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.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
Plainly spoken.