It certainly was a metaphor, but you don’t need to go back to the 80s or 90s for that. Just look at certain countries that are removing all the equality they fought for even in 2025.
But as I said, let’s not get political. This forum isn’t the right media for that.
Surprise surprise.
Now thing about the ‘why’ that’s been the case.
Until gaming became such a big thing it simply wasn’t feasable to make a non-trading seasonal ARPG. The costs were too high and the market too small.
Yes, that changed since quite a few years but since then nobody did it.
Also no big surprise.
The scale of live-service products simply becomes bigger then comparable games over time. Since with a product that only makes shelf-price you simply can’t afford the needed development time to make them happen in such a quality.
Which is why live-service games are played despite offering the worst service-contract between customer and company compared to any other videogame, they just offer respectively more if well produced, and even then they’re rarely as profitable as companies would like given the ongoing costs, steadily at risk to shut down.
I provided one.
What you’re arguing about is that no other game was made like Borderlands in the FPS genre and hence people have been ‘wronged’ since all the time the people wanting loot-based drops in FPS haven’t been included!
Which is laughable after all.
Exactly, so work it out gradually if you want to make it happen and feel so strongly about it. Don’t lash out left and right while feeling wronged despite never having been.
Exactly!
And the same goes for CoF where the variety in drops will not make your item drop but instead some random thing which you’re not even thinking about to use… because you only play that one build, and all others could instead be greyed out options!
You reset the bonus, hence you can’t trade and get more drops in your example.
That’s the definition of exclusive.
Sure, you can use both… but only one at a time. In that example you don’t even retain the bonus provided formerly.
Yes, clearly, tell me what goes on in my mind mr. psychic!
Because you know clearly better. 
Stop being a clown.
What you say doesn’t become reality, you’re not the architect of the universe, so don’t behave like it.
And accusing me of lying too now!
It’s getter better and better it seems.
Nope, that’s the point.
I’m talking about the loss of item usage between faction change.
You’re infering that. Also laughable, since I actively mentioned that the respective downside is a direct cause of the ability to trade. Hence clearly stating my understanding of the inherent need for it.
FOMO is need to stay ‘in the middle of it’. Hence creating a bad feeling for ‘missing out’. If you can access it reliably but don’t have inherent downsides otherwise for doing so (like time for important things missing, or the funds not being there as examples) then it’s simply ‘you don’t like it’.
Please for the love of everything… learn what the actual heck FOMO is.
Your definition would mean that if I see a olympic sprinter and hence can’t be in the olympics I can say ‘How dare they do that! Since I can’t do it… nobody should be able to do it!’
The height of nonsense.
Because the API allows the option to gather this information.
What… are you now punishing people for using something in the means it was created with? ‘How dare you read a book on a phone or tablet! Only paper allowed! Into jail with you!’ 
The option would’ve been to not allow those things to be inside the API at all and hence crippling it… or having to put up with it.
There is no alternative for that. Especially not since it’s third party, you wouldn’t be able to discern who exactly it is, and they’re also not in breach of any contract to boot.
Great!
In that case thanks for supporting my example, because earlier the whole discussion was that CoF would feel mandated to use MG since it provides the best of the best stuff after all.
So if you hinder the accessing time respectively to it then you don’t get that issue. There is no ‘optimization route’.
Yes, which supports the opposite of what the whole discussion up till then was based off on. Hence making the solution even stronger since it would suppress the negative outcome while upholding a non-loss environment. Which is generally perceived better by users.
Agreed.
But not the case.
Nobody talked down to non-traders in LE.
SSF people are held in high regard for managing to do what they do on PoE. The topic there is ‘don’t balance with SSF as a basis’ solely, which is viable, since that’s not the core gameplay focus.
So where exactly has outside of some utter dimwits (as they are that) put non-traders as ‘less worth’? Or especially… devs.
Provide an example and we can start talking.
I’m supporting my cases with quite clear-cut examples, albeit sometimes not understood clearly.
‘Wasn’t’ <— past tense.
Present tense.
Cobble those 2 comments together and you see the stance.
Also:
That in this case hence talks about you, since you’re showcasing this behavior.
That’s inclusion, not saving.
Difference, very important.
A victim was not left out, a victim is actively treated negatively.
Yes, a very fitting one, and the answer to it as well.
And the mention of past times also being very fitting here.
Kinda the same situation as the perversion of the history of slavery used in political topics nowadays still where the ‘Evil -color- person has treated the good -color- person wrongly hundreds of years ago’ and hence now the descendants should pay for the crimes of their ancestors!
I spit on that notion plainly spoken.
So since in the last years nobody included you (which is a vastly important step above being a victim, making the example even worse) you now want not equality but instead the pedestal to make up for it.
Disgusting. Revolting, Apalling.
Lowest of the low in terms of behavior.
What is to be done instead:
Neither ‘side’ should’ve been in the ‘limelight’ in the first place, because they’re supposed to be treated equal in opportunity. So when that is close to reaching you ensure it happens rather then overshooting like a damn zealot.
Why would it cripple the API? Games don’t have a single API. They have several. So they could have removed the trade part from the public API and keep it only internally.
The fact is that GGG most likely didn’t care and did that in the hopes that the community would come up with a working solution for something they didn’t want to bother doing. And they only made their own site because the poe.trade one was kinda clunky and had several limitations (imposed by the API), which the players didn’t find acceptable anymore.
So there were several issues that GGG didn’t bother working on themselves (trade, filter, PoB, etc), waited for the community to do for them and only adopted when pressured by the playerbase.
I can’t say I blame them, though I find it a bit disrespectful to the community.
Someone that was neglected for a long time no longer being neglected also views it as saving. You don’t need to be a victim to be saved.
In this case, EHG saved non-traders from years of neglect.
As you said, when did we ever say that?
This whole discussion has been about EHG coming along and building a similar pedestal for non-traders.
And the solution that was being proposed being basically making the traders pedestal higher.
While non-traders were just saying “please keep the pedestals the same”.
I’m not gonna touch the rest of the political stuff. Like I said, I don’t think this is the media for that.
Pedestals? Slavery? I think you’ve all gone mad. I swear metaphors are the devil’s playground. Wait, is that a metaphor? Dammit!
Trading is an inherently better way to get gear in a game with random drops. When you include trading, drop rates must be reduced or players complete their build at a rate that is faster than they would otherwise get bored of playing. Game companies want players to play longer. Drop rates are reduced.
So players that don’t want a second job/to trade are going to be disappointed with the drop rates. Especially in games where the devs simply cannot figure out how to do proper UI and actively seem to hate their players (GGG). But not solely, some people (me) simply don’t want to trade. I don’t want crappy drop rates. I want a decent chance to be able to get a build to 80% prior to the point where I’m bored of the season.
EHG was the first to attempt to segment those two pools of players. Some players don’t want to be segmented. I’d say, devoid of any real data, that those players are in the ‘edge case’ realm. And to them I’d say, “whelp, sorry, no”.
Kulze, not every system that isn’t perfect is, “bad design”. Step off the hyperbole man. MG and CoF are the first implementation of such a system, and they are a good first try, imo. That said, not perfect, and I hope that EHG works to make those systems better.
If feels like you’re all paid to be controversial. And now I’m remembering yelling at Llama about “shrug”, and I am aware of my own hypocrisy. … Nevermind, carry on!
I’m just going by what you’re saying & the ideas you’re putting forth.
If a person says “I’m not a football supporter” but then goes on to say that X football team are better than Y football team, then perhaps maybe they’re not being entirely honest (with themselves if nothing else)? We have a saying “me thinks the lady doth protest too much”.
Could you point to any point where I did behave like that? Whilest simultaneously you weren’t in this thread at all? This is entirely the pot calling the kettle black.
If the shoe fits… 
Ahh, so FOMO wouldn’t be a person looking at the nice things someone else has & wishing they could have them also while not giving up their own nice things despite everyone’s nice things having come from a choice where one person went one way but the other person went the other way? Perhaps buyer’s remorse would be better?
Exactly, that was my point. GGG could have just not made the API, or made it such that it wasn’t available to 3rd parties or similar restrictions which would have enabled them to take their decades old purist view on trade needs to be uncomfortable.
Until someone suggested that traders should have access to the shiny toys the non-traders were given explicitly to make up for not being able to trade.
Fine, call it inclusion, it’s probably nice just not being treated like second class citizens. Though I would have to say, perhaps you shouldn’t be telling other people how they feel? Given your earlier comments? Just a thought.
No, they just don’t want that equality taken away. That seems to be something you don’t quite get, given your earlier comments.
Just had a few more spoilers from the tree.
-One where you have a chance to spawn a rare enemy+pack from a specific dungeon that will drop a key to that dungeon and has a chance to also drop that boss’ unique items.
-One where Nemesis encounters are more common.
It’s looking more and more like the weaver tree is the Atlas passive tree equivalent.
That API was the means of posting in-game items in their forum. Hence demanded to have external access.
It was datamined in moments 
Obviously so
And well, and from there it went. Removing the promised feature which was basically mandatory back then since it was a very very tight knit community and showcasing your results wasn’t really possible otherwise (Instagram maybe? :p)
So then they tried to do damage control, left it, wanted to work around it and it become tightly ingrained ever further… until they simply couldn’t take it back.
It absolutely is, was and still is. Those topics have been regularly complained about by people, and viable so.
You’re not a victim when you’re being neglected, you’re simply being neglected. Nobody here is a child where that would mean something quite different.
And yes, you need to be a victim to be saved, be it a victim of your own actions or a victim of the actions of another. Being a victim means after all someone or something has done something bad to you. But that’s simply not the case.
You weren’t included… now you are. Good! Going ‘beyond’ would solely prove you had no right to be included as you weren’t worthy… as you can’t act fitting to the place.
Much like at a party… if you go there, act as the center of the party, get drunk and cause troubles… then you won’t get to a second one after, you’ll be excluded again It’s simple as that, and nobody can be faulted for it… you weren’t ‘wronged’ then… and you had no reason to ‘demand reparations’ for the times you weren’t invited.
Repeatedly… the aspect of ‘making it have only upsides for one side’ aspect has been pushed to the side.
Now you’re bringing it back.
Once more… the same thing I’ve said before.
Double-dipping needs to be removed, right? Ok, great!
Disparity between changing needs to be removed, right? Because it’s not even and not always roughly the same, luck based. Could find a fantastic item in hour 1 at both factions and suddenly be affected more then 99% of the players doing the switch at the same time since they dislike the system and actually want the other.
So has to go.
Then the ‘feeling of loss’ needing to go, that was the contention. As for the how it wasn’t finished, examples and solutions were brought out.
And now it’s back to ‘You want to put them on a pedestal!’ again.
I have to say it’s really one of the absolute dumbest routes of discussion I’ve had in my life plainly spoken.
So there was a basis for discussion and then someone added comments which were unfitting… and it went back to a step before… wtf?
Nice one
Which is fine, as mentioned.
Either/or situation. Either separate them properly… or go the other route and ensure changing position doesn’t give you upsides.
I mean… that far it can be understood I hope.
Aspects of the systems are clearly ‘bad design’. Not though through… and with examples existing beforehand, especially from the aspects I mentioned, which is trading.
Also the double-dipping is something which is clearly ‘bad design’, it’s obvious it shouldn’t happen and clear at day 1 upon release. Not simply a ‘we forgot to include that piece’ but a ‘we forgot to take care of a already existing thing’ or a ‘we didn’t add a extra currency despite both sides using it, one now more’.
The core idea behind them is great, also mentioned. The details are not.
Have I said that?
I distinctly remember saying ‘the separate factions are superior at different points of the progression’.
So… which one is now better and which worse? Care to say?
Buyer’s remorse is the remorse after acquiring it, by regretting the decision.
FOMO is the missing out part, missing when people are socializing and not be there. Unable to finish a collection because it’s only available for a short time. Basically anything time-limited falls under FOMO. A permanent system can’t cause FOMO inherently, only inpatience.
Wanting something which someone else has too is simply jelousy, not FOMO.
As stated. Demanded to be 3rd party as it was for the forum, which is external to the game-servers they had and hence giving information to the players.
Not making it would’ve crippled the limited social interactions already happening back then, without it the game would’ve never remotely gotten traction on the market.
It was a blessing in disguise, a unwanted blessing… but a blessing nonetheless.
Much like ruthless mode failed spectacurarly despite being the vision of PoE becoming closer to D2, which was the thriving force of the game to be created in the first place.
While non-traders should’ve access to the shiny toys traders have which were explicitly made to not allow those not trading to have to make up for their ability to drop more items.
Who talked down to who here?
Who’s now inherently better off?
Sure, would’ve been nice to be included in a specific group of people back during my days as an apprentice.
I was secluded though.
Am I now a victim of that group?
Given the position I spoke from… absolutely do 
You seemingly still weren’t bothered to re-read and actually fix your misconception though. As you’re sticking by it.
Hopefully! Would be quite nice.
This has been established already. Majority here get why the penalty is in place. Its badly thought out. There is no arguments that can be made to support it being a well thought out friction system
Iv already said it. As well as tried pointing this out. Theres other ways to stop this flip flopping. AGAIN WITHOUT reseting peoples gear progress. Whether one uses the abilty to switch ot not. Doesnt change the fact its a bad design and badly thought out.
Dislike liking agreeing with it ect doesnt mean players cant see a badly thought/badly designed system. Ur making no arguments by say u not liking it doesnt mean its a bad system. It is in fact badly done. Whether u or i anyone likes it dislikes agrees disagrees with it doesnt change the fact its badly done. There are people across the forms that dont even use the swtching and have tried pointing out why its badly done.
The whole topic of the thread is the reseting of ur equiped gear. Op also brought up being able to use both factions gear. This part i dont agree with. The reseting ur hard earned crafted items ect i do. And achievements u have already done.
Why for the love of god is this so damn hard for u and few others here to see why this is VERY badly done. And thought out. It seem u as well as other are way way to hung up on why the gear reset is there. And cant seem to look at the whole design of the switch friction
So what can be done to improve this without causing the flip flopping EHG wants to avoid. Few things have already been said as to how this can be done. And not wast players time or force them to gear back up AGAIN after they already achieved that.
If it was datamined and they allowed it to be used despite that, it’s because they wanted to. They could easily have prevented access to it from any specific source they wanted.
So, rather than providing a funcional in-game feature that their API already had, they simply shrugged and let the community care for it themselves. Kind of a dick move towards the players.
I mean, that’s what I said? I did say further back that non-traders aren’t victims, only neglected.
This is simply wrong. Not the victim part. But the needing to be a victim to be saved.
You can be saved from a set of unfortunate circumstances, you can be saved from neglect, hell, you can even be saved from boredom.
What does that have to do with anything? You keep changing it to something else. We’ve already been through this.
Right now everyone has 1 choice. You want traders to have 2 (thus raising the pedestal) while non-traders still only have 1.
It’s not about double-dipping. It’s about having the same options. Or rather, about giving extra options to one part of the playerbase and none to the other.
When does this happen? Non-traders don’t want to touch MG with a long pole.
Traders have a shiny toy, non-traders have a shiny toy.
The suggestions lean towards traders being able to play with both toys (again, not talking about double-dipping), while non-traders still only have the 1 toy.
As I said before, if all you want is to change the current penalties with a system that feels less penalizing but that retains the emergency fail-safe status only, that’s fine. No one is against that.
Things only got heated when you started suggesting being able to hop from one to the other at will, the playstyle of the day stuff.
So, again, if you want to replace the current system with one that still doesn’t allow double-dipping and doesn’t feel as punishing while still being only an emergency thing that you’ll use once or twice every few years, go ahead. I won’t interfere in that.
But if you want to replace the current system to one where you get to play around with both (even without double-dipping) while not giving anything in return to non-traders, then I will oppose it.
They had no means at the time to stop it outside of removal. Which as said… wouldn’t have boded well simply.
Lesser of two evils.
Yeah, and that can happen… sucks. But no need for a follow up vendetta then.
So now they’re included… but it’s not even since the situation simply hasn’t occurred.
So can be go back to discussing options to make it even while we both make severe mistakes in that execution until we get to a common ground?
Victim of circumstances, nobody at fault.
Hence nobody to blame.
Agreed.
But in this topic blame is thrown around. ‘The other games didn’t include us, so we were victims!’ is kinda ‘ooff’.
Let’s stay with neglected and we can defintiely agree.
No, no and once again no.
That’s not my goal as said.
My goal is to achieve the following:
Non-traders get no upside to go to MG and hence don’t miss out on the timeframe of progression which would provide an upside there.
Traders get no upside to switch to CoF and hence don’t miss out on the timeframe of progression which would provide an upside for them there.
And those growing bored of said playstyle or becoming frustrating having the option to forego the upsides they would get by staying and hence incurring a time-loss… but not being hindered to nonetheless do it.
Yes, you could make a new character, agreed… but still, 25 slots. If we use mastery respec 10 slots hence for Legacy in 1.2, which is doable.
But if that’s done this way and the third group is not supposed to exist then at least separating it properly unlike now with the wishy-washy setup we have that just feels like crap.
Yeah, and some traders don’t want to touch re-running content for a really low rarity RNG drop with a long pole either. Including me.
So, are those better off then those not wanting to touch trade with a long pole?
Yes there is away to do this. Its already been pointed out every time this topic gets brought up.
Finding away to allow for players gear thats being used aka equipped to not be reset. And locking tagged gear from a faction they arent in in ur stash. Will stop this whole u want ur cak and eat too thing.
So no it will not. And yes there are things that can prevent this from leading to this. Ur ur 2 token per account per season doesnt improve anything with the friction
Dead wrong. I pointed out here another play style. So yes there are players that will push as far as possible grinding there own gear then switch to trade.
There are those players in poe as well. Dont lump everyone as non trade trade players. And nothing in between. Cuz thats 100% false
then those players can pretty much do so in MG, whats the point of switching besides getting to gear faster with CoF bonuses?.
Of course they did. When you make an API you make it with a licensing key. Not to mention you can restrict the IPs that have access to it. There are plenty of ways to prevent someone from communicating with an API which you have in your server and have total control over.
And, as I pointed out, that’s giving a choice to some people while giving none to others. Because this will only be used by traders that are bored and want to try the other side. But it will never be used non-traders because they don’t want to trade.
So it seems like you’re giving the same choice to everyone, when in fact you aren’t. Because for non-traders this is a non-choice. In the end traders get to play both toys whenever they are bored (1 at a time, but still having access to both), while non-traders still only have 1.
So we go from a scenario where traders had 1 toy and non-traders had 0, EHG gave 1 toy to non-traders and now everyone has 1 toy each and are treated like equals, and now you want traders to have 2 toys while non-traders still only have 1 and going back to inequality.
That only furthers the point. You’re giving a choice to the people that don’t care either way and letting them jump around whichever toy they have their eye on now, while not giving an equal choice to those that you know won’t switch no matter what.
It’s all about all players having the same number of choices. And not giving choices to some people while neglecting the others.
That’s all.
As I said before and I’ll say again:
If you simply want to change the current faction switch system to one that feels less punishing while still only serving the purpose of emergency fail-state, go ahead. I won’t stop you.
More than that is creating inequality when equality was finally achieved and feels shitty.
I think you missed the point. I’m not talking about double dipping. I’m talking about the suggestion that people can switch factions when they feel like it to suit their playstyle of the day, which was suggested by Kulze.
Double dipping has nothing to do with this issue. I already explained above what the issue is.
Again, not dead wrong. It’s a spectrum and there are players that will switch from one side to the other. But there are always plenty that will never touch MG. Ever. Like me.
So if you give options letting people switch at will, some people will never switch because that’s not an option for them. It’s a non-choice. Thus you’re giving choices to some people and not to others.
Let me give you an example, one from my personal position actually even:
I love acruing value in games. Gradually getting more and more. Not suddenly… but steadily. That makes MG perfect for me. Get a item? Ok, sell it… you’ve now made ‘progress’.
But from time to time I look over and see CoF, thinking to myself ‘Well, this is the gamba faction, isn’t it? Everything is gamba. Dropping the right pieces, getting good loot from a boss… all just RNG with no guarantee!’ and at some times I am in the mood to… well… gamble.
The chances in MG to achieve a successful outcome for a boss-unique which actually has value on the market is basically non-existent. Not worth to do at all, pure RNG so far away from realism it’s not worth it. Not something I would ever do willingly, at least a chance needs to be there which I perceive as such. So instead I’m fine foregoing my steady accumulation of value… not progressing at all for a while simply to enjoy playing a bit of CoF to experience the gamba aspect there while loot drops regularly. Might be something for me or utter garbage I’ll never use, but I love that so much drops simply.
And at the end? If I find something ‘great! Success, wohoo!’
And if not? ‘Shucks, but well, I went into it knowing it might turn out empty anyway’, something which will never happen in MG after all.
Yeah, and if I don’t even imagine going to become an athlete then others have that choice too and I don’t actively.
But I don’t hinder them. That would be the height of nonsense… still.
Ok.
DJ… I sadly have to say I don’t enjoy the LE crafting mechanic at all. We need to remove it.
After all I don’t want to use it since it’s so bad, I feel forced to use it since not doing so would simply make it worse for me.
Hence since you can use it but I technically can’t since it’ll lower my enjoyment… it has to go.
It’s only fair, right?
No, he didn’t actually. That’s the odd thing… it’s baffling (and not in a negative way, just really weird and curious for me) how you’re actually unable to insert yourself in the position me and diablo are bringing up. Because the perceived negative aspects are not at all negative aspects since everyone is affected by them similarly.
And also not a negative since unlike Mastery respec it doesn’t reduce options but actually increases them, a part of player agency… without providing an upside.
So sorry to say that I really don’t get it… but I really don’t get it.
100% dead wrong.
You’re denying that people exist which think that way.
Don’t.
Simply don’t.
It doesn’t bode well for your position in any case.
You need to include more in the quote if there is context that is missing. Because DJ is dead right, I will never trade. I have zero interest in being a part of someone else’s sim-arpg-tycoon fantasies. Or picking up a second job.
So, ‘dead wrong’? Really?
Yes, you.
Others will.
Some will very begrudgingly do so despite not wanting, not to miss out on what the game has to offer otherwise. Being nonetheless a heavy detriment to their experience.
Others will simply not like it.
And it goes on that scale the same way for people trading.
Pure RNG without guarantee will put them off, but they still wanna experience what the game has to offer.
For others it’s simply a downside, but not a major one.
So some of the MG people would be fine with CoF style only if given… but it would cause them simply to play less.
CoF people the same, they would still play.
You? Not so much. DJ, not so much. Me if only CoF existed? Also nope, I decided to stay with LE after hearing that trading is planned, simply enjoying to experience it once until that’s the case beforehand and testing out the new mechanics, I never stood long though.
Not even remotely the same.
But I’m done trying to argue this. We’ll just keep going in circles.
From my position it looks absolutely and 100% ‘the same’, because that’s what I get from that back and forth there.
You’re denying my enjoyment saying ‘but I couldn’t use the same enjoyment!’ despite having no downsides for you.
Simply because… you wouldn’t enjoy it.
Your progression would not hurt in comparison to anyone, hence it actually doesn’t affect you.
It would be a mechanic which when forced into would solely lower your enjoyment or make you even quit.
So yes, my example is 1 to 1 the same.
Apparently, because you were the golden child all these years, you can’t understand the psychology behind being the stepchild (metaphorically, of course).
And you don’t understand what it means to have finally being given the same standing after all these years.
And you don’t understand what it means to have the golden child demand for more and go back to being the golden child and saying “it’s not like you lose anything, right?”.
So yeah, no point in continuing this discussion.