No i do get that. I wasnt dismissing that. I was saying it isnt true to say ALL non traders aka cof wouldnt trade at some point.
There are players that wont trade at all no matter what. Thats true. There are also players that will not trade to see how far they can get in the game being at the mercy of RNG. Then say at oh 400c they hit a progress wall. And switch to trade to keep progressing.
Thats fair enough. So keeping with identity. My choice of gear idea might help retain this. And not remove this identity.
Imo i dont think completely removing the friction is needed. Just lessening it a bit. Amount Tagged equipped gear will be different for every character. Some will have only 2 others might have 6 or 7 or more. The friction is harsher on some characters vs others.
Even going from MG to cof is far less punishing than going from cof to mg. As op points out. Imo. It should be same amount of friction Similar with tagged gear.
Im all for choices having meaning/weight to them. Imo the friction is to harsh depending on the amount of tagged gear being used. More so cof to MG due to rank 1 of cof
Head scratcher here is how the heck can this be changed alleviated ect without causing this.
Imho the best way to do this might actually be to bring cof up as close as possible to the gearing of MG. Would still be faster in MG no matter what.
If currently mg is a 10 out of 10. And cof is a say 5 out of 10. Bring cof up to say around 8 or 9 imo would go along way in helpping players stick with the choice. Also helpping cof players not hit a wall and feel as if they need to trade to keep going
Fear of loosing out.
Itâs not logically substantiated but based on a emotional position.
Imagine you have something you really really like⌠but no shop around does provide the thing just as you like it. Thereâs always some differences which turn you away from that.
And then, after waiting years finally the seemingly perfect thing comes along. Just as you imagined⌠or at least close. Could be better definitely but itâs hitting home simply.
And now after that someone comes along and simply notions at that it should be changed⌠and you fear itâll be changed away from what you enjoy finally.
Yeah, but then itâs a mental barrier. âWhy can I only do it once? It makes sense to be able to do it again with the respective limitations⌠so why not?â
Hence my urge to do it in a âeither/orâ method. Such things need to be clear-cut since the half-here half-there position generally causes people to get frutrated.
It could be character defining⌠but itâs not set up by EHG personally in that way.
Thereâs no ideology of the group behind which could immerse one into them.
Thereâs also no direct competition between them available which would position them accordingly.
Hence exclusive rights solely for the âjust causeâ issue cause it to be mentally just not acceptable as easily.
Which youâre 100% right there with. Just that DJ is also right with his position in that specific case.
Like some will never use CoF because itâs based purely on RNG without any deterministic progression in it.
Thatâs the counterpoint Iâve tried to word, finally having gotten it down a bit better I hope
Yes, and some things do inherently better in providing it and are fairly clear-cut (Class for example, or alignment with ideologies of groups⌠sadly missing in LE) while others inherently donât do a good job with it (CoF and MG falls into that, theyâre - sadly - set up as simple mechanics which are not allowed to be used at the same time but could be interchanged. Solely mechanically positioned this way, no personal perception bias there)
That goes also both ways though to be fair.
Staying with a faction can be perceived by the player as being a âloyal workerâ for the faction⌠and in the counterposition those which primarily want to stay with one but also want to do something for the other could be seen as âcontractorsâ or âfreelancersâ instead. Which would also define their identity⌠and hence isnât going against it.
To be an issue there would need to be inherent gameplay upsides available then to cause it to become problematic.
Properly set up you can avoid those upsides though so they donât happen.
Thatâs simply not properly done as currently they exist and affect people still differently based purely on luck still. Thatâs the bad design aspect Iâm speaking about since both sides hence have a viable point but it stands in the middle and leaves nobody properly happy.
Or to make it clearâŚ
DJ, wouldnât you like to have a clear-cut explanation which can be easily understood (and doesnât demand a personal important experience of some form) nigh universally so those discussions arenât existent repeatedly?
And Diablo, wouldnât you also like to see that thereâs a very clear-cut stance given which aligns with the mechanics provided properly to not cause those misconceptions?
Because plainly spoken I find the lack of clarity there mostly grating.
I can work with them being separated.
I can work with the ability to interchange between them.
I canât work with the carrot dangling in front nudging me to change just to then be punched in the face as a follow up and laughed at
I can though? I can really easily undo it!
And thatâs the issue here.
Itâs a simple click âleave factionâ.
Yes I get warnings.
Yes I get my gear basically ripped off my body to a degree I need to scream like a girl in a anime shower scene since I now have to run around nude.
Yes it provides me downsides.
But itâs a very quickly and swiftly done thing.
And since it has no influence on your build itself itâs also harder to understand when suddenly nothing works anymore. You didnât change your setup after all. It feels like it should still work.
Your payment was taken away which youâve gotten from your invested hours via piecework wage. Thatâs how many many people perceive it.
And thatâs simply a mistake from the setup of EHG, you canât tell someone âwell, then see it this way!â because the piecework wage is the most apt example for the system.
We donât have a distinct currency⌠instead your wage is acrued through favor and your rewards are paid from those favor points. Hence the perception after clicking is âmy rewards are taken awayâ. Big ooooff simply.
Either way, a change needs to happen anyway. To fix those perception issues (which seem to be fairly broadly strewn around).
You want it to not be opened up (yep, fine)
Others want it to be opened up since they deem that making the most sense (Yep fine too).
Yes, the stances are not agreeable with each other⌠but theyâre flavor there, which is based on follow-up perceptions once more.
Though I still donât understand the reason why you would be against it as long as you donât gain anything from doing so. Hence simple player agency without inherent upside.
The second you have an upside, sure, 100% agreed.
But otherwise⌠makes no sense.
Exactly.
And that situation in itself is not acceptable, period.
If you play 10 hours at the same speed then the result of those 10 hours should incur the same penalty for changing, because the progress is generally the same.
If you base it on the RNG factor solely (which is the case) then you start to âfear successâ. Winning causes you to feel bad.
Kinda not the goal
Scaling cost.
As mentioned, favor is directly tied to corruption and time investment after all.
So one option is for EHG to check the overall playing pace of players⌠like how many enemies they kill in an hour⌠and then according to Favor rewarded the limitation is implemented based on corruption level to alleviate rising favor income.
Would be the most linear option simply. So those gaining 400k favor an hour would need to pay - as example - 2 million favor⌠while those getting 50k per hour would need to pay 250k favor instead.
For both a similar hindrance without actually taking anything away.
The other alternative is going the other direction, hence as mentioned ensuring that both factions are stronger separated then currently. Which mandates preparation time to make a informed choice (for example the suggested pre-quests intorducing you to the ins and outs of both factions before youâre allowed to pick).
And yes, I see that as a mandatory aspect of balancing.
The excuse of âthey canât be similar!â is in my eyes nonsensical.
Sure, theyâll have their differences⌠but if you - as a randomly numbered example - need only 15 hours to reach and kill Aberroth with MG but 40 with CoF⌠well⌠then obviously theyâre not âsimilarâ.
They compete with each other even when people want to go separate ways.
The goal of the factions is to allow people to pick their playstyle without feeling like theyâre loosing out, right?
So neither side is allowed to have a clear and distinct upside.
So then both solution routes once more work⌠when they donât provide distinct upsides you donât need to take away the rewards⌠and respectively painful detriments slowing your further happening progression down is fine. As long as it doesnât take away already happened progression. Or⌠separating them fully and hence people not always looking to the other side thinking âthe grass is greenerâ after making their choice.
Because plainly spoken⌠with a frustrating and barely functioning system like MG quite a few have chosen to use CoF instead⌠since while they might enjoy trading more they - for example - were extremely put off by trying to discern selling prices, removing any upside in enjoyment it would otherwise bring.
Or some CoF people mightâve gone MG since their build need a boss-unique with 2 LP to be Aberroth ready without extra major hassle. So before the drop-rate there was accordingly adjusted they mightâve found that so frustrating that the enjoyment from CoF simply was reduced so much by that they didnât use it⌠despite aligning better with that playstyle.
And also⌠we donât know how EHG will change those mechanics in the future. Being fixed in one for a cycle long is fine⌠but for Legacy players? With changes to the game also change circumstances. Long-time MG players might feel left out when CoF gets overbuffed in some way⌠and long-term CoF players might be left out if the drop-variety rises over time, so MG gets a more and more reduced time needed to progress through the game.
This shows that you still donât understand but I wonât bother trying any further. I will just point out to the golden child/stepchild example I provided earlier.
This, though, is 100% correct.
I already admitted that some time ago.
But the difference is that those people will never use CoF because they have to choose. If they were able to have MG and CoF simultaneously, they would use both.
Whereas the people that really donât like to trade still wouldnât use MG even if they could use both simultaneously.
To you. To me, factions really are a part of the identity.
As I said before, my MG Lich feels totally different from my CoF Lich. Which is why I stopped playing it.
I tried MG in 1.0 because I thought I might enjoy a non-toxic trade environment. I still donât like trading. So I deleted most of them and switched the rest to CoF (I only left 1 in MG in case some friend starts playing LE at some point and I can give him some stuff).
So yes, to you factions are simply a mechanic to use. To me, faction is part of the identity. Because, once again, to me character identity is simply the sum of all the choices that canât be easily undone. Which is why my build isnât part of the character identity to me, unlike in D2. But mastery is (for now, anyway). And factions.
They could. But so far no one has said thatâs the case for them. When thatâs the case, then both will inevitably clash because for one to have his character identity the other would have to lose it.
This is kinda baffling to me, to be honest. When you have a system that is supposed to be a permanent choice, the fact that it has an emergency exit isnât an invitation to use it.
Itâs like going to a club and being annoyed that you canât use the fire exit.
Itâs a door that is supposed to always be closed (before all the safety laws, it would have probably just been a wall instead), but is there for an emergency.
If it provides downsides, itâs not âeasily undoneâ.
Leaving SSF or HC for the softcore league is easily undone. You click a button and now you switched leagues and your character is exactly the same, except your choice changed.
Leaving CoF or MG isnât easily undone because if you simply do it, then your character will be massively behind what it was.
So, to properly leave a faction, youâd have to prepare. So that your character would be on an acceptable level. And youâd still have to work to get back to what it was.
I point you again to the golden child/stepchild example. I canât make it any more clearer than that.
And thatâs why Diablo said â100% factually wrongâ.
Thereâs a decent amount of people which would never pick a RNG based method over one which provides gradual gains.
Even if the RNG method is overall quicker, and visibly so. Simply because they can get screwed by RNG and it doesnât feel as enjoyable for them as would seeing their progress rising.
Yes, they convey it badly though.
Hence they do a worse job then for example⌠Horde/Alliance in WoW.
You might deem them a part of it⌠the majority of people doesnât align it with identity though.
Much like the majority of people - which care about char identity - align masteries with it⌠but also not all.
It is repeatedly usable without a inherent cost attached. It doesnât even have a cooldown. I can hop around willy nilly at the start without a downside, only realizing said downside when I have gained success in some form with it.
At that moment suddenly⌠you loose something when doing it, formerly not. It leads you into a sort of âfalse sense of securityâ there.
Dunno⌠without a sensor to give a silent alarm you can use quite a lot of em⌠and when a sensor is there for the alarm then itâs a clear-cut situation too⌠could still use it but it wastes time and money, in a fixed amount. Someone might be willing to do that, not a crime either to do it, just a infraction even since itâs usually a silent alarm too here, so you can take it in return for the cost simply.
I can still choose freely if itâs worth it for me to⌠for example go all around a block to reach my car⌠or if Iâll pay several hundred bucks with the fire exit. But they donât take away my clothes for it
Exactly!
And the biggest contention is the type of downside, not that one even exists.
So a solely personal position as mentioned, and not one which is viewed amiably either.
I mean⌠basically everyone was in your âstepchildâ position somewhere or the other in life⌠but not everyone tries to use their elbows the moment they actually get to stand on stage as well, ensuring that the people having taken it up before canât share that space together after all.
Thereâs a distinct behaviour difference between people in that case.
Yes, a situation seen somewhat commonly as an outcome⌠but the end-result tends to go entirely different routes. One leads to animosity, the other to collaboration or at least frictionless sharing of space.
Thatâs a distinct difference from âYou were on it⌠and now Iâll be on it but you have to step downâ. The person on it might not want to step down, offering sharing it⌠but the unwillingless to do so is not a positive aspect.
They wouldnât be picking one over the other. They would have both. They might even not use prophecies, but theyâd use CoF if only for the rank rewards.
Whereas people that donât like to trade still wouldnât use MG, even if they had both.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Why are you changing the subject?
If it provides downsides, itâs not easily undone. So factions arenât easily undone.
Did you lose track of what was being discussed?
Where are you getting this? Itâs baffling to me how youâre trying to twist things.
My example was perfectly clear. The stepchild is happy that heâs on equal standing. He becomes sad when the golden child wants to be the top dog again.
Where is there any elbowing? Where is there not sharing space?
If anything, itâs the golden child that canât stand that they are both equals and now wants more. The stepchild just wants to remain equals.
Anyway, this is going nowhere. Iâve tried to make my point clear. You keep either misunderstanding or twisting things. There really is no point in keeping this up and I donât want the discussion to get heated again.
Iâm sure whatever devs are reading this are already aware of our stances in this and will either consider them or not.
But there really isnât much else to be said anymore.
And during that they get no gradual progression in terms of Gold but only pure RNG drops.
So no.
Simply⌠no.
No, but seemingly you did again, the initial discussion was âremove the part where you canât use your equipmentâ.
But âsomeâ people made it instead about âit would be unfair for CoF players!â instead of jumping on âOk, what viable alternative would be there?â
Yeah, but in the provided example the golden child is not the top one. Itâs not âgoldenâ anymore. Stepchild is child now, Golden child is also simply child now.
Equivalent standing.
So not applicable for what is tried to be done by me here at least, canât speak for others.
I still donât know where youâre getting this.
Iâm talking about an hypothetical hyperbolic example where you have both MG and CoF at the same time. You advance both at the same time. You use both at the same time. You can trade and do prophecies at the same time.
This hypothetical hyperbolic example only serves to show that traders would still always use CoF. Almost all would most likely also use prophecies because there would be no downside to it.
But people that donât like to trade still wouldnât use MG.
You know, like in PoE, where 20% of people in softcore league still donât trade at all, despite there only being downsides to it?
You definitely lost track of the argument. The factions not being easily undone was discussing why I feel like factions are part of character identity.
This was literally:
So I donât know where youâre getting all this unfair talk or whatever.
The whole statement was: factions canât be easily undone, therefore I consider them part of the character identity.
It is, but I wonât bother to explain any further because to you having less options isnât a problem and is a sign of equality.
So as I said before, Iâll just start ignoring this part of the discussion (and probably all of it).
Thatâs obviously a dumb situation which shouldnât exist. I mean⌠thatâs obvious⌠and was clearly visible after the first time itâs been posted in this thread
Ignoring the newcomers to the topic not reading anything beforehand (understandably with how long it is).
Obviously then! Because you donât loose out on the deterministic progression.
But if you either/or then you do.
Yes, trading obviously wonât be used by people which dislike trading⌠but thatâs a given anyway.
Like some might not use the prophecy mechanic because it sucks for them⌠but the baseline drops have no effort investment in them.
I mean⌠kinda clear-cut
And I stand by the follow-up still.
At the beginning (you havenât gotten any sort of rewards yet) you can switch around without any downside. Mostly happening in MG actually as people tend to go for bigger upgrades when they get stuck rather then steadily buying items, so a long while⌠nothing is different. Besides them getting jack for the invested time.
In CoF on the other hand it happens really quickly, because you improve or duplicate items in quite substantial amounts early on, plus the prophecies to boot.
So obviously itâs not âeasyâ when youâre in it for 500 hours. But the context there was that itâs nonetheless an issue because itâs âeasyâ early on and lulls you into a false sense of security while also causing issues for rewards.
âIâm just trying to check out which I would like more!â
âOh no⌠I actually dropped something great⌠now I canât switch anymore!â
And thatâs a bad situation to happen. Imagine enjoying CoF⌠you wanted to see if the non-toxic trading environment will make it much much more enjoyable for you. A cheap high LP item is available on the market and you use all your gold on it⌠and then realize âshit⌠now Iâm stuck with MGâ and sunk-cost fallacy kicks in.
Actually in your example thereâs less options.
CoF permanently.
MG permanently.
In mine you got.
CoF permanently.
MG permanently.
Both factions part-time each.
I dunno how you can even think itâs a choice reduction rather then increase. Unless you once again go ahead and ignore the example frame and go with âBut oh no, CoF people wouldnât bla bla blaâ which isnât even provided as a part of the extremely utterly simplistic example only contained since the end of the quote.
