What matters is the methodology used.
You are basing your belief on your own anecdotal experience.
Whereas I searched the internet and found that majority of LE players refer to faction switch using the words “restart”, “losing gear”, “going naked” and other similar names.
So even if you personally haven’t “gone naked”, the majority of players did.
It’s not solely about the pricing, that’s ‘only’ a large portion of it.
As mentioned, unlike CoF which was ‘functional’ from the get-go MG definitely wasn’t. Stating otherwise is simply twisting the facts when a quite decent amount of affixes (their list isn’t huge… really… that’s more then ‘dropping the ball’) simply wasn’t even included.
That’s the level of a intern screwing up and the superior not even checking if the intern did a decent job.
That quality was beyond unacceptable. That was Wolcen level quality.
Also I’ll gladly throw PoE under the bus for their bad decisions. The difference is that the lifetime of PoE and LE are entirely different. PoE has been a solid game with ups and downs since 1.0… but they generally had more ups. The major ‘downs’ they had were when the ideas about ‘Ruthless mode’ and following that ‘Archnemesis’ came, utterly dropping the ball in what the playerbase actually wanted from the game and had been delivered to date to a decent degree.
Only since then have they returned to a more… amiable state for the players, but not every company manages that… and GGG does drop the ball with PoE 1 given their PoE 2 release again. I’ll also gladly point that out that they’re doing awful work managing 2 games a once.
The difference is… GGG already showcased that they can switch gears… albeit slowly (get it? Grinding… gear… games? Eh?.. Ehhh?.. Yeah, it was bad, sue me 
) while EHG hasn’t showcased that yet.
That’s a major difference in perception.
EHG has dropped the ball since they announced 1.0 basically non-stop. Not talking about the server issues, that’s technical backend stuff, things like that shouldn’t happen… but they do, and are really hard to avoid.
But! The biggest offender to date still is the faction system.
‘We want to provide a roughly equal playing field for players, and we give the option to switch if you don’t like your choice anymore’
Could’ve just left out the second part and it would’ve been better. Nonetheless the qualitative implementation of CoF and MG were anything but good, specifically… MG as mentioned.
As for the ‘stupid choices’… have I ever said it’s fine that GGG doesn’t implement the work third-party developers had done and which have become ‘the norm’ over the years to not be implemented in-game with PoE? I kinda remember actively saying ‘That’s a fault and net-negative for them’. The only difference is that there’s at least a working method existing.
We sadly can’t say that about LE… there is no ‘workaround’ available.
Also since you only go into the poor pricing decisions…
What about the missing affixes?
What about the missing option for re-listing?
Those are 2 major shortcomings of a system, one which is simply baffling to exist over 1 year after implementation of the system as it’s a Day 1 fix issue in magnitude… and the other is a fundamental lack of knowledge base on how to create a working economy.
Because it’s really nice when you come online and 25 people put items in which go below the one you put in, knowing ‘yep… that’ll likely never sell… but if I re-list it for full price again then that’ll also likely happen again’. It’s a baseline function, it’s not ‘it allows people to make mistakes’… it actively is a massive detriment to the system.
So:
Sorry that it came through like this.
I’ll have to say though… I’m kinda getting mighty pissed at the repeated ‘It’s all fine!’ arguments from people who seemingly have not even tested the system in a longer-term manner, hence knowing absolute jack-shit about the long-term details.
I did the mistake of trying to talk about long-term CoF effects and was burned.
The difference is… I listened, I checked personally… and I agreed to have made mistakes.
Here instead I see - simplyfied - the term ‘screw trading people finally!’ repeatedly showcased. Not the expected ‘yeah, we should be on equal standing’. Sure, the second is said… but the content of the messages sadly say the first. ‘All’s fine! Now lets work on CoF that those pesky traders finally aren’t breaking down the door in droves! We gave them just enough to not break apart after all!’
And then people are surprised why the perception of EHG is kinda in the gutter when it comes to providing quality releases.
I don’t know how prevalent it is… but from personally asking in a few larger scale stream it seems to be ‘It’s a fun game! But they really need to work on fixing their shit.’
No it wouldn’t & to say otherwise is ridiculous. If they’d not added the ability to change there’d have been an uproar 'cause people would feel even more pressured to make the “right” choice.
That’s fine, but you know I skim posts at the best of times (& these aren’t 'cause I’m stupid busy at work)…
That’s to be expected given that “non-trading people” have been screwed over for decades without a care or any form of sympathy.
They are, but there’s a lot of shit to fix.
Instead of being given basically a non-choice anyway.
It’s at times so bad that creating a new character is easier then switching.
Sure, so pay back the dues?
I mean… we can do that definitely, it’s understandable why it happens.
The end-result will be though that we won’t have a LE to come back to before long if that’s how EHG keeps up handling their stuff.
It’s a proclaimed ‘50%’ of their playerbase after all… definitely not anymore, but well, showcase a place for someone and then instead laugh at them is a prime method to get negative rep.
GGG does with their Standard player treatment. EHG does with their trading player treatment and their Legacy treatment currently.
It’s like they’re collecting places where people can rip them apart in a viable manner rather then fixing existing ones. Maybe they hope so many places start to exist that players forget where to start doing so and it goes into a natural equilibrium?
Yep, nearly as if… that should’ve been the focus to do.
A house without a stable foundation will come crashing down before long. EHGs foundation is really weak, 1.2 miiiight fix a few things… but your content can be really amazing and it won’t matter if the supporting systems are unresponsive, grating or even outright broken and hence ‘sucking the fun out of it’.
I mean… we just need to - once more - look over at PoE 1 and their prophecy system and how it was set up. For people wanting to go beyond the baseline ‘T16 map’ it was one of the core reasons as to why they stopped playing. Having to trade for 15 minutes to run a single map simply is not fun… and then not even being guaranteed that the stuff you chose actually will trigger.
Which was why the change towards the current scarab-based content system has caused such a massive positive response. It provides player agency, is simple, provides a vast variety of options and most importantly… is reliable and without non-stop trading available.
I’m not sure you understand the reasoning behind the devs choice (that they don’t want players to be flipping back & forth). I know you dont like it & that’s fair. But just because you don’t like the decision doesn’t make it “bad” regardless of how you frame it.
No. But don’t expect much sympathy.
You sure?
Funny, that’s not what you said in the other thread about PoE 2’s 0.2 reveal. So it’s ok for GGG but not for EHG?
Er, sorry, what now? I thought they got rid of Prophecy several years ago??
Yeah, and ive been bitching about that for years. But GGG doesn’t care about people who aren’t “blasters” who are on the bleeding edge & making multi-mirror trades. That could be solved by asynchronous trading for maps. It annoys the bejesus out of me that it can be so difficult to find a single specific map to fill out my atlas.
But they do trade items, which is my point. Non-traders don’t spend the whole league trading, but they do feel forced to trade for a few items.
Like I said, about 80% of softcore league players will trade something (can’t recall the exact value, can’t be arsed to go look for it), when we see in LE that non-traders are more 50/50 split.
This is an obvious exageration. MG needs some fixing, but so does CoF. Fixing the factions doesn’t mean allowing swapping.
Allowing swapping will always lead to 2 cakes for you and one cake for the rest. There is no single possible way you can come up with that won’t lead to this.
Traders will have 2 systems to play with. Non-traders will never trade. There is no swapping solution that you can come up with where this is not true while allowing you to switch them back and forth when you’re bored (like you said, the playstyle of the day).
You don’t have to always use metaphors. Especially using metaphors that don’t apply to the situation being discussed because they are identical to a different one already existing in the game.
You can also use real world examples, if you want. It’s like going to university for a degree in programming. Halfway through, you decide you instead want a philosophy degree. You can change, but you will lose the credits for the classes you already took, except for a couple that might be common to both.
What you want is to advance programming one day and when you’re bored you advance philosophy.
Identity happens when you make an important decision that isn’t easily undone.
Class is an important decision that can’t be undone. It’s a part of the character decision.
Mastery was an important decision that couldn’t be undone. It was a part of the character decision.
Mastery will be able to be undone. We’ll have to see how easy that is or not, but likely it will not be part of the character identity anymore.
Your build in LE isn’t part of the character identity, because you can undo it in minutes and switch to a different build.
Factions are a decision that isn’t easily undone. They’re part of the character identity. If you change that, it’s one more thing that is gone from that.
It still is. If people ask you what you do, you answer them with your current job. It’s what you do. It’s part of your identity.
If someone has a vocation to be an actress but spend their whole life being a waitress, being a waitress is part of their identity, even if it’s not their vocation.
Mastery respec didn’t require a massive overhaul of the existing systems. Especially the unique ones EHG came up with. It’s simply a design decision. In fact, in terms of implementation, it was one of the simplest ones they did.
I’m pretty sure the missing affixes issue was fixed in 1.1.
Again, if you feel this strongly about it, then you are strongly against losing skill levels when you respec. Because it’s also loss of progress.
I guess this means you think we should just respec skills and keep the levels. Since any loss of progress is unacceptable.
There was some guy making a PoE like trade site to find listings in 1.0. I think he since abandoned it.
But the main reason we don’t have one yet is because LE isn’t big enough yet.
PoE also didn’t have many of the tools they now have until it became bigger.
No one said the systems are fine. Everyone acknowledges that both systems need more. But your solution to them is “change both and let me use both”, whereas we are instead saying “let’s improve both so they’re more equal”.
Again, you see CoF cake is a bit better right now than MG’s. Rather than improve both cakes so they’re both great and you can have one cake that is similar to CoF’s, you want both cakes to be great but you want both for yourself as well, knowing full well that non-traders will never eat the MG cake.
It’s not a non-choice. It’s simply a very onerous one so you don’t make it on a whim. And it’s not easier than making a new character. You just need to prepare.
You want “I got bored with this and want to change right this second” (we again go back to your “playstyle of the day” argument). Whereas EHG wants instead “I don’t think this faction works for me, I’ll work on changing it”.
So when you do reach the decision that you want to change factions, you can prepare for it by farming non-tagged gear to replace the tagged one you have. When you have an acceptable setup, you can switch without any issues.
Of course, this is not compatible with the playstyle of the day. But that is because EHG designed factions with the opposite of that in mind.
What prophecy system? You mean the alva coins that they scraped because no one liked it? Is that the system you mean?
It’s funny when you say that EHG gives CoF the upper hand when they picked a system from PoE1 that no one liked and made it the entire basis of the faction. I hate the prophecy system. I wish CoF had alternative ways to interact with it. And yet, I’m forced to do so because the alternative is trading. Even though prophecies are just barely better than it.
I kinda disagree with this. It’s not the case for all people. For me it totally is, i an unashamedly an accountant, but for some people (eg, my gf) their job is a means to an end, to pay for shit they need (like food & not being homeless to name but a few).
Says the non-HC player. Some people demonstrably do accept loss of progress. And skill levels as DJ said.
To be fair, “he abandonded it” because GGG made one. Then added some additional functionality that only they could (click a button on the trade site & a message is sent in-game rather than having to paste the message yourself, not a big thing, clearly).
And the APIs don’t exist/haven’t been enabled for third parties.
It’s still a part of their identity. It’s what they do almost every day. They might not like that and would rather do something else, but it is.
Much like where you live. It’s part of your identity. You might prefer to live in the Bahamas, but you don’t and can’t easily change that. It’s part of your identity.
Much like what you drive.
They are important decisions which aren’t easily undone without major consequences or major effort involved.
Liking it or not has no bearing on whether it’s a part of you or not. Just on whether you want to change it or not.
I think you misunderstood me. There was an LE player that made a PoE-like trade site where you could search the listings for LE. That was the one that has since abandoned it.
I read that as; ‘the majority of players that took to the internet to post a complaint, in English (presumably), that you personally found, and not including anyone who disagreed, according to you, did’ … That’s not a great sample size if you ask me, but hey … Anecdote for anecdote, right?
I understand the reason.
I accept the reason.
I don’t accept the method.
If it’s them not wanting players to flip back&forth then they should’ve made the system in a way so it’s simply not possible… but it is.
And since it is the expectation of ‘we shouldn’t be screwed over by it’ is existing.
I love to say ‘do it right or don’t do it’… and this is a prime example of that.
Yes, mistakes happen and can be solved, but if you’re going into something not even willing to do a good job (and you gotta be indept beyond end to mess up this bad design-wise if you give a shit about the topic) then don’t do that job.
So ignore the thing exists?
Provides kinda the same end-result.
You know the saying? ‘What you don’t want done to you don’t inflict upon others’. And exactly that upholds here. Wanna be ignored after the devs basically promised to make a mechanic just for your playstyle? Welcome to LE!
Yes.
Yes, because beta.
Different perception. A beta is there to establish the foundation. A release is there to expand on said foundation.
Not the other way around.
It was removed in 3.17. 3 years ago hence. 8 leagues ago.
That was btw. Archnemesis… which failed utterly as it had nothing taking the place for it +… Archnemesis
It was the major time where perception of GGG went into the negatives, after players put loads of pressure on them for finally changing up the stale mechanics which cause needless friction for no upside.
GGG dropped the ball majorly by trying to alleviate those issues with focusing content into random RNG drops rather then general gradual progress and got burned heavily.
That’s why following up the mechanics were focused a lot more towards actual player agency in terms of QoL and mechanics. Many base-game changes happened from then on with temporary league mechanics mostly. Sentinel, Kalandra, Crucible and Ancestor basically were 99% phased out while the focus was on core improvements. Necropolis was supposed to stay but they dropped the ball, Affliction was from the beginning planned to only partially be implemented. Settlers is supposed to stay permanently btw.
But… that’s solved?
That doesn’t exist anymore? It’s gone for good?
The new systems now are a ton better. They’re actually good enough to allow cycling between all 3 Atlas trees you can set up (with the respective mechanics) and not run out of the scarabs for juicing your maps… ever.
Also the rewards from the different mechanics have been gradually adjusted to be rather similar in value (for trade league at least, obviously SSF depends on the build) so you have vastly more free choice in what to play, no more ‘only this is good’.
Also solved since years, you get ‘Orbs of Horizon’ regularly, they exchange map types of the same tier. Hence you can easily get every single map needed for progression, you only need to gather the respective tier. It’s very rare to be stifled in progress by now.
It’s actually surprising how much they improved their systems.
20 trades… per person.
If you got 1 person doing 200 trades a day then imagine how many trades average joe makes. 1 month… let’s say 25 days only, 200 trades. 5000 trades… that means the equivalent of 250 people.
So the average joe maybe trades 2-3 times for core upgrades they can’t find. You know… the ‘original’ task of a trading system. Hence they’re not adversely affected by it inherently.
Only regular traders are because of the immense time investment… but given that this was - formerly - caused by resource exchanges and Settlers did ‘fix’ that entirely it’s become nothing worth even noting anymore either.
It’s… a thing of the past actually!
Not anymore as mentioned.
The people asked for 50/50 split. The implementation was awful on one side and acceptable on the other. Hence many left from the awful side, some to never come back… and those not minding either switched to the greener pastures simply. Hence now even if the - unrealistic expectation - original 50/50 would’ve been upheld it’s now simply… gone.
Yep, it is, hyperbole to showcase the disparity nonetheless 
What?
It means you aren’t able to imagine someone not liking the prophecy system itself. There’s people not liking the other side on both areas.
So… nonsensical simply to even suggest this.
Not? Explain why that would be the case in my suggestion hence.
Hrmm… here I get credit for the time spent and I can pick up where I left off next time.
Dunno, seems kinda like a better system rather then simply ‘you, you did it… but it doesn’t count’. Wouldn’t you agree?
Yes, and I’m giving up the opportunity to improve my knowledge depth for the bit I’m not actively studying for. Hence when I go for programming I’ll have a hard time learning about philosophy as well… and vice verse.
Using a dungeon key is a decision which can’t be undone. Now I’m a ‘single dungeon key user’.
Does that improve to double user when using 2? Do we keep track? Each time it can’t be undone. Should we keep track of used gold coins and shards too? That’s your identity after all, can’t be undone, only re-earned!
I work as a carpenter.
Vocation.
I work at company ‘xyz’… nobody gives a shit unless that company has a specific important position of some kind, positive or negative.
Mostly, some are still there.
Yes.
Is there an alternative option?
Provide it. I would love to hear it while upholding the core principles.
A mandatory evil is a evil… but nonetheless mandatory.
The trade API caused someone to create a trade site in a few short months, entirely away from what GGG expected to happen. They were forced to adapt and never wanted this to happen in the first place, which is why their system always had so massive friction.
So the mention of ‘GGG only cares about traders’ is inherently wrong in itself. They simply had to adapt to take them into consideration for SC as it would’ve otherwise killed their game.
LE still has no third party program reliably available in a time where those are far easier to create then back in the GGG API release days. Also with a vastly bigger community and a vastly bigger company size.
Should tell you more then enough to see the comparison.
CoF wouldn’t be touched.
The switching mechanic is not inherent to any faction, it’s the border-friction mechanic to not cause double-dipping.
Switching is no devil, it’s either a fixed thing or a decision based on player agency.
Even if it should be high friction then it needs to affect players evenly, both for in-between faction and between different players in the same faction. Not upheld.
Also unless unavoidable it’s not allowed to cause any sort of progression loss. Progression loss is always - even for miniscule ones - a major point of contention. The faction change being such a top-end system with serious base-level implications though is utterly horrible positioned… and alternatives did exist as well as are still existing.
Once more, BS simply
Seems like you can’t read suddenly anymore when this topic comes up.
Did I mention the left out aspects of CoF need to be implemented? Yes? Oh wow… guess I actually think about the other faction too!
Same with the UI changes needed? Yes? Oh wow… who woulda thunk!
Am I saying MG needs currently more effort to fix? Yes, obviously. Unless you’re a darn blind person it’s kinda hard to miss.
Does that mean I focus solely on MG? No, obviously not, I give different topics different priorities as they all demand different priorities. If MG gets improved ‘too far’ (Yeah… that would kinda be funny… can’t imagine it for a looooong time ) then obviously the focus will turn to CoF since they need work to be done on instead of MG.
Your notion is simply laughable. You’re solely trying to undermine my position rather then thinking about the reasoning behind the comments.
If you wanna properly argue about it then get into details for the specific points which need work on and we can surely see the difference in importance for each specific point to be changed.
If my situation can turn out to ‘I need more effort to fix up my character after a change then making a new one’ it’s a non-choice.
Still laughable to even need any discussion there.
It’s a bullshit argument since you can’t prepare properly either as that would solely fall into the RNG range instead rather then actual planned preparation.
If I wear 7 items with a tag and want to change I got to exchange 7 items with roughly equivalent power level… without a faction tag.
How nonsensical can you become to demand a player to do that to change a friggin faction? When do you expect them to do that? A week later? A month? Become at least a bit realistic, you’re not working towards the position of CEO for your whole life… you’re playing a darn game. And when the effort of changing faction is even remotely close to starting over it’s not a choice at all.
That’s why it’s used as a negative example?
I mean… that’s the point?
You’re arguing just for arguing’s sake, at least make sense.
You mean nobody liked because it caused your stash to be clattered, didn’t have any choice, didn’t always trigger if all conditions are fulfilled to allow it and even those conditions weren’t stated?
Yes, clearly similar situation as we see
The core mechanic wasn’t bad, the execution from GGG was goddamn awful simply.
Yes by choice though to be fair. HC is a challenge environment for a reason.
So kinda hard to make something, yep.
I would imagine if you tell his gf that you might have a nice red mark on your cheek Just sayin…
It’s the only we have… so hey…
This is where we disagree the most. You either want it to be completely locked or easy to change. And that’s not the intention.
The intention is “We don’t want you to flip back and forth. BUT, we do acknowledge that sometimes players will choose the wrong one and want to change. FOR THESE CASES, if you’re REALLY REALLY sure you want to make a (quasi-)PERMANENT CHANGE, we give you a way to do it that has massive downsides. It’s not as bad as creating a new character, but it will require effort”.
The current system is in place simply to allow you to undo a mistake. Which you should only do once. Twice, at most. Because otherwise EHG doesn’t want you changing factions ever.
That is 20 trades too many for people that don’t like trading. And they are forced to do those 20 trades because GGG doesn’t care about them.
You have no idea what the actual split in playerbase is between CoF and MG. Nor do I. Nor is it important.
Players voted. Half wanted trade, half wanted no-trade.
That’s the distribution. It doesn’t change because of MG or CoF implementation. Implementation only changes the player’s feelings towards the state of things, it doesn’t change the fact that they want to trade or not.
I hate the prophecy system. I already said several times in the past (and even in this thread) I hate the prophecy system. So kinda nonsensical to say I can’t imagine someone not liking it.
It’s still better than being forced to trade.
Also, in your example, those people would also still only have one cake, they would just replace the CoF one with the MG one. Which is what already happens.
Because you can switch between CoF and MG based on your playstyle of the day but I will never trade. I will always stick with CoF only. As long as CoF exists, I won’t trade. Because I don’t want to trade.
So whatever system you come up that will allow you to eat the MG cake and the CoF cake as well will mean that you have 2 cakes and I will have only 1.
It’s the same thing for MG/CoF.
You are in MG (programming). You have MG gear (books). You have MG ranks (credits).
You switch to CoF (philosophy). You don’t use your MG gear/programming books anymore. Your MG ranks/programming credits count for nothing. You start over.
You switch back to MG/programming. You still have your MG gear/programming books. You still have your MG ranks/programming credits. You just lose the progress for classes you left mid-way which you have to start over (favour).
It’s actually the perfect metaphor. And in no university will it work differently where you can just swap each month between them and not lose any progress.
That is just dumb. And you know I don’t use that normally. Like you said before, this is beneath you.
Next you’re going to be saying that using a skill in combat is a decision that can’t be undone.
Using consumables doesn’t change your character. It has no permanent effects. Your character is exactly the same before and after using the consumable.
That is what we have with factions as well. The only difference between both is scale and how you personally feel about each.
When did I say that? I never said anything about you wanting only MG to improve. I only said that you want both cakes. I already provided the reasoning behind this above.
Non-traders will never trade and will only eat 1 cake. You want to switch daily from one to the other and eat both cakes.
Obviously, if you to eat both cakes, you want both cakes to be the best they can be. That was never the issue.
It isn’t, though. It’s far easier to farm non-tagged gear with your character that is already farming monos than it is to create a new character and go all the way up to monos again. It just takes an hour or two, rather than 1 minute.
So you mean that if you make a new character, by the time you’re back at the same level you will 100% for certain have the same 7 same items with roughly the equivalent power level? Because that’s your reasoning right now.
It isn’t remotely close. Let’s assume you’re farming 300c right now as MG. You can farm gear for 1h and go down in power to 200c. You switch to CoF. You are, after 1h, farming 200c and from then you only go up.
If you make a new character, it will require several hours to even reach empowered monos.
In one you lose some progress. In the other you lose all your progress. So how is that remotely close?
As I said before, EHG doesn’t want you swapping factions daily. It’s supposed to be a permanent choice. However, they have left you an out if you’re really really really sure you want to change. It will lead to some progress loss, so you’ll only do it if you’re really really really sure you want to change. It’s still less than losing all progress if you were forced to simply make a new character.
It’s not meant to be playstyle of the day. It’s meant to instead give non-traders something, rather than the massive FU they get from every single other game.
Both factions need to be improved upon. No one disagrees with that. But they don’t need to be interchangeable.
I suspect we might have different view on what constitutes identity then. I sleep every day but don’t consider it part of my identity, I eat meat every day but don’t consider it as part of my identity, it’s just something I do ('cause it’s tasty). But there are people who do consider it part of their identity (often vegans).
Nope, I don’t “identify” as a Toyota driver & I’d find it difficult to get into the headspace of someone who does. I can get that someone is a petrolhead, but not “I’m a Prius/Ferrari/eyc driver, it’s just part of who I am”…
Ah, fair enough.
Ah yes, letting perfect be the enemy of good, always a good way of getting something to happen.
And this is where you’re over-reaching & imagining things. The devs have never said, nor acted like they don’t want to do a good job & if you believe that then you’re definitely delusional.
You can if you want, that’s certainly how GGG views non-traders.
It’s different in English, but yes. And no, they’re not ignoring you, it’s just not been prioritised to your preference which is a you problem not a them problem.
Ah good, one of those “trust me bro” we’ve come to love. Gotcha!!
So there’s a vendor that sells any specific map I want (to fill out my atlas)? I’m not too fussed what rarity it is. But last I checked there wasn’t. Or asynchronous trade (unless they added maps to the AH they added in Settlers & I just missed it, which is definitely possible).
The atlas trees & there being 3 of them is/are awesome.
I have a few but not many & the odds of getting the specific map I want are relatively low since ny that point you’ve got all but 1 or 2 of the tier done which drops the odds significantly.
It’s not. But we are talking about different things. I’m talking about getting a handful of specific maps to complete each tier, you’re talking about progression into higher tiers which is better & has been better for quite a few leagues.
No, they just hate them less than the non-traders who they clearly despise because they foist such egregiously bad drop rates on.
'K, my figures-pulled-out-of-my-fetid-hole clearly show that, back then, PoE had a community of 15 trillion and 2.4 billion developers. Which, as I’m sure you can agree, is a smidge bigger than LE/EHG.
Just like people make a choice to choose a faction and then change.
Yes, I suspect we are seeing things differently. But I will also admit that I was wrong, given your examples. I will concede to your (and Kulze’s) point.
No, I want it either to be reasonably without loosing progress since that’s not needed to cause the same type of friction… or have it completely locked if they’re unable to provide something acceptable.
So… when is that situation viable? Once? But that’s not how it’s set up, is it? You can switch regularly.
Now we get to the actual issues. You realize ‘this is not for me’ and already did something in the faction… now you loose all the equipment derived from it → feels shit.
Something changes with the setups and now the other faction is better since EHG made changes personally, hence you would loose massive amounts of time investments → feels shit.
So… when exactly does this mechanic solely work for ‘fixing mistakes’ anyway? It’s not set up for that. Hence even in your example it would be badly designed.
Oh? For that it’s surprisingly lenient… if seemingly the favor doesn’t get removed when I still have another character present in the faction (what a joke if that’s true…) as well as not having any effect should I not wear tagged equipment.
Guess selling for 200 mil Gold in MG before switching over and mass-spamming LA in CoF (if you wanna optimize CoF progression) is definitely a nice thing hence
No double-dipping, right?
You clearly haven’t read again.
First of all… we can infere, secondly, unless you entirely missed the prevalence of topics springing up in quantity related to MG and CoF over time shifting then you should also be able to infer it. Thirdly, it’s important since it showcases a paradigm shift of playerbase. Why should someone keep playing if their main supporting system does causes only frustration as it’s not properly usable in a reasonable manner that doesn’t hinder you heavily?
Obviously it does Thinking otherwise is a poor thought process.
You think people will stay when the thing they looked forward to is introduced in a atrocious state and then not properly fixed in over a year? Heck… not even touched until 7 months later?
Laughable once more… really… you’ve so many bad takes on that topic that it’s far below your usual quality. I sadly have to mention that again.
They’re gone… so the distribution changes.
Yep, and now imagine someone starting Legacy… playing for… hrmm… let’s say 6 months in MG… realizing the state of the market being utterly atrocious and saying ‘Nah, not putting up with that, I wanna play CoF instead rather’.
And now they gotta switch 5+ item for example and basically have to start from nearly scratch. Great experience! A-Tier garbage obviously! Would recommend… -1/10, stay away!
You eat the same amount of cake, just from different places.
That’s the difference to double-dipping.
Kinda simply sounds like ‘I don’t have a second option so you can’t have on either!’.
Which is really baffling.
Nope, factually wrong.
Not repeating it again why. You’re ignoring it anyway.
It’s put into the extreme. Hence think about why I did that.
Identity has nothing to do with fixed or non-fixed choices.
It can be a part… but that’s not character identity.
Nope.
You’re showcasing that I see MG as the worse one - yes.
Then you tell me I want both cakes - no, I want the sum of 1 cake, however the mixture will be to be my choice.
Then you tell me I want that because I know nobody not liking MG would even think about doing that - This suggests I do it from a purely self-centered position, hence thinkign about MG primarily.
Hence no.
Also, the opposite is happening as well. Someone playing solely MG won’t even think about playing CoF anyway.
The people which have switching moods - extremely rarely or regularly, doesn’t matter - are the ones left in the dust. A method of switching without loosing progress is the solution there. And those people are fairly regular.
The only thing needed to be done is ensuring that The end result is the maximum equivalent of a total of ‘1 cake’. No matter if the pieces are made up from CoF slices or MG slices. Who gives a shit if someone has more or less slices of one side? Let people have their darn flavor!
Kinda made me chuckle.
So… you want to tell me that switching factions… suddenly having 4 pieces of equipment left on… in a… for example 600 corruption timeline you’ve farmed… is easier then simply going the straightforward known route of making a character from scratch?
You’d rather go through the bothersome hassle of finding out where you can actually still farm? (Likely normal monoliths only even) while having to mess around with a timeline following that which you either don’t need or actively detest to play in?
Mhmm… surely the majorly chosen route rather then being frustrated and re-doing stuff or simply quitting the character for good.
You’ll have a coherently created functioning character again rather then one where you try to puzzle it together non-fluently.
Can you go down if you loose too much equipment? There’s a boss-fight to actually reduce the corruption Really dumb thing actually.
Also one rips you out of the gameplay-cycle, the other upholds the known gameplay cycle.
It’s not, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to switch limitless amounts or be able to actively cheese it even if you know how (which is a noob trap hence).
They were not willing to invest a good 10 hours of research for the core economic research which constitutes online game-environment economy.
Resource influx vs outflux… not upheld.
Market fluidity through repricing ability… not upheld. (That’s a core principle outside of actual times auctions, not the auxiliary things which can affect it inversely and are well less known).
Hence ‘inept’… because that’s the ‘for dummies’ version of economy still, not even the 101 for making a functioning market.
To be fair… it kinda feels like it though.
Fresh implementations being brought to a amicable state has always been - and should be - a prime priority. These things should’ve happened in the first month of 1.0 when the server issues calmed down. Same as adding the CoF mechanics which had been an oversight.
Same as adjusting Aberroth to function better for the overall player rather then being extremely build specific, mechanical adjustments to a degree in 1.1.
Those things have simply been foregone, and that’s just not a good development state overall.
I mean… it was baffling enough when EHG asked ‘should we fix bugs during a Cycle?’ in the first place… you don’t ask that, you either see a bug being embraced and loved… and make it a feature instead of a bug. Or… if detrimental? You remove it. There is no other option there, you don’t ignore em
No, but you reliably get the rising tiers of maps in a quantity which lets you finish them with… maybe 2-3 repeated maps. Unless you tend to die 6 times regularly and don’t finish the maps.
Nope, they prioritize non-finished maps nowadays. Actually a very good decision. And you get a few more then before as well through mechanics. Makes it overall a good method to progress now. Luckily so.
Atlas completion is prioritized to raising tiers. Tiers are meaningless in comparison as you can - depending on mechanic - get the same outcome in T5 as you can get in T16, as long as the focus is on consumables and not level based items.
So no, we’re talking about the same thing actually.
The focus is on crafting. You need to have the knowledge in PoE to progress or it simply won’t work out. Their SSF progression is highly knowledge based.
Which yes… is a really bad experience for new players. But you’re not severely slower then. You need roughly 80 hours of play-time to get from the start of Act 1 to post Maven, few exceptions apply… but only if - and that’s the big part - you know how to craft.
Trading is the ‘crutch’ implemented to alleviate the need to know that, since the learning curve is far far too massive otherwise as GGG never bothered with streamlining their UIs and information basis for crafting properly to make up for the shortcomings created.
Trade API was included in GGG 10+ years ago, at release if I remember right even. So 2013?
The trade site was created shortly after, I think it was around half a year.
GGG was much smaller.
PoE had a much smaller playerbase as well (with mentions years ago about 60% playing on steam and 40% the standalone client if I remember right, though I dunno when exactly that was, it was definitely at least 2 years after the release)
So if we take that number to 50/50 we would’ve had ~60k players at release and ~40k follow-up league. Rising steadily from then onwards. Massive numbers for that time actually as gaming was already very prevalent but not as much as it is today.
Exactly, but you’re not punished with a HC character as you can just take the stuff and use it in Legacy/Standard. I can still fully use the equipment, unlimited, with every character.
Factions actively force you out of the earned equipment. You can’t use it. That’s the whole topic still. That simply shouldn’t happen… hence alternative friction methods, hence suggestions and discussions… sadly the majority of the discussion is currently why we even should’ve that discussion and that’s kinda nonsense plainly spoken. Even if not important personally… humoring it doesn’t hurt.
That’s what I thought. No. I rarely die more than once or twice (& that’s also rare), I think I’ve probably not finished a map maybe once in the past few years and yet I definitely get a one or two maps in a tier that I’ve not done & I just can’t progress to the next tier before I’ve done them (you aren’t surprised by this). So what you say is most definitely not my experience.
It is, and because of this I’m definitely left with fewer uncompleted maps than was the case several years ago. But it’s not zero.
And most, if not all, at least all proper, HC players will delete their characters because of this.
Yeah, it’s majorly about the preservation of value. And even HC players tend to go into Standard. We’ve seen Ghazzy, Ziz, Mathil… all of them theory-crafting in Standard off-league usually. That can only be done through the accumulated value they own from leagues after all.
Hence the same upholds cross-faction, the preservation of value is a underlying game concept of ARPGs which is extremely important but often overlooked surprisingly.
It is. You can switch regularly, but you’ll lose progress constantly.
It’s not any different from you having a necromancer and now EHG goes and does something to another class (Sentinel) and now that class is better. Feels shit. Should we allow those people to change their Acolyte to a Sentinel so it doesn’t feel as bad?
It is. It gives you an option where you can switch while losing some progress as opposed to not giving you an option and you losing all progress.
It just doesn’t give you an option where you lose no progress, because that doesn’t prevent playstyle of the day, which the devs don’t want.
It’s not
I won’t waste over 200k favour on this, but everywhere I look everyone says you lose all your favour and when I switched some characters about a year ago the favour loss was global.
So either they were mistaken (or intentionally misleading, but I’ll choose not to believe that) or there’s a bug.
Why would that be a good strategy? You’re always on about how LA is useless for both factions but now it’s suddenly awesome?
CoF ranks don’t affect LA rewards, so why would that be a good strategy?
Obviously it doesn’t. I hate trade. I don’t want to trade. If CoF was pure crap and MG was the golden goose, I wouldn’t use CoF and would use MG instead. But I would still hate trade. That will never change.
So half the players don’t want trade and want an alternative to it. Whether or not the implementation is good doesn’t change what they want. It only changes what they actually use.
You either get a system where you don’t lose progress and it’s flavour of the day (which the devs don’t want) or you have a system where there are heavy penalties involved, which means losing progress.
It kinda is.
For years the status quo was “Do you like trade? Here’s a mechanic for you. Do you hate trade? Tough luck, you get nothing.”.
EHG changed that to “Do you like trade? Here’s a mechanic for you. Do you hate trade? Here’s a mechanic for you.”
You want to change it to “Do you like trade? Here’s 2 mechanics for you. Do you hate trade? Tough luck, you only get one.”.
Non-trade players like that they’re treated as equals by EHG. This changes that and makes traders the top dog again, by giving them choices (including the special present EHG gave non-traders to show that they care), knowing that non-traders won’t have those choices.
And I do understand why you want both. It’s human nature. You see someone with a special shiny toy and you also want it, even if you already have one. You want to have both, even if by doing so you’ll make the other special shiny toy less special to the ones that already have it.
Just like it’s human nature for the other side to respond with “You already have a toy, leave mine alone”.
No. I suggested that it’s from a purely self-centered position because you want both toys/cakes even knowing that the others will only have one.
I know you want both MG and CoF to be better. If only because you want to play with both (back to the playstyle of the day issue).
I’m an altoholic. I constantly have switching moods to play another class. Should I be able to switch it without losing progress?
What you’re saying is “Who gives a shit if there’s inequality? As long as I get the most of it”.
Because right now, despite all the failings of both MG and CoF, traders and non-traders are treated equally by EHG. They are trying to improve both factions so they’re both enjoyable by each side.
And what you want to change it to is traders having more choices while non-traders have less. Which is changing it from an equal standing to traders being the favorites again. So, after years of being treated like they don’t matter, it’s normal that non-traders resent you trying to do so.
You example is even more against your point. Farming some generic gear you can craft on (even if it’s just T20) then dropping corruption to 400c is the work of an hour or two and you’re, at that point, farming 400c.
Creating a new character and getting to 400c is the work of many hours. How would they even be similar?
Not to mention that finding gear as you go through the campaign will never be as efficient as you rolling 600c echoes. Not even in the same vicinity.
There is no way you would have to go back to normal monoliths from 600c. Even 1-2h farming T20s will set you up for a minimum of 100c. At that point, likely higher.
Why would it be non-fluently? The new character is trying to find rares to craft on and improve his gear. The old character is doing the exact same thing only he’s farming them at higher corruption monos.
It is dumb, but the bosses are pushovers. Also, you don’t have to go down after changing factions. You farm for a new piece of gear that will somewhat replace the faction tagged one you’re using. You do the same for for the rest of the slots. You then go to the boss and reduce difficulty. Then you switch to the non-tagged gear and see if you’re comfortable there. If not, reequip the good gear and go down a bit more.
You’ll lose a lot less time overall than starting over and when you switch you’re already starting farming at a higher corruption than starting over.
Sure you do. When you have hundreds of bugs (which is the case for every single piece of software, especially games), you assign priorities to them and ignore a bunch of them for the longest time (in many cases, even forever).
Can you honestly say that PoE1 doesn’t have a single bug that’s been around for years?
That wasn’t always the case. In PoE1, if you played a HC character and died, it was no longer playable. At all. This was something that most ARPGs had since the days of D2.
And while GGG caved (and EHG did the same thing) to some that were asking for this, there were plenty of voices raised against this decision because it makes HC feel less special to them.
Because the fact that they lose all their progress when they die actually makes playing HC and not dying a lot more special. They want to be punished with progress loss. That is the whole point of it.
That (preservation of value & people using that in Standard) has absolutely nothing to do with what you replied to (people delete HC characters that get moved to SC on death),.
You know… I started one of my long posts, going into detail.
Then I got to this point, having written 4 times above ‘not what I said, actually the opposite’ and realized… ‘Yeah, not worth it’.
Your argumentation methodology is actively disgusting.
First of all, I’ve made an apt example of what I want to achieve, you’re telling me otherwise. More disingenious is not possible.
Kinda disappointed to be direct.
I mean… it does. Preservation of value is perceived preservation of progress. If I can still use the stuff I played up towards then it means I haven’t ‘lost them’.
Which is kinda what is talked about since you actively ‘loose’ the ability to use your gear when switching faction. Yes, you still can, but you need to jump through clear hoops to do so.
Hence a method to not allow double-dipping (and removing the current methods for doing so) is simply preferred. The current method just isn’t up to par for that and feels bad.
Isn’t what you want to achieve being able to use both MG or CoF when you feel like it? Won’t that lead to traders having 2 mechanics to choose from and even switch between them at will, while non-traders will only have 1?
Because that seems like what it was.
