Looting -- The official thread for discussing the loot system. Updated 18th March, 2013.
" How you think thats fair blows my mind. The system isn't supposed to be fair. It wasn't fair in D2 or D1 either. The word fair implies that everyone always has the same chance at the loot. This isn't true. Ranged don't have the same opportunities, slower computers don't have the same opportunities, People who play the game without CAMPING THE DROPS don't have the same opportunities. It was OBVIOUSLY not fair without the timers and the same issues with the timers are STILL there. Standard Forever
|
|
" How is you being able to choose how to play, and I being able to choose how to play, not win-win for both of us? I've yet to see one single valid reason. If it's as obvious as you seem to think it is it should be very easy for you to explain, so either you do or you don't because you can't. |
|
" Standard Forever Last edited by iamstryker#5952 on Feb 27, 2013, 1:41:56 AM
|
|
" Yep, it's the same unreasonable, irrational, illogical, preposterous and absurd argumentation that is used since the page 100 or so. It shouldn't even be addressed, it's that childish. Perfectly comparable with a brainwashed religious cult. And for a couple of pages they've come up with another unreasonable, irrational, illogical, preposterous and absurd argumentation: the reward is the xp not the loot. It's in the same kindergarden league of argumentation: absolutely hilarious! It amaze me how a grown-up can come with this absurd kiddy logic, but i guess only a similar developed individual would believe the "exile story". Exactly like a religios cult: they'll do everything, even go 100% illogical, to defend their beliefs. |
|
" Because it's not a win for the developers as it destroys their vision for this game. In Every. Sense. Of. The Word. They made it. It's free. They should come first. If the fact that they didn't change from FFA to begin with when people had issues with it doesn't show how much they want to stick with it, then I don't know what does. It's been 2 years after all. They are either completely ignoring us at this point, or thinking on it very hard. And I would bet the reason no changes have happened is because no one has offered a solution that will allow them to keep it how they want and appease those who don't like it as is. Ultimately though, all suggestions turn this game into something it wasn't meant to be. When that happens to a game. When a game tries to cater to everyone's tastes, it fails, inevitably, and painfully. There are plenty of examples of this in the gaming industry. Edit: And what solutions I offered were in an attempt to be "win-win". For the players and for the developers. Last edited by TremorAcePV#7356 on Feb 27, 2013, 1:55:41 AM
|
|
" some times your vision proves to being crumberstone...then as an adult and as someone who wants $$$ to live on you must act like a man...undestand that your vision is outdated and/or flawed and move forward When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself
|
|
" Ah, so it's not that it wouldn't be win for you, it would not be a win for the developers. You mean those who make money out of the fact that some of their players choose to use the microtransaction system, something which requires them to be able to attract as many players as possible and then keep them interested so that even if it's just a small percentage of players that actually does pay money, the actual amount of players that translates into gets bigger. So by giving players more options - options that don't really affect those who choose the opposite - and catering to a wider audience... how is that bad for the developers? Being a game developer myself I'd say that's a win. Yes, they made Path of Exile and it's free. That is the very reason why their players come first, because GGG won't see any money if the players leave and never use their microtransaction system. GGG aren't ignoring their players. If they did they would have no idea of how to run a f2p business, and that's why I'm certain that they ARE listening because they're certainly not stupid. I can understand why they are silent in this thread, though. Again, giving parties the choice to use FFA doesn't affect the parties that choose to use instanced loot and vice versa, so it's not a feature that would in any way ruin the game for anyone and would only make it more attractive to more players. Last edited by mercetron#6323 on Feb 27, 2013, 2:13:35 AM
|
|
" While this is very true, the truth also is that GGG's vision isn't entirely cumbersome (what I believe you meant). It's only cumbersome with players who want something else. If they were forced to make a choice, it's entirely a valid and viable option to choose keeping FFA and alienate the demographic who wants something other than that and live/thrive on FFA-proponent players only. That'd be a perfectly viable option. But, at the same time, these people made a game and gave it away for free. So they are nice, and I would imagine, wouldn't want to do that, disappointing a large portion of their player base. Thus the current situation. Eventually, they will have to decide what they need to do. But that doesn't mean it's a win for them. Only that the players forced them to sacrifice something they didn't need to. Yes, in this instance, asking the players to accept something they want is propotionately bigger (in other words, asking the devs to give up on FFA would be asking far fewer people to accomodate for far more, whereas asking the players to accept FFA would be the opposite), but, at the same time, like I said, the ones who should come first are the developers. We are playing their game for free after all. It's complicated. In other words. But I'm the sacrifical type. I'd either accept it (if they chose FFA and I was anti-FFA) and not play the game any more or play the game and accept what they wanted since I know they have every right to it. I seem to be a minority, from what I've seen. " Well, that's the thing. From what I've seen. $$$ isn't particularly important to GGG. They aren't a company. I would imagine, based on what I've seen and read about them, that they would obviously want enough money to keep the game going (i.e. pay for servers and allow them to work on it as a job) and I believe that the number of players who are fine with FFA would be enough for this. That's just my personal opinion of course. Last edited by TremorAcePV#7356 on Feb 27, 2013, 2:18:18 AM
|
|
" Oh look "vision" argument. I wondered when you would show up. 1) The other guy never mentioned the devs in his argument. It would obviously be a win/win for players who want pvp and players who want pve in public games. Both crowds should be satisfied. 2) We may as well shut down the forums if people aren't allowed to disagree with the devs, or provide them with feedback on the system. They have their reasons for not changing it and thats their call, they say they are discussing it now so its still a legitimate discussion. Standard Forever
|
|
" Oh no! the poor devs being forced to do what they don't want to do! How cruel! Seriously though their big boys and can make their own decisions. Standard Forever
|
|
