

"

Boem wrote:

There are numerous examples of changes being forced into the game that inconvenience the mid-tier player and show no consideration towards them but are solely aimed at keeping the top layer busy.

Examples of changes that were made because of top tier players is evidence that they factor in top tier player into their balancing, not that they ONLY factor in top tier players into their balancing. There will obviously be give-and-take when trying to keep different groups happy.
That all changes are not pareto improvements does not mean that they don't care about the unfortunate group in a specific case.

We only need to find a single example of a balance consideration that concerns the rest of the population to prove your entire contribution in this thread dead wrong.
Oh I know one! They don't want to improve the trading system because that would impact the balance of non-top tier players. lol.
Obviously there are countless examples. That they only increased the XP for the last few levels, for one.

"

Boem wrote:

Yeah because they can't simply give casuals the story content and mid-tier players the mid-tier maps while balancing around the top end as a baseline of "skilled play" and "efficiency ratio".

Obviously they can balance drop rates/loot probability and other balance factors around the top-end while keeping other content play-able without the necessity for this efficiency.

The raging you see on the forums when it comes to content is exactly that.

A casual or mid-tier player wanting to get into end-game but being denied access.
Or players looking at an efficient player and going "why can't i have what he's having".

Don't evade the topic. You still can't have it both ways. If they care about "non-efficient" players, they surely care about the effect an improved trading system will have on those players. That means that the entire 30 pages of you claiming that the effect of an improved trading system on those players is irrelevant because only the efficient players matter becomes null and void.

Changing your argument to "they care about the rest of the population, but not in the way they claim they do in the trade manifesto" just makes you seem more desperate.

We agree that improving trade would increase the rate of trade for non-efficient players.
We agree that GGG cares about non-efficient players.
Yet somehow when GGG states that they don't want to improve trade because it will increase the trade rate for non-efficient players* you spend 30 pages claiming that they are lying. That is curious.



*(They didn't say non-efficient players, but if we hold your premise that efficient players wont be affected we can conclude that's what they meant)

"

Sickness wrote:

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".

No, its fucking not. 99% of people who have a clue how to play (and know that trade exists) will never ever think about this. Time spent trading is not a factor in anyone decision making when it comes to gear. Stop pushing this retarded argument over and over again. If you want real factors, here is a handy list:
- Can I wear the item?
- How long will I use the item before I'll change it to something else?
- How expensive the items is (can I afford it, is it worth buying if it isn't my end-game choice)?
- Would it be easier to make it myself?

If you are really considering whenever you should trade because it takes time (because grinding for cards/rares doesn't), you are either very slow at searching items on poe.trade or extremely lucky in finding items for your build.

Sorry for making it a little bit personal, but I honestly have no idea how can one believe that having to alt-tab and copy-paste 3 messages would be ever considered as a factor in decision making. And I'm also getting tired of reading this same shit over and over again.

Have you ever considered making your own electronics because you have to go to the mall to buy some (or order some online and it takes effort to fill in your address and other shit)?
Have you ever considered making your own furniture because it takes effort to go to the shop and pick up a fucking table?
Please, for love of Dominus, stop this nonsense.

"

Perq wrote:

Time spent trading is not a factor in anyone decision making when it comes to gear.

Incorrect, time and effort (convenience) matters a lot.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Perq wrote:

Time spent trading is not a factor in anyone decision making when it comes to gear.

Incorrect, time and effort (convenience) matters a lot.

Incorrect, no they don't matter enough.

If you seriously believe that anyone who isn't a total noob will ever consider crafting their own leveling item (or count on finding one) instead of buying one for 1 fuse because it TAKES EFFORT to search for such item, I'm afraid we're playing different games.

But yes, for sake of making you happy, one can say that there is weight of convenience here. Problem is that if numerical value of price of the item has weight 1, the inconvenience factor can be 0,01 at most.

And this thread isn't even about that. It is just you constantly repeating same nonsensical shit over and over again, so that maybe someone will finally believe you. Reminder: this thread is about improving the way new players gets to know trade and are presented with better options instead of full blown wild west.

poe.trade and Poe-TradeMacro should be implemented as an integral part of the game.

I don't mind alt-tabing to search for items, but this is definately not newbie-friendly and contrary to GGG's position on how important the trade for them is.

Perq, podziwiam Twoją i Boema wytrwałość w dyskutowaniu ze ścianą. :)