I would like a loot filter rule that will hide all items that have less than X FP. (Or recolour those items having more than X FP).
I believe devs have said something about this, along the lines of claiming that having to inspect some of the loot that drops is “immersive”. It is not. It is absolutely adding nothing to the game and simply wastes the player’s time.
p.s. If anyone does actually find looking at much more loot than they need to is actually “immersive” please explain why.
I can’t find it now, but they’ve said explicitly that the intent of loot filters is not, and will not be, to allow you to always and only see loot that you are 100% guaranteed to always want to pick up.
I don’t find it “immersive” but I do like it. I enjoy looking at a little bit of loot and thinking if I can use it, craft it or is it worth keeping for another build.
The reply you looked for was probably this one:
This thread has a few more posts from Mike eloborating further too, if people want to get more infos.
A manageable amount for me is as small a number as possible. If I want to only see 100% items I will pick up then YES, that is my required use for a loot filter. That is my manageable amount.
If others prefer the “immersion” and agree with the dev philosophy then they are always free to set their own rules so the filtering is not so harsh/efficient. Why is my manageable amount not being catered for, given the above dev statement?
Also for the record, I don’t think the concept of only seeing 100% what you want to pick up is actually possible even with this rule added, for many reasons. Some people are farming for alts at all times for example. Plus obviously your needs a loot filter change as you level anyway.
Also, I’d like to add that in a game whose endgame regularly features “spire mechanics” (spires that fire on you from across the map when you are in combat) which can kill you if they hit you in high endgame, making players stop to read loot while the spires fire away is rather unreasonable.
Devs tell us looking through loot is a positive thing then add such a prominent mechanic that punishes stopping to look at the loot. 
The devs don’t want players to be able to create the LE equivalent of an uber-strict filter, so they deliberately limited how powerful item filters can be.
With regards to FP specifically I think this is fine.
In the endgame, you will mostly be crafting on exalted, which all have high FP.
Also, the forging mechanic is so RNG-heavy that once an item has 30+ FP, a fluctuation of initial FP matters relatively little. An item with 35 FP and an item with 45 FP are equally worth crafting on (~because we all know that they will both brick anyway~).
I would really like LP as a filter option, but the devs made clear that they don’t want that either.
We wouldn’t want the game turning into a Player-Convenience Simulator™…
Shouldn’t devs listen to players? It’s good to have a clear vision and opinion, but everyone has his own. I don’t like, that LE is narrowed to a specific way of playing it. I don’t like QoL be taken away from me, because devs think, that they know better, what I want and what I don’t. I am to tired of being a POE QoL hostage 
Once I am too sick of loot filter being not enough, I will probably implement my own.
I’m so excited about the trade, but imagine they don’t implement filter for roll range or LP into trade UI, because reasons. That would be so heartbreaking 
The spires will only fire if you’ve used a skill in the last 4 seconds.
Which players should they listen to though?
So they are timed perfectly to kill me when my last skill AoEed the room and 10 items dropped that I am now reading the labels for…
No they shouldn’t…not necessarily.
Devs should and can take player’s feedback into consideration
Also this whole topic is not as one-sided as you might think.
There are players who like it how it is. Just because you hear about a topic a lot doesn’t mean the majority thinks this needs to be changed.
Where there are 10 people asking for something to get changes, there are another 10 people that like it how it is and don’t want anything to be changed, but that is not the type of feedback that people come to the forum (or any other place) to write about.
The problem is, this is just moving goalsposts more and more.
When they would implement it, there will be more people demanding/asking for more.
Filtering loot is also not QoL, especially in a loot-centric game. It is just taking away some things about the main gameplay loop.
QoL is nice and all, but the game still needs to be played. At some point the game will play itself, if we add too much QoL.
In a loot-centric game, QoL shouldn’t be added to one of the core things way you play the game. QoL things should be where the small hassles distract or annoy from the main part of the game.
That’s what “listening to players” means.
I don’t know.
This might be a translation thing.
But the phrase “listen to players” would be going into the direction of “do what the player say”.
From my POV Iogann sounded very demanding with that statement.
If that is not meant to be that demanding, that is fair.
But the rest of my statement still stands.
Hence my reply of “which ones” since there’s more than 1 view on this.
That is still listening.
While there are 10 people who vote, and 10 people who choose not to. Those who do not, shouldn’t bitch when the guy they don’t like gets elected.
The problem is, you can say that about every suggestion, complaint or piece of feedback. Slippery slope isn’t exactly the best reasoning to not do things.
Loot filters are pretty much the definition of QoL in a loot-centric game.
Newsflash, loot doesn’t drop without (derp) playing the game. This whole ‘simulator’ boogeyman is really getting long in the tooth.
But this is not about voting.
This is about the state of a video game. And when you are happy with the current stat there is not a lot of reason or incentive to go to some form of platform and give “feedback” about how you like everything how it is.
Actively voting something is waaay different, you can’t comapre this at all, because when there is a vote happening a specific result is imminent.
If the devs will or will not change stuff is not imminent.
It absolutely is when you current stance (in this case the devs vision of the game) is not matching with the feedback.
When they react to the feedback and stray slightly away from their vision. The next suggestions will come moving even further from their vision.
I absolutely disagree, but I guess this might be a semantic thing.
For me QoL is about making processes that are not directly tied to the mai ngameplay look more smooth.
To make some intentionally exagerrated example.
With your definition you could argue that giving you Aim Assist in a Shooter is QoL.
Or that giving you hints about the next best step in a strategy game is QoL.
Those are things directly affecting the main gameplay of that given game/genre.
Deciding what you want to loot, keep, craft or not touch is part of the main gameplay.
Exactly! I want a better loot filter to play more, and to be less distracted by bad loot.
I don’t get it, why we can filter some things, but not the others. Reading through all the affixes is a decision making process too.
Listen and obey are not synonyms.
Because EHG is using the phrase “manageable amount” in a good faith way, and you are not. What you want is for all active decision-making for loot that’s on the ground to be removed. You’re doing a Motte and Bailey by calling that a “manageable amount”, because that means seeing loot above exclusively items you definitely want is “unmanageable”, and that is obviously not a genuine or honest statement.
“QoL” is at this point mostly just a phrase that people use as a manipulative euphemism for “Give me what I want”, TBH.
Explain how a loot filter helps you use your skills, avoid incoming damage or navigate boss encounter mechanics. If you can do that, then your analogy is comparable. Otherwise, you’re talking apples and submarines.
Games have that. You’re just grasping at your imaginary straws so your opinion can be right.