I wonder if I am playing the same game when people say they have full exalted items by the time they reach empowered and I don’t even have one. 95% of exalted items are still vendor food for me. And the rest 5% isn’t for my build.
aren’t you crafting on them to fit your build? I also have the impression that item progression halts to early and should be stretched out.
From my own experience I am more likely to get a usable rare than an exalted one. Exalted one still needs to have some good mods to beat other rares. Base matters too. Especially early on when forging potentials aren’t much.
Have you played on the mp beta? The exalted drop rates are insane, especially for regular monos.
1 Like
No, that’s not what they mean.
What they meant does not matter. You can’t deny the community aka players is already split. So they failed. And here we are on this topic.
RMT, I’d have thought that was obvious.
What it is obvious to me is you are voicing “RMT” as a killer factor for “in game free trade” and in reality RMT will be a persistant problem in any trade game whatsoever. This cannot be considered an argument cause it sound juvenal to say the least.
Yes, did you actually read all of the trade section on Kickstarter?
Sure, you and I did.
So you’ve not read the kickstarter then.
Imagine, I only sent the print and website link about it and you just quote the free trade aspect which was sold and removed afterwards with weak PR nobody bought, not to mention the whole section about “player’s choice” and with all that we are here at this very topic today. Thanks for contradicting your intentions on your own words.
Its really not, but i assume its a translation thing
No it’s not. It is just that you guys are trying desperatedly to ignore facts. They failed, community is split and that’s another reason this very topic exists even though the survey is biased and ironic in some aspects. (and just to be clear: my intention and sugestion from the get go is to please everybody not to please a certain group).
Evidently. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
I understand you and Xolak have some limitations but I can try to explain so you guys can stop shaming yourselves: I was replying to darkdeal where he said “nobody cares” when clearly those who like and dislike the idea of the trade system proposed are here.
But you didn’t actually read and understand it .
so you are aware of the section on trade, you’re just happy ignoring it
Me or you? You guys are trying so hard to defend something which I linked. The fact they removed from the project a promissed feature on the kickstarter and that’s the reason this very topic exists proves you wrong.
They already own a controlling stake, they don’t need the remaining amount
And here your limitation strikes again but I will explain: at the end of the agreement they can make any decisions they want in terms of changes for the western product as they currently do for the China product. Also to have a “controlling stake” it does not relate to “do what they want” and that’s the reason an agreement exists.
Just going to clear up a point that seems to be going nowhere, the community split that is hopefully to be avoided refers to the play environment split (e.g. another HC/SC style split), not the philosophical split on the forums. Llama is right on this one.
3 Likes
And here the Sherlock Holmes appears!
Ow my god, and you discovered all that by your own?!
Please someone bring a trophy cause this guy just manage to say the obvious BUT the Split which was exactly what the devs wanted to avoid is already here OW! The replies are more than enough to show they failed. It does not matter what they meant cause they already failed. The community is split and no matter what system will be available at the official release, we already have three different public here. The question is: if we do not have the best of results for all, will the unpleased group accept, forget LE and move to other games or they will crush this game on the internet until the ship sunks and nobody wins at the end?
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.
6 Likes
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).
It is, yes.
You know who Mike is, right?
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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?
4 Likes
If it doesn’t matter then there’s no conversation
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.
Yupyupyup.
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)
It’s not you mate.
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Phil2022 appears to be the lawyer who drafted it so he could probably explain
If so I couldn’t, cause that would be disclosuring information from clients, which I’m unable by contract.
1 Like