Nice! Now just bring us a true multiplayer with free trade system without excuses 
And on that note, I’d also like to have my metabolism replaced with that of a 20 year old & psychic powers.
K thx bai.
No excuses!
3 Likes
Well at least a multiplayer to please everyone can be done.
Like I already post
3 systems
Solo: No trade, no need to balance drops, exactly the game is right now (no work needed)
Coop Limited: The system you’ve developed, no free trade, instance trade only, no need to balance drops, everything the game has right now with coop instanced (item gifting, already done)
Free Trade: A system with auction house, free trade without restrictions but all the drop rates are reduced globally by a percentage, like 80%, for example. The percentage reduction will affect all currenct drop rates the same way keeping the balance.
No excuse to not implement something like that.
It is really easy to think there are no arguments against something, because you don’t see them ,because maybe you are so convinced from your idea.
But you can be assured there will always be a reason not to do something, you might just not see those reasons.
In this specific example there already have been countless of discussion before and after the trade announcement here in the forums and I can tell you, your idea is not as flawless and “without any excuse” as you think it is.
2 Likes
It splits the community up more than just having 1 trade mechanic which the devs don’t want to do (split the community up more than “necessary” that is).
Whenever they implement anything new there’s 50% more balancing required (trade/gifting/ssf versus ssf/gifting), no idea how much actual work this is but it’s an additional layer of complexity. Whereas currently there would, as I understand it, be 1 set of drop rates.
More complexity = more opportunities for bugs to work their way in, it would require more testing to make sure that it’s not possible to unintentionally (or intentionally) do stuff that you shouldn’t. No idea how much work this would actually be and it kinda feels related to the one above.
They don’t need an excuse. It’s their game., not yours. They don’t want to balance around a trade economy.
If you would have actually read this post you would understand this.
1 Like
If you would take the stoopid from between your ears, you would understand that is the post people are upset about.
And yes, it’s their game. But if they want my money, they better damn well listen to my desires as well. They don’t have to incorporate everything everyone wants, but when >25% of your players (guestimate used for example reasons) want something, you’d be stupid not to pay attention to it. Unless you’re just making a game for the hell of it, and don’t really care about profit.
And yet that was what your previous sentence implied.
Well, by my estimate, it’s only 0.015% of the player base that wants trade and 0.01498% that don’t want trade. I mean, it’s not even 25% of the forum population that’s loosing their #### about gifting/trade…
But your desires are different to someone else’s, so what are the devs to do? Go with the highest paying person (or group)? Flip flop between options as the relative weightings of proponents change? Water things down so its either a bland generic arpg or a chaotic mess? Do my desires trump yours because I’ve spent more?
How about, no? This concept would please majority of supporters and this is an absolute truth.
The community is already splitted and the game will lose a lot of players anyway. Also my suggestion does not need any balancing at all. It was pretty clear.
First of all: There is no “absolute truth”, especially in topics like that, that are highly subjective.
If you think, that this would please the majority of the community, that is totall fine. But don’t speak on behalf of other people.
How you suggested it, it might not need immediate attention, but hypothetically if the devs would implement it exactly like you suggested and later down the line, the devs receive feedback about the game, drops rates, RNG or other game systems.
They always need to differentiate feedback for all 3 of those different game modes.
Also if they decide to do changes, they always need to think about, should this change only affect one of the game modes or all of them, or only 2?
Also when designing new game systems its a lot more “what if’s?” for the devs that will very likely cause mroe work or some feature might never see the light of day.
So even if you don’t seem to see it, this would very likely cause a lot more work for the devs.
I just want to reiterate what I already said in my previous post:
There is no black & white, right or wrong in this. Everything comes with a price, evne if you don’t immediately see it.
1 Like
Do you understand that’s customers’s money who make a project a success? It’s not their game from the beginning. It will always be ours. We give the money, they live. This is a product to be sold not a donation to be given. In which imaginary world do you live?
While monetary success is part of making a good game, its also not always as easy.
If you want to please as many people as possible it might be, that you ahve some short term succes but ultimately lose the vision for the game and as a dev you might detach from your original plan so much, that it doesn’t feel like its the game you (as a dev) wanted to make.
So I think its not always the best goal to go for the route, that will give you the biggest amount of customers.
Sticking to your vision as a dev, while taking feedback from the community and try to iterate on some things is better, than plainly chasing the big user numbers.
And with your money you support them, if you like what the game currently is, but that could change in the future and that is part of long lasting video games.
Just because the players pay the bills, doesn’t mean that they can behave entitled in a toxic way. if the game changes or goes into a different direction, after you already supported it, that sucks, but that is also part of buying into a evolving online game.
All you can and should do is constructive feedback about it, when you don’t like the new direction.
1 Like
If you think, that this would please the majority of the community, that is totall fine. But don’t speak on behalf of other people.
Wait, what I suggested just englobes everyone, WHAT? KKKKKKKKK People who wants solo experience, people who want the item gifting system and people who want free trade system. What is the fourth one? The “never satisfied complaning ones”, 2% of players? Come on…
They always need to differentiate feedback for all 3 of those different game modes.
Also if they decide to do changes, they always need to think about, should this change only affect one of the game modes or all of them, or only 2?
As I stated: Free trade system will receive a global percentage reduction on drops. Global means that it will affect everything the same way. Any further specifc tunning will be affected by the global one anyway. As I said before, no need to overcomplicate.
Things are not black and white but the “”““solution””" the devs chose it’s a lot black and white to me. “It won’t have and that’s it!” Like instead of implementing a good solution to all, just evade the problem. It’s like you have an animal with health issues and you just give it to another person to look after. If the animal is not yours anymore everything is allright, right?
They can please the players and also make money from it. They are the devs, they have the numbers, planning, etc. They can come with a better solution. That’s my point. I want this game to succeed and I still think they will revert this idea until patch 1.0 hits. As you said before, nothing is black and white, and still think this “item gifting” it’s just a test for 0.9 patch or, better to say I hope it’s just a test.
Yes I understood your suggestion, but this might sound good on paper, but in reality this maybe does not work out the way you hope it will.
And then when people in the trade enabled game mode give feedback about drop rates and how bad they feel.
Or when people in the solo game mode give feedback about how its too easy to get a specific item or what ever. Whatever the feedback is, there will always be rippling effect on the other game modes, if they do changes if everything is just balance by some global drop reduction.
This global drop reduction also might feel good in some places, but feels bad in other places.
And if some or all of this does happen the devs have tons of extra work.
And all of this is just about the balance/additional work, we are not even talked about splitting the community even further, which I would absolutely hate.
When you discuss or communicate with fellow players and you need to explain which fo the different game modes you play. That is awful.
Or when you want to help new players and the answer to their question might be different depending on which game mode they are in.
So if they ask something the first counter-question will always be: “Which game mode?”
It just seperate the community so much and makes exchange memories or exciting moments really awful.
1 Like
The community is already splited. Like a lot… because of how the devs decided to implement “”"“multiplayer”""". We have tons of comments here on the forum voicing and showing the different results and reaction from dev’s decision.
Tunning and testing drop rates is something to forever be done. This is core for most ARPG. With multiplayer or not tunning and testing will be necessary. I understand what you said but in reality this type of continuous work is the product type the devs’s chose to deal with and deliver.
Yes there are a lot of different camps and opinions, but fundamentally we are all playing the same “game”, with the exception of Hardcore/Softcore And Solo/Normal Mode (Masochist is also a thing, even though its not really officially supported anymore).
If you agree or disagree on thigns doesn’t matter though. We all play the same game. With your suggestions this would split up the experience hwo you experience and play the game fundamentally.
Yes, but with your suggestion it would possibly cause twice the work, or even more.
No, I said listen to… I didn’t say implement everything.
Once again, please highlight the exact spot I said they need to implement everything people ask for, Go ahead and take your time, I’ll wait.
The post I was responding to was another of the “what you want doesn’t matter because blah blah blah” posts. I’m 1/2 surprised it didn’t close with “we don’t want you here anyhow”, but alas…
Any company that just ignores players and their requests/desires, just because those requests have been rejected previously, is just stupid. Look at Blizzard’s nose dive in the MMO genre if you want an example of a company that just does whatever they think is best for the players, and ignoring actual customer input.
But yeah, go on with your soapboxing about how everything people want should be implemented 100% of the time.
On the one hand you say that you didn’t say implement everything (which you didn’t), but on the other hand you give me a (presumably) cautionary tale of Blizzard’s performance in the mmo market (which I have no idea about but I’ll take your word for it) which I presume means that while you say you don’t want everything added, you just want the most-important-to-you things added, which is fair enough, that’s what everyone wants, including the devs. But we still get back to my questions, everybody has different things as a priority and there’s going to be more than enough divergence that if the devs just implemented it all then LE would be a nasty mess.
When you said “listen to what your customers want” I took that to mean “and implement it”, otherwise what’s the point in listening? I assume Blizzard are listening to their community but then deciding that they know best. And it’s very clear that EHG do listen to the community (and explain why they think its not a good idea, even using the provisos “at the moment” and “never say never” because they are always ready to rethink their assumptions/choices) even if they don’t agree with the views being put forward.
Sometimes “I hear what you are saying (but no and this is why…)” is enough, but I suspect not in this case. I mean, they said before that they’ve discussed of most of the suggestions that have come up about trade, is that sufficient to qualify as listening?
1 Like