Why all the hate towards RNG?

"

Josephoenix wrote:

"

2ofSpades wrote:

"

johnKeys wrote:

keep RNG, but bias it according to char+area level (for gear drops), item level (for crafting) and area level (for currency drops).

I agree; the formula should be adjusted for higher levels. The same goes for map drops.

@Josephoenix

Please stop with the personal insults.

go outside and get some sun is a "personal insult"... or heck even the rest of my post? lol.

I hope English isn't your first language, because then that would make sense. If however it is... I ask you to kindly point out "exactly" what you believe is a "personal insult".

ty

If it isn't a personal insult, it is still ad hominem.

oh ppl today are so "touchy", lol
wonder how we all survive and get ahead.
thicker skins for all!

Back on track:

RNG:

As it stands now, there are biases.

For chromes: understood and agree.
For jeweller: understood and agree (could be slightly more lenient)
For fusings: especially 5L and 6L, needs to be loosened up a little.

Alterations, transmutes and augments should be biased towards ilvl (more so than now).
Alchs + Chaos + Exalted same as alts etc, but perhaps "less biased".

Blessings and divines: perfect.

Drops: pretty good as is (imo), maybe increase higher level map drops slightly.

Did I miss anything?

"

johnKeys wrote:

I think people here who wrote how "right" it is for 5-linked and 6-linked items to be so rare, fail to understand one fundamental fact: we are talking about active skills here.

in every ARPG and character-development-based game I had the chance to play so far, the amount and quality of active skills was a direct result of the amount of time, effort and playing skill a player has put into the game, which was reflected in the amount of level-ups he/she got.

When I compared 6L to high-value Diablo 2 items, there's a reason I used Widowmaker, Enigma, and Call to Arms as examples. Each and everyone one of those items gave its user an active skill they didn't have before; they're even more extreme examples than adding an additional support gem. Additional support gems are actually more like the +skill mod in Diablo 2; a little +1 was nothing, casters in that game routinely got +10 levels, sometimes even +20 or more. Keep in mind level 20 was the highest possible without gear.

You say you've never played an ARPG where gear progression was as much or more important than level progression when it came to skill effectiveness. So apparently you've never played Diablo 2.

"

johnKeys wrote:

some may say "well the passive tree reflects your level and effort properly". and I answer: bullshit.
most of the nodes on the passive tree are stat nodes anyway, and a very bad combination ("build error") can indeed make your level 60 character weaker than a level 30 one.
a situation which is impossible in any other game I ever played, when comparing them without gear.

So apparently you never heard of people putting points outside of Vitality and being called a noob... again, you never played Diablo 3?

"

johnKeys wrote:

unique items are very build-defining, just like they were in Diablo 2.
high quality rares can make your game-play experience a lot easier than that of a guy who wasn't lucky enough or rich enough to have them.
but there really is no explicit requirement for you to have them.

skills on the other hand, are a must.

Show me a 6L skill chain where all five support gems change the core nature of the skill itself... that is, a chain where none of the supports are a pure DPS increase like Weapon Elemental Damage, Melee Physical Damage, Faster Casting, or Iron Will.

The sixth link isn't a skill changer, it's a skill amplifier. Any functionality you needed you could easily get with five links, if not four. The last one is just bumps the numbers up.

"

johnKeys wrote:

a level 70+ item for example, needs to have something like 1:4 chance to become a 6-link, and a 100% chance to be at least a 4-link.

and no, this will not break the economy - because of the level requirements on the items, and the fact there are a lot more level 30 characters in the game, than there are level 70 ones.
that's kind of like claiming a level 90 Diablo 2 character in Hell Difficulty breaks the economy, because each monster in the areas he plays, drops X100 more gold than what is dropped by monsters in areas where a level 20 character on Normal runs.

A level 90 D2 character in Hell difficulty (with stacked goldfind gear) does break the gold economy. That's why gold was worth nothing. Only 4 fusings to get a 6-link? You think that wouldn't break the economy? Wow. Just wow.

@ScrotieMcB, let me explain myself better, with a series of guiding questions:

1) isn't the active skills system in Path Of Exile entirely based on sockets and links?

you used examples from Diablo 2 which gave you skills your character wasn't supposed to have otherwise. stuff that gave you more diversity beyond the constraints of your selected class.
I'm talking about a gem like Heavy Strike for a Marauder. skills that would be in your active skill tree, if the game had such a thing.
support gems are more like when you put an extra point in the skill, and not necessarily a +skill-level mod.
"upgrading" to an item which has better attributes but less sockets/links, is like nullifying that skill you put lots of points into. possibly even nullifying an entire tree.

2) under the above assumption, would you not agree that a high level character absolutely must have at least one 6-link?

after all, high-lvl chars typically use more skills, and need more supports for those skills to make them adequately powerful for the content.
in Diablo 2 (and any other game), you certainly wouldn't use a skill with just 3 points as your primary one in late Hell. unless you were suicidal, that is.

3) doesn't a high level character "deserve" to have better odds to get more quality items than a low/mid-level character, having successfully navigated through most of the content in long gruelling hours of gameplay? does the fact they need better gear with better sockets and links not mean they must have better crafting odds, or alternatively better drop rates for high-quality Orbs?

and finally:

4) will 500 level 70+ characters running around with 6-links they rightfully earned and need, break the economy? will it break the economy if we add that number to approximately 200 extremely RNG-lucky chars under level 70, who also run around with 6-links?

the high-level guys won't be able to sell low-level guys their super-gear, for two reasons: (1) the low-level guys wouldn't have the currency to buy it, and (2) even if they were extremely RNG-lucky and do have the currency - they won't be able to use these stuff until they too reach high level.

so will it break the economy or the game difficulty? the answer is no. because there will be very obvious tiers, and lots of effort or extreme luck required to move up a tier.
will rewards be more evenly distributed according to player skill and amount of effort, instead of just some crazy lottery? the answer is yes.

one final note: my gameplay experience with Diablo 3 was roughly 3 hours in total with the demo, and a couple of Youtube videos. then I deleted it.
I did play almost every ARPG, RPG and Zelda-like character-development adventure game you can think of since the late 80s.

"

thepmrc wrote:

Have you ever heard of an analogy? Seriously people.

What if I put it this way... you go to burger hut, you get there and complain that there are too many different burgers.... Why in the fuck did you go to burger hut? Would you then respond with... 'not a single person here to POE for the sake of a burger' I would hope not.

I just find it odd that people come to an ARPG which is obviously heavily laden with RNG and complain about RNG... doesn't make sense.

see,talking about burgers,sandwiches and shit,your analogy doesn't really fit (i'm such a poet).
i'd picture it more in this way:
PoE it's a bit like Subway (you know,that franchise which allows you to "build" your personalized sandwich with fresh ingredients). PoE says: hey,come and play this game because we allow you to build your char as you like,almost with no restrictions,meaning you can be a wich handling a 2hander etc..
both PoE and Subway give you something which is the result of your investment
(call it money,time,orbs,whatever).

but PoE it's like you walk into Subway and this happens:
(lets suppose that you don't get the sandwich for a final price,but you pay 50cents to add an ingredient,lets go for an italian classic:white bread,tomatoes,mozzarella cheese,oregano,olives)

Subway Guy: good evening sir,how can i help :)
me: hi there,i'd like italian white bread (50c)
SG: there you go,italian bread base!
me: tomatoes (50c)
SG: there you go,tomatoes
me: mozzarella cheese (50c)
SG: there you go,provolone cheese!
me: no sorry,i want mozzarella please (another 50c)
SG: ops,i took tomatos away,please add 50c to get it back :)
me: errr,ok here,50c for tomatoes again
SG: and there you go,provolone! (so double provolone)
me: you know what? fuck it,i go away,you can keep the money dude...just leave me alone.

So this fitted a bit more than casinos,burger hut and whatnot...people complains mostly because many times they get screwed up by something which is supposed to make their char stronger,especially after a big amount of time and resorces were invested to do so.
I'll have to admit that i don't like this heavily RNG based system. while it is ok for elements like item and currency drops,that is not going to cut it regarding crafting. i understand that here crafting is gambling etc,BUT as other people expressed in other posts/threads: crafting in this game should never lead to regression. ok use RNG,whatever,but within the RNG there should always be some kind of progression feeling.
games like ARPGS,MMORPGS implies one thing: progression. doesn't matter how...slow,fast,whatever: progression
people starts their journey in this kind of games because they want to build a char,develop it,see it grow stronger and stronger,feel powerful and rock the shit out of the realm they're playing in. different games makes you reach this goal in a different way,some are more casual,some are more hardcore...but they all have one thing in common: PROGRESSION.
you want to make it more "difficult" with heavy RNG? fair enough,but don't expect then that a player is happy after he fucks up a gem setup which doesn't allow him to progress with his idea of buid. one more thing...all the people wrongly identifies investment-->progression=not hardcore casual-crybaby-QQ-i-want-it-all. that's just plain wrong and stupid.
also,just stop to take D2 into debates:

dude1: this thing is shit!
dude2: D2 had it so it's ok GTFO sissy!

Stop living in the freaking past. D2/TQ were great games,but those need to be the starting point,not the final goal!

ah,and one more thing:

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

"

Faerie_Storm wrote:

"

ShaeG wrote:

Like maybe once you get lets say 3 Links on an item you can never RNG below 3 links..

well I have to admit I have sometimes wanted something less then 3L so I didn't apply a support to both gems and only applied it to one gem. mostly due to mana cost really.

Maybe, you can "lock in" a certain number of links once you are satisfied such that it will never remove that number of links, however, when doing this, it also dramatically increases the likelihood that you won't increase beyond that link count.

In this way, you can either embrace the lottery system and hope for the best, or play it safe and understand that you probably won't ever hit the jackpot.

thoughts?

that would work out. maybe it's quite complicated to implement the socket or link selection in the current system,but maybe it can be easily archievable in the case where you leave the sockets with gems inside and when you gamble only the sockets which are not gemmed are changed. this would include the link setup aswell.
eg: say you have a 6 socket with a skilled 3L,when you gamble that skilled 3L stays untouched. so you still go by RNG,but at least keep your current minimal setup. want a 2L out of it? remove the gem you don't need and gamble the rest.

"

that would work out. maybe it's quite complicated to implement the socket or link selection in the current system,but maybe it can be easily archievable in the case where you leave the sockets with gems inside and when you gamble only the sockets which are not gemmed are changed. this would include the link setup aswell.
eg: say you have a 6 socket with a skilled 3L,when you gamble that skilled 3L stays untouched. so you still go by RNG,but at least keep your current minimal setup. want a 2L out of it? remove the gem you don't need and gamble the rest.

I like that idea, but that won't adress the oh i have this cool amulett but 2 abilitys are crap, ok i have to gamble....poof....all abilitys are bad problem

"

johnKeys wrote:

Spoiler

@ScrotieMcB, let me explain myself better, with a series of guiding questions:

1) isn't the active skills system in Path Of Exile entirely based on sockets and links?

you used examples from Diablo 2 which gave you skills your character wasn't supposed to have otherwise. stuff that gave you more diversity beyond the constraints of your selected class.
I'm talking about a gem like Heavy Strike for a Marauder. skills that would be in your active skill tree, if the game had such a thing.
support gems are more like when you put an extra point in the skill, and not necessarily a +skill-level mod.
"upgrading" to an item which has better attributes but less sockets/links, is like nullifying that skill you put lots of points into. possibly even nullifying an entire tree.

2) under the above assumption, would you not agree that a high level character absolutely must have at least one 6-link?

after all, high-lvl chars typically use more skills, and need more supports for those skills to make them adequately powerful for the content.
in Diablo 2 (and any other game), you certainly wouldn't use a skill with just 3 points as your primary one in late Hell. unless you were suicidal, that is.

3) doesn't a high level character "deserve" to have better odds to get more quality items than a low/mid-level character, having successfully navigated through most of the content in long gruelling hours of gameplay? does the fact they need better gear with better sockets and links not mean they must have better crafting odds, or alternatively better drop rates for high-quality Orbs?

and finally:

4) will 500 level 70+ characters running around with 6-links they rightfully earned and need, break the economy? will it break the economy if we add that number to approximately 200 extremely RNG-lucky chars under level 70, who also run around with 6-links?

the high-level guys won't be able to sell low-level guys their super-gear, for two reasons: (1) the low-level guys wouldn't have the currency to buy it, and (2) even if they were extremely RNG-lucky and do have the currency - they won't be able to use these stuff until they too reach high level.

so will it break the economy or the game difficulty? the answer is no. because there will be very obvious tiers, and lots of effort or extreme luck required to move up a tier.
will rewards be more evenly distributed according to player skill and amount of effort, instead of just some crazy lottery? the answer is yes.

one final note: my gameplay experience with Diablo 3 was roughly 3 hours in total with the demo, and a couple of Youtube videos. then I deleted it.
I did play almost every ARPG, RPG and Zelda-like character-development adventure game you can think of since the late 80s.

1. Yes it is. Entirely... which includes class not mattering. In one sense, the concept of "skills you're not supposed to have" is limited in PoE, because it's not like a mace that gives Ground Slam would be some kind of build enablers for duelists. However, looking at your old six-link as something that "gave you skills your character wasn't supposed to have otherwise" is a very healthy attitude.

In terms of the whole upgrade thing... if you were a hammerdin and you wanted to use, say, Chains of Honor... tough cookies. You're using Enigma, end of story. At least PoE gives you the chance to convert your "upgrade" into an actual upgrade. (Kaom's Heart is in a gray area here.)

2. Saying a high-level character needs a six-link is like saying a Diablo 2 (non-sorceress) caster needs Enigma, or a (non-barbarian) PvP player needs Call to Arms on weapon switch. Do they really, really want it, and not getting it when you're able to afford it is completely "wtf noob" stupid? Yes. Do they actually need it? No, you can still play the game in poor-mode with an incomplete build.

3. Nope. I wouldn't recommend increasing rune drop rates for high-level D2 players either.

4. Yes. Right now it takes about 900 Fusings on average to make a six-link. You are suggesting making them available for less than one two-hundredth of the price. That's going from 20 Exalts to a Regal Orb. "6L service" offers would pop up, and for the cost of one GCP anyone level 50+ could six-link their chest for virtually nothing. That is the kind of chaos your batshit insane suggestion would bring about.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

4. Yes. Right now it takes about 900 Fusings on average to make a six-link. You are suggesting making them available for less than one two-hundredth of the price. That's going from 20 Exalts to a Regal Orb. "6L service" offers would pop up, and for the cost of one GCP anyone level 50+ could six-link their chest for virtually nothing. That is the kind of chaos your batshit insane suggestion would bring about.

How about simply increasing the chances of 6l on higher level items? Not by much, but enough to make a difference.

"

johnKeys wrote:

2) under the above assumption, would you not agree that a high level character absolutely must have at least one 6-link?

Absolutely not.

I have a lvl80 Templar who doesn't yet have a 5L. 4L is all you need with 5L and 6L being available to provide "additional" options for survivability, dps or magic find.