Isnt the Grind too much for itens LP 3-4?

Feedback and Suggestions
,
21

LE doesn’t have any item like that. All items have a decent chance to drop. They’re even less rare than a Tyrael’s Might in D2.
It’s just the higher LP chances that are rarer.

So the waste would have been to create it in a different way to every other unique.
It’s easier to just use the same framework they already have for uniques and simply change the rarity number, rather than create a new unique framework that has a lower cap. Which would then have to be increased.

The way it currently is is actually the most efficient use of their resources.

Again, that doesn’t happen in LE. You can always get the base unique drop, which is what gives you most of the power. Higher LP is simply to increase that power.

Let’s put it this way:
Imagine that LE’s solution for the lower level uniques was, instead of LP, some mechanic that increases the unique affixes power. You can try however many times you want (rare currency) but there’s a chance to upgrade. That chance is based on the rarity of the unique and how many upgrades it already has.
I don’t think this would be a strange mechanic for most players.

With this system you could, in theory, keep upgrading forever. Would you be upset because you can get Kestrel to T27 and red rings only to T5? Because after that the chances are so rare that it will likely never happen?

Personally, now that I described this, I would actually prefer this system to LP. Especially because this system could actually make lower level uniques more useful because of their boosted affixes, not simply as a stat stick you slap 4 more affixes on.

My point was that with the way it currently is they don’t have to do anything. They add a new mechanic that makes LP a little easier to get and now there’s a chance for 3LP red rings. It will simply start dropping without any further changes.

Whereas having an artificial cap would require devs to decide when they want people to be able to get 3LP. Because until they raise the cap, no one will get it, even if there already is a small chance of it dropping.

That is because people compare power levels of builds. It could be anything, even a simple “My build can’t kill bosses in 5s” because it takes them 15s.

But you have never seen anyone complaining that they can’t reach 65k corruption and feel frustrated about that.

22

Yes, that’s what I’m referring to. Heavy appears to be ok with adding an item that’s so rare it isn’t going to drop so doesn’t have any aspirational effect on anyone.

I’m talking about the principle of it.

Yeah, that’s fair. But I still disagree that having things that are so rare they’re never going to drop is beneficial.

Never said it did, I was still talking about the principle & asking a question, hence the “?” at the end. Though it was almost a rhetorical question.

23

But my point is that the item does drop. It’s just the more powerful “versions” of it that don’t (for now).

Again, it’s like the example I suggested above. Would you feel cheated because you can upgrade a common trash unique to T27 and a rare unique only to T5? Would you feel the need to chase a rare all the way up to 50 only because it’s there, even if it’s not possible? Or to T1112663332?

24

Which is fair, makes it easier to see and more ‘neat’ looking.

Which is why switching around Tiers for example works in creating a uneven system. For LP though… that’s kinda hard as the number depicts the count of moved Affixes directly. So you would need to make it visible otherwise.

Like stating 1 (3) LP, hence the actual value and the max value it can have. But doable, not as nice looking though.

Outside of putting effort into bringing all the other stuff up to par so it won’t inherently change to ‘everyone has this one item’.

You just shift what you need to balance, but the need for balance is always there.

Yeah, I stated regularly why endless corruption is a sub-par system comparatively to a hand-designed system with distinct steps of progression.

It removes all the inherent feedback of ‘is this good enough?’ by it, hence if you’re not active anywhere and dimple around at 200c because that’s your personal limit with the experience and knowledge you have… and then you watch a video and there’s the overall notion of ‘1000c is the basis for a good build’ then the chance for frustration is actually very high.

There’s other games which have endless systems, like for example the ‘SIralim’ series (pure grind, got a fantastic system of party-building though, recommended for that alone when you ignore the other shortcomings) which has this exact issue.
Since you endlessly progress you might be thinking ‘great, I reached stage 1000!’ and then you realize when getting interested enough t actually engage that you need to reach roughly stage 10000 to have a chance at the top-end building of stuff. This is ruining motivation there, it’s the same here.

Yes, but it’s one of the few which intends core progression to be inside a endless scaling system. Not to make said system a top-end one stacked above the hand-tailored aspects.

This is the major issue. Endless systems work as a pure end-game grind, but for a distinct feeling of ‘I’m that far along the road’ it does a very poor job simply in comparison.

And actually can achieve quite the opposite as well.
For someone which wants to attain the top-end of a game since that’s their premise of feeling the most success this denies them of doing that. Hence causing frustration and them ultimately to leave.

It’s a fine line to balance it being ‘just enough plus a little’ to achieve the optimal results.

Not?

After all the talks about itemization you’ve been a part of… you’re denying that aspect which has been proven mathematically in regularity?

Red Ring: LP4: 1 in 331,894,034,128

Now let’s imagine we get 1 Red ring every 10 hours of play-time. Just for the sake of it, which obviously doesn’t uphold, it’s extremely lenient :stuck_out_tongue:

So now we need: 3,318,940,341,280 hours.
Which is in days: 138289180900
Years: 378874468.2
Millenia: 378874,4682
If we go into further terms not even defined universally we then have:
decem millenia: 37887,44682
Mega-annum or ‘Epoch’ (that’s where the term comes from): 378,8744682
And lastly per ‘giga-annum’ or ‘aeon’: 3,788744682

I mean… clearly we cannot achieve the outcome given it’s already ‘Last Epoch’… and hence we would need 379 of them to have one drop, heck… we nearly need 4 eons! :joy:

But yeah, it’s not 10^34 (or 1e34) but instead ‘only’ 10^9, which is still massive. And only if we take into consideration non-stop use-time of the game, if we depict it as playing 2 hours every day without pauses we would’ve 10^10 reached already…

Bonkers numbers.

And that’s not the most rare items even. 3T7 + T5 + T8 sealed is the potential max if I’m not wrong, which is magnitudes lower in drop-rate when you math it out for any specific individual item rather then the overall existence of one happening… which should come close to the red ring numbers even by then.

So no, that argument should be upholding, but sadly isn’t. Which is the problem.

Not universally true. Several uniques are a superior base to existing bases and hence only valuable with high LP since beforehand it doesn’t achieve the turning point of where it would become better.

But for the top-end uniques you’re right.

Which is their literal balancing job.

The other way around is called ‘bad design’ since it puts the respective perception aspects towards the player, which can - and does - cause distinct downsides.

It’s the aspect of ‘foresight’ versus ‘hindsight’ here. You design with foresight, hence create a scalable system where the scaling can at any time be implemented. You don’t overscale and then catch up to your system’s initial design gradually. That’s bad handling simply.

Balance hence.

Yes.

Which is a inherent given aspect.

Nonono… it can drop. It’s a important difference from does :stuck_out_tongue:

I also can find 10 million€ on the ground just sitting there… won’t mean I will :stuck_out_tongue:

Edit: Fixed the numerical example, made a decimal error.

25

No, you are compeltely arguing beyond the initial point. I am NOT talking about items. I am talking about items WITH LP.

No item in LE is that rare.

1 Like
26

They are NOT “adding” the item. They are adding a regular item that also has this 2, 3 o4 LP “rare drop version”

27

Once drops and mechanics that help the drops reach a point where 4LP red rings are doable, you’ll have a new tier of items above it.
Maybe they’ll increase LP to 8 and you get to slam 2 items on it, even with the same affix.

Or they’ll create the affix upgrade system I mentioned above on top of the LP.

The point was that both LP and exalted gear was created as a sort of open-ended system that can keep increasing or being piled upon to create new superior tiers.
We already saw this this season with the addition of T8.

The need to have balance is always there, but you can still keep tiers of it impossible to get on some gear for now, with the knowledge that it will eventually become feasible.

Sure, but people still enjoy it. Not everyone, but that will happen to any system you create.

That doesn’t happen in LE, though, outside of Uby and Uby isn’t part of the scaling.
Other than prophecies or some boss drops (mostly Shade’s), you can get anything at 100c that you can get at 1000c. It will just take you longer.

Red rings can still drop in a reasonable time. You can still use the unique. LP isn’t a different item, it’s a different power tier of the same item.

So no, LE doesn’t have any item like that. All uniques can drop in a reasonable time. It’s just the more powerful versions of the same item that can’t.

The differentiation here is between the item (red ring) and a more powerful version of the same item (4LP red ring).
So there was no wasted development time in creating the item (which was the line being argued here). Because the item does drop. In fact, there was even saved development time by treating it exactly the same way as other uniques.

28

Yes, that’s what I’m speaking about as well.

Your argumentation base is ‘there is no need to act since it’ll reach it’.

My argumentation base is ‘There is a need to act whenever you increase it, you don’t work up-front’.

The premise of my argumentation is hence ‘You don’t create systems or allow too large portions of systems to exist which have no usage-case yet’. You keep em in the back of your hand for 2 reasons.
The first is that it doesn’t cause those perception issues.
The second is that it makes it easy to roll out at a moment’s notice of so needed.

This leads to a depiction of you as a developer being ‘quick’ despite it being already a part of the systems designed 5+ years ago for example, only now coming to fruition. You always should’ve potential in the back of your hand, it makes it far easier to stay on top of the game rather then playing catch-up.

And this is a massive mistake to forego. As said, perception wise awful for a chunk of people (which are vastly more numbered then the other way around) as well as having a faster reaction time as you create systems since you can push them out piece by piece and get leeway to work on other things hence.

But… you’re right that you can solve those issues via alternative ways. The point I wanna make is ‘Don’t even let those issues start to exist in the first place’.
Hence a big ‘nono’ for open-ended systems for those reasons.

And do they enjoy it more or less then comparable systems which are hand-tailored?

That’s the major point, and we have distinct showcases that the hand-tailored ones win out.
Not only are those games generally faring well without loosing players, but also the complaint-count is comparatively non-existent.

We got a few ‘outside of’ situations already.

And we got overall perception to take into consideration. It’s about the core progression area still, not about side-content or top-end systems stacked after all unlocks are fully handled already.

Perception again.
You’re 100% right that it’s the same item… but for people a 1 LP red ring is not a red ring… it’s a red ring which has 1 LP, a distinctive separate drop-rate and hence despite the same functionality and naming… is mentally perceived as ‘a different item’.

Once again there’s 2 sides of perception.
Either you can ‘lump together’ specific item types. For example a Righteous Fire helmet in PoE comes in several ‘stages’ of power and crafting methodology. People generally say ‘I got one of those’ when they buy one of those helmets, referring to the respective stage of power. Those are distinct ‘steps’ in progression and while not visible they are rather clear-cut in perception surprisingly.
The other side is what we have… a lumped together item, which is 0LP-4LP counting as ‘distinctive’. If you need to have attributed on the ring to reach the threshold then a 0 LP ring is useless, hence to achieve it you need a 1 LP ring. Then you got ‘one of those’ and not before achieving that. The ‘step’ is a different one simply.

Once more, I get what you mean, but it’s a bit more complex simply there. Perception is a b**** :stuck_out_tongue:

29

There’s no way to know since there’s no data. I personally like echoes and endless corruption scaling more than doing maps in PoE. You likely feel the opposite. It will vary from player to player, but we do know that there is a market for it.
Whether it’s most players, some players or just a few is something we can’t really ascertain.

There are lots and lots of games with hand-tailored systems that didn’t win out. That even failed spectacularly.
So you can’t attribute the success of the games that did win out to that alone. You can’t even say with any degree of certainty that it’s even a relevant factor with the data we currently have.

That’s your perception, not mine. To me they’re the same item and they also come in several “stages”.

You first drop a red ring. It’s an immediate boost to your build.
Then you farm and get a 1LP. It’s the same item, except it has an extra affix and therefore is stronger. We got to the next stage.
Then you farm for a 2LP. It’s the same item as the 1LP, except it has another extra affix and therefore is stronger. We got to the next stage. And so on.

This is even more the case when you consider that the drop is always a red ring. Once a red ring drops, then it will roll for LP. But the red ring is already a guaranteed drop at that point.

Not all people perceive the same things the same way. Just because your perception of it is that way doesn’t mean all or even most players have the same perception.

30

It’s functionally equivalent to one though, you could easily just call the versions with LP different names & the system would function the same.

31

Is it, though? Or is it more functionally equivalent to sockets in PoE? You have a high chance of getting any chest unique drop with 1-2 sockets. You have a very very very low chance of having one drop with 6 sockets.
They’re both the same unique, just one let’s you use more support gems than the other. Which, in this case, are kinda equivalent to slamming affixes in function.

You don’t consider a 1 socket Doryani’s Prototype a different item than a 6 socket one. They’re both the same unique, except one has more power attached to it because it rolled more sockets.

32

No it isn’t. it is an extensive (improvement) of something you can already get. It is not its own (new) item.

1 Like
33

There actually is.

When you take the prevalence of the topic being mentioned as a complaint or improvement comparatively to posting numbers and player numbers you get a outcome that states the situation.

The perception is clear-cut worse for a system which is endless like in LE, comparatively to hand-tailored ones like those in TL:I or PoE. Since D3’s greater Rifts also were similar to the scaling mechanic of LE and it being a highly contested mechanic it showcases also consistency between customer groups rather then being a isolated situation.

It’s not a 100% reliable metric but it’s a vastly better one then having to do distinct studies on the respective topic, hence those would only be used to ascertain the situation rather then the establish one.

Which is based on underlying issues and mistakes in how they’re designed in their own regard.

And obviously you cannot attribute it solely, but it has a success aspect attached.
If it had no meaning then it wouldn’t be important which you pick. But it is, very very much so even.

First off: It’s not only ‘my’ perception. It’s how wording is used in respect to the separate systems by users. In the Forum, in reddit, in the Discord.
When things become classified they are hence put into a drawer so to say, categorization. Categorization is based upon similarities which are needed for our mind to act without expending high amounts of effort and energy. That’s also how cliche’s work btw.

Secondly: ‘to me’ is non-relevant, it’s about overall visible perception, not about mine or your personal experience.

Actually: Yes.

If you name them:
Red Ring
Improved Red Ring
Adjusted Red Ring
Optimized Red Ring
And Perfected Red Ring

Then suddenly we don’t have a number lumping them together. They are still the ‘same’ item, but they suddenly are called differently. Hence perception works more clearly in those regards.

That’s a interesting argumentation line but faulty.
100% of 1 socket items in PoE can - and will - become 6 socket items if the user deems that being a important thing to do, warranting the effort.

LP re-crafting has a fail-state once more, the chance to change LP is actually very low.

That’s why you don’t consider them different.
Because they aren’t. The base is the same and the end-result will also be the same.
The distinction is very small.

1 Like
34

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
35

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.

36

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?’

37

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.

38

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.

39

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)?

40

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