Legacy items

I think the main issue with certain legacy items is that they do a very good job of highlighting flaws in the game that are at a deeper level beyond just numbers. Soul Taker is by no means a 'BiS' axe/1-hander, but people use it not for the damage...they use it for the fact that it bypasses mana usage. With ST you can attack as much as you want and not worry about running out of mana, so you can actually do what is encouraged...eventually get a 6L and have one attack augmented for being as powerful an AOE attack as you can and not worry about the mana cost. Not only that, but with some investment into the aura passives you could get beyond just running two auras and potentially into three 60% ones, or possibly two 60% and two 40% auras on your mana globe and not worry about mana costs.

And that's the real power of ST not because of the item itself, but because it allows to bypass and take advantage of two 'flawed' problems in the game that people who have far better one-handed axes have to contend with. Exact number arguing aside, I hope you understand so far...it's not ST itself that's the problem, it's the fact that mana in this game is a terrible resource and that auras are still not in a good place be it both reservation costs as well as the number of auras one can run. Nerfing all legacy Soul Taker axes still won't solve these problems, which are far greater an issue than the axe itself. Instead, what SHOULD be looked at in this particular case is:

1. Making mana a more manageable, better resource that doesn't require slaving oneself into huge amounts of mana regen, Clarity, Eldritch Battery, etc, etc.

2. Auras getting another hard look in terms of their cost or potentially even having a base hard cap that all players start off with and need passive investment to raise the amount of auras they can potentially run.

Now, I am well aware...WELL AWARE that these are not fully thought through and there are plenty of things that could be said for or against them. That's not the point...the point is, is that these legacy items are showing off and magnifying/amplifying other, much more serious problems in the game. Nerfing the items outright won't solve those problems, but fixing them in the right way will INADVERTENTLY 'nerf' legacy items while at the same time solving other problems. Look at how Lioneye's Glare - a bow that MANY people screamed about being BiS OP - went from being 'godly' to now not-so-godly. The problem was that LG was so much better than so many other bows not just because of its stats, but because bows as a whole were a weak weapon class. People were calling for nerfs and GGG DID nerf it...not directly.

They gave the Harbinger Bow base critical strike chance that was higher than LG, they boosted bows as a whole in terms of what damage rolls they could get, and they also tweaked it so that evasion/dodge would actually LET YOU DODGE REFLECTED DAMAGE (or if it was already there, then it became more pronounced). Never once was LG nerfed in terms of numbers, but these factors 'nerfed' it indirectly and while it still is a good bow, rare bows can at last compete and outclass it. That's what I want people to take away from this post...instead of screaming from the rooftops to nerf only the legacy items, how about they take a deeper look as to WHAT EXACTLY MAKES THEM SO 'OP' and probably realize that it's not the raw numbers in most cases. It's other, bigger, underlying game mechanic problems that need fixing and with some creative thought and execution, these legacy items can be 'nerfed' and the game overall made better with more player/build choices rather than just using ST, Shav's, or whatever else is mentioned.

"

Tanakeah wrote:

I think the main issue with certain legacy items is that they do a very good job of highlighting flaws in the game that are at a deeper level beyond just numbers. Soul Taker is by no means a 'BiS' axe/1-hander, but people use it not for the damage...they use it for the fact that it bypasses mana usage. With ST you can attack as much as you want and not worry about running out of mana, so you can actually do what is encouraged...eventually get a 6L and have one attack augmented for being as powerful an AOE attack as you can and not worry about the mana cost. Not only that, but with some investment into the aura passives you could get beyond just running two auras and potentially into three 60% ones, or possibly two 60% and two 40% auras on your mana globe and not worry about mana costs.

And that's the real power of ST not because of the item itself, but because it allows to bypass and take advantage of two 'flawed' problems in the game that people who have far better one-handed axes have to contend with. Exact number arguing aside, I hope you understand so far...it's not ST itself that's the problem, it's the fact that mana in this game is a terrible resource and that auras are still not in a good place be it both reservation costs as well as the number of auras one can run. Nerfing all legacy Soul Taker axes still won't solve these problems, which are far greater an issue than the axe itself. Instead, what SHOULD be looked at in this particular case is:

1. Making mana a more manageable, better resource that doesn't require slaving oneself into huge amounts of mana regen, Clarity, Eldritch Battery, etc, etc.

2. Auras getting another hard look in terms of their cost or potentially even having a base hard cap that all players start off with and need passive investment to raise the amount of auras they can potentially run.

Now, I am well aware...WELL AWARE that these are not fully thought through and there are plenty of things that could be said for or against them. That's not the point...the point is, is that these legacy items are showing off and magnifying/amplifying other, much more serious problems in the game. Nerfing the items outright won't solve those problems, but fixing them in the right way will INADVERTENTLY 'nerf' legacy items while at the same time solving other problems. Look at how Lioneye's Glare - a bow that MANY people screamed about being BiS OP - went from being 'godly' to now not-so-godly. The problem was that LG was so much better than so many other bows not just because of its stats, but because bows as a whole were a weak weapon class. People were calling for nerfs and GGG DID nerf it...not directly.

They gave the Harbinger Bow base critical strike chance that was higher than LG, they boosted bows as a whole in terms of what damage rolls they could get, and they also tweaked it so that evasion/dodge would actually LET YOU DODGE REFLECTED DAMAGE (or if it was already there, then it became more pronounced). Never once was LG nerfed in terms of numbers, but these factors 'nerfed' it indirectly and while it still is a good bow, rare bows can at last compete and outclass it. That's what I want people to take away from this post...instead of screaming from the rooftops to nerf only the legacy items, how about they take a deeper look as to WHAT EXACTLY MAKES THEM SO 'OP' and probably realize that it's not the raw numbers in most cases. It's other, bigger, underlying game mechanic problems that need fixing and with some creative thought and execution, these legacy items can be 'nerfed' and the game overall made better with more player/build choices rather than just using ST, Shav's, or whatever else is mentioned.

while i agree with your point there is sad fact: theyve tried it with kaoms

and they cut life nodes from 8 to 6%, rescaled monster dmg and hp. just to balance Kaoms Heart

it was a disaster

given the fact they are very uncomfortable with testing of such changes non-internally im afraid of what meta-changes theyll introduce to balance block, mana or attack speed.

"

sidtherat wrote:

and you perfectly know well that you are clutching at straws and ignoring the main point of my post: 'technical difficulties' listed as reason to keep legacy stuff are more than less fallacy and deception

I am not "clutching" at anything. Someone posted to the effect that there was nothing impossible in IT.

GGG never stated it was impossible, they just said it was too much trouble. I don't recall that they specified whether it is the time it would take, the downtime or the costs of the effort.

"

magic_knilch wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

PvP players expect others to use every dirty trick possible against them. They want to use every dirty trick they can get ahold of to defeat their opponents.

Every legal trick, yes. Every trick that is possible under the current game rules, which should not include legacy items.

The current rules do allow legacy items. Whether they should or not is something we disagree on.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

PvP is never about balance, it is about thrashing your enemy quickly and soundly.

"

magic_knilch wrote:

I do not agree. PvP (and gaming in general) is about using the current game rules in the smartest way possible, finding synergies, min-maxing, playing rock-paper-scissors with your opponent and the like.
In PoE, every player can potentially (barring reasonable time constraints) farm the best items for his chosen build, practice until perfection and so on. Everyone has the same fair chances. Legacy items break this balance, unless you think that buying legacy items is viable and will stay that way in the future.

I think buying legacy items will become less and less viable over time, unless GGG occasionally allows them to drop again via race rewards or special game events, challenges etc.

I do believe that PvP would be a lot more fun if there was more balance and challenge between combatants, but any vast gear difference will do that, not just legacy.

What if there were a well designed scoring system that allowed for players to find comparably geared opponents (ithout being able to see what gear your PvP opponent had or let a player specify no-legacy equipment?


Would that help? I do think GGG may need to customize PvP a little bit, because there seems to be (my impression could be wrong) less PvP players seeking such games.

"

magic_knilch wrote:

Unlike character names, unique items do not have to be unique (surprisingly). So your example is irrelevant.

Unique items are unique in having a unique item data record. If they were just an index point in a look-up table than GGG's updates would update all of them and there would be no legacy items (at least not legacy items that were still possible to drop).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

.

TLDR

:-)

"

katakiri wrote:

"We are highly likely to prevent the Item Quantity support gem from dropping in 1.1.0"

Does this mean we will get legacy gems?

It looks like it. I thought they were going to do that with standard when they started Nemesis/Domination.

They are available as quest rewards, so if you use them and play Standard, go grab some before Feb 20/21. I've used one before on my main (with bear trap and an iir gem) as my sole magic finding means, but since bear trap got whacked, it hardly gets used anymore.

I really like the idea of whittling down item based rarity and quantity and having GGG boost them through more challenging monsters.

"

Tanakeah wrote:

...that's the real power of ST not because of the item itself, but because it allows to bypass and take advantage of two 'flawed' problems in the game that people who have far better one-handed axes have to contend with. Exact number arguing aside, I hope you understand so far...it's not ST itself that's the problem, it's the fact that mana in this game is a terrible resource and that auras are still not in a good place be it both reservation costs as well as the number of auras one can run.

Mana management is a core mechanic in the game, not a nuisance that should be trivialized by a broken OP Unique. Without significant mana costs, GGG would have to resort to spell timers to throttle the most powerful spells and attacks to a monotonous fixed APS. While I agree that aura 60% mana reserve was a heavy-handed edict, that is not a problem with mana itself, what's needed is a better way to balance auras. Don't scapegoat mana, which basically serves as an ammunition pool, target the many things that break the balance of the game.

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

Tanakeah wrote:

...that's the real power of ST not because of the item itself, but because it allows to bypass and take advantage of two 'flawed' problems in the game that people who have far better one-handed axes have to contend with. Exact number arguing aside, I hope you understand so far...it's not ST itself that's the problem, it's the fact that mana in this game is a terrible resource and that auras are still not in a good place be it both reservation costs as well as the number of auras one can run.

Mana management is a core mechanic in the game, not a nuisance that should be trivialized by a broken OP Unique. Without significant mana costs, GGG would have to resort to spell timers to throttle the most powerful spells and attacks to a monotonous fixed APS. While I agree that aura 60% mana reserve was a heavy-handed edict, that is not a problem with mana itself, what's needed is a better way to balance auras. Don't scapegoat mana, which basically serves as an ammunition pool, target the many things that break the balance of the game.

Kinda wrong, MANA was the problem and the reason it was changed to 60% auras, not because of one unique.

The entire reason was mana itself is currently a broken resource, and was moreso before. Go read Moos's big thread, he explains mana's core problems very efficiently, but the aura change was because of mana.


In the end legacy items, if you are complaining about them complain about them properly. We have onyx amulets that now roll only up to +16, we have uniques from anarchy that will never spawn again, we have rustic sashes with only a 3% phys dmg mod, we have facebreakers, we have silver branch.

I can understand the disagreement about legacy items existing in general, but when you are making statements that GGG should change legacy items to teh new state, you should talk about ALL legacy items.

A bow that has its ele dmg range DECREASED, do we decrease all ele dmg bows even those under the threshold, do we decrease only those over the threshold despite the one that was just below it now being BiS?

Items such as the onyx amulet, we change these to reroll if its over 16, so someone who had a +19 that he used to min/max now has a +8 and can't equip half his gear without rerolling his tree, do we give him a free passive point/free respec?

Items such as koams which NOW have an additional mod, these would NOT be able to be updated as easily as other items, do we have a huge custom script that adds mods to an item, which depending on the database setup might be more challenging than it seems?

When rerolling mods from say 800-1000 to 600-800 facebreakers, do we do a divine type reroll with it being random, do we scale it so that a 1000 facebreakers is = 800 facebreakers, a 801 is a 601, etc?



There are SO many issues with the idea of retroactively changing ALL legacy items, with HOW it would be actioned, the fact that 2h weapons NOW have boosted rolls so you would have to go around updating them aswell to be fair.

Then there is the fact that the technical aspects of how it is done, based on how the items are stored, while not impossible (which people keep saying dev's said it is) is not trivial (as others seem to keep saying). It is something which they have said themselves that it would require reasonably significant downtime to make sure no errors, along with a custom script.


And there is the fact that the reason people are asking for this? They feel unhappy that someone can have an item they can't. Guess what, you can't have a ferrari. Oh, you can? Well you can in PoE too, just pay the increased amount. Oh, you want a ferrari daytona, the classic where the insurance costs more than most companies earn in 10 years? Well you can't. Oh, you can? Well you can have legacy items in PoE aswell but it costs even more.


But mostly its the fact, people are complaining about certain items. Koams. Shavronne (seriously wtf wasn't nerfed that heavily), etc.

Yes these items are very powerful and I personally feel certain items still need further rebalancing (not the above two ironically), but the legacy items are not something I want personally, as I am happy with my lot, so I don't want to take them away from someone else.

^

Nicely put.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Not that this has the slightest thing to do with Legacy items, but...

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

sidtherat wrote:

this is IT world. one of only few domains completely under human control. ive learned 10 years ago that there is no 'impossible' in IT.

Truly random numbers. Impossible. They could and would break quantum encryption.

"

deteego wrote:

truly random numbers are not possible. Arguing about possibility versus impossibility is idiotic in IT in general.

random.org has been offering truly random number generation, most of it free, over its website for over 15 years now. "The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs." One might say it is still impossible for computers to generate truly random numbers, but something from nature can generate it which the computer can record and retransmit, which serves almost exactly the same purpose. However, if we interpret "generate" in such a way, then computers don't generate pseudo-random numbers either; they merely call them off of a list. Therefore, for "generate" to have meaning, it must mean "to pull the data and use it in some manner;" therefore, computers can generate truly random numbers.

deteego, Dalai: you are simply flat-out wrong, not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of practice... for over a decade.

Edit: I went to a random university lab computer (not my own, with a generic account) and did a Google search for "true random number generator." Random.org was the first hit. Obviously you didn't bother with one lick of research before claiming something was impossible.

I respect your opinions and I appreciate that you looked into it, but the reality is far different than first appearances. This isn't something I just blurted out based off of a cursory reading. This is something I have followed for quite awhile. There are fundamental constraints - both mathematical and physical - on random number generation. The random sampling has been used for decades, some of the earlier iterations used GPS signaling. When they first started using atmospheric noise for randomness they were very hopeful for all the different applications it would have, but its limits were theorized, calculated, tested and the initial enthusiasm waned.

Let me put it this way - if you had a truly random number generator/sampler - the US Dept of Energy would gladly give you several billion dollars for exclusive rights (if they didn't kill you) for it. There are all sorts of experiments that could be run as simulations if there were such a routine.

The random number generators (even those that claim to be truly random)are just very good pseudo-random number generators. The random sampling routines are much better, but still just excellent pseudo-random number samplers. For most intents and purposes, they are unpredictable, but they aren't truly random. Recycling and repetition allow so called noise based random number generation to be predicted over time. The NSA is able at times to make use of these faults.

It would be wonderful for scientific simulators if they were, but unfortunately that is not the case.

The predictability over time is why we are able to derive laws of physics.

If they weren't predictable, then they would fail the basic hypothesis test and not even make it to the theory stage.

For them to become a law (such as the gas law, or law of gravity) they have to be very very predictable over and over again. If they fail the predictability test even once (and the failure can be demonstrated) than the physical law itself must be supplanted by something that corrects or allows for this failure.


Some aspects take far more measurements, some have multiple vectors, but they all boil down to predictability because they are governed by physical processes.

Quantum computing was/is thought to be able to break through even random coding by looking at all possible states and then solving for the solution.

While 128 bit passwords may allow 2^128 possible permutations for an ordinary computer to solve, to a quantum computer there are only 128 possibilities. With a 128cubit processor, it might take you up to 2 computer CPU cycles to break the password.

When that same all at once brute force is brought against "random" noise, the patterns become much more visible.

Quantum processes themselves (especially measurements of quantum vaccuum fluctuations)are as close to truly random as we can get.

If Stephen Hawking and current quantum mechanics thinking holds, information is never lost, but just entangled. Entanglement is something quantum computing is geared towards solving.
The two are inseparable.


The job of science is to convert the question of why into an explanation of how. Once you have how, you can predict when.

When is the supposedly random number.

Even the very uncertainty of chaos itself, is being challenged by experiments and rightly so.

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v112/i2/e020401

http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v89/i2/e022106


As Einstein said "God does not play dice."




This post is not meant to be esoteric. Truly random numbers do not exist. You won't sample anything that has a square root of -pi for instance. It is, however a numerical possibility.

Random sampling is certainly good enough for most purposes. The difference between it being a very good approximation of randomness and truly random is like the difference between someone winning the Powerball lottery three times and someone winning every single Powerball lottery for ALL time. One is finite, the other is infinite.

All the particles in the universe and all the various ways they can interact don't begin to encompass all the possibilities of truly random.