Faction Lock on items and Changing your Faction

General
61

One is your build… the other is how you acquisition items.

Your build should be limited to enforce a focus, variety of builds hence and replay-value.

The way you get that stuff on the other hand is to be left open as much as possible, that falls under ‘player agency’. The more options you have - without being forced out or into any - the more likely people will stay.

Core example again: PoE. If you’re in ‘normal’ softcore then you can play whatever in terms of the content there or your playstyle and you’ll acrue value. And you can switch it whenever you like with miniscule downsides.

The faction choice in LE is similar to PoE’s Atlas passives. Yes… you need to choose a route… but you also get 3 different full-scale setups + the rather accesible option to respec that without any downsides beyond the one-time investment.

Also we’re not even talking about the perception situation that you choose a ‘workplace’ hence for who you do stuff… either the circle or the bazaar… but heck… feels kinda like a slave-contract there instead. Once in never out, mafia-style perfectly replicated :stuck_out_tongue:

And also not even talking about the part that it’s solely a issue for the setup not allowing it, without the inherent downsides that increasing build-plasticity causes… which the faction choice would’ve nothing of at all. It’s not a inherently important thing to choose, neither in positioning nor in outcome, it’s solely a ‘fancy what you like’ flavor thing. And your tastes can change over time or even mood-based daily.
Should we hence make a new character to simply align with the playstyle we fancy for the day? Sure… for builds it makes sense, if it’s based on your playstyle for the day… but how about only allowing weaver-maps tomorrow… or only normal monoliths? Would that be a nice choice to limit? :stuck_out_tongue:

No, definitely not, and it should be kinda obvious as well.

It goes in one ear and out the other.

There’s not even the interest in listening. I mean… I presented a method to both stop the already existing double-dipping while also taking care of the faction switching issues which feel too punishing.
And instead of talking about them the return is ‘Sorry, didn’t read!’.

I mean… how nonsensical can discussions become beyond that point?

And that’s the friggin while point!
CoF and MG have a similar standing to switching leagues. Just that they’re supposed to be once again… equivalent in standing.
You can’t change from softcore to SSF because doing so would cause inherent upsides in SSF… since they’re not equivalent.

MG and CoF on the other hand are in the same league since they are built as equivalent mechanics. Otherwise why don’t we have a ‘CoF cycle’ and a ‘MG cycle’ if moving between them is to be removed as well as possible? It makes no sense displaying those otherwise as you can always cheese in some way, especially with resonance and group play.
If it’s such a serious decision it should come with the respective up- and downsides… but it doesn’t.

Not much, but yes, bigger.
The friction shouldn’t come from ‘all my already invested effort is lost!’ but instead from ‘I’ll need to invest effort on the other side again!’ instead. That’s the whole direction of the topic here.

Which is marvelously steered around though.

Yes, and hence any solution available which counters the perceived negatives while upholding the positives should be taken into consideration.

Mastery respec clearly is not upholding the positives.
A revamped system on the other hand could be.

I presented a revamped system upholding the positives while removing a large portion of the negatives.
So… what would be the issue?

How so?
What sort of build importance do they provide?

Can you get stuff only in one faction you can’t get from the other?
Is there anything there which isn’t available for both as the ultimate outcome?

No? So… I guess it’s only flavor now, isn’t it? And why shouldn’t we able to at least choose between flavor?

Sure… friction is fine.

The current system goes beyond simple friction, it is actively punishment to switch, you loose invested time, you don’t simply have to re-invest… you actively loose it.
Not good, bad design. Hard to counter that taking away what someone has earned isn’t ‘bad’. Never do that, big bad thing, nobody is happy about that.

And don’t come with crap like ‘but in Heist in PoE you also take away all stuff you earn if you die!’. Mhmm… because it’s a HC mechanic first of all and secondly it’s a HC mechanic which gives you the choice of what valuable things to pick up rather then throwing worthless garbage mixture at you at the end instead, it’s mandatory to have that choice.
Which mandatory aspect is here the case?

Only if the friction for switching is so low that it allows that. So create a non-punishing friction aspect compared to one which actively punished the player.

It’s not rocket science… we know of several methods to make that happen.

The reputation itself can be handled this way. Create a much farther end-goal then currently is available, one which can’t be reached reliably in the timeframe of a cycle… or even goes endlessly with exponential increasing demands. Those providing boni only applicable during the usage of said faction.

Friction without downside right there. If you switch you have to re-do and inherently can’t snowball as properly. The more you focus on both the worse your situation overall will be.

Alternatively… a cost for switching, directly included and not stopping your darn equipment to be unusable. One which can’t be avoided like favor loss (just use up all favor) but instead something like a reputation cost, or a gold cost, or a fixed favor cost. Opportunity loss hence. 100k favor for a switch is serious for both factions but doesn’t hinder you to do it, it’s feasable end-game and doesn’t cause double-dipping issues because of the requisite time needed where you play ‘empty’ so to speak.

Also friction… not inherent punishment though attached.

There’s some more available too… but no… instead we got our work ripped away from us, that feels shit, that shouldn’t happen and that needs to stop. Nothing more, nothing less.

62

What does it matter? Either choice is supposed to be an important decision that has weight. It’s part of your character identity. I will grant you that EHG has lately dropped the ball in that regard, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they backtracked on this as well, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an important aspect of your character identity for now.

Not a good example. If you play PoE, you feel forced to trade. Even if you don’t like trade and don’t want to interact with its toxicity, you feel forced to do it because the whole game is balanced around that. Not trading is a huge nerf to your progression and that’s why it’s a challenge mode.

No, nothing of the sort. Atlas passive tree is similar to the upcoming weaver tree. Atlas passives have no direct impact on your trade. Nor does it alleviate the issue of not wanting to trade, because you have the same access to it that traders do.

It’s done that way because EHG is trying to show players that don’t like trade that they are as important as those that do, unlike other studios do. That is why it’s an important character-defining decision.
If you allow easy switch between both, then players that don’t like trade will feel left out once again. Much like allowing easy mastery respec will make players that don’t want it feel left out.

The only difference between mastery (or even class) respec and factions is that you care about one and not the other. But it’s still an important aspect of character identity to many people.

Bottom line is that CoF and MG are already very hard to make equivalent in a static system. Other than edge cases, MG will always be superior given enough people trading.
If you allow switching with little friction, you won’t ever be able to make them equivalent in a way that players that don’t want to trade will be happy with. Because players will always find a way to cheese something out of it (like they’re already planning to do with mastery respec).

It’s not the playstyle for the day. If you switch styles every day, then you’re a trader. You just want better drops.

And yet, it would still be abused by meta players. Because they can find the slightest flaw and exploit it.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if players already do this, even with the current system. After all, most of the gear that drops isn’t CoF tagged, even though you have a base better drop from rank 1 alone. Some of it can even be traded.

The reason we appear to you to not be listening is because you don’t address the issues that non-traders have. Namely that it’s important to feel respected and like they matter as much as traders, which doesn’t happen if you can switch freely with no downsides.
We go back to the issue where GGG only gives a cake to traders, EHG wants to give a cake to everyone and you want to go back to GGG inequality because you want 2 cakes even when everyone else is stuck with 1 cake.

There are solutions presented already that would allow genuine mistakes to be undone. Either with tokens or by simply not allowing you to wear both MG and CoF tagged gear at the same time.
But you want more.

Goddamnit. They do not.
CoF is not the same as SSF. SASF/SCSF is the same as SSF..

So that comparison isn’t about similar things. Unless you’re saying that switching CoF to MG and MG to CoF is the same thing as SSF/normal league, in which case you’re saying that we should be able to take our “normal” fully geared character and migrate it to SASF/SCSF without any penalties as well.

PoE doesn’t have any equivalent mechanic to compare switching factions to. So that example has no bearing on this discussion.

Important choices aren’t only about build importance. We can clearly see this due to the amount of people that can’t play without a gender choice. It offers no build importance, and yet it’s a crucial aspect of character identity.

You can choose. You just can’t swap every hour.

Honestly, I wish the upcoming mastery respec was more like switching factions. Both decisions have the same weight for my character identity.

So you’re against paying gold for passive skill respec, or losing levels when you respec a skill? You earned that gold and XP, so taking that away is ‘bad’.

Faction swap isn’t taking away. It has a cost. A very high cost, because it’s supposed to be an important decision. Mostly because that decision being important makes non-traders feel respected.

63

This is exactly in short what im trying to point out.

What a player has achieved already aka success as a punishment is bad design 100%.

64

Ur missing the entire point behind why the restriction is a bad design.

That still doesnt solve this problem. @Kulze tried pointing that problem out. Why is it so dang hard for u to see the problem being brought up.

65

For the same reason that it’s hard for you to see that what you propose is creating an inequality.
Like I said, in PoE traders get a cake and everyone else gets none.
In LE, traders get a cake and non-traders get a cake.
You want to change it so traders get 2 cakes and everyone else gets just 1.

Non-traders love LE because EHG treats them as equals to traders. You want them to benefit traders again. And as a non-trader that feels respected, I resent that.

66

Because one thing is what you create.
The other is how you create it.

It’s easiest put into the mindset of a competition… or test in that case to make an example out of it.

Imagine you should create something… then you get what you should create. Generally you’re not limited as to how you can create it, just what the end result would be like. The creation is the build, the method are the mechanics leading to it.

Sure, there exist competition in which the methods are limited, but those are generally challenges. Like SSF. You limit the method of trade to enforce only personally acquired things for it, hence the perceived value of the outcome raises accordingly. Like using hand-tools to create something versus a CNC which makes the thing for you after programming things. Both provide the same end-result, but the first is held in higher regards because effort is behind it.

It makes a massive difference.

The alternative is to raise the value of perception towards the product itself, but that’s done the other way around. You make it harder to achieve through some means, not limit the tools.

Do you? A large portion of people barely ever touch trade and do more then fine. Others don’t even touch it once and do fine, all in Softcore.
Kinda a ‘you’ problem.

Comparing yourself to others once more. Perception issue. Hence why EHG went ahead and created something so the people not wanting to use trade can perceive their efforts in a similar way to those that do trade. If it’s not based on an equivalency basis then it inherently looses all meaning anyway.

No clear-cut knowledge on how that will work exactly, hence not known. That’s infering it without proper knowledge. Wait for that until 1.2 drops and we can maybe agree :stuck_out_tongue:

Once more you’re putting it on a equivalency basis.

What now? Are they equivalent or not? Choose, you can’t have it both ways.
Either you do it or you don’t. The whole discussion is half-assed.

Also the follow-up utterly ignores the mentioned limitations which can be applied entirely. It’s a really bad discussion basis, hence once again I’ll ignore that stuff.

Put that in and we can talk once more about it. We all know if you only use the current ‘status quo’ then there’s nothing to be done. But that’s a really narrow-sighted method of argumentation, hence not worthwhile in the least.

That’s really a dumb take. And you know I don’t use that commonly in direct communication with people… but that was really bad.

So… if I enjoy trading overall but I like to have the feeling of meaningful drops as well… then I just want better drops? I know full well that those are not compatible in that way as it would flood the market. Why should I want that?
One day I’ll prefer the joy of trading over the joy of loot-showers, the next day the other way around.

Simplifying it to such a degree as you did there is so nonsensical I don’t even know what to say.

Like it’s already done anyway?

With you even agreeing afterwards?
So we should think up solutions only if they’re inherently flawless? That’s… a delusional take. You can’t do that. You simply weed out any change for the sake of it being non-perfect, removing all options for improvement overall as that’s a process.

The reason you ignore it is because you’ve read jack-shit. You’ve not put a single sentence here for pointing out the flaws.

Come down of your high horse, it’s not the quality of discussion you tend to deliver commonly. It’s beneath you to do that, so don’t undersell yourself.

Showcases clearly you’ve not even read it, since I inherently showcased that the friction between the systems is important.

But well, easy to talk against it if you just ignore all the written stuff, isn’t it? :slight_smile:

Generalizing is instead very easy as we can see. Makes for a good easy point anyone not starting to think will easily follow into.

Token is not a solution, so don’t present it as one. It’s been mentioned directly as to why it wouldn’t be and you’re going on about it. Start sincerely communicating and we can once again return to a proper discussion.

And I’ve also agreed that the dual-wearing method is a option, and yes, obviously I want more since it’s not as optimal as I would like. I want to get rid of those perceived downsides of looking at a owned item and frowning while thinking ‘Ah, that’s so shit that I can’t use this despite owning it’.
But clearly you’re showcasing that you’re not willing to even think from a different perspective on this topic by now.

As mentioned, I agree that non-trading players need direly to have the according respect given and I’ve also showcased it.
The issue with this discussion currently is that you’re speaking from a position where you’re feeling wronged. You’ve been burned by other games focusing primarily on trade rather then trying to make them equivalent. So now you’re arguing for wanting that cake… and the one from the other side too. You’re not willing to equally share the cake like it’s supposed to be, as the setup is planned to do… nono… it’s rather a ‘since the other games burned me I’ll argue in any way so that type can’t even have a equivalent standing’ for now.

And that’s not a basis for a discussion, ince more.

Thanks! So… they do not?
But leagues are separate for a distinct reason, because you shouldn’t intermingle content between them, right?
But… here in LE we intermingle CoF and MG, don’t we?

Hrmm… kinda a problem I would say. Because either they are so different to demand the separation in a distinct clear-cut way… or they don’t.
The current implementation is half-assed simply, and it needs to go in a way where it’s not. Even if that one is completely separating them.

So, what does? On what premise should we base our examples then? Go ahead and provide one :slight_smile: Until then we’ll use the ones present with the relevant additions to make it cause at least sense in relation.

Oh? So you mean the identity of your character (gender) is also important? Like… being aligned with a faction that actually has relevant thought processes, goals and reasonings behind their actions?
The thing which LE’s factions are missing as they’re not opposed to each other and instead a meaningless generic existing mesh only made to support the extremely rough style they are supposed to represent?

I mean… if it would be something like ‘The brotherhood of steel versus Raiders’ in Fallout I could agree more. But currently they don’t have any needs or goals attached which would play into the identity of the character. So either that is quite fleshed out to alleviate this or… well… it’s just a mechanic to use without attachment for the character.

Currently they are like a job, not a clear-cut direction for the character. Hence why I said they feel like the mafia… they aren’t opposed but they punish you severely for trying to stop engaging with them.

Oh? So you’re actually not opposed to relevant downsides that cause friction well enough to not allow that?

Hrmm… what are you arguing about again then? I mean… I’m providing options and you ignore them rather then pointing out upsides and downsides related to them.

What are you arguing about once more?

It’s not taking it away. Gold is a resource. It’s not the outcome.

Resources are value of opportunity, they don’t give your character anything.

Gear does. It makes you stronger, it makes you tankier, it allows you directly to interact with content.
Paying a Harbinger Eye for an unlock wouldn’t be taking something away, it’s the player deciding to forego an opportunity for another one. You don’t take anything away.

Also Gold can’t be used for the faction switch unless MG gets a exclusive resource once again… then a Gold cost for faction change would be viable, otherwise not.

No, it doesn’t have ‘a cost’.
A cost is ‘100k Gold’. There is jack-shit fixed with the current faction system. You could loose nothing at all when you don’t wear any tagged item and hence can switch willy-nilly around as much as you want when you just use up your favor… or you can loose basically 90% of your complete gear and millions of favor for doing the same.

Faction-changes are not equivalent for every player.

That’s a problem.

No, @oldschooldiablo actually goes actively into your points and mentions the ups and downs.

You actually do jack. You just deflect currently.

Stop that and we can have a discussion here. What you’re doing is critically urgently demanding and ordering stuff here. Same level of conversion, just with fancier words then back then.

Might wanna re-read, just sayin.

Nah, laughable. EHG treats traders like shit.

Non-functional economy.
Awful UI.
Missing base functions mandatory for a fluid trading environment.
The actually implemented mechanics being utterly half-assed even.

In comparison CoF is like a paradise. Sure, some things were overlooked… like experimental mods needing a multiplier for drop-rate as an example… but that’s peanuts.

So if you wanna tell a joke at least tell a funny one.

67

No, they’re treated as equals to non-traders, though I can see how that might make them feel “like shit”. Kinda makes one think about how non-traders have always been treated doesn’t it?

In a player-based economy (gold duping bugs notwithstanding, ie, who cares about standard anyway), any non-functionalness in the economy is a player-caused issue.

Fair.

I’m assuming this is a duplication of the crappy UI, 'cause the alternative is a design choice (that the devs don’t want “trade lord” to be the 6th class). Just because you don’t like that doesn’t make it a less valid choice on their end.

1 Like
68

You do. In PoE there is no effective benefit to staying in the normal league if you don’t want to trade. So players that really don’t want to trade, will simply join SSF. And these are a very small minority.
The vast majority of people in normal mode will trade at least a few items (there was even a number thrown up at some point from one of the devs where it’s about 80% of them? Can’t recall exactly).

But as we can see in LE, people that wouldn’t trade if they had a choice are about half the playerbase. So a lot of them feel like they have to trade, because the imbalance is just too great.

We already have plenty of spoilers to know that it will be doing the same thing. Examples like being able to remove arena echoes from the web or turning them into super-arena versions.
So the same thing as in PoE you either turning a mechanic off or boosting it.

Huh?
CoF and MG are supposed to be equivalent. They can never really be, but they’re supposed to be.
Non-trade players are supposed to be as important as trade players.

Both are separate things. CoF and MG not being really equivalent in the end doesn’t change the fact that both types of players have the same importance to EHG. Why are you even trying to compare the 2 things?

There’s no effective difference between what you’re saying and what people asking for mastery respec have been saying. It’s just a matter of degree and whether or not you personally care about it.

No, but if we think of solutions that have the same flaws and yet only give benefits to half the playerbase, then maybe that’s not a good solution.

That is because I’m not arguing about your over the top solution. Neither is anyone else. Everyone is simply arguing about removing gear restrictions on swap. You’re the only one arguing with that in mind.
But that solution would require a huge rework of the existing systems and I doubt it will ever happen. So what’s the point of arguing that? It’s fine for a hypothetical discussion, but not for a practical one.

I am because you’re not acknowledging that your solutions (ignoring the over the top one) will lead to the “2 cakes for traders and only 1 for the rest” inequality.
Not even your over the top solution addresses this.

Actually, quite the opposite. I already have my cake right now. So do you. You want to have 2 cakes without giving me one as well.

In the top ARPGs? None exist because factions are a new thing EHG came up with. The closest you can come up with is GD factions, and even then it’s only the Vigil vs Order ones, because they’re exclusive. Or Warhammer 40k: Inquisitor.

Other than that, you have some RPGs where you have the choice to join a guild or the opposing one, each with their exclusive rewards. Usually they don’t give you an option to switch, either.

A character identity has nothing to do with that. A character identity is simply the sum total of all the important decisions you make.
CoF/MG is an important decision to make so it’s part of the character identity. My MG lich feels totally different from my CoF lich. Even if both were running the same build.
Which is why I’ve mostly abandoned the MG lich and only keep it around in case I want to give someone something.

Exactly, so part of the character identity. Much like your job is part of your identity as well in real life.

As I said above, your convoluted solution isn’t feasible. It won’t happen. So I’m only arguing the proposed solution of removing faction tags, which is what everyone else is suggesting.

That would remove too much friction and make the choice more meaningless.

What do you mean? He was the one that suggested tokens, which I agreed with because it has a limited use (much like I defended a similar system for mastery respec). You’re the one that said it’s not good enough.

CoF players have a terrible UI for prophecies as well. Some of them, you don’t even know where you have to go to complete them.
CoF mechanics also force players to stop playing constantly to spend 1-2h re-rolling prophecies until you get acceptable ones. And then they have to hop around monoliths all the time because you can’t get them all for the one you’re farming.

Those are issues that both factions will see improved upon in the future. But both of them are treated with the same importance by EHG.
The only ones that are treated as less important are the ones that want to play trade like a stock market simulator and skip the actual game.

69

Missing my point yet again. Im not at all talking about regreting. Iv already pointed out. Another play style by seeing how far u can get looting ur own gear. Then later switch to trade to keep progressing

U have the EXACT same style of play happening in LE. And i pointed that out.

My point about this restriction had nothing at all to do with regreting it.

The WHOLE dang point of item factions is play style. Why players ignore the other style i brought up that is prevalent in poe and LE is beyond me.

70

Does not matter. One bit. Ur success/achievement are being reset aka progress that’s bad design period

71

What matters is that, the OP stated;

And I don’t believe that to be correct, as somebody who has switched factions multiple times on endgame characters. My experience has been that only a couple of items had to be swapped … It matters because the consequences are minute, and barely an inconvenience.

Framing the situation accurately matters. I am just sharing my situation and perspective. Same as you and everybody else here who thought to respond.

72

If you think that’s counted as ‘equally’ then you’re simply delusional.

Look at the quality and overall state between the systems.

No option to relist (mandatory), no option to search your own listings (mandatory), no options to price-check from the item you want to list (mandatory).
Then we got a very unintuitive menu for picking affixes as well as the affix range.
Also we still have missing affixes in the list as well! Makes the system in those regards non-functional.

And that’s only the major UI issues and functionality issues. I’m not even going into the gold aspect for trading which goes into the technical limits already despite the game being very new… stopping any further scaling or the missing resource sinks.

It’s sub-par. Awful mechanic.

You see, equivalent treatment would be something like in Eve Online. Only a fraction of people are traders… sure… everyone buys and sells stuff, but those not giving a shit about trading just do it with a quick button and that works more then fine.

Or in OSRS, no need to trade at all, you can nonetheless use the Grand Exchange and it’s not a disastrous feeling. Listing is done according to current listings, buying as well.

LE? Utter and entire dog-shit quality for trading.

That’s a lack of understanding of economics instead. I can see where it comes from.
But no, it’s not player-induced, there do system induced things exist. LE is an example of that.

Yes, also player induced things exist, like dupes, or exploiting and cheesing systems, utterly outside the expected behavior and at no fault for the underlying system.
We had that here, it’s many many months past that, in such a timeframe the influx of items should’ve underwent the natural market equilibrium though. We don’t see that, instead we saw a ongoing inflation happening. That’s a showcase of the system being faulty, not the players. It sped it up simply.

I’m talking about the base functions.
That means speedy affix/roll and price-searches.

Those are entirely on the side of the Bazaar UI currently. The method to include that (and which - albeit 3rd party - has become the norm since years now) is the search through the item which is supposed to be listed instead. Hence picking the respective values directly from there and then causing a database query, not manually inputting it.

Those are modern QoL methods which are baseline functionality, not the exception. They’re showcased surpremly well with other products (PoE + Torchlight infinite, since they warrant it and have a market environment) and make the experience hence sub-par to the competition in a quite serious manner.

Not done though. The majority stays in softcore.
Also not a small minority. There’s been a talk about it even with players above level 70 (the only relevant baseline GGG accepts for those things) generally trade items less then 20 times per league.
Given we have non-stop traders which do thousands of trades per day for resources this showcases that the quantity of non-traders or low-quantity traders have to be exponentially high to make up for that low number.

To be fair, that is years ago, with the implementation of the gold-based trading option the number will have risen substantially for sure.

Devil’s in the details. Also we don’t know if it comes exactly as showcased or will undergo changes.

Don’t count your winnings before they’re paid out.

Then treat them like that and any inequality can be gradually reduced.

There is no functional down- or upside inherent to this, hence no need for the limitation.

Mastery respec comes with a inherent downside attached.

The friction for mastery respec needs to be extremely high to alleviate this friction, the gold implementation - unless several millions high - does not offers this incentive to have it alleviated.

A substantially high favour cost or gold cost for faction respec would achieve that far far earlier though, especially if gold would be removed from being a used resource in MG.

Once more… might actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions :slight_smile:

So, let’s summarize again:

  • MG gets exclusive currency to remove double-dip.
  • A alternative friction method besides ‘I can’t use equipment’ of any kind is implemented.
  • Faction tag limitation and favour removal are gone.

Who has the upside or the downside with those 3 points?

Oh? You can’t say? Well… shit… guess it’s a contested point then to work out the details!

Really? So only miniscule changes are allowed?
Inherently flawed systems can’t be changed since fixing them would necessitate large changes?

So:

Now think about why that is the case.
Why there has not been a single ‘simple’ solution been presented.

And then maybe you see how massively the system is screwed to even be in that stage. Small adaptations don’t cut it. Even the ‘don’t allow cross-usage of tags’ solution is only a band-aid, not a fix. I mean… a good band-aid… but a band-aid nonetheless.

First you talk about fixes, then you talk about band-aids until fixes are realized if not immediately viable for whatever reason.

It does, combined with the friction of faction change.

Once more, tell me ‘how not’ and we’ll discuss it. Until then you can talk to a wall as well, can hardly argue with someone not even listening anyway.

Yeah, you got the whole wedding cake and I got the slice of moldy 2 month old leftovers grabbed freshly out of a dumpster.

We both have cake! True! Just not in any way equivalent at all :rofl:

Great! So we need to use metaphors and provide expanded examples from mechanics at least showcasing the bits which are relevant, don’t we?

And if you think ‘no, we shouldn’t!’ then provide an alternative on how it can be handled.

Character identity has direct relevance to player immersion.
Identity can only happen when it has decision-based relevance and isn’t only a generic mechanic.
Otherwise every single nonsensical choice would be ‘identity’ but that’s not the case.

My vocation is, my direct job isn’t.

The vocation is the class/mastery in RPGs, expanding it towards meaningful choices (like aligning with specific thought processes… like a fleshed out faction with needs/goals, hence not the LE ones) which you work inside ther specific perimeters. There’s no given perimeters (outside mechanical ones, which are badly done as well) for LE factions.

Hence I can’t agree there.

You mean like mastery respec will never happen?

Gotcha.

Then you don’t need to argue with me since you’re arguing with nothingness anyway.

So? And after the issues were pointed out. You know… if you provide a suggestion people can adjust it afterwards. We’re not perfect after all, we make mistakes and have oversights.
Tokens can still happen for overall limitations being made, but they can’t be simply ‘given’ at specific points of progression as that would automatically allow the meta of changing to happen… and they can’t be completely limited either since that would only allow the fixing of mistakes in a very limited manner… and then you can just leave them out if it’s account-wide managed.

So they can only be used as a extra step for the limitations besides the friction methods that can be implemented.

The UI for prophecies is in comparison to the Bazaar a sheer utopia. It functions. Not perfectly… but it functions at least. It has no major game-breaking issues and it has all the mechanics to at least derive the baseline function included.

That’s not the case for MG. Missing affixes are the biggest issue, that’s outright breaking function.

But yes, also CoF UI needs a rework. Generally… EHG’s UI-work is not very good, damn many bugs even in several year long existing UI’s like the forge, character sheet, stash and inventory acting together. One would think they were able to deal with that sometime… like in a beta. But eh… seems not.

Yes, and that also shouldn’t happen, as I mentioned in the talks about CoF mechanics. But this is about the faction change specifically. The only reason I went into detailed explanations on how MG is screwed is because you said ‘No, it’s equivalent to CoF!’… not even remotely.

Also if I need to list items for 100k then I’ll be busy for roughly… 3-4 hours. Finding the ones actually worthwhile, ensuring that specific affix combinations aren’t causing the price to severaly fluctuate, double-checking for the base value adjusting the listing price severly.
I would argue that you waste more time in MG using up the same amount of favour by magnitudes compared to CoF even. In CoF you know exactly what things you are willing to use… for example ‘exalted helmets’ and ‘unique helmets’ as 2 viable ones while rolling Arctus. Unless you’re not targeting but want ‘overall’ drops, then you pick more instead of rerolling.

I can easily use up 100k this way in 15-20 minutes. Weapons suck a bit though.
I can’t even remotely in MG, the tools to use it in any meaningful speedy way are entirely missing.

First part: Not even remotely.
You’re talking about improving the functionality of one.
I’m talking about implementing the functionality needed for the other one even.

Kinda demands different responses I would say.

For the second part: No option to resell items takes care of that. Well handled! Besides that is simply using a market properly. Anything else would be delusional. You want to get the best price and you want to pay the lowest price. Simple as that.

Doesn’t matter either. It’s pedantics.
You loose progress.

Is any loss of progress acceptable? No.
Hence the quantity can be entirely ignored, it shouldn’t happen, period.

Yes, it does. Miniscule downsides could be stomached. Still a net-negative but doable.
I did actually switch from CoF to MG once, lost 7 items.
Is that acceptable?

How high does the percentile of this situation need to be to be relevant? I would argue ‘0,000001%’ chance, because it shouldn’t happen in the first place, it can be severe.

Hence the framing can be taken as ‘You can loose progress through the faction change’ without quantity in mind and hence simply dumb it down to a ‘yes/no’ issue and it would still uphold the same principles.

73

100% correct. This has been pointed out on discord, steam reddit. It seems DJ doesnt really follow alot of forms where LE is talked about. Even in global chat in game its been talked about. LA does nothing but screw u over in the trade marker gold wise.

Which is exactly why as well gold shouldnt be used in trading MG having its own currency would make thia dungeon more viable for MG players

Switching friction is also another that has been discussed a number of times and even pointing out why the progress reset is a bad design.

1 Like
74

Dense much??? It is in fact the exact same thing. Op is talking about progress and it be reset partly or fully depending on the tag.

Progess and forced to re gain all u have ALREADY ACHIEVED. Is the entire point and topic of this thread. Iv already made this progress its a purely badly done and badly thought out friction.

At no point should a loot based game force u to wast time getting thing or progress u have already done. Period.

1 Like
75

Nope ive done it. It resets if u have no character in the faction. Favor is account wide not per character.

Again this is why there are players that have a character in each faction its a work around for the restrictions.

76

This together with ongoing discussion about progression loss absolutely make me baffled how some people can actually still talk about this topic as if the mechanics for factions are fine in any way.

Heck… they’re not even acceptable.
It’s absolute awful quality inside a game which otherwise good. As if it’s a showcase of the worst design-methods EHG was able to procure and still make it ‘somehow’ work.
Which is fascinating… but not in the good kinda way :stuck_out_tongue:

That’s… actually hilariously bad too if true. Also not in the good kinda way though!

77

It in fact is. And has been pointed out and explained why that is. U not agreeing liking approving of it ect doesnt change that fact

In the exact way EHG has said the best form of feedback they are mor inclined to listen to.

The facts have been layed out as to how and why this is in fact bad design.

So how do they remedy the bad design. The point OP was trying to point out. Whether a person uses it or not. Doesnt mean they cant see why it a bad design. I havent done this since 1.0. Its still a bad design even tho i dont use it.

Stop hand waving away the points being made as to why this is

78

Nope that is not the point of item faction. Go read the patch notes on it from 1.0 season 0

Its a style of how u want ur gear progression to work. That was the whole point of the poll they took finding out its 50/50 when it comes to trade or not.

Which also never mentioned the other style of loot grinding as i pointed out already.

Not even remotely close one bit. Its piss easy to get ur skills back to max lvl. Bad argument with that.

Ur not losing HOURS iv time investment. Nor being forced to re grind re craft gear ect. Read the thread again its been pointed out. One is FAR FAR harshe than the other and that is a fact

79

Not the same thing. This is build deffining. Item factions are not build defining.

80

The system ate my reply, but I guess that’s a good metaphor for people apparently not accepting responsibility for poor pricing decisions & yes, I have previously agreed that the UI isn’t great in finding precisely similar items to then make those pricing decisions on. But PoE’s also allows you to make stupid choices, but apparently it’s ok there while being “dog shit” here. Ok bro, I’ll trust you, especially if yoy throw war and peace at me…

Also, you might want to try the CoF ui 'cause that’s shit too.

Yes, that’s what he said.