Yeah, they could have named a 1LP red ring an Blue Ring, a 2LP an Cyan Ring, a 3LP an Obsidian Ring etc & have them have the same stats & gain an increasing number of affixes when used in the Eternity Cache & it’d function the same as it does currently.
1 Like
You mean the half a dozen topics created on this topic since launch? I’m certain they’re very relevant considering the posting numbers and players numbers.
I’m not sure you’re actually aware of the popularity of mechanics in other games when you say things like that.
GRs were one of the few things almost all D3 players liked. In fact, they liked it so much that they have asked it to be added to D4 (successfully) and they’ve also asked for it to be added in LE. And I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t have to dig too deep to find similar requests in the PoE forums.
Does it, though? Or does the fact that LE did so well on launch actually show that an open-ended system can also be successful?
LE has since failed compared to launch, but, like you say, it’s based on underlying issues and mistakes.
So the fact that LE still had a big success on launch and a relatively big one in Season 2 shows that open-ended systems can also work and that there are plenty of players that like them.
So we don’t actually have any data on what that spread may be.
It is. I’d bet you’d be very hard pressed to find, in all those forum/reddit/discord posts, someone that said they consider a 0LP unique and a 1LP unique to be completely different items. And if you do find one (which I doubt), you’ll likely also find people disagreeing.
So it’s your perception on what people complain about that makes you believe they consider the items to be separate.
You don’t know overall perception on this particular issue because people don’t discuss their perception on whether they consider them separate items. You just read into it based on your own perception and bias.
Do you name them that, though? I guess that doesn’t matter then.
In fact, when you go search for one in MG, do you choose different inputs for them? Or do you simply select a red ring unique and then input a range of LP you want to find? Like you do when searching for an affix and its respective range?
Is a +15 res red ring a different unique than a +20 res red ring?
And you could use that argumentation for anything. If you name:
1-socket Doryani
2-socket Doryani
…
6-socket Doryani
Then suddenly they’re also not the same.
That isn’t a valid argument. That is simply a success rate. A red ring has a chance to become a 1LP red ring eventually. And a 2LP red ring eventually. And a 4LP eventually.
A Doryani has a chance to become 1 socket, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
It’s just that one has a 100% chance (as long as you farm enough currency and use the bench) and the other has less than 100%.
It’s still a system where you start with an item with less than ideal properties (sockets/LP) and upgrade it to more ideal ones. Or just have either drop naturally.
In fact, if there wasn’t a bench recipe for it, it would be the exact same thing, because then the chance wouldn’t be 100%.
And the reason why there’s a bench recipe for it is because of the important difference that sockets affect your skills directly, whereas LP only adds affixes.
But, if you want, we can simply make a different example:
Is a plain Doryani’s a different unique item from an enchanted one? Or a corrupted one? After all, it now has an extra affix (equivalent to LP).
Actually, the chance is very high. Place a 1LP in the re-roller and see how often it goes back to 0LP. It’s still the same exact item you placed in there, it just lost value on it’s LP property.
They could, but they didn’t. They instead added a property to uniques that has a range.
They could also have created a Less Resistant Red Ring with +15res, a Kinda resistant Red Ring with +16res, all the way to the Super Super Resistant Red Ring with +20 res.
Does that mean that you consider a +15 res red ring as a separate unique as a +20 res one?
Does that mean you think LE has billions of different uniques?
LP is a property of the item, no different than an affix. It has a range. It’s still the same item.
Yep, and the posts related to it inside topics.
If we take Discord and Reddit into consideration as well (more engagement numbers) then it paints a relevant picture.
Much like the topics about Rifts in D3 did.
So yes, they do.
Yes, remember why they liked it with the game in mind at large and when they came.
Good mechanic, improved stuff.
Now you also got the people which argued that the Rifts had distinct issues.
Something can contain negative aspects while being good overall, and good aspects while being bad overall.
Imagine we have no end-game at all… and now EHG implements the end-game endless scaling corruption mechanic freshly.
Is it good? Obviously yes.
Could there be a better choice of system? Obviously also yes.
It’s not about the existence at all, it’s about the options related to it which stand in competition. Always is.
A mild improvement could be a massive one.
A net-negative could become a net-positive.
A positive thing can become a atrocious one too potentially.
It’s in relation to each other which we have to decide on merit. Inherent merit exists for specific things, but the merit between those of the same function is different.
Much like a carriage can transport dirt from place A to B at a construction site, it does the job, but it’s clearly not the perfect fit.
You would rather use a wheelbarrow for it at asingle site.
And between sites you also wouldn’t use the wheelbarrow anymore but a truck.
In both cases the carriage does the job though.
Could.
But nothing points to it at all.
Everything points to a massive hype and underperformance related to expectations when we look at LE’s launch.
‘A quirky nice game, but not on par with the big ones’.
And since then we have permanent non-stop reduction in engagement.
Nothing points to it being a success-story because of quality or mechanics, it’s a success-story in relation to good public relations, which are gone entirely by now. So what’s left and stays is the actual state, the former is inflated numbers.
Listen to the wordings used outside of the direct question.
Actions speak louder then words as a prime example here. Direct answers don’t provide you with the actual results, it’s when people don’t put a thought to things that they showcase the underlying rules guiding their behavior.
People are utterly shit in realizing their own working in general. So don’t expect to get proper answer when you ask them distinctly.
Or ‘red ring’ ‘blue ring’, ‘pink ring’ whatever.
Makes no difference besides being more confusing which is which.
Could also call one red ring and one Bazabuzl and it would be the same.
The naming convention makes no difference, just the function does.
And the function of a 1 LP red ring compared to a 0 LP red ring is utterly different actually. Which is a prime example since Attributes for a ring with a high Attribute threshold is baseline mandatory.
Take a shooter game then.
Is a MP5 with a silencer a separate item then a MP5 without one?
You base it off of the same base item, and you can always put one on there.
Can you do the same in LE? Can you always add LP?
But there is.
Hence it isn’t.
If cars had a frame which is designed specifically to add a hitch to it then those would be different.
But they aren’t, they’re designed the same, and you can always do it. Hence all are cars… and then we have drawers in our mental drawers to sub-categorize them further.
If it were the case for them to be different then we would see a distinction, non-hitch cars would be ‘street cars’ as we have the term already… and those with one whould be ‘hitch-cars’ instead for example.
Is the vica verse true as well? From 0 LP to 1 LP?
Reduction of a item is not necessary. Improvement of one is.
You don’t need to be able to remove the ABS system from a car… but you need to be able to add a radio into it for example.
The Fang
The Claw
Are those the same unique or a different one?’
If that was all, Season 2 wouldn’t have gone as well as it did. And, funnily enough, Season 2 also added more scaling stuff on top of monos. Go figure. It’s almost like there really are a bunch of people that do like this system. Maybe even a bunch of people that prefer it to the static boredom of a close-ended system.
No.
In theory, yes. In practice you will usually fall under one of the fail-states. That doesn’t mean it’s a different item, though.
You can corrupt a skill gem to get 21/23. Can you always corrupt the same gem until you hit it? No. It’s still the same skill gem, however.
You can corrupt a unique to get an implicit. Can you always corrupt it until you get the implicit you want? No. It’s still the same unique, however.
PoE also has fail-states. They’re still not separate items.
But there was a point when there wasn’t a bench recipe for it (in fact, there wasn’t even a bench). Which meant it wasn’t 100% guaranteed.
They added it later (again, because getting your skill slots is much more important than getting an extra general affix, which is a very important distinction).
Likewise, so will we likely get the same when 4LP becomes commonplace in a few years and we have some other tier.
With Nemesis, yes.
In both cases it’s still the same item. It even says so in the description: it will reroll the item letting have a chance of gaining LP. Not transform it into another.
You seem to be confusing upgraded versions of items with properties of items.
The fated uniques in PoE (which have since been removed with the removal of prophecies) are different uniques. But them having 0, 1 or 2 corruptions don’t make them the same item.
So no, the Fang and the Claw are different uniques. But a 0LP Fang and a 4LP Fang is the same unique with a different reroll.
Just like a Hyrri’s Bite is a different unique than a Hyrri’s Demise, but a non-corrupted Bite is the same unique as a double corrupted one.
There is no effective difference between LP and corruption. Both are a property of the item.
If you disagree with that, then that means that you consider a 0LP Kestrel a different unique than a Kestrel that has a random affix from the Nemesis (or even just one that you placed there).
Which, again, means that LE has billions of unique items, then. But good luck trying to convince any player of that.
It would also mean that PoE has the same, since each unique would have several different “versions” depending on which corruption it has.
Secondary hype, extremely long downtime. Perfect positioning together when PoE 2 came out and PoE 1 had screwed up.
Circumstancial success, not inherently achieved through quality.
Don’t get me wrong, LE is not a bad product, otherwise it wouldn’t be big despite all of the shortcomings, what it does it does decently well. But the user-numbers are still inflated.
I imagine we’ll see them dropping to 20k peak as a flooring for actual enaggement without any hype happening.
Which is a HUGE success for any product, but EHG screwed even up with those numbers.
If there is a fail-state then the theory is ‘no’.
It’s a inherent situation, not a exception.
The fail-state is more prevalent then the success-state, you cannot endlessly recycle the same item, the chance for it to fail at the Nemesis stage is over 50%.
And your follow-up examples are actually decent ones that time. Upholding properly.
It’s still about the perception of functionality from the playerbase though. If something is ‘the same’ then no matter the mechanics and numerical aspects… it fulfills the same functionality, hence it’s for all purposes and measures ‘identical’ in the mind of a person.
So yes, a pair of unique gloves with +1 max endurance charge in PoE is indeed a different item in perception compared to one which doesn’t have that, and why a easily scalable variable like ‘+% inc damage’ is commonly not seen as that, just a simple improvement numerically, not a adaptation in functionality.
Also positioning of the systems. One is the core progression of itemization (LE) and the other is a top-end system for min-max (PoE).
There was, which is why it was introduced, as it was problematic.
Otherwise it wouldn’t have been needed to improve the state of the game, and before the bench crafting RNG was a bit hefty, and currency drops also scarce. The bench was the start of where the systems went rampant and perception from being a decently slow and methodical game to being a zoom-zoom game shifted.
Which has the said fail-state and improving LP is actually in the grand scheme the exception. The option for it becoming a legendary is above 50% even for common items if I remember right.
Even at a 10% chance it would still be too much to see it as a ongoing process, a fail-state of any significant magnitude removes it entirely from the premise.
Same as with fated uniques… they are different uniques, different items.
Fang and Claw are identical, one is the supreme one, the other the inferior.
Fates uniques are the same.
The LP is on top of that, but since they have nothing inherently important attached which is mandatory to achieve in those slots for functionality they tend to be seen as ‘the same’ no matter of LP.
Unlike chest-pieces, red rings (because of attribute requirements which unlock said functionality) or boots (which mostly have mandatory T7 MS as a premise, hence 1 LP enforced for end-game viability).
True, outside of positioning.
Much like side-content has different rules to core-content so do itemization aspects.
Core progression systems to top-end or side content is separate in limitations.
I guess I lost you there. Is a 0LP Fang the same item as a 4LP Fang?
If not, is a non corrupted doryani a different unique than a corrupted or double corrupted one?
If so, do both LE and PoE have billions of different uniques?
Does an enchanted unique in PoE also count as a different unique? After all, it could also have changed the name into Enchanted Doryani’s Prototype of Fireballs?
The fact that an item could have different names is meaningless because that could apply to lots of things, including different names for different roll ranges of affixes.
But, like you like to point out, it isn’t. They don’t have different names. They simply have a property with a roll range. They could just as easily have added an affix with “can be slammed with 0-4 extra affixes” and it would be functionally the same exact item. Would that mean that they would be different items if they had different rolls?
Does that mean that a Nihilis with +1 skills is a different unique than a +2?
Does that mean a unique with 60-120% increased damage is 60 different uniques?
It doesn’t make any sense to consider any of these as different uniques, whether it’s affix rolls, enchantments or LP. They’re all just properties that the same unique can have.
So you either treat it as a single unique for all cases or you treat it as a different unique for all cases.
Meaning both LE and PoE either have 500-1k something uniques, or both have trillions of uniques. There really is no middle ground in that logic.
EDIT:
Going back to your car metaphor. Is a VW Polo with air conditioning a different car than a VW Polo without air conditioning? Or are they both the same car, but with different accessories (properties)?
Definitely.
I remember Mike once comparing their rarity to the low odds of getting all high rolls on a D2 item (runeword?). My take then, and now, is that those items at least get all of the affixes you want.
And thinking now, shouldn’t the better comparison be the rarity of getting high rolls on all affixes on your exalted and base unique?
1 Like
As mentioned, for the psyche it only is related to ‘position’ and ‘function’. Not to the name itself, albeit we do at the surface acknowledge similarity because of naming practice, it helps along.
But a double corrupted doryani with specific enabling Affixes will be depicted in the mind as a ‘different thing’ then a base item.
Same as with 0LP and 4LP items, if they are only increasing already achieved valued without having a ‘distinct effect’ like unlocking stuff otherwise not possible or allowing to go beyond a threshold otherwise not achievable then they’re depicted as ‘the same’.
It’s a bit complex to explain how the psyche depicts it, but it’s rather important to understand from a development standpoint as to why the perception of content density/depth/quantity happens as it happens, and why some systems which have a ton of content are deemed as ‘insufficient’ while others with low amounts of content are praised for being ‘deep’.
That’s why a 1 LP red ring is indeed perceived as ‘a different item’ while a 0 LP and 2 LP ‘The Kestrel’ is depicted as the same one. Why in the second case? Because it won’t overcome the threshold of being enabling for anything (like being actually a upgrade in that case) unless you achieve a 3 LP or even 4 LP version. All below that threshold is hence ‘1 item’ in the mind. In that case the category ‘garbage’ actually 
Plainly spoken.
This makes it extremely complex as there is a myriad of reasons as to why something can or cannot be perceived as sufficiently different or why things are perceived as same-ish.
The name and the numerical functionality inherently are not a decider for it. They are a very strong indicator though.
It’s not a base item. It’s an augmented item. Or upgraded item. But it’s still the same one.
If I put on a hat, do I become a different person because I now have more things?
Or, if you want a more permanent example, if I get a tatto, am I now a different person from before? Or am I still the same person, but “augmented”?
A +1 Nihilis is also depicted in the mind differently than a +2 Nihilis. Are they different uniques? Or are they the same unique, except one is a stronger version of the other?
That has nothing to do with them being a different unique. That has only to do with them being better rolled versions of the same unique. And rarer good rolls will attract the attention more than bad rolls.
If I get a perfectly rolled Kestrel, I will take notice of it because it’s a very rare occurrence. It’s more powerful than the other Kestrels that dropped. I will probably even pick it up and stash it.
That doesn’t mean I consider it to be a separate unique from the rest of the Kestrels. It’s still the same unique, it just has better properties.
Also, just to clarify:
A 0LP red ring has the build enabling (not really, all they give you is defense, but let’s skip past that) affixes. A 1LP red ring will simply have an extra affix that isn’t build enabling.
In fact, all that a 1LP red ring will give you is a slight boost in some stat. Health, int/str/dex/etc.
There really isn’t anything you can get from a 1LP red ring that you can’t get from a 0LP red ring except for a very small (much smaller than the one you get from the unique affixes) numerical change in your defense/offense.
So there’s no reason to ever view them as different uniques.
You will notice it more because of its rarity, but it always boils down to a better rolled ring.
Brain says ‘no’ generally.
The brain is very complex… and surprisingly simple and dumb in other areas.
As said, it’s a complex thing, and all the argumentation about logical aspects won’t do any well when I’m talking about perception based ones here. And not personal perception but universal aspects of it which are widespread at the typical brain-setup.
As said before, you’re logically right. The brain is not logical though.
Yours maybe isn’t. Mine is.
As I said, a +2 Nihilis is also perceived very differently from a +1 Nihilis. Doesn’t mean they’re different uniques. Just that one is rarer and has more value than the other.
And once again.
Not about individual perception either.
‘But for me’ is not a valid argument.
Nobody cares when it’s the talk about prevalent existing situations. You’re not important enough to count as prevalent.
Neither are you. Nor do you have any data on the prevalence of it.
I’m very very very positive that if you go to the PoE forums and say that a corrupted unique counts as a different unique (so that you have hundreds of different uniques for each one), most people would disagree with you.
They’re different instances of the same unique, which is not the same thing.
And, more importantly, gramatically and programmatically they are the same unique. What you “feel” about their rolls isn’t relevant.
When you go to a “Last epoch unique items” list, it only shows one entry for red ring. You don’t get multiples for each LP version. Same for Doryani’s in PoE and the many alterations you can make to them, including enchantments, corruptions, sockets, quality, etc.
So they are the same item. Your brain might trick you into thinking they aren’t, but the fact is that they are. Perception is irrelevant for this. Perception isn’t a fact.
Your perception of that might be relevant if we were discussing if there is a point in them having 3-4LP when it’s impossible to roll.
But this particular line of discussion started on the simple premise that they’re the same item. Which they are.
Much like most people have a wrong perception about the Monty Hall problem. It’s still a fact. Your perception doesn’t change that.
Much like most people have a wrong perception about how odds work on consecutive tries (or even just statistics in general). It doesn’t make them right.
Much like most people can fall under the Mandela Effect. Doesn’t make them right.
For this particular discussion, the fact is that both items are the same. Your perception of them and their rarity is irrelevant to this.
The fact is that there isn’t a single general drop unique that will require more than about 100h of farming to get. How well rolled or how strong it is is irrelevant to the premise.
I stated my data, which is the overall count of mentions of the situation in the distinct social environments visible to the public.
Hence forum, reddit, discord.
You just ignored it.
And your follow-up is a 1 to 1 repeat of the same statement you made before. Which I answered to.
I also argumented about the naming convention and their relevance, both in the for and against of it.
Are you a broken record? You solely repeated all the stuff from the beginning again.
That’s no basis for an argument, what are you doing?
I didn’t ignore it. You gave me an anecdotal feeling you have without any actual data in it. You feel there are many people that perceive things like you. There’s no actual numbers there.
How many total posts did you look into? How many were demonstrably showing what you’re stating? How many were just kinda like you felt were like that? Are all those numbers statistically relevant?
Looking at the LE forums alone, which is where I’ve seen pretty much every single thread, I’d say that it’s not relevant at all. In fact, infinite scaling is one of the least discussed issues in LE.
There’s half a dozen posts about it since launch, with about the same dozen people chiming in. There’s maybe another half a dozen different threads where that topic shows up.
Not statistically relevant at all.
You have a sample of maybe less than 0.1% of the playerbase. Of that sample, you have less than 0.1% regarding this issue. That’s not data. That’s conspiracy theory territory.
You did. You simply waved it off as non-relevant.
I gave you a datapoint which is count-based, numerical. I don’t have the exact numbers but I generally do - since more then a decade - look at prevalence on topics being called up on. Usually in the range of ‘per 1000 threads’.
The proper reaction to such a statement is commonly curiosity and fact-checking rather then inherently waving it off, especially when it comes to topics which people won’t have a damn binder at hand with scientific data. A bit of common sense would be kinda nice from time to time.
In LE’s case the mention of this topic or topic-adjacent aspects is vastly below 1 in 1000 in the forum. It’s far less prevalent in reddit (but still existing) and in Discord it is basically not mentioned, which checks with other products as Discord is a more shallow chat-like interaction without the option for any deeper topics being held reasonably.
Yep, but top-end game regularly is. Which is a directly adjacent topic related to it.
It’s either itemization-based, balance-based or mechanics-based.
Which is the core reasoning? We don’t know. Hence it applies to all 3 equally until the issue is narrowed down to the worst contenders or solutions of visible and showcased issues are instated and functional enough to reduce the impact of the issues substantially enough to be overlooked.
It’s an aspect of pattern recognition to realize the connections between similar topics. Something you’re not very well versed in. You’re more versed in detailed specifications, which I’m less versed in comparatively.
If someone mentions ‘The end-game progression feels boring and repetitive’ then it includes 'this topic inherently. Hence it is a topic which directly gestures to drop-systems, class balancing, skill balancing, enemy positioning, crafting, factions and end-game mechanic setup all at once. The culprit of the exact reasoning (or the culprits mostly, plural) is not relevant for it becoming a datapoint. Just the existence.
And suddenly your 0,1% turns into several % if you take those things into consideration.
As said, people don’t need to narrow it down what is going on, they just need to show action that something is going on.
People are shit in specifying the cause, they are experts at mentioning the results though. Hence it’s mandatory to take into consideration of it being a aspect of it likely being causal with the reaction to some degree.
Why? Because it is also directly mentioned in several (not singular) topics over the course of the years.
As for relevant topics:
Direct mention of the corruption system and how it progresses. User error is not relevant here and going forward, just prevalence of issues.
Perception basis created through the usage of a corruption system, unclear frame of action hence.
Point 3 directly states it.
Several points relate directly to the end-game grind state.
This includes inherently corruption and resulting perception as a potential topic.
Expressively stating even that the normal monoliths as a design seem wasteful. Which is something I can agree with as it’s repeated and not directly unlocked via progression of the distinctive timelines.
Corruption grind itself mentioned as being boring.
The big crafting discussion is directly tied to perception created from corruption, as a distinct end-spot wouldn’t cause those things in the first place, it would be clear-cut and not vague and up to individual perception.
Progression through corruption named. Hence distinct progression through a endless system. Hence direct relation to it being such a system.
High end-farming stating they ‘hit a wall’ which is a result of it not being hand-tailored… but once again… endless corruption system. Hence relevant.
A long chapter about end-game gearing. Which is relative to the content in the game, which is related to positioning of uberroth and… the corruption mechanic being endless and hence vague in perception of expected end-point.
Perception basis with Uberroth versus corruption causing a change in personal experience simply because of its existence. Which also is a issue in relation to being a endless system, a hand-crafted system has no need for an ‘anchor’ for perception, one which doesn’t have one is fine, but implement a ‘faulty’ anchor and it breaks.
Hence also a indirect corruption-based issue.
Direct corruption scaling feedback as the first point.
Oh… we’ve only reached May 10 of this year for directly or indirectly relevant topics while not even putting effort in? Just opening the list in the forum, writing ‘corruption’ and opening anything which could remotely point to it being a thing before checking for a minute?
Sorry, but just because people don’t directly state it doesn’t mean it’s not a relevant aspect of many complaints in some form.
Several complaints would be substantially weaker in relation with a fixed system. Some wouldn’t even exist at all from those.
You can find many more in PoE’s forums complaining about the grind, about juicing maps and many other topics. And that isn’t open-ended.
A (very) few people complain about infinite scaling directly. Most just complain about grind, like they will in every ARPG. You can even find a lot of posts about endgame grind being boring on D4, which is the easiest grind of them all.
You’re infering and lumping together everything as if infinite scaling is the cause of it when every single other game in the genre has the exact same type of complaints.
And yes, in some cases infinite scaling might be an important factor for their burnout. But you’re also ignoring, in your “datapoints”, that there are also some cases of people that enjoy it.
You’re cherry picking on your perception of what players post and ignoring the other side of it.
I never said there weren’t any players like you that didn’t enjoy infinite scaling. Just that their prevalence wasn’t significant. Much like there are players like me that do enjoy it. And that have posted in its defense as well. And their prevalence isn’t significant either.
You’re simply lumping together everyone that has a fever to imply that it’s the fault of malaria, when only a few have it and most simply had a flu, while ignoring that a few were simply sweating because they were having fun exercising.
That’s just perception bias at work.
Again, looking at the forums of every single ARPG ever you’ll see the exact same complaints about endgame grind, going back all the way to D2. And almost all of them had a fixed system.
You can’t just dismiss the same complaints for other games with fixed systems as “It’s irrelevant because that’s due to other issues” and say that for LE it’s relevant.
There is simply not enough data because LE is the first big game in the genre to actually provide an infinite scaling system for its main endgame.
You’re trying to push for a causation where there’s only the feeblest correlation.
EDIT:
There have also been plenty of games that have had infinite scaling as their main endgame in other genres. Most notably SimCity. There is no end in that game. And yet players loved it. It was a huge success. Because they loved the gameplay.
Infinite scaling in an ARPG isn’t an issue as long as the gameplay is fun. The issues LE has mostly comes from an abrupt wall in progression where it was smooth sailing until then.
And this would always be an issue whether the endgame is fixed or open-ended.
Because with a fixed system, you either cap it just before the wall, in which case everything is easy, or you cap it after the wall, in which case you have the exact same issues as now.
You know, much like many players complain about T17 maps because they’re a huge wall from T16. Despite it being a fixed system.
EDIT2:
Also, the premise that sparked all this back and forth had nothing to do with infinite scaling. The premise was: Is a 0LP red ring and a 1LP red ring different uniques? To which you only gave vague feelings of maybe other players perceive things the way you do.
So your “datapoint” above isn’t even relevant to what was being discussed.
So I just canceled the bible I was adding to this because the discussion is getting stupid for my likeing and I just throw in a closing thought.
Chaseable items are fine. I had a good time chasing my thunderfury in vanilla WoW and when I finaly got it I was mega happy. This took less time combined with the need to get 39 other ppl then dropping a pretty rare item in LE.
I chased down an item in LI2 that had a .0006% drop chance on a weekly boss and it took less time then getting a pretty rare item in LE.
Implementing almost unreachable stuff into a game makes it as usefull as an old brick shithouse for almost all players. That’s bad design in my book and there is nothing to argue about from my point of view.
At least we are able to farm stuff with olf toons and keep playing them so when we finaly play 10k hours we might have a slim chance to get what is pretty rare like a 3LP red ring and whatnot.
I don’t want D3 levels of “done with it in 2 days” but I’m not buying into the artifical slog LE creates when the average gameplayloop is less intresting then decade old games. Heck right now it’s more possible that I play D4’s next “powers reimagined season 22” then thouching LE if they only add a season mechanic that is crap and the only noteworthy thing about it is tupid levels of powercreep.
In short: For the average player the grind is to much and LE is the worst game you can pick up if you think loot should be obtainable.
2 Likes
Average players don’t chase 3LP red rings. In fact, no one besides a min-maxxer sweatlord will chase one.
For the average player, LE has one of the easiest gear progressions available, before you hit the min-max wall (which the average player won’t get to).
For the average player, a red ring is good enough. And that one is obtainable reasonably.
Not once did I think that I should chase a 3LP red ring. I didn’t even think that I should chase a 2LP red ring. Only min-maxxers will think that. Those aren’t average players.
After reading @Macknum 's reply I realized ‘Yeah, that’s right’.
The discussion went ad absurdum beyond end.
And I agree 100%:
And this is the nonsensical aspect.
We’re not basing it off of D3/D4 playerbase. We’re beyond in acquisition difficulty. The turnover point of acquisition happens the second exalted items are introduced. The nonsensical acquisition rates on higher levels are just a showcase of the screwed scaling happening in that exact moment.
Formerly a player acquires an item every 30 minutes to 1 hour which is a nigh guaranteed potential to be a nice upgrade… and suddenly it’s every 5-10. The gap is too big. It’s early corruption levels of playing where it rears it’s ugly head. Has always been the case since the implementation and still is the same case. Never changed.
Top-end examples are only showcases of the extreme outcomes it leads to very swiftly. Means systemically it’s already a problem beforehand but still below the threshold of what people deal with despite it existing.