Sorry, I might not have been clear. We are well aware that the community has split views on trading. That’s not ideal either but we aren’t striving to change people’s minds on if they want trade or not.
The split which we are attempting to avoid with the eventual version that arrives with 1.0 would not functionally split the community in play opportunities. So people who want trade or not can still play together and enjoy themselves.
This is “this split” which gets referenced by EHG and what Llama was discussing.
Also, I know you’re frustrated but please try to be respectful.
If I’m the majority shareholder of a company and i want the rest of the shares for whatever reason, i can’t just take them, I need to buy them. If its not a publicly traded company (like GGG & EHG) then i can buy them for whatever consideration (payment) the owner(s) of the remaining shares want (cash, shares in my company if I am a company, or anything else of value that I have or can get hold of that the other party wants).
That’s not to say that there can’t be any underhanded or morally dubious stuff being done by myself in order to drive the price down. But fundamentally, the minority shares need to be bought for a mutually agreed price (which not the same as a fair price). The other shareholders must consent to the sale, but they could be forced, blackmailed, etc.
Maybe, but the drops would still feel bad and you’d be ####ing over the ssf folks. But i won’t disagree that the gearing speed might be off. Not my problem though, that’s Mike’s problem.
If it doesn’t matter then there’s no conversation, just a bunch of people screaming into the Void (which, to be fair, is pretty much where we’ve got to at this point).
The community is split on opinion, yes, but that’s still not what the devs mean when they use the term “split the community”. You can use it however you want, but when you try and imply that the devs mean one thing when they mean something totally different, that’s when you’re wrong (or misunderstanding).
I understand perfectly what you meant as you perfectly understood what I meant. Result is what matter. Intentions are nice, but they aren’t if the original objective is already gone. You guys have on your hands all the possibilities and If I did not trust the awesome capabilities you guys have I wouldn’t be here. I would have already gave up.
When you say “play together” do you mean in the literal sense of the term, as in doing monoliths in a party?
If so, out of curiosity, what is the expectation for the percentage of players that will play together in this manner?
I feel like I’m struggling a bit to communicate accurately.
I think the disagreement comes from that the objective isn’t already gone. We aren’t at 1.0 yet. The game isn’t released. I know there is a lot of speculation going on but it’s not accurate.
I’m happy that you are open to what is still coming.
I think in a hypothetical scenario, it would be pretty awesome if people who wanted trade and those who don’t, could literally do monoliths together in a party and both enjoy the experience. I’m not saying it’s possible or going to happen, that would just be the dream right?
In a context where the objective from the get go is already gone it does not matter. Sure there’s conversation, not everything is lost in life a part from certain death.
that’s when you’re wrong
Am I though? I think it’s pretty much correlated to me. They don’t want to split the community but it’s already. We already have at least three different publics here and if turns out to be one system only at release of 1.0 there’s a big chance only one of three will play.
You know who Mike is, right?
Off course I know. He is one of the people who have on their hands the possibility to come up with a great solution for us all.
But is there anything stopping me drawing up a contract today (Year 1) which lets me buy 80% now and some percentage later (Year 2-6) at a pre-determined or formula-based value (or even a percentage of third-party assessed value). Then we both sign it now and I acquire the rest of the shares without requiring your active consent at that later date?
Thats what i was getting at.
(This is all a bit off-topic, thanks for entertaining me :D)
Yes. If you say that someone meant X when they said they meant Y & everybody else understood that they meant Y, then yes, you’re either wrong or you misunderstood (which is fine, English is hard sometimes, even for native speakers).
Would you mind just reading what Mike wrote, he’s pretty clear.
That’s not how your reply came across, but fine, it’s not that important.
This is true, I haven’t read the agreement & I don’t know what it says, or even what it is purported to say.
Probably not but I think this is getting deep into the legal weeds which depends on the jurisdiction (NZ in this case which is probably close enough to the UK) & the details of the agreement (that I don’t think we know, but I could be wrong, Phil2022 appears to be the lawyer who drafted it so he could probably explain) that my general example may not be relevant or helpful anymore.
I don’t know if it would be possible to “force” a sale of the remaining shares based on the previous agreement but I’d assume yes? shrugs IANAL.
Yes. If you say that someone meant X when they said they meant Y & everybody else understood that they meant Y
Only if it was not correlated which is not the case.
That’s not how your reply came across
A little bit salty? Probably but as we are talking about respect that goes both ways. Maybe is a translation problem or “english” problem or “not you mate” problem, right?
Idk if anything like this came up in the gargantuan trade threads already, but I really like the idea of achieving this through a sort of contagious mark/taint. Simply put, if an item is ever traded (outside narrow conditions like the current gifting system) it becomes tainted. If anyone in the party uses a tainted item, all items that drop for the rest of the session are also tainted. (you’d need some minor additional party controls and interface to help manage this)
The main leaderboards and other ways to measure achievements would only register scores when no tainted item is equipped. There are a few awkward cases (can XP/affix shards/mono blessings be Tainted?) but they are relatively minor compared to item drops.
This way you can simultaneously get the benefit of allowing ppl to choose between the balanced world based on restricted trade and a sandbox world where permissive trade may imbalance the progression a bit, but still have the entire playerbase able to party together in a flexible way. It won’t quite satisfy people who want LE to be literally POE but it covers a pretty broad spectrum of wishes imo.
I think there’s definitely translation problems, which is fine. My last boss was Austrian & her emails came across very, er, Teutonic (blunt to the point of rudeness to a native English speaker) but when I met her her body language, tone of voice, etc was perfectly reasonable & totally different to what she put in her emails.
Yeah, a potential issue with that is if if someone got a bunch of BiS “tainted” gear & used that to farm up their own awesomely BiS/comparable gear (non-tainted presumably unless I’ve misunderstood, which I probably have) & switch to that to get on the ladder. But I have a feeling that wouldn’t work given what you said.
Please Remember to keep conversations civil and follow the Code of Conduct. We understand this is a topic people feel very strongly about, and it’s perfectly fine to debate ideas, however please refrain from comments regarding users themselves.
To add my own drop to the bucket to address the split within the community of creating a trade/no trade playerbase. Is there not a way to have different drop rates for these 2 groups? And if there is different drop rates is there no way to allow them to play together in multiplayer?
I haven’t been watching beta streams and am not very active in the community so apologies if my understanding of gifting is incorrect.
I assume that players have individual drops and therefore are not competing for dropped loot while playing together. So players A and B kill a boss who then drops 2 sets of loot for each player respectively. After those item are picked up by the appropriate player they can then choose to gift the items obtained to the other.
In this scenario lets also assume that the game has open trading and reduced loot drops for players who opt to trade. If loot is individualized couldn’t player A be using a no trade character while player B is using a trade character? So players A has increased loot drops but can not trade can not gift and player B has reduced loot drops but is able to trade their loot to other players.
A lot of people seem to like the idea of two drop-rates for trade and no trade.
Personally, I feel that if they actually went and did it, a lot of players are going to be unhappy about it. There is something about being a bit too honest in the way that you present the odds. Presenting a drop rates like this really draw you attention to arbitrary those number are in the end.
When there is a single version of the game to reference, you tend to forget of it, but when there are two, with two different drop rates, it is going to be really difficult to ignore.
I feel that there is going to be a sizable portion of the player-base that will see the two options:
play with trade with a X% reduced drop rate
play SSF with a normal drop rate,
To then chose the third option, which is play another game.
With 90 reductions yes, they would feel like shit when it comes to ssf players, but the number here is irrelevant tbh.
What I’ve gathered here is that people who are against trade entirely are not willing to even give 1% of the current drop rate to have some sort of trading other than gifting yet people in this thread are agreeing that the gearing speed is too fast as is.
Something isn’t right here.
People just want to “win” and its might not for the greater good of the game.
