Looting -- The official thread for discussing the loot system. Updated 18th March, 2013.
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
Well, that's the thing. From what I've seen. $$$ isn't particularly important to GGG. They aren't a company.
What?
Of course they're a company. They're hardly making a free game out of the goodness of their hearts.
And of course they need Path of Exile to yield a good income.
"
In order to fund the development and continued expansion of Path of Exile, we offer a range of ethical microtransactions that allow you to distinguish yourself in the world of Wraeclast without receiving any gameplay advantage.
Fund development = pay all the bills and salaries of the staff. Being a company, it would be assumed they wish to gain more money than they're spending, too.
EDIT: And you said something about "giving up on FFA". Giving players options isn't giving up on either option, obviously.
Last edited by mercetron#6323 on Feb 27, 2013, 2:44:28 AM
Well, that's the thing. From what I've seen. $$$ isn't particularly important to GGG. They aren't a company.
What?
Of course they're a company. They're hardly making a free game out of the goodness of their hearts.
And of course they need Path of Exile to yield a good income.
"
In order to fund the development and continued expansion of Path of Exile, we offer a range of ethical microtransactions that allow you to distinguish yourself in the world of Wraeclast without receiving any gameplay advantage.
Fund development = pay all the bills and salaries of the staff. Being a company, it would be assumed they wish to gain more money than they're spending, too.
Spoiler
They don't act like a company. They are different in every way as compared to almost all other game making companies out there, assuming they are indeed a company.
When I say they aren't a company, I mean in the sense of $$$ being the bottom line. They don't act like it is.
The quote you posted only repeats what I said. That they "obviously would want to make enough to upkeep the game (i.e. pay for the servers and allow them to work on it as their jobs)."
Which is vastly different from "Make as much money as possible. Period." It means they can make decisions that might, knowingly, hurt their bottom line, but only as long as their bottom line stays above the "upkeep server/allow them to have jobs working on the game" minimum.
An example of one such decision is to keep FFA, alienating a large portion of their play base.... etc etc, as I said before. But they are nice, so we will see what happens. Being nice, is another thing that makes them different from most other game making companies I've seen. I say "most" because there are a few Good Guy gaming companies out there.
Edit: (Directed at your "edit") Them being forced to give up on FFA only. My bad. Forgot the only.
Last edited by TremorAcePV#7356 on Feb 27, 2013, 2:48:46 AM
That is seriously ridiculous. Nothing "fair" about it.
Which I guess is exactly why GGG added the silly timers/names.
Tell me a valid reason its not fair. The guy next to the drop has an easier time picking it up, obviously. You miss out on opportunity by being ranged, and get survivability for it.
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.
everyone has the same chance at drops. Proximity to drops is the only difference between players, which the timer was supposed to help with.
Why should the game developers change the system for your slower computer? Everyone has been having issues with the graphics, once that's accounted for your "point" will be no more. Ranged has higher survivability, not even build will have the same advantages overall. Tons of people camping drops sucks, which could be fixed by not showing rarity until the timer is over.
"Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right!" Henry Ford
Last edited by Jackel6672#4463 on Feb 27, 2013, 2:50:51 AM
They don't act like a company. They are different in every way as compared to all other game making companies out there, assuming they are indeed a company.
When I say they aren't a company, I mean in the sense of $$$ being the bottom line. They don't act like it is.
That's called good public relations. They're still pretty clear in the fact that they need the money from the players to support development (=to survive as a company).
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
The quote you posted only repeats what I said. That they "obviously would want to make enough to upkeep the game (i.e. pay for the servers and allow them to work on it as their jobs)."
Which is vastly different from "Make as much money as possible. Period." It means they can make decisions that might, knowingly, hurt their bottom line, but only as long as their bottom line stays above the "upkeep server/allow them to have jobs working on the game" minimum.
Nobody said "make as much money as possible". They're balancing between making a good game and turning a profit so they can be successful as a company. They'll need to adapt to the market just like everybody else unless they want to run a high risk of failing.
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
An example of one such decision is to keep FFA, alienating a large portion of their play base.... etc etc, as I said before. But they are nice, so we will see what happens. Being nice, is another thing that makes them different from most other game making companies I've seen. I say "most" because there are a few Good Guy gaming companies out there.
Edit: (Directed at your "edit") Them being forced to give up on FFA only. My bad. Forgot the only.
Just to overly clarify, I haven't said "remove FFA". Giving players the choice won't alienate those who want FFA. Not giving players the choice will however alienate those who don't like FFA. (And that would just be a stupid decision since either choice won't ruin the game for either group of players - and they're a company that cares for profit - etc etc etc.)
Last edited by mercetron#6323 on Feb 27, 2013, 2:56:01 AM
I just don't get it. We say: Give us choice. Win-win for everyone. You say: NO! Our experience will be ruined if you have choice!
The lack of logic simply blows my mind.
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.
Yup. We've explained why the choice is a non choice. Nice attempt though.
Is XP not an award? Something given for completing a task? Can you complete said task, and not have any items drop?
Wait for it.
Drops are a bonus?
Who would have thought.
Forgive us for enjoying the play style of the game, and not wanting people to change it in a way that makes our play style non existent.
Edit:
Will check in the morning. Time to sleep!
"Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right!" Henry Ford
Last edited by Jackel6672#4463 on Feb 27, 2013, 3:05:04 AM
Thinking GGG doesn't care for good profit is extremely naive. They're good guys and awesome developers, but they're realistic. They are trying a risky business model, but it's a business model, and they'll try to adapt to both their ideas, their budget and the market.
They don't act like a company. They are different in every way as compared to all other game making companies out there, assuming they are indeed a company.
When I say they aren't a company, I mean in the sense of $$$ being the bottom line. They don't act like it is.
That's called good public relations. They're still pretty clear in the fact that they need the money from the players to support development (=to survive as a company).
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
The quote you posted only repeats what I said. That they "obviously would want to make enough to upkeep the game (i.e. pay for the servers and allow them to work on it as their jobs)."
Which is vastly different from "Make as much money as possible. Period." It means they can make decisions that might, knowingly, hurt their bottom line, but only as long as their bottom line stays above the "upkeep server/allow them to have jobs working on the game" minimum.
Nobody said "make as much money as possible". They're balancing between making a good game and turning a profit so they can be successful as a company. They'll need to adapt to the market just like everybody else unless they want to run a high risk of failing.
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
An example of one such decision is to keep FFA, alienating a large portion of their play base.... etc etc, as I said before. But they are nice, so we will see what happens. Being nice, is another thing that makes them different from most other game making companies I've seen. I say "most" because there are a few Good Guy gaming companies out there.
Edit: (Directed at your "edit") Them being forced to give up on FFA only. My bad. Forgot the only.
Just to overly clarify, I haven't said "remove FFA". Giving players the choice won't alienate those who want FFA. Not giving players the choice will however alienate those who don't like FFA. (And that would just be a stupid decision since either choice won't ruin the game for either group of players - and they're a company that cares for profit - etc etc etc.)
Yes, and that goes along with what I said. They want enough to keep the game going (thus, not fail). If their bottom line is high enough, meaning they have enough that losing part of the player base to keep their vision in what they want this game to be wouldn't affect the game surviving and them succeeding, it is perfectly viable for them to say "Ok, FFA only." and let the population that would be against such a decision deal with it.
Read the above paragraph regarding "changing to the market to avoid running a high risk of failure". Add to it that I personally believe the player base who would be fine with FFA only is large enough that they could succeed without the player base that is against FFA only.
Yes, you never did. And that's true and fine and well and good (to overly clarify). However, you suggest options. Which goes against their vision for the game in that it offers a way out of public games where you are forced to either cooperate with your fellow exiles and run the risk of trusting them not to hoard all the loot for the benefits of running with a group (faster clearing, more XP, etc).
They want the environment to remain hostile in all ways within their control. They want that "cutthroat" atmosphere to stay. I don't know precisely what that means, but whatever it is, they obviously believe FFA only is a necessity for it, evidenced by the first post of this thread.
Your suggestion goes against that. It may be win-win for the players, but not for them.
Disclaimer: I am a Hardcore only player. I won't be effected by anything that comes from this thread. I am here to make sure people understand what they are suggesting and why it would/wouldn't work or why it would/wouldn't be good for the game or what have you.
"
Jackel6672 wrote:
Spoiler
Yup. We've explained why the choice is a non choice. Nice attempt though.
Is XP not an award? Something given for completing a task? Can you complete said task, and not have any items drop?
Wait for it.
Drops are a bonus?
Who would have thought.
Forgive us for enjoying the play style of the game, and not wanting people to change it in a way that makes our play style non existent.
Edit:
Will check in the morning. Time to sleep!
You... I like you. You get it.
Last edited by TremorAcePV#7356 on Feb 27, 2013, 3:09:00 AM
Why should the game developers change the system for your slower computer?
Because its not fair and they have already recognized that its not fair by adding in the annoying and confusing timers/names.
"
Jackel6672 wrote:
Everyone has been having issues with the graphics, once that's accounted for your "point" will be no more.
I really dont think that will ever happen. Let me know if it does and I will concede the point ;)
"
Jackel6672 wrote:
Ranged has higher survivability, not even build will have the same advantages overall. Tons of people camping drops sucks, which could be fixed by not showing rarity until the timer is over.
Ranged being OP compared to melee has nothing to do with this issue. They need to balance the classes right now anyway.
Having an advantage fighting the monsters SHOULD not equal getting less loot. IMO thats crazy.
Little things like the rarity suggestion are just band aid solutions that really don't address the concerns. If they really want to make both sides happy then they need to embrace looting options. Making tiny adjustments like 1-2 more seconds difference will not make the issue go away. Pick a side and stay on it.
You say: NO! Our experience will be ruined if you have choice!
The lack of logic simply blows my mind.
And say "adapt" one more time, and you'll forever forfeit the right to complain about anything you feel imbalanced or wrong with the game unless it's a straight-up bug. Because, you know, the way they've developed the game must be the way it was intended to be. Who are you to question that.
And yes, that was irony. If the developers didn't want feedback, these forums wouldn't exist.
I won't be effected by anything that comes from this thread.
Alright. You won't be affected.
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
I am here to make sure people understand what they are suggesting and why it would/wouldn't work or why it would/wouldn't be good for the game or what have you.
But it would be bad for the game. And, ultimately, affect you. Somehow.
