"
Heero_mikazuki wrote:
If more are constantly being added to the market, the value would decrease, not remain the same.
Rare loot isn't rare loot if it isn't rare. Making top tier lootdrop like candy is one of blizzards bigest fuck yous to their old fanbase that they've done.
Finding more loot is worse, not better
Another win for reading comprehension, right here.
Bind on equip = item sink = less items
More item drops to balance it = a return to current levels of rarity.
Last edited by KZA#6416 on Jun 21, 2019, 2:23:09 PM
|
Posted byKZA#6416on Jun 21, 2019, 2:22:27 PM
|
"
KZA wrote:
"
Heero_mikazuki wrote:
If more are constantly being added to the market, the value would decrease, not remain the same.
Rare loot isn't rare loot if it isn't rare. Making top tier lootdrop like candy is one of blizzards bigest fuck yous to their old fanbase that they've done.
Finding more loot is worse, not better
Another win for reading comprehension, right here.
Bind on equip = item sink = less items
More item drops to balance it = a return to current levels of rarity.
My reading comprehension is fine. Making things less rare doesn't make them rarer, it just increases the amount of duplicates available for farmers to sell.
It's you that fails to understand the concepts of rarity and desirability.
|
|
"
Heero_mikazuki wrote:
"
KZA wrote:
"
Heero_mikazuki wrote:
If more are constantly being added to the market, the value would decrease, not remain the same.
Rare loot isn't rare loot if it isn't rare. Making top tier lootdrop like candy is one of blizzards bigest fuck yous to their old fanbase that they've done.
Finding more loot is worse, not better
Another win for reading comprehension, right here.
Bind on equip = item sink = less items
More item drops to balance it = a return to current levels of rarity.
My reading comprehension is fine. Making things less rare doesn't make them rarer, it just increases the amount of duplicates available for farmers to sell.
It's you that fails to understand the concepts of rarity and desirability.
Sigh. Okay let's try to simplify this even further for you by including just the first half here:
Item sink = less items on the market. Does that increase or decrease rarity?
|
Posted byKZA#6416on Jun 21, 2019, 2:39:08 PM
|
Personally, I would love it. I like everything that forces you to think and make choices. I would rather see some form of durability on items; an item has 3-5 durability, and looses one durability every time it gets equipped by a new owner.
But sadly, players will never agree to anything like this. "Most" people view this game as:
"
codetaku wrote:
This is a trading game...
First and foremost; trade to get rich. Gameplay comes second. The rest of us, who view this as an ARPG with the ability to trade, are sadly the minority. "Most" people don't care about balanced trading or item sinks. Bring me some coffee and I'll bring you a smile.
|
Posted byPhrazz#3529on Jun 21, 2019, 2:39:30 PM
|
|
If you buy 1 tabula, but then find 2 tabula you can sell, does that increase or decrease the overall amount of tabula available on the market?
Finding loot is far more frequent than upgrading loot
|
|
"
Heero_mikazuki wrote:
If you buy 1 tabula, but then find 2 tabula you can sell, does that increase or decrease the overall amount of tabula available on the market?
Finding loot is far more frequent than upgrading loot
Consider that each individual Tabula in the current system is used by 20+ players over the course of its life time.
Under my proposed system each tabula would only be used once.
Therefore: Finding 2 Tabulas in my proposed system = a 90% decrease in Tabulas on the market compared to finding 1 Tabula in the current system.
Did I lose you? I know numbers can be hard for people.
Last edited by KZA#6416 on Jun 21, 2019, 2:52:16 PM
|
Posted byKZA#6416on Jun 21, 2019, 2:50:55 PM
|
"
KZA wrote:
Now, imagine this: Equipping an item makes it bound to a single character. A tabula drops, and you have to choose between using it, or trading it. There is no reselling after using, so there's no way to buy one and then recoup the cost once you're done using it. With the current drop rate, this would make the item go up 30x (rough estimate to illustrate a point) in price. Now if GGG wanted have it retain the current value and similar usage, they could have it drop 30x (also just a made up figure to illustrate my point) more often.
Players should have an inherit right to test items out, and then have the ability to trade them later.
A player farmed and earned that item. They deserve to do whatever they want with it.
These are core values that should not be infringed on
"Path of Exile's engine is currently modern, lean and fast." - Chris Wilson, September 19th, 2019
"It looks like we broke something with 3.10.0. We don't know what it is yet." - Bex, March 16th, 2020 Last edited by girng#7675 on Jun 21, 2019, 2:52:18 PM
|
Posted bygirng#7675on Jun 21, 2019, 2:51:54 PM
|
"
girng wrote:
"
KZA wrote:
Now, imagine this: Equipping an item makes it bound to a single character. A tabula drops, and you have to choose between using it, or trading it. There is no reselling after using, so there's no way to buy one and then recoup the cost once you're done using it. With the current drop rate, this would make the item go up 30x (rough estimate to illustrate a point) in price. Now if GGG wanted have it retain the current value and similar usage, they could have it drop 30x (also just a made up figure to illustrate my point) more often.
Players should have an inherit right to test items out, and then have the ability to trade them later.
A player farmed and earned that item. They deserve to do whatever they want with it.
These are core values that should not be infringed on
I like you. Unlike most of the other posts in this thread, this is a really good point that I hadn't considered.
|
Posted byKZA#6416on Jun 21, 2019, 2:54:24 PM
|
"
KZA wrote:
"
Heero_mikazuki wrote:
If you buy 1 tabula, but then find 2 tabula you can sell, does that increase or decrease the overall amount of tabula available on the market?
Finding loot is far more frequent than upgrading loot
Consider that each individual Tabula in the current system is used by 20+ players over the course of it's life time.
Under my proposed system each tabula would only be used once.
Therefore: Finding 2 Tabulas in my proposed system = a 90% decrease in Tabulas on the market compared to finding 1 Tabula in the current system.
Did I lose you? I know numbers can be hard for people.
I'm fairly sure a large number of people would keep 1 for alts.
You seem to forget people farm for the stuff far more frequently than people will need to buy it.
Increase your scope past 1 item. You aren't just increasing the droprate for 1 thing, but items specific to specific builds aswell most people won't use for themselves
|
|
"
KZA wrote:
"
girng wrote:
"
KZA wrote:
Now, imagine this: Equipping an item makes it bound to a single character. A tabula drops, and you have to choose between using it, or trading it. There is no reselling after using, so there's no way to buy one and then recoup the cost once you're done using it. With the current drop rate, this would make the item go up 30x (rough estimate to illustrate a point) in price. Now if GGG wanted have it retain the current value and similar usage, they could have it drop 30x (also just a made up figure to illustrate my point) more often.
Players should have an inherit right to test items out, and then have the ability to trade them later.
A player farmed and earned that item. They deserve to do whatever they want with it.
These are core values that should not be infringed on
I like you. Unlike most of the other posts in this thread, this is a really good point that I hadn't considered.
If you are interested, Brevik talked about this and even offered a bind on equip solution for PoE, but a) he was mildly drunk on stream, and b) it was in the context of IF an AH gets added
Can't find the video but it was 1.8 years ago? I think you'll find it fascinating. If I stumble upon it I'll PM you
"Path of Exile's engine is currently modern, lean and fast." - Chris Wilson, September 19th, 2019
"It looks like we broke something with 3.10.0. We don't know what it is yet." - Bex, March 16th, 2020 Last edited by girng#7675 on Jun 21, 2019, 3:01:21 PM
|
Posted bygirng#7675on Jun 21, 2019, 3:00:20 PM
|
