Because of arrogance, GGG is running the road to the end

"

Vennto wrote:

Spoiler

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Locking rare "crafting" mods behind really dangerous encounters AND applying a TAG akin to "Split" ("FORGED" comes to mind as the proper option) and locking the FURTHER USE OF HARVEST CRAFTING MODS TO ONLY THE PLAYER THAT FIRST STARTED USING THIS METHOD would have been LIGHTYEARS BETTER than the current implementation FIASCO...

Already covered why this might not be the best of ways, here in this thread as well as from Chris himself, but fine.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

TencentGGG

That´s what I have a problem with actually. For your information: The company is called Grinding Gear Games, not TencentGGG. What you are doing here is trying to implicitly say whatever changes they did they did it because of the partly ownership of an investor. If you rather discuss crude conspiracy theories over actual important topics while Chris clearly stated they have completely free reign over the game-design then you have no business here. Very tasteless "approach" to a conversation, if u even wanna call it that.

I legit missed the point made by Chris, and I also don't see what proper counter-arguments are regarding "LOCKING" (PERSONALIZING ACTUALLY) THE USAGE OF OWN ACQUIRED CRAFTS ON AN ITEM THAT CAN BE FURTHER TRADED AT WILL...

The rarity of crafts can be balance by weighting AND difficulty, and simply removing the massive pool of attempts will instantly solve most Harvest problems, heck, even 3.13 level might be usable with some "tuning" if EVERYONE WILL FEND FOR HIMSELF...

Please, I'm far away from a "conspiracy theorist" for simply calling TencentGGG as they are...

You might not remember, but PoE started as a game developed by "gamers for gamers" in a garage by GGG, a startup company of 3 friends that were passionate about their goal.

I won't say that the "passion died", but since the Tencents' acquisition of GGG, you can never talk about that "indie dev era", as we were ushered into the current "AAA contender" era. The best way to mark the difference is by simply talking about TencentGGG and it's current endeavors and goals.

If you want to talk semantics, be my guest, but I will never again name TencentGGG as "GGG" before they will be independent again...

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

I won't say that the "passion died", but since the Tencents' acquisition of GGG, you can never talk about that "indie dev era", as we were ushered into the current "AAA contender" era. The best way to mark the difference is by simply talking about TencentGGG and it's current endeavors and goals.

If you want to talk semantics, be my guest, but I will never again name TencentGGG as "GGG" before they will be independent again...

Unfortunately you completely ignore the fact that just because there is an investor does not mean that a company is not independant, and - again - as Chris mentioned Tencent is not involved whatsoever in decision-making (again, watch the interview if you´ve missed it rather than blatantly sticking to your argument of "I have not seen that yet"). Who cares about economic involvement as long as the game-philosophy and the decision-making leading that is untouched?

There are different kinds of investors. Some that actually want to buy into a company to make decisions, some that buy a company to "swallow it" and add its parts to a bigger conglomerate of companies, and some who just believe in the product and want some return of investment in the long run. You seem convinced that investorship is always one of the former, ignoring that it definately could be the latter as well and based on Chris's statement it seems to be exactly that.

What you seem to miss in your very leftist-marxist-ideology is that game-development cannot thrive with 3 people in a garage. It is a starting-point but ultimatively they have to expand, and when I see long-time veterans posting that the endgame was act 3 docks-farming I think the game turned to the better in the long run (not talking the last 2 patches necessarily).

If you have such a problem with big companies and those big bad investors I would like to ask you to throw away your android- or Apple Phone, actually disregarding your desktop-PC alltogether because you will most likely play on intel with Windows rather than some more independant/"off-meta" stuff like linux, right?

All you do with calling the company TencentGGG is not necessarily pointing out that there is an investor, it is implicitly stating that every decision is now influenced by other goals than they would be if there was none financing the development other than the original founders themselves, and that is just ignorant of literally every development in the world, good or bad. And the reason why I don´t even bother answering to your other points. As stated before, if that is the route you are willing to take to shape your arguments then there is nothing to be gained here from discussing it with you.

Edit: Your signature is the best example for my arguments: Mentioning stuff like free speech in a forum that is not a public place where you can ask and demand those rights but a specific platform run by a private company, in which they hold the reign over whatever they want. Your statements in that regard is exactly the kind of nonsense that should exclude you from participating in a meaningful conversation.

"

Vennto wrote:

What you seem to miss in your very leftist-marxist-ideology...I would like to ask you to throw away your android- or Apple Phone

Dont get me worng I dont try to defend or attack the politics you mentioned but... sorry you lost the argue at this point when you use that politics stuff as argument. More when you try to attack the other person because that gratuite labels you put on him.

"

Narszosh7 wrote:

"

Vennto wrote:

What you seem to miss in your very leftist-marxist-ideology...I would like to ask you to throw away your android- or Apple Phone

Dont get me worng I dont try to defend or attack the politics you mentioned but... sorry you lost the argue at this point when you use that politics stuff as argument. More when you try to attack the other person because that gratuite labels you put on him.

I don´t use that politics stuff as an argument, I used those to illustrate how out of touch his critique towards GGG taking on an investor is. Based on his post he would rather see PoE still be on the 2012 level being developed by not more than 3 people in a garage.

"

Vennto wrote:

I don´t use that politics stuff as an argument, I used those to illustrate how out of touch his critique towards GGG taking on an investor is. Based on his post he would rather see PoE still be on the 2012 level being developed by not more than 3 people in a garage.

I think the concern is normal when we see other companies ruining their product just after companies being selled to a bigger one or a fusion.

Sounds for me like "if you use windows and have android you cant complain about POE bad decisions after Tencent purchasing GGG or WoW after blizzard "fusion" with activision"

Also for me 3 friends in a garage making their own product with all freedom dont sounds really "marxist".

"

Vennto wrote:

Spoiler

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

I won't say that the "passion died", but since the Tencents' acquisition of GGG, you can never talk about that "indie dev era", as we were ushered into the current "AAA contender" era. The best way to mark the difference is by simply talking about TencentGGG and it's current endeavors and goals.

If you want to talk semantics, be my guest, but I will never again name TencentGGG as "GGG" before they will be independent again...

Unfortunately you completely ignore the fact that just because there is an investor does not mean that a company is not independant, and - again - as Chris mentioned Tencent is not involved whatsoever in decision-making (again, watch the interview if you´ve missed it rather than blatantly sticking to your argument of "I have not seen that yet"). Who cares about economic involvement as long as the game-philosophy and the decision-making leading that is untouched?

There are different kinds of investors. Some that actually want to buy into a company to make decisions, some that buy a company to "swallow it" and add its parts to a bigger conglomerate of companies, and some who just believe in the product and want some return of investment in the long run. You seem convinced that investorship is always one of the former, ignoring that it definately could be the latter as well and based on Chris's statement it seems to be exactly that.

What you seem to miss in your very leftist-marxist-ideology is that game-development cannot thrive with 3 people in a garage. It is a starting-point but ultimatively they have to expand, and when I see long-time veterans posting that the endgame was act 3 docks-farming I think the game turned to the better in the long run (not talking the last 2 patches necessarily).

If you have such a problem with big companies and those big bad investors I would like to ask you to throw away your android- or Apple Phone, actually disregarding your desktop-PC alltogether because you will most likely play on intel with Windows rather than some more independant/"off-meta" stuff like linux, right?

All you do with calling the company TencentGGG is not necessarily pointing out that there is an investor, it is implicitly stating that every decision is now influenced by other goals than they would be if there was none financing the development other than the original founders themselves, and that is just ignorant of literally every development in the world, good or bad. And the reason why I don´t even bother answering to your other points. As stated before, if that is the route you are willing to take to shape your arguments then there is nothing to be gained here from discussing it with you.

Unfortunately, you also completely ignore that in the "GGG" era, the "main investors" were also the players. Right now, in the current "TencentGGG" era, us players took a back seat.

You might not remember, but before the first "PoE CON", GGG started the development of the console versions "investing" the income from players that was supposed to "help advance the PC version" (which cause an uproar back then), yet they made the right choice as that highlighted the ambitions of a "AAA contender"...

Some of us "supporters" care about "economic involvement as long as the game philosophy and the decision-making leading that is untouched" because it certainly WILL (not MIGHT, mind you) BE TOUCHED sooner or later...

No one is convinced of anything, but I also remember a time when news weren't doubled by MTX showcases, or a time when the developers were a bit more used to take their feedback and provide highlights in a more direct manner - things change, and that is mainly OK...

There is no "leftist-marxist-ideology" here, and I never would have expected GGG to permanently stagnate. They were, and are, still too ambitious for that - which is great IMHO.

I am also a heavy user of Linux and various "no brands", but I also enjoy the benefits of competitivity and I never once said "corporations are the ULTIMATE EVIL!!!" (I've never even implied that about Tencent, you're welcomed to search my posts) as I think those aspects are highlighting most of the problems that others use as a "convenient scape goat".

I see the world in different shades of gray, not only black & white...

My argument was that even if I read transcripts about Chris's interviews (will watch it when I can, but I prefer to actually play PoE if I have the time) I failed to acknowledge the proper counter-arguments presented against PROPERLY IMPLEMENTING SOME CHALLENGE & DANGER/REWARDS FOR DETERMINISTIC CRAFTING...

Please enlighten me...

IF YOUR MAIN ARGUMENT IS ONLY: "YOU CALL GGG AS TENCENTGGG AND THAT MAKES ME NOT "NOT EVEN BOTHER TO RESPOND TO YOUR OTHER POINTS"...

PLEASE...

Not wanting a proper discussion because you can't comprehend a different point of view, just because you're disagreeing because "you're right" and hold the "ultimate truth" although your other participant highlighted clearly the reasoning behind his view is your choice.

That makes me wonder why are you so fixated on conspiracies, and having only dark shaded glasses as an option in the middle of the night... I'm highlighting that GGG changed into TencentGGG, which is a natural evolution as you said, and I personally don't see it as a problem. It just helps me, and hopefully others be more mindful of their new stance, as a "AAA contender" instead of the previous "indie garage based dev"...

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Unfortunately, you also completely ignore that in the "GGG" era, the "main investors" were also the players. Right now, in the current "TencentGGG" era, us players took a back seat.

And you´re sad about that? Why? Isn´t it actually a good thing a company has some leighway and freedom in development choices, space to experiment without fearing the backlash of a community and being enslaved to their good-will, which is still pretty much the case? Why else do you think Chris jumps from one community-stream to the next after they lost roughly 30% net profit due to lower sales of MTX because players are dropping the league? I think it is partly because he really means well and wants to produce a game that people play all through their twenties and possibly afterwards as well. And I think it is partly because they are dependent on the sales, even with an investor in the boat so I see absolutely no reason to overevaluate the economic power an investor brings in and to undervalue the influence of the community, which you do.

"

Some of us "supporters" care about "economic involvement as long as the game philosophy and the decision-making leading that is untouched" because it certainly WILL (not MIGHT, mind you) BE TOUCHED sooner or later...

You base that forecasting on what? Your own experience from producing many AAA titles? On anecdotal evidence of other companies?

"

I failed to acknowledge the proper counter-arguments presented against PROPERLY IMPLEMENTING SOME CHALLENGE & DANGER/REWARDS FOR DETERMINISTIC CRAFTING...

Aside from the fact that the biggest counter-argument is (and thats for a long time) "I dont want crafting to be able to produce 9/10 and 10/10 items", why does he even need to provide one? Its their game, they don´t need to provide a factual argument why they don´t want deterministic crafting. It doesn´t fit their vision of how the best items in the game are generated. You can be sad about it (I am, since I love crafting and actually like the fact that the best items are generated via crafting, not dropping, no matter how good they are in their final form), you can feel its dumb, but you kinda have to accept it as a development-decision. Why does everyone think they have 5 degrees in game design and that their idea is superior to that of a team of 150 people getting payed to come up with solutions?

"

Not wanting a proper discussion because you can't comprehend a different point of view, just because you're disagreeing because "you're right" and hold the "ultimate truth" although your other participant highlighted clearly the reasoning behind his view is your choice.

I am right. Because the company is called Grinding Gear Games, not "Tencents Grinding Gear Games". And as I stated before, with you highlighting that there is an investor while falsely stating the name you are implying something instead of making your point with actual arguments. Your innocent explanation of "I just want to highlight a different era" is very unreliable as you could point that out in a specific case where that argument would hold any meaning rather than throwing it out into the ether whenever you can.

"

Vennto wrote:

Spoiler

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Unfortunately, you also completely ignore that in the "GGG" era, the "main investors" were also the players. Right now, in the current "TencentGGG" era, us players took a back seat.

And you´re sad about that? Why? Isn´t it actually a good thing a company has some leighway and freedom in development choices, space to experiment without fearing the backlash of a community and being enslaved to their good-will, which is still pretty much the case? Why else do you think Chris jumps from one community-stream to the next after they lost roughly 30% net profit due to lower sales of MTX because players are dropping the league? I think it is partly because he really means well and wants to produce a game that people play all through their twenties and possibly afterwards as well. And I think it is partly because they are dependent on the sales, even with an investor in the boat so I see absolutely no reason to overevaluate the economic power an investor brings in and to undervalue the influence of the community, which you do.

"

Some of us "supporters" care about "economic involvement as long as the game philosophy and the decision-making leading that is untouched" because it certainly WILL (not MIGHT, mind you) BE TOUCHED sooner or later...

You base that forecasting on what? Your own experience from producing many AAA titles? On anecdotal evidence of other companies?

"

I failed to acknowledge the proper counter-arguments presented against PROPERLY IMPLEMENTING SOME CHALLENGE & DANGER/REWARDS FOR DETERMINISTIC CRAFTING...

Aside from the fact that the biggest counter-argument is (and thats for a long time) "I dont want crafting to be able to produce 9/10 and 10/10 items", why does he even need to provide one? Its their game, they don´t need to provide a factual argument why they don´t want deterministic crafting. It doesn´t fit their vision of how the best items in the game are generated. You can be sad about it (I am, since I love crafting and actually like the fact that the best items are generated via crafting, not dropping, no matter how good they are in their final form), you can feel its dumb, but you kinda have to accept it as a development-decision. Why does everyone think they have 5 degrees in game design and that their idea is superior to that of a team of 150 people getting payed to come up with solutions?

"

Not wanting a proper discussion because you can't comprehend a different point of view, just because you're disagreeing because "you're right" and hold the "ultimate truth" although your other participant highlighted clearly the reasoning behind his view is your choice.

I am right. Because the company is called Grinding Gear Games, not "Tencents Grinding Gear Games". And as I stated before, with you highlighting that there is an investor while falsely stating the name you are implying something instead of making your point with actual arguments. Your innocent explanation of "I just want to highlight a different era" is very unreliable as you could point that out in a specific case where that argument would hold any meaning rather than throwing it out into the ether whenever you can.

I will make a concession. Will simply call them "DEVS" for the time being, instead of "TencentGGG", so no connotation is added by a different point of view, as I never considered a common sense distinction worthy of such a negative bias - just because there are people that think in a different way, that doesn't make them wrong by default...

I don't need to state that the DEVS are well intended, and that they needed huge "cojones" to apply the previous 2 patches in their full "glory". That also doesn't mean they didn't mess up and lost a "healthy amount of previously amassed good-will".

You might not remember this, but PoE went on a path diverging from "The Vision" since before the patch 2.0... It's not like anyone held a gun to the DEVS heads and made them make ALL THE WRONG CHOICES, or force them to hide the direction of development.

The game and DEVS are dependent on the sales, and will forever be due to PoE being sold as GaaS, but to have the game shut down completely, they will need to have less then a FEW HUNDRED PLAYERS ALWAYS ONLINE, and even then, Chris might have enough ego to keep the server running with the latest patch released INDEFINITELY, if he so intends to...

The investor will always consider it's returns, and in the case of the "community" as the principal backer, having a "FUN" game was the main focus, while other investors are more concerned about the $$$ returns...

I have not produced AAA titles, and have no such intention for the time being. Meanwhile, anyone with more than 2 neurons can observe and reach the same conclusion that I reached. The hard data of various AAA game companies, heck even in most other domains, when dealing with investors hard pressed to "reach financial goals" or "mark $$$ milestones", the devs will be forced to make concessions upon concessions. I wish that PoE would mark the chimera that actually made the cut and held to it's guns, but I didn't and still don't see enough focus on QUALITY instead of QUANTITY - the 3 month content release schedule force a backlog of technical debt that can't properly be addressed before PoE 2, and so on...

If crafting isn't supposed to provide 9/10 or 10/10 items, Chris missed it's mark since PoE 1.0... You do know that all those mirror items, bar maybe a few that might have been DROPPED with 5-6 T1 mods, ARE ALL CRAFTED - using the orbs and currency on items is actually the "RNG gambling aka crafting" in PoE...

Now, if Chris wants such items to be "unobtainable" even if only for the duration of a league, it will be EASIER TO BALANCE BOTH WEIGHTS & DANGER/REWARD RATIOS CONCERNING A HARVEST CRAFT FOR 1 INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, INSTEAD OF A COMMUNITY WORKING TOWARD THE SAME GOAL... The team of 150 people need to provide their own point of view, but as we see, they chose the most inefficient way of balancing Harvest around the COMMUNITY correctly identified as the problem, and making it almost unsatisfying to use SOLO. That was, and still is, why their solution feels so underwhelming...

Sadly, just because "PoE is their game", that doesn't also make the DEVS "right" or keeps the game "FUN"...

And don't even dare to "serve" the infamous: "If you don't like it, LEAVE!", as I will instead say: "Why not ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE GAME AND KEEP IT FUN for a change if you want my hard earned $$$???"

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

I will make a concession. Will simply call them "DEVS" for the time being, instead of "TencentGGG", so no connotation is added by a different point of view, as I never considered a common sense distinction worthy of such a negative bias

That´s all I have been asking for.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

I don't need to state that the DEVS are well intended, and that they needed huge "cojones" to apply the previous 2 patches in their full "glory". That also doesn't mean they didn't mess up and lost a "healthy amount of previously amassed good-will".

Agreed, I even share that feeling. Before 3.15 there was very little they could have done which I would have considered to be negative. This patch I clearly share the dissatisfaction many have, despite being perfectly fine to still play around it, but there are problems in the game, and they need to be adressed. Fast. And in terms of the "good will" I totally share your opinion, as I normally buy at least something each league. For 3.15, I did not yet buy anything as they did not deserve it, the changes does not reflect what I as a player think is correct for the game nor did I get the feeling they were well thought through so I answered in the way I can - holding money.

"

The investor will always consider it's returns, and in the case of the "community" as the principal backer, having a "FUN" game was the main focus, while other investors are more concerned about the $$$ returns...

That comes down to the specific agreement. In investments it is quite common to hope for returns. I don´t know the specificalities in game design but in many investments, while the investor being the first getting payed, he also shares the risk and if there is no profit he does not get anything as well and his investment goes up in smoke. That is his risk from buying in, doing nothing and getting payed first if there is a profit. Not a native english speaker so I lack the ability for a better comparison, but it´s kind of like a gamble on the stock exchange. Basically it means, the investor might be concerned with his returns, but there is nothing legally binding (in "classic" cases) where he can demand for his money if there isn´t any.
That all being said: I strongly think that "fun" for the players is still the one thing a company with that model should and will strive for, as that´s what pays the bills when people are willing to buy/donate.

"

The hard data of various AAA game companies, heck even in most other domains, when dealing with investors hard pressed to "reach financial goals" or "mark $$$ milestones", the devs will be forced to make concessions upon concessions.

I had to think of blizzard - and they managed to royally screw up stuff, even with such a HUGE investor like Activision in the back. Since I always thought GGG making smarter decisions I was under the impression, based on the negative examples out there, they will do smarter decisions and I am still at least hopeful they will.

"

QUALITY instead of QUANTITY - the 3 month content release schedule force a backlog of technical debt that can't properly be addressed before PoE 2, and so on...

There we go... nothing I can fully agree on at that point, but at least a very valid point. There were too many things that didn´t pan out. I think the main problem is the lack of alpha-testing, partly due to the lack of time, partly due to the nice alpha testers leaking stuff and DEVS not willing to do anything about it.

"

If crafting isn't supposed to provide 9/10 or 10/10 items, Chris missed it's mark since PoE 1.0... You do know that all those mirror items, bar maybe a few that might have been DROPPED with 5-6 T1 mods, ARE ALL CRAFTED - using the orbs and currency on items is actually the "RNG gambling aka crafting" in PoE...

100% agreed and by far my biggest critique on the current state of the game in terms of what their actual vision is. And it´s not something they can solve with smart loot, as Double Influenced Items, fractured items, or even elevated items will always have a higher potential than standard-drops so it is not only highly unlikely but given the current top-tier rares literally impossible to drop something that surpasses crafts. As stated before, I actually like that crafting is the real endgame, but there is clearly a disconnection between Chris' vision and the possibility of it in the current iteration of the game.

"

Sadly, just because "PoE is their game", that doesn't also make the DEVS "right" or keeps the game "FUN"...

Correct, and I never said that. I completely acknowledge a lot of problems that are currently existing, even though I am not playing that long there are things that are very problematic and Harvest was not the solution for it, rather that it really uncovered the problems while offering the wrong solution at the same time, leading to frustration nontheless when the current solution that was harvest got taken away again.

"

And don't even dare to "serve" the infamous: "If you don't like it, LEAVE!", as I will instead say: "Why not ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE GAME AND KEEP IT FUN for a change if you want my hard earned $$$???"

I mean... don´t we all want the game to succeed? Else we wouldn´t be here typing.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

There is no "leftist-marxist-ideology" here, and I never would have expected GGG to permanently stagnate. They were, and are, still too ambitious for that - which is great IMHO.

As someone to whom work of Marx has actually been introduced on a sociology course of classics, it really pisses me of when people use these buzzwords on contemporary basis without any real knowledge on topic. So could people please refrain with fashionable political slogans to gain points.

Also, last time I tried to make a correction on reference about George Orwell, forum moderators most helpfully removed it. It's great how spreading misrepresentations are okay but trying to make a correction is being political now.